In this blog post, we will take an in-depth look at the meaning of “similarity” in pictorial representation through the works of Picasso, Cubism, and a philosophical perspective.
Considerations on pictorial representation
For pictorial representation to be valid, that is, for a painting to be a painting of a certain object, must the painting resemble the object? A year before painting “The Three Stars,” which heralded the advent of Cubism, Picasso painted a portrait of the poet Stein, and people were astonished when they saw the finished painting. The portrait of Stein did not resemble her. Picasso is said to have responded, “It will look like her in the future.” This episode provides an opportunity to consider pictorial representation from the perspectives of art history and philosophy.
Pictorial representation and the experiment of Cubism
First, in order to understand how a painting that does not resemble its subject can be a representation of that subject, we must consider the artistic experiments of Cubism, which was centered around Picasso and Braque at the time, and the trends in art history that made it possible. Painters of the Renaissance used perspective to paint realistic pictures that were like “windows on the world.” The Impressionists, who are considered to have started modern painting, also consciously pursued this realism. They regarded all objects as objects that reflect light and aimed to paint them as they appeared on the retina. Therefore, any object that received light could become a subject, and the unique colors of objects were negated. An example of this is Monet’s series of haystacks, which were painted differently depending on the conditions of sunlight.
However, Cézanne had a different opinion. He commented, “Monet is only the eye,” believing that realism in painting is achieved by approaching the essence or reality of an object, rather than its appearance as a random impression. When you look at the fruit bowls and apples painted by Cézanne, most of the shapes are much simpler than the actual objects, surrounded by unnatural contours that cannot be seen in Monet’s paintings, and even the perspective is not accurate. This shows Cézanne’s awareness of the problem, which was to capture the essence of the apple rather than the accidental image of the apple reflected on the retina at a given moment.
Cubism took this idea one step further. Cubism chose to combine objects seen from multiple perspectives on a single canvas in order to reveal their reality. Although Stein’s portrait is not a true Cubist painting, it can be seen as a work that reflects the interest in the reproduction of reality that led from Cézanne to Cubism.
Philosophical discussion: The meaning of resemblance
However, the meaning of the phrase “will become similar” remains unclear. In fact, as time passed, people eventually came to find that Stein’s portrait resembled her, just as Picasso had predicted. How was this possible? To explain this, we need to discuss the philosophical dimension of pictorial representation, and the theories of Gombrich and Goodman are noteworthy in this regard.
They argue that there is no such thing as a “pure eye” that sees objects “as they are,” and therefore there is no such thing as objective reality, and that realistic paintings are ultimately just paintings that follow a system of representation familiar to a particular culture or individual. According to this theory, perception is shaped by the customs, culture, belief systems, and background knowledge to which we belong. For example, if we have prior knowledge about an artist and their work, these beliefs will influence how we perceive the work. If this is true, then in the case of Picasso, our knowledge that “this painting is a portrait of Stein painted by Picasso” ultimately shaped our perception by allowing us to find similarities between the painting and the real person. Whether realism is relative to the system of representation is a matter of debate, but Picasso’s enigmatic answer and confidence may be seen as reflecting this insight into the nature of pictorial representation.
The nature of pictorial representation
Picasso’s statement, “It will look like it in the future,” was not a simple prediction. It contains an insight that allows us to understand the relationship between a painting and its subject in a new way. It suggests that pictorial representation is not simply the act of painting what we see in front of us, but a process of capturing the essence and meaning of the subject. This is not just a scene from art history, but raises a profound philosophical question about how art reflects and constructs reality. The process of seeing and understanding the world anew through works of art is intertwined with the process of becoming familiar with those works. The fact that Picasso’s painting came to resemble Stein over time can be seen as a kind of interaction that occurred as our perspective and understanding of the painting changed. This shows that art is not merely an imitation of reality, but a creative act that reconstructs reality and gives it meaning.
