# Van Gogh vs. Picasso



## peeyaj

These two are my favorite painters and considered as two of the greatest artists in history. Some of their works are the most expensive paintings ever but their style is very different. But it's fun to compare the two of them.

Van Gogh - crazy, genius, lived at poverty, died virtually unknown at his lifetime

Picasso - womanizer, popular, innovative, rich

Who is your more favorite? Post some of their best works


----------



## Musician

_*Two of the greatest artists in history?*_

Thanks for leaving some room for an argument...


----------



## Ingélou

I love the famous ones, like Starry Night:









And there's the more unusual Blooming Plum Tree, influenced by Oriental Art ('after Hiroshige'):









It's his use of colour and the boldness & energy of his designs & brushwork. 
Each picture is an Epiphany.


----------



## Art Rock

Vincent all the way. Although I'd pick Franz Marc over either of them.


----------



## Winterreisender

I prefer van Gogh. I find his use of colour very expressive. Few painters could make a wooden chair or a pair of shoes so striking. I enjoy the whole "post-impressionist" style (i.e. Cezanne, Gauguin...) because of the highly personal aspect; you can often get a real sense of how the artist was feeling.


----------



## aleazk

Picasso is one of my all time favorites.

But I like more abstract expressionism in general.


----------



## Winterreisender

aleazk said:


> Picasso is one of my all time favorites.
> 
> But I like more abstract expressionism in general.


I'm not so sure about abstract expressionism. I enjoy some Pollock, but I find painters like Rothko to be a little bland. The complete lack of figuration leaves me feeling rather cold, to be honest.


----------



## Garlic

I love Rothko, but reproductions don't work (though same could be said for Pollock). Once when I went to a Rothko exhibition many of the paintings were covered in glass. Completely ruined the effect.

I prefer Picasso to Van Gogh, maybe because I've seen more of his paintings. Anyone been to the Van Gogh museum in Amsterdam? It was closed when I was there.


----------



## Itullian

Always loved VG.............
There's a spirituality there that appeals to and moves me.


----------



## mstar

VAN GOGH!!! 

No need to elaborate.


----------



## Ondine

Pablo Ruiz Picasso. 

For me he was an outstanding and highly talented artist; a genius. 

Along with him, Klee, Kandinsky, Miró & Chagall. Also some -not all- of Boccioni and Ernst.


----------



## aleazk

My avatar is by Klee. 

I also quite like Mondrian.


----------



## tdc

Ondine said:


> Pablo Ruiz Picasso.
> 
> For me he was an outstanding and highly talented artist; a genius.


I would never argue that, I just think Van Gogh was that too +1.

Picasso had a strange fascination with goats.


----------



## Ondine

aleazk said:


> My avatar is by Klee.


Ups! I could not recognize it 



> I also quite like Mondrian.


Sure! Another one of my favourites, @aleazk


----------



## Ondine

tdc said:


> I would never argue that, I just think Van Gogh was that too +1.


Yes, of course Van' was another one, but I really enjoy a lot more, Pablo.



> Picasso had a strange fascination with goats.


I owned a Goat as a pet, for many years. A beautiful Toggenburg!


----------



## deggial

Ondine said:


> Klee, Kandinsky, Miró & Chagall.


:tiphat: just wanted to give a heads-up for these. Slightly favouring Picasso of the two above.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I have no doubt that Picasso is the greater artist... the giant of Modernism and one of the few towering figures to clearly stand along side Rembrandt, Rubens, and the giants of the Renaissance. Having said that... I would rather have any number of paintings by Van Gogh hanging on my wall than those by Picasso. But then I'm a colorist... and Van Gogh was a master of color while color was rarely a major concern in Picasso.

While I love any number of Van Gogh's portraits and interiors/still life paintings such as:

the _Room at Arles_:



and the _Night Cafe_:



It's the landscapes that are especially stunning:



*****


----------



## StlukesguildOhio




----------



## Blancrocher

peeyaj said:


> Van Gogh - crazy, genius, lived at poverty, died virtually unknown at his lifetime


I'm surprised nobody's commented on how immoral it is to take pleasure in the art of such a man.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/heartless-dutch-curators-put-deranged-scrawlings-o,33803/


----------



## Pyotr

This is an Apples vs. Oranges thing, IMO. A better would have been van Gogh vs. Monet or van Gogh vs. Cézanne , now those would have made me tear my hair out, but I'll play along and pick van Gogh. Here's one of my favorites. This painting had a stunning frame around it, the last time I saw it. Sometimes I enjoy admiring the fames around great paintings, as well as the paintings themselves.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Klee, Kandinsky, Miró & Chagall... Mondrian...

Klee most of all of all these Modernists. Mondrian I can live without. Bores me to tears... but then my art school professors were heirs of his Bauhaus heir, Joseph Albers.

Along with Klee...

My favorite Modernists are Pierre Bonnard...



Matisse...



... and Max Beckmann...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

If we consider that Monet and Degas lived well into the 20th century and produced some of their most innovative works then, I would also have to include them:





As I've already mentioned I'm a colorist, I am enamored of many of the German and French (Fauves) Expressionists beyond Matisse... including:

Andre Derain...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Vlaminck...



Rouault...



E.L. Kirchner...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Emil Nolde...



A few others from the so-called School of Paris that I greatly admire are...

Henri Rousseau...



... Balthus...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

... and Modigliani...



A few others among the great Modernists that I most admire are those who fall under the rubric of Expressionists, Symbolists, Post-Impressionists, or Art Nouveau. These include...

Gustav Klimt...



Egon Schiele...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Alphonse Mucha...



Edouard Vuillard...



... and Odilon Redon...



Honestly, I suspect that the period of Modernism (c. 1870-1935) represents the greatest shift in Western art since the Renaissance... and only the Renaissance can rival it in terms of the sheer wealth of great art produced.


----------



## brianvds

Blancrocher said:


> I'm surprised nobody's commented on how immoral it is to take pleasure in the art of such a man.
> 
> http://www.theonion.com/articles/heartless-dutch-curators-put-deranged-scrawlings-o,33803/


:lol:

Pablo Diego José Francisco de Paula Juan Nepomuceno María de los Remedios Cipriano de la Santísima Trinidad Ruiz y Picasso (See how neatly Picasso's full name fills up the 25 characters requirement?)


----------



## ArtMusic

I prefer van Gogh. Many of Picasso's pieces look like he ran a few quick brushstrokes, almost sloppy like to finish the piece in a day, although I know that may well be part of the intention of the art itself. A lot of Picasso's pieces are very easy to reproduce as well. No much skill needed. This piece for exmple, _Girl Before Mirror_ has all those features I am talking about. It's a nice colourful piece nonetheless.


----------



## cwarchc

I prefer Munch, if we are "mainstream"








However, slightly off the beaten track, I adore Valette, who painted impressionist scenes from my local city


----------



## tdc

ArtMusic said:


> I prefer van Gogh. Many of Picasso's pieces look like he ran a few quick brushstrokes, almost sloppy like to finish the piece in a day, although I know that may well be part of the intention of the art itself. A lot of Picasso's pieces are very easy to reproduce as well. No much skill needed. This piece for exmple, _Girl Before Mirror_ has all those features I am talking about. It's a nice colourful piece nonetheless.


Actually I find this piece stunning, and conceptually - brilliant. I'm changing my vote, its a tie.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Pablo Diego José Francisco de Paula Juan Nepomuceno María de los Remedios Cipriano de la Santísima Trinidad Martyr Patricio Clito Ruíz y Picasso.


----------



## BurningDesire

I love both. I think both were great artists. I'm glad Picasso was recognized in his lifetime, but I feel really bad for Van Gogh. I wish I could give him a hug.


----------



## Sonata

Van Gogh no doubt! 

I also really like Monet and Salvadore Dali


----------



## SiegendesLicht

I voted for Van Gogh, but I would take Caspar Friedrich









or Ivan Aivazovsky









over both of them.


----------



## ArtMusic

I voted van Gogh but I rather take Sir Antony van Dyck and Rembrandt.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

ArtMusic- Many of Picasso's pieces look like he ran a few quick brushstrokes, almost sloppy like to finish the piece in a day, although I know that may well be part of the intention of the art itself.

Spontaneity... as in jazz or Chinese/Japanese Zen painting:





...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

... or even Rembrandt:







Discerning art lovers value a masterful spontaneous touch as much as they might admire the incredible polish of Ingres or Van Eyck.

Van Gogh, by the way, completed most of his paintings in a single setting... as rapidly as Picasso.

A lot of Picasso's pieces are very easy to reproduce as well. No much skill needed.

In other words, "even a child could do it?" How is this even relevant? I can copy any play by Shakespeare and even though I can't even read music I could copy the most complex score by Bach. The challenge, it seems to me, lies in creating the original work.


----------



## brianvds

StlukesguildOhio said:


> In other words, "even a child could do it?" How is this even relevant? I can copy any play by Shakespeare and even though I can't even read music I could copy the most complex score by Bach. The challenge, it seems to me, lies in creating the original work.


What if you could produce work in the same style, that are indistinguishable in quality from the original artist's work?

Ah, here we go again... :angel:


----------



## realdealblues

I would take Van Gogh over Picasso. I have a Van Gogh hanging on my wall. Now, if only it was the original.


----------



## Blancrocher

cwarchc said:


> I prefer Munch, if we are "mainstream"


He's mainstream, but I found his landscape paintings to be a revelation recently. I'd recommend an image search to anyone interested.

As for the op, I'd probably say Van Gogh--and then regret it every time I encountered a favorite masterpiece by Picasso in a museum. It's hard to think of the latter's work as a totality and some of his worst work is oddly memorable (to me), so I sometimes forget what a genius he was.


----------



## Manxfeeder

Another vote for Van Gogh. Although it's difficult to him compare with Picasso - which period of Picasso?

And it didn't help me get into Van Gogh when I was younger because the Norton Simon Museum's Van Gogh was a lady with a mostly green face and a sliver of red for her lips.


----------



## Guest

I voted for Picasso for the simple reason of personal preference. Whilst I don't have the vocabulary or 'breeding' in the visual arts, I am not so blind that I cannot recognize their (Pablo and Vincent's) respective merits. In fact, the entire proposition of the OP is nonsensical, really. But Picasso it is for me, until someone convinces me otherwise; which postings such as the one I quote hereafter, will _not_ do:



ArtMusic said:


> I prefer van Gogh. Many of Picasso's pieces look like he ran a few quick brushstrokes, almost sloppy *like to finish* the piece in a day, although I know that may well be part of the intention of the art itself. *A lot of Picasso's pieces are very easy to reproduce as well. No much skill needed* [...].


Well, spoken like a true connoisseur, I must say! (My irony is proportional to the grammatical infelicities in the quote above.) I saw a bunch of Picasso stuff in Berlin last summer and I disagree with you entirely, except perhaps for a couple of works painted just before he died, where I thought the same. But for the vast majority of his works, absolutely not! As to 'pieces being easy to reproduce', you should know, ArtMusic, that for many a student at my local conservatoire (and for many a student reading for a BMus undergraduate degree at the more reputable UK universities), producing a passable imitation of a four-part chorale, two-part invention or a fugue based on the style of JS Bach are tasks that are set on a weekly basis as homework. I don't doubt that many of these students (after a heavy night of partying) don't produce their sloppy imitations in an hour or two. Your point is weak, uninformed and ever so slightly inflammatory.


----------



## Couac Addict

Difficult to say. Are we talking about Indian or Burmese kickboxing?


----------



## Winterreisender

SiegendesLicht said:


> I voted for Van Gogh, but I would take Caspar Friedrich
> 
> or Ivan Aivazovsky
> 
> over both of them.


Friedrich is my favourite as well. I particularly like this composition:


----------



## brianvds

BurningDesire said:


> I feel really bad for Van Gogh. I wish I could give him a hug.


Yes, but be careful: he might accidentally cut off your ear...


----------



## Blancrocher

Entrance to the Public Gardens in Arles

This is one of my favorite Van Gogh paintings. The 2D image doesn't do it justice, unfortunately.


----------



## shangoyal

Picasso was an innovator, a genius, a thinker, a dreamer who painted very good pictures. But van Gogh was something else entirely. His gift cannot be expressed in words. He puts the inner perspective on canvas. Picasso only deals in the outer shapes.


----------



## senza sordino

I personally think Picasso had a larger and more varied repertoire, and a more important and influential style and was a greater innovator. I chose Picasso.


----------

