Hard to say until we've seen the results of your scribbling! A There are a lot of people who say "I could do that!" but curiously few who actually do it.
Of course trying to perfectly emulate another human at painting is going to be virtually impossible. You could try and emulate my 5-year-old's art, but I could then demonstrate with a team of forensic analysts that you've failed to exactly emulate some of the nuances that my 5-year-old displays in his art. Will you then appreciate the kind of work my 5-year-old produces when you realize how difficult it is to perfectly emulate him?
> trying to perfectly emulate another human at painting is going to be virtually impossible
No one is saying "draw a copy of something that already exists with near-pixel-perfect accuracy". When the parent comment said "emulate", they meant "create something of your own in a similar art style/genre".
I can bet you that if you try to "scribble a random mish mash of curves", it won't look and feel anywhere as great as that Picasso painting, and it will be extremely difficult to get anywhere even close to his level. And even if you show both yours and Picasso's paintings side-by-side to a person who has never seen a Picasso's painting before (and who doesn't even know who Picasso is), they will always pick the Picasso's painting as more artistically impressive.
It's not about copying or perfect emulation. It will – probably – be very difficult for you to paint something that looks like it was made by Picasso to yourself. There is no need to involve any experts in this, you can be the judge of your own painting.
art, like writing, is all about the ideas, not the literal, physical object (or lack thereof in some cases), and as such, that's either a fool's errand or an intentional deceit. while some (post-modern) art has woven the medium into the message, the medium takes a backseat to expression (of ideas) for art in general. to "emulate" the art of any so-called master, you'd need to have powerful ideas that are begging to be expressed, not masterful painting prowess (as an example). your challenge wouldn't bring about appreciation of art so much as an appreciation of the lack of technical skill, which is not art, but simply painting. many people are skillful painters, and yet are not artists, and vice versa.
this is also why art generally follows fashion rather than being truly avant-garde--artists need to pander to the wealthy/powerful (the church for many centuries, for example) to make a living, so trying to "emulate" popular art would first require a pandering/fashionable perspective, which is hard for an outsider to truly achieve without first becoming an (art) insider.
You can see every motion, every measure, the size of the flame, there are no cuts.
But if you actually go ahead and try to make this it turns out to be INCREDIBLY difficult to get it right.
Not every random mish mash or scribble is as random as a layperson will at first think.
The other analogy is look at the original post. Picasso COULD have painted like he did at 15 or 18 or 20 - which I assume you would agree you couldn't scribble yourself. But he CHOSE to paint in the style you are criticizing. You should default to assuming that there is more skill to it than you can see.
So are you arguing that it's impossible for skilled artists to make bad art? You're saying a master chef never makes meals that objectively taste bad, even if they are experimenting with completely new flavors and techniques? I think some people in this thread have raised Picasso to Godhood status. In my reckoning, Picasso was a skilled artist in an ocean of other skilled artists so he was desperate to do something different to try and stand out from the crowd. So he started experimenting with new "flavors and techniques". Assuming he is human, we can safely assume some of his experimental creations fell flat and objectively turned out bad. To deny this is to uphold Picasso as a God who is incapable of producing anything but perfection.
Well, these photos evoke “some” reactions in people. Do your portraits evoke any reactions? The purpose of art is to express thoughts, in some dimension. And then viewer can make their own interpretations
Would they evoke these same reactions if the people weren't aware that they were looking at picassos?
Modern Art is a cultural placebo for the vast majority of admirers. If it has the right signature or is hanging in a museum people will dig for rationalizations of their faux appreciation.
