Isn't It Iconic

There's a Picasso show on at the AGO right now, with paintings from his blue period, plus a few from before and after. 

The show was well put together and helped me understand the early years in Picasso's long and storied career as an artist. 

I learned art is autobiography. When Picasso was young, poor, struggling … when he was blue, as it were, so were his paintings. When he was better established, had some money and a girlfriend … his outlook was rosy, and so were his paintings. 

Sometimes you need a good art show to help you see something that was there all along.

One sour note: the word "iconic" draped like a plastic table cloth over the exhibit commentary.

Let me give you a hypothetical example to show what I'm complaining about.

Imagine a short piece on Picasso written, let's say, in the early 1970s:

As the most recognized, famous and influential artist of the 20th century, Picasso stands like a colossus. Bridging the seminal works of the Impressionists and the experiments of the Cubists, Expressionists and Surrealists, Picasso led the look, impact, and substance of modern art, at the same time standing on his own, magnificent and inimitable.

These days, the same passage would go something like this:

As the most iconic, iconic and iconic artist of the 20th Century, Picasso stands like a colossus. Bridging the iconic work of the Impressionists and the iconic Cubists, Expressionists and Surrealists, Picasso was an icon, at the same time standing on his own, iconic and iconic. 

See what I mean? 

Thanks for reading!

Have an iconic week!

Karen