logo
Picasso, a monster? These women have something different to say

Picasso, a monster? These women have something different to say

Yahoo20-03-2025

In 2023, on the 50th anniversary of his death, Pablo Picasso was posthumously selected as a candidate for character assassination. 'Monstrous misogynist', 'brutally chauvinistic' and 'notoriously cruel' were among the terms used in media headlines. The prominent British critic Adrian Searle referred to the artist as a 'vampire, sociopath and narcissist'. The BBC released a documentary titled Picasso: The Beauty and The Beast – the emphasis firmly on the latter. In New York, the Brooklyn Museum went so far that even the censorious were ashamed: It's Pablo-matic, an exhibition of Picasso works curated by comedian Hannah Gadsby, criticised its own contents at every turn – 'He's sold to us as this passionate, virile, tormented-genius man-ballsack,' Gadsby complained in looped clips – but was itself widely mocked.
Sue Roe's new book, Hidden Portraits, follows the lives of the six main women in Picasso's life: Fernande Olivier, Olga Khokhlova, Marie-Thérèse Walter, Dora Maar, Françoise Gilot and Jacqueline Roque. Roe wants to illuminate the individual stories of these women, who've often been dismissed, she writes, as 'adjuncts to the artist's story… supporters, companions and muses.' The nuance of her approach is refreshing and admirable. Roe acknowledges that victim narratives, however fashionable, risk 'doing these women a disservice… Picasso transformed six women's lives – and fuller disclosure reveals the complexity, richness and excitement of life with him.'
And yet the illumination Roe brings is a brief spotlight, for six whole lives – a collective 465 years of existence – have been crammed together into a 300-page book. Each woman's 'biography' is thus whittled down to about 50 pages: that's a light introduction, more than anything else. Despite Roe's initial claim that this work will combat the prevailing Picasso-centric narrative, Hidden Portraits inadvertently reiterates the idea that these six women were supporting roles to the main act – she just adds a little biographical colour. Even her title seems to fetishise these women as the artist's subjects.
Furthermore, the claim that these stories are being 'released from the shadows' is marketing fluff, and hard to substantiate. Roe has made some important discoveries over the course of her research – for example, the truth about Walter's childhood and the identity of her father – but all these women's lives have already been documented by the women themselves in diaries or memoirs, or by biographers, or through interviews. Roe's task has been more one of accumulation and concentration than of true documentation.
This isn't necessarily for the worst. Roe's collection of stories reveals her strength as a historically-conscious anecdotalist, and her lively prose evokes Paris, and Europe, in the early 20th century. We learn of how Khokhlova, Picasso's first wife and a member of Diaghilev's Ballet Russes, lost all communication with her family in the early days of her relationship with the artist because of the Russian Revolution of 1917. When letters resumed in January 1920, 'she kept from her family any details of her opulent lifestyle; she did not even tell them who her husband was' – because of the dire conditions in which her relatives were living. It was only when her brother Vladimir visited the Schukin Museum in Moscow in August 1925 that they began to understand the scale of Picasso's celebrity. Vladimir wrote to his sister: 'I was finally able to see your husband's paintings… [they] take up three rooms!'
We read of the 'surrealist one-woman show' that Maar put on in January 1936 in the Deux Magots café in Place Saint-Germain des Prés, which won Picasso's attention. Dora was sitting at the cafe 'dressed all in black, cigarette in its long holder between her fingers, her gloves embroidered with red rosebuds'. Picasso watched from a nearby table with a friend while Dora 'peeled off her gloves, then began stabbing between her fingers with a penknife, occasionally drawing small drops of blood. Then she calmly replaced her gloves.'
Later, when Picasso was with Gilot, Roe recounts that one of the 'eccentric tasks' the latter had to undertake was 'recounting the money Picasso kept in a locked truck, once he had counted it himself'. This was because Picasso had seen Charlie Chaplin 'count sheaves of bank notes in Monsieur Verdoux, his favourite scene in the film, and been impressed by the speed of his counting, but in trying to match (or beat) it, he made mistakes.'
One of Roe's accomplishments is that she draws out how each of these women influenced Picasso's work: and how they correspond to different periods: Olivier was 'central to the development of the Rose Period', Maar played a key role in the technical design of Guernica's (1937) monumental structure. Roe's voice lends itself to beautiful descriptions of Picasso's work, albeit the close stylistic analysis of these paintings – as well-executed as it is – occasionally detracts from the stated focus of the book. This is at its most obvious when Roe spends a large part of the chapter on Roque discussing Picasso's artistic influences and his struggle with his own mortality.
Most importantly, in Hidden Portraits Picasso doesn't come across as an irredeemable monster. He gave most of his ex-wives and lovers pensions for the rest of their lives, and left some of them houses or apartments to live in. In an interview with Cabanne in 1974, after Picasso's death, Walter recalled that 'He was the one that did the washing, did the cooking, took care of Maya [their daughter], he did everything, except perhaps make the beds.' Obviously, not all of his behaviour was exemplary, but he didn't purport to be a paragon of virtue. He wasn't Jesus, but a Cubist genius. Or rather, in the words of Walter, he was a 'holy devil… but a most wonderful terror'.
Hidden Portraits is published by Faber at £25. To order your copy, call 0330 173 5030 or visit Telegraph Books
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Royal Family Reportedly Had ‘Brief' Heads-Up About Prince Harry's Bombshell Interview
Royal Family Reportedly Had ‘Brief' Heads-Up About Prince Harry's Bombshell Interview

Yahoo

time27 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Royal Family Reportedly Had ‘Brief' Heads-Up About Prince Harry's Bombshell Interview

The royal family was given a 'very brief' heads-up before Prince Harry's bombshell BBC News interview earlier this month. 'There was a very brief awareness-raising at the palace shortly before it [was] broadcast,' Hello! Magazine's royal editor Emily Nash claimed on the 'A Right Royal Podcast' on Friday, May 9. 'What I understand is that there were, potentially, discussions that might have happened as a result of the case now having been concluded.' Nash claimed that King Charles III 'didn't feel he could have these conversations' regarding the security trial with Harry, 40, because it would 'put him in a really difficult, and potentially unconstitutional, situation.' Harry made headlines earlier this month when he publicly asked for reconciliation with his family after losing his appeal for government-funded security in the U.K. The duke has been fighting to restore his security presence since leaving the royal family in 2020 alongside wife Meghan Markle. Before his public plea, Harry alluded to his father's involvement in the ongoing legal battle. 'He couldn't be seen to intervene on his son's behalf or get involved in government matters,' Nash added. 'His son is suing His Majesty's government, you know he needed to stay right out of this situation.' Why King Charles May Never Reconcile With Prince Harry Amid Painful Feud: 'So Complicated,' Source Says Nash previously believed there was 'potentially' an olive branch that could have been extended — but that all changed once Harry did the interview. Not only did Harry claim that Charles, 76, 'won't speak to me' in his BBC interview, which aired May 2, but he also commented on his father's mortality. (Charles was diagnosed with cancer in February 2024.) 'I would love reconciliation with my family. There's no point in continuing to fight anymore,' Harry said. 'Life is precious. I don't know how much longer my father has.' Royal expert Christopher Andersen told Us Weekly exclusively that Harry's comment about Charles' health likely didn't land with the royal family, noting that the Duke of Sussex 'has an odd way' of showing that he wants a reconciliation. 'He slams his father for interfering in the trial, then says the Palace rigged the outcome, then accuses the Royal Family of not caring about the safety of his wife and children, and winds up declaring that for now he can't foresee any scenario in which he would take his family to the U.K.,' Andersen, who has written several books about the royal family, continued. 'Harry delivered the coup de grace when he said he wanted to bury the hatchet with his father because he doesn't know how much time the King has left to live.'

Prince Harry Accused Of 'Directly Insulting' The Royal Family By Considering Changing His Last Name
Prince Harry Accused Of 'Directly Insulting' The Royal Family By Considering Changing His Last Name

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Prince Harry Accused Of 'Directly Insulting' The Royal Family By Considering Changing His Last Name

Prince Harry's rift with the royal family has reportedly worsened amid reports that the Duke of Sussex considered adopting the Spencer surname. The US-based royal is said to have discussed the idea with his late mother's brother, Earl Spencer, who advised against it. However, royal experts say the move by Prince Harry has deepened tensions within the monarchy, with King Charles and Prince William reportedly "hurt and dismayed." Harry reportedly discussed with his uncle, Earl Charles Spencer, the possibility of adopting his late mother Princess Diana's surname, which would symbolically sever his ties with the Mountbatten-Windsor name currently used by his children. According to the Daily Mail, Harry brought up the idea during a recent visit to the U.K., where he had a "very amicable conversation" with his uncle, the 9th Earl Spencer. While the discussion was friendly, sources revealed that Earl Spencer advised against "taking such a step." The proposal has since sparked concern within royal circles. Royal commentator Hilary Fordwich told Fox News Digital that Harry's inquiry alone has stirred unease. "Once again, Prince Harry has managed to make yet another deeply divisive and emotionally charged move, further fracturing his already tenuous relationship with the royal family," she said. Fordwich continued: "The overwhelming advice from within his own family, particularly from his Uncle Earl Spencer, is to abandon the ludicrous idea due to its legal and emotional consequences." She added: "Even his inquiry highlights the enduring complexities of Harry's relationship with his royal roots… It further thwarts any future reconciliation." The commentator further noted that the royal family is "hurt and dismayed" by the development, causing additional "damage to the already strained family relations." British broadcaster Helena Chard echoed the sentiment, describing the potential name change as having "an air of revenge." Speaking to Fox News Digital, she called the move "hurtful and vindictive" toward King Charles, emphasizing that it reflects Harry's ongoing bitterness. "It highlights Prince Harry's little to no regard for his family," Chard said. "A huge amount of bitterness and frustration bubbling away in Harry could have led to him feeling the Spencer name would help grow his Royal court." Chard also suggested that aligning more closely with the Spencer legacy could be a strategic move for Harry. "No doubt Prince Harry feels reinventing himself keeps him relevant," she remarked. "The world still has a love affair with the late Princess Diana. Harry and Meghan could take a cash grab of Princess Diana's legacy. [However], tarnishing Princess Diana's legacy would leave a bitter taste in the public's mouths." Royal analyst Richard Fitzwilliams also commented, warning that Charles would likely view the idea as a painful rejection of his paternal legacy. "For Harry to consider doing this, he must still feel very embittered," Fitzwilliams noted. "King Charles will regard this with great sadness… What will Harry think up next?" Fordwich also noted that the proposal is "viewed as a direct insult to his father, King Charles III, as well as his extended royal family." She explained: "Ironically, Harry was close to Prince Philip, who fought for the historical significance of the Mountbatten-Windsor name for his descendants. So it is a direct insult to him." According to Fordwich, Harry may see adopting the Spencer name as a way to honor his late mother, Princess Diana, "while distancing himself from the rest of the royal institution he feels alienated from." Fordwich noted that "there is also some speculation that Harry's wife, Meghan Markle, wants their children to be more closely associated with Diana's legacy, especially their daughter, Princess Lilibet, whose full name is Lilibet Diana Mountbatten-Windsor." Even so, Fordwich warned that tensions within the royal family remain high, and this new revelation only makes things worse. "King Charles III is hesitant to speak with Harry, and Prince William is disgusted that he keeps referencing their mother," Fordwich claimed. She concluded that "trust and communication are currently at an all-time low. Any hope of rapprochement is now said to be 'in tatters,' particularly given Harry's wish to change his surname, which is viewed as a final break from his royal roots." Meanwhile, royal commentator Ian Pelham Turner told the outlet that he wasn't surprised by Harry's reported interest in adopting the Spencer surname, noting the prince's enduring emotional connection to his mother's side of the family. "Prince Harry, at the time of this alleged conversation, was at a very low ebb," Turner explained. "He found tremendous support from Earl Spencer and Diana's two sisters, who rallied around [him]… The Spencer name is always a potential path for the beleaguered couple and their children. But at this stage, it's not on the horizon." Turner added that the "royal family and Harry are still seemingly at war with each other."

Sotheby's to Auction Original Hermès Bag That Belonged to Jane Birkin
Sotheby's to Auction Original Hermès Bag That Belonged to Jane Birkin

Business of Fashion

timean hour ago

  • Business of Fashion

Sotheby's to Auction Original Hermès Bag That Belonged to Jane Birkin

Sotheby's will soon auction the original Hermès Birkin bag that once belonged to the late singer Jane Birkin, one of the most coveted designs in the fashion industry. The famed black leather handbag will be put up for sale in Paris on July 10, the auction house said in a statement Thursday. The original Birkin was commissioned in 1984 exclusively for and in collaboration with Jane Birkin by Hermès International SCA's then Chief Executive Officer Jean-Louis Dumas. Birkin recalled in interviews how she bumped into Dumas on a flight and complained about the lack of an Hermès handbag that suited her needs. The British-French singer retold how she sketched a model on a 'vomit bag' and shortly after Dumas presented her with the original Birkin which the brand commercialised under her name. Jane Birkin sold her bag in 1994 to raise funds for an AIDS charity. It was auctioned again in 2000, and has since belonged to the collector who goes by the name 'Catherine B' on Instagram. Her account biography on the platform says she's the 'proud owner of the first Hermès Birkin bag.' A Sotheby's representative confirmed that the collector is the seller. Hermès bags often fetch higher prices at resale than they cost in boutiques due to long waiting lists. The record for a bag sold at auction is held by an Hermès Kelly known as Himalaya, made in crocodile skin and carrying a diamond, which fetched 4 million Hong Kong dollars in 2021 ($510,000) when it was auctioned by Christie's. ByAngelina Rascouet Learn more: Hermès Responds to 'Walmart Birkin', Dupe Culture CEO Axel Dumas called fakes 'detestable' while acknowledging the grey area surrounding many copycat products.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store