Picasso's Ugly

Anna and I went to go see the Picasso exhibition at the Seattle Art Museum, but it wasn’t the work you know and expect from Picasso. It was more of a Tour de Picasso than a greatest hits album. While I initially resisted getting one of those awesome cell phone-looking thingies that tells you about each painting (purely based on the fact that I am cheaper than Scrooge McDuck), we discovered that they’re free. I’m so glad we grabbed them.

The voice accompaniment was the best part of the exhibit. A woman’s voice introduced one piece with “This BEAUTIFUL painting from Picasso’s rose phase…” Okay. Let’s be clear about one thing: there’s an expansive menagerie of words one could use to describe Picasso’s work… challenging, imaginative, textured, whimsical, harsh, exploratory… one should rarely if ever use “beautiful”.

Don’t get me wrong. Picasso’s a good time, and I like his work. But why is “ugly” such a bad thing to say about a revered artist’s work? Picasso’s stuff IS ugly. That’s right. I said it.

I worry that in a world where we’re terrified of offending emotionally fragile teenage girls, ugly became a four letter word. Never mind that it does, coincidentally, contain four letters. Ugly is just an adjective, a way to describe how visually pleasing something is, and it’s subjective. Furthermore, it does not make you sound like an art sophisticate to say that ugly work is pretty. It does not prove to those around you that you see hidden depths that they do not. It makes you sound like a tool. If you already own a beret, you can borrow my black turtleneck, hang out in a coffee shop quoting Nietzche, and really complete the package.

I love the Ugliness. Anyone who ever tried to hold a conversation with a guy who is WAY out of your league, only to trip over your words and sound about half your IQ, knows that beauty is distracting. Without beauty clogging your experience, you can see what Picasso wants you to see. And when a world famous Spanish painter wants to show you something, you look.