Picasso himself denied that he was making experiments. He said he did not search, he found. He mocked at those who wanted to understand his art. ‘Everyone wants to understand art. Why not try to understand the song of a bird?’ Of course, he was right. No painting can be fully ‘explained’ in words. But words are sometimes useful pointers, they help to clear away misunderstandings and can give us at least an inkling of the situation in which the artist finds himself. I believe that the situation which led Picasso to his different ‘finds’ is very typical of twentieth-century art. -
Reductionism in Art and Brina Science, Eric Kandel, pg 101, Zettel 120
..it was Pollock who, according to even to de Kooning, “really broke the ice.” Pollock proved to be by far, the strongest personality of his generation. As de Kooning put it: “Every so often, a painter has to destroy painting. Cezanne dd it. Picasso did it with Cubism. Then Pollock did it. He busted our idea of a picture all to hell. Then there could be new paintings again. (Galenson 2009) - Reductionism in Art and Brina Science, Eric Kandel, pg 101, Zettel 120