Chapter 8: A Survey
of Picasso’s Prints, Continued,
1955-1967, Jacqueline et al.
Fig. 37. Femme au Corsage a Fleurs (Bloch 847)
Another muse, another style. Or several. Picasso
met Jacqueline Roque in 1953, and she became his main squeeze the following
year, after Francoise had left him. Jacqueline remained with
Picasso for the last 20 years of his life, became his second wife,
and was the subject of more of his works than any other woman. In
printmaking, Picasso applied his full panoply of tricks to his
new muse, including etchings, aquatints and lithographs, and developed
his mastery
of linoleum
cuts,
finally
delivering a measure of color to his color-starved audience.
Table 25. 1955-1956
|
Bloch # |
780 |
782 |
788 |
789 |
791 |
794 |
795 |
800 |
801 |
804 |
|
Beauty |
* |
** |
* |
** |
** |
* |
** |
* |
* |
*** |
|
Significance |
* |
|
|
|
** |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rarity |
*** |
*** |
***** |
*** |
*** |
|
|
|
*** |
* |
|
Size |
***** |
* |
** |
***** |
**** |
**** |
**** |
* |
**** |
* |
|
Visibility at a distance |
***** |
|
* |
*** |
***** |
** |
*** |
|
** |
** |
|
Color |
|
|
|
|
|
*** |
** |
|
|
|
|
Fading |
|
|
|
|
|
***** |
* |
|
|
|
|
Cost |
*** |
* |
? |
** |
** |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
|
Desirability to cost ratio |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*** |
|
Signature |
Y |
N |
? |
Y |
Y |
P |
N |
N |
Y |
Y/N |

Fig. 37a. Buste de Femme au
Corsage Blanc (Bloch 848)
This lithograph, one of the three best of Jacqueline, most tenderly depicts her countenance and, with a few bold brushstrokes, brings out her sensitivity and intelligence so convincingly that the viewer feels he almost knows this woman.
Interestingly, Picasso returned to this same zinc twice over the next twelve months. He presumably was dissatisfied with the appearance of these last two states, because they were not editioned. (Mourlot and Cantz say that the second state was not printed at all, though somehow a photo of it is shown in Cantz. The third state is illustrated in Mourlot.) One must be thankful, therefore, that Picasso saw fit to print the edition of this lithograph before he irrevocably altered it and became dissatisfied with his results. How often one wishes that he had done so with earlier states of other prints, when one or more of those earlier states seem superior to the final, editioned state. In this rare instance, we are grateful that Picasso perceived the beauty of the first outpouring of his vision onto the zinc and memorialized it on paper. Just as this is one of Picasso's loveliest prints, at almost 70 cm it is one of his largest.
Table 26. 1956-1957
|
Bloch # |
826 |
827 |
830 |
833 |
834 |
835 |
836 |
846 |
847 |
848 |
|
Beauty |
* |
*** |
** |
* |
* |
** |
** |
* |
***** |
**** |
|
Significance |
* |
** |
* |
* |
|
* |
* |
* |
***** |
**** |
|
Rarity |
*** |
*** |
|
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
|
Size |
**** |
**** |
**** |
|
***** |
***** |
***** |
***** |
***** |
***** |
|
Visibility at a distance |
** |
*** |
*** |
***** |
***** |
***** |
***** |
***** |
***** |
***** |
|
Color |
* |
* |
*/N |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fading |
* |
* |
*/N |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost |
** |
** |
* |
** |
* |
* |
* |
*** |
**** |
*** |
|
Desirability to cost ratio |
|
* |
* |
|
|
* |
* |
|
|
* |
|
Signature |
Y |
Y |
P/Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Table 27. 1957-1959
|
Bloch # |
849 |
850 |
852 |
853 |
854 |
859 |
871 |
898 |
901 |
907 |
|
Beauty |
* |
** |
*** |
* |
*** |
**** |
* |
* |
* |
*** |
|
Significance |
* |
** |
*** |
* |
*** |
***** |
|
* |
|
*** |
|
Rarity |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
|
Size |
**** |
**** |
**** |
**** |
**** |
***** |
***** |
**** |
**** |
***** |
|
Visibility at a distance |
*** |
***** |
***** |
***** |
***** |
***** |
***** |
*** |
** |
***** |
|
Color |
|
|
|
|
|
**** |
|
|
|
*** |
|
Fading |
|
|
|
|
|
*** |
|
|
|
** |
|
Cost |
** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
***** |
* |
* |
* |
*** |
|
Desirability to cost ratio |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signature |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
At this point in time we start getting into
Picasso's linoleum cuts, aka linocuts. The technique Picasso
employed to create them deserves special mention. As
you can
see, I
have
deliberately
avoided bogging
you down in the technical details of printmaking. I envisioned your eyes
glazing over, and then your head slumping forward onto the “Buy
this now!” key. Though many of the complexities
of Picasso’s
printmaking techniques remain unknown, his linocuts are rather well understood.
But to understand the technique is certainly not to demean his accomplishments.
On the contrary, this understanding only serves to increase our awe of
his artistic abilities. Here’s a brief explanation of the technique,
so you can see what I mean.
The first linocut in colors that Picasso
created is the impressive, but overpriced, Buste de Femme d’apres
Cranach (Bloch
859, 1958). He gouged a different linoleum plate for each color and
came up with a rather masterful print,
albeit one with a bit of misaligned registry between the several plates.
Rather than improve his registry skills, he undertook the greater challenge
of using the same piece of linoleum for each successive color. Linocuts
are a reductionist technique much like woodcuts, though the medium is
softer and therefore easier to gouge. You gouge out the parts you don’t
wish to be inked. What’s left in relief on the plate is what gets
the ink. (This is the opposite of so-called intaglio prints such as etching,
drypoint, and aquatint, in that the depressions on the copper plate trap
the ink and transfer it onto paper.) In Picasso’s case, unprecedented
in the history of printmaking, the final print was created from only
one plate, regardless how many colors he used. Here’s how he did
it. He first carved the plate, and then the entire edition was printed
with the first color. (In many cases, the paper had been first printed
with a background color prior to any cutting of the linoleum.) Then Picasso
reworked the plate, and what was left still standing in relief was inked
with another color and printed yet again onto the entire edition. This
process was repeated as many times as the number of colors. Picasso’s
genius was the ability to maintain the finished design in his mind throughout
the process, because each successive reduction obliterated details of
the design from the plate. Accordingly, the final states of the plates,
which still exist, often bear little discernable resemblance to the overall
design.
Table 28. 1959, Linocuts
|
Bloch # |
908 |
909 |
910 |
911 |
915 |
922 |
923 |
928 |
930 |
931 |
|
Beauty |
**** |
**** |
***** |
**** |
* |
***** |
* |
** |
**** |
***** |
|
Significance |
***** |
**** |
***** |
**** |
* |
***** |
**** |
** |
**** |
***** |
|
Rarity |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
|
Size |
***** |
***** |
***** |
***** |
***** |
***** |
***** |
***** |
***** |
***** |
|
Visibility at a distance |
***** |
***** |
***** |
***** |
***** |
***** |
*** |
***** |
***** |
***** |
|
Color |
***** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
**** |
**** |
**** |
** |
**** |
***** |
|
Fading |
**** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
* |
* |
* |
** |
** |
** |
|
Cost |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
**** |
**** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
|
Desirability to cost ratio |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* |
|
Signature |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Table 29. 1959-1960, mostly linocuts
|
Bloch # |
932 |
934 |
935 |
936 |
938 |
939 |
949 |
979 |
982 |
983 |
|
Beauty |
* |
*** |
* |
** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
* |
|
|
Significance |
* |
*** |
** |
** |
*** |
*** |
** |
* |
* |
|
|
Rarity |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
***/- |
*** |
**** |
*** |
|
Size |
***** |
***** |
***** |
***** |
***** |
***** |
** |
** |
* |
* |
|
Visibility at a distance |
**** |
***** |
***** |
**** |
*** |
***** |
|
|
|
|
|
Color |
*** |
**** |
**** |
** |
* |
* |
* |
|
|
|
|
Fading |
* |
** |
** |
* |
* |
* |
* |
|
|
|
|
Cost |
** |
*** |
*** |
** |
*** |
*** |
*/* |
* |
* |
* |
|
Desirability to cost ratio |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
*** |
*** |
|
|
|
Signature |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y/N |
ES |
ES |
ES |
Table 30. 1960-1961
|
Bloch # |
984 |
985 |
995 |
1003 |
1004 |
1005 |
1006 |
1007 |
1009 |
1020 |
|
Beauty |
* |
* |
** |
* |
|
|
*** |
* |
* |
** |
|
Significance |
|
|
|
|
|
|
** |
|
|
* |
|
Rarity |
***** |
*** |
*** |
|
|
* |
*** |
*** |
** |
*** |
|
Size |
** |
** |
** |
**** |
**** |
*** |
***** |
** |
***** |
** |
|
Visibility at a distance |
|
|
|
***** |
***** |
** |
**** |
* |
**** |
*** |
|
Color |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*** |
|
Fading |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
** |
|
Cost |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
** |
* |
* |
* |
|
Desirability to cost ratio |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
* |
|
|
** |
|
Signature |
N |
ES |
ES |
N |
N |
N/Y |
Y |
Y |
P |
Y |
Table 31. Linocuts, 1961-1962
|
Bloch # |
1023 |
1026 |
1027 |
1028 |
1063 |
1064 |
1065 |
1066 |
1067 |
1068 |
|
Beauty |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
*** |
**** |
**** |
**** |
*** |
|
Significance |
* |
|
*** |
** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
**** |
|
Rarity |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
|
Size |
***** |
*** |
***** |
***** |
***** |
***** |
***** |
***** |
**** |
*** |
|
Visibility at a distance |
**** |
**** |
***** |
***** |
***** |
***** |
***** |
***** |
***** |
**** |
|
Color |
|
|
***** |
*** |
** |
** |
*** |
**** |
**** |
** |
|
Fading |
|
|
***** |
*** |
** |
** |
*** |
***** |
**** |
** |
|
Cost |
** |
* |
**** |
**** |
**** |
**** |
**** |
**** |
**** |
*** |
|
Desirability to cost ratio |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signature |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Table 32, Linocuts, 1962
| Bloch # |
1069 |
1070 |
1071 |
1072 |
1073 |
1074 |
1075 |
1076 |
1077 |
1078 |
|
Beauty |
** |
**** |
*** |
* |
*** |
*** |
** |
* |
***** |
*** |
|
Significance |
*** |
*** |
*** |
**** |
**** |
**** |
*** |
** |
***** |
*** |
|
Rarity |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
|
Size |
***** |
*** |
*** |
***** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
***** |
***** |
|
Visibility
at a distance |
***** |
***** |
***** |
***** |
***** |
***** |
***** |
**** |
***** |
***** |
|
Color |
** |
** |
**** |
***** |
***** |
***** |
** |
* |
* |
** |
|
Fading |
** |
** |
**** |
***** |
***** |
***** |
** |
* |
* |
** |
|
Cost |
*** |
*** |
*** |
***** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
** |
**** |
*** |
|
Desirability
to cost ratio |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* |
|
|
Signature |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |

Fig. 38. Danae(Bloch 1084)
There is no more colorful Picasso print
than masterwork, which represent's Picasso's interpretation of an ancient
Greek myth. In Greek mythology,
Danae was the daughter of Acrisius, the king of Argos. An oracle
had foretold that Danae's future son would slay his grandfather. In
order
to prevent this event from taking place, King Acrisius locked his
daughter in an inaccessible tower, thereby removing her from contact
with any
potential suitors. Or so he thought…. The god Zeus, who always
had an eye for female charms, was struck by the beauty of Danae,
and desired her. Zeus therefore transformed himself into a shower
of gold,
and in this form impregnated Danae. The result of this union of human
and divine was the great Greek hero Perseus. The myth of Danae has
interested artists through the ages, including Caravaggio, Rembrandt,
and Klimt. A joke of presumably similar vintage about the moral of
this story, unfortunately told at the expense of the fairer gender,
is that a sure-fire way to get to a woman is through gold:)....
Table 33, Linocuts, 1962
|
Bloch # |
1079 |
1080 |
1081 |
1082 |
1083 |
1084 |
1085 |
1086 |
1087 |
1088 |
|
Beauty |
*** |
*** |
**** |
**** |
* |
***** |
***** |
** |
* |
**** |
|
Significance |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
** |
***** |
**** |
** |
** |
*** |
|
Rarity |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
|
Size |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
***** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
|
Visibility at a distance |
***** |
***** |
***** |
***** |
**** |
***** |
***** |
*** |
***** |
***** |
|
Color |
*** |
*** |
** |
** |
** |
***** |
** |
*** |
** |
** |
|
Fading |
*** |
*** |
** |
** |
** |
**** |
** |
*** |
** |
** |
|
Cost |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
** |
**** |
*** |
** |
*** |
*** |
|
Desirability to cost ratio |
|
|
|
|
|
* |
** |
|
|
* |
|
Signature |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |

Fig. 39. Grand Nu de Femme (Bloch 1085) Fig.
40. Femme au Cheveux Flous (B1079) Fig.
41. Femme nue... (Bloch 1092)
In the words of John Richardson, arguably Picasso’s premier
biographer, “Before he died, Picasso endeavored to cannibalize
as much as he could of European art. He sent for slides of old and
not-so-old masters, and had Jacqueline project them on one of his
studio walls. And they would all spend evenings dissecting Rembrandt’s
Night Watch or van Gogh’s Self-Portrait in a Straw
Hat. Rembrandt
inspired a whole new cast of characters, cavaliers and musketeers.
And van Gogh’s self-portrait inspired some of Picasso’s
self-portraits (J. Richardson, Picasso: Magic, Sex, Death,
lectures on DVD, 2003, 2nd DVD). Even more so, Manet’s Le
Déjeuner
sur l’Herbe (Luncheon on the Grass), is one of
those famous paintings that seemed to have taken up a lot of Picasso’s
thought. In fact, Manet’s painting seems to have preoccupied
him for 2 ½ years, between 1960 and 1962, with numerous resultant
drawings, some paintings, several prints, and even a ceramic. One
of these prints, Bloch 1027 (March 13, 1962) is very colorful and
rather celebrated, having broken the six figure mark already in 1999,
but I don’t favor it, especially in comparison to some of the
accompanying ones in shades of brown. In fact, I’m not so fond
of most of the results of this series in any medium. I would hold
up three prints as exceptions to the rule, and of these I’m
exceedingly fond. They are somewhat more loosely related to the theme
than most, being portraits just of the bather in the background of
Manet’s painting. Whereas I find the full-blown depictions
of all four picnickers to be rather tedious and lacking in harmony,
the portraits of the bather strike me as very charming. Though she’s
not exactly bathing in most of Picasso’s works. She may not
even have been in Manet’s, but she certainly wasn’t pissing,
as she is in some of Picasso’s drawings. Nor was she picking
flowers, as in Femme Nue Cuiellant des Fleurs (Fig. 41,
Bloch 1092, April 20, 1962), which Brigitte Baer calls a variation
of the
Manet. Though Baer does not mention that the next two prints in her
catalogue are related to this series, they are of course. These two
include Femme a la Source, a bather at a spring (Bloch 1093,
also dating from April 20), and Femme Nue Pechant des Truites
a la Main (April 22, Baer 1327; not in Bloch or Kramer; see
our catalogue), which shows a woman quixotically pushing her luck
by trying to catch fish by hand. I guess he must have figured her
to be bored of her company. A wonder he got off this jag—next
he would have had her jumping rope or something….
These three prints are beautiful and very
accomplished works. They depict a female form, bending over in each
case, in a wonderfully colossal fashion,
looser yet reminiscent of his gargantuan women of the early ‘twenties.
In the print at hand, she’s picking flowers (note the garden snail).
Two days later she’s in a similar pose, but bathing at a spring
(Bloch 1093). The fish cavorting at the base of the waterfall in this
print may have inspired the presumably subsequent print that day (Baer
1327), in which she’s turned on the trout.
Table 34, Linocuts, 1962
|
Bloch # |
1089 |
1090 |
1092 |
1093 |
1095 |
1096 |
1097 |
1098 |
1101 |
1102 |
|
Beauty |
*** |
* |
**** |
**** |
* |
* |
* |
** |
*** |
**** |
|
Significance |
*** |
* |
*** |
**** |
* |
*** |
*** |
*** |
***** |
***** |
|
Rarity |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
|
Size |
*** |
*** |
*** |
***** |
*** |
*** |
***** |
**** |
***** |
***** |
|
Visibility at a distance |
***** |
**** |
*** |
**** |
**** |
*** |
**** |
***** |
***** |
**** |
|
Color |
**** |
** |
** |
** |
** |
** |
** |
**** |
**** |
**** |
|
Fading |
** |
** |
** |
** |
** |
** |
** |
*** |
**** |
**** |
|
Cost |
*** |
** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
** |
*** |
*** |
***** |
***** |
|
Desirability to cost ratio |
|
|
* |
* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signature |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Table 35, 1963
|
Bloch # |
1111 |
1117 |
1118 |
1121 |
1139 |
1141 |
1142 |
1143 |
1144 |
1145 |
|
Beauty |
** |
* |
*** |
** |
** |
* |
** |
* |
* |
***** |
|
Significance |
|
|
** |
|
|
|
|
|
|
***** |
|
Rarity |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
|
Size |
**** |
**** |
**** |
**** |
** |
**** |
** |
*** |
*** |
**** |
|
Visibility at a distance |
* |
* |
* |
|
|
*** |
|
*** |
**** |
***** |
|
Color |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
***** |
|
Fading |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**** |
|
Cost |
** |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
** |
* |
**** |
|
Desirability to cost ratio |
|
|
*** |
* |
* |
|
* |
|
|
* |
|
Signature |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
N |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Table 36, 1963-1964
|
Bloch # |
1147 |
1148 |
1149 |
1155 |
1157 |
1158 |
1159 |
1181 |
1185 |
1189 |
|
Beauty |
*** |
*** |
**** |
* |
* |
* |
** |
* |
* |
*** |
|
Significance |
*** |
*** |
**** |
|
|
|
|
*** |
|