it is, perhaps after all, a simple matter of perspective

Cubism, that wacked out confusing jumble of images portraying different aspects of a thing or person, is a visual invention made famous by Picasso. Most anyone viewing his work will find themselves either loving it or hating it,  few remaining unaffected. Picasso garnered a following that crossed many professional boundaries, with more than a few taking bits and pieces of his fragmented style incorporating it into their own work. 
Picasso developed  a way of viewing the world around us. Seemingly bits and pieces are more of angles and representations of different aspects of the thing that he was depicting. (Usually paintings, but there are quite a few sculptures as well.) Many of the individual parts and pieces in the art were repeated over and over again in the same painting, slightly changed. 


Gertrude Stein’s “Picasso” is certainly more than a commentary of Picasso himself. It is also a homage to that repeated fragment style of perspective. At first, one read the text as simple repetition of the same line over and over. Lines upon lines of identical phrases are laid out, in a sort of hypnotic pattern. But then one realizes that the lines are NOT the same, but rather, slightly changed in subtle ways. A sentence would be repeated word for word, with only one word changed, omitted, moved in the sentence to create a slightly different meaning or reinforcing the meaning. 


Over a series of lines, the meaning changed more and more revealing more and more, as well as less and less. Over a series of lines, the meaning revealed more and more changing more and more, as well as less and less. Over a series of meanings, the lines changed more and more revealing changes more and more, as well as less and less.


Sort of like the telephone game we played as children, and the exaggerated story telling we play as adults, Steins prose repeats and alters at the same time, leading the reader down a merry chase until, at the end, it is revealed that Picasso’s work, works for some, while some work, for some, very little.  


The beginning lines speak of Picasso’s charm, as well as the effect that charm had upon the viewers. By the end, the narrative spoke towards the influence of Picasso’s work upon the viewer. How their own perceptions had changed over time and how time had changed their perceptions and how their perceptions changed their perceptions. Does time change time? Or does change change time? Or is it, that how we view things/time differ from our perception of that time/change?


If I have confused you; 
made you think, 
then right back at ya, 


because at times, 
the best of times,
you do it to me


             - Decker