Rosalind Krauss, in her influential essay on Cubism−“In the Name of Picasso” (1981), puts the positions of many critics of her time towards Cubists and especially Picasso, under suspicion. The prevailing conceptualisation of Picasso’s unprecedented art was appreciated for its autobiographical value by the critics that attempt to comment on it for the first time−such as Rubin and Rosemblum. They claimed that the art and style of an artist is inextricable from his biography, in the case of Picasso with the exception of his cubism. Krauss, on the other hand, attacks in the most intelligible manner to those critics claiming that the so-called “autobiographical artist” is dead and buried over the grave of form and that the “exception of cubism” as a new style of art is a ground-breaking introduction to the art history and artistic style of representation unlike what those critics expected it to be. To do so, she employs the Saussurean structuralist view of language to give analysis of Picasso’s cubist paintings and of the artistic possibilities introduced by this language and by the collage as a new hybrid form of artistic expression. She introduces a question, which I think the one that is closer  to the “ultimate” question of art, that what constitutes the ultimate aesthetic relevance of an artwork−in this Cubist case, can it be the mere autobiographical relevances that are particular and that means nothing for the future spectators, or can there be a reading that dissociates the artwork from all those other aspects enabling the spectators to engage with it “timelessly”. In short, she finds this type of reading in structuralism and defines Cubisim as the art style that exchanges so-called “naturalistic” expressions with the artificial, codified language of signs. The collage as an art form, employed by Picasso a lot, is completely new and hybrid one making its analysis in art history difficult. This difficulty of formal analysis is the evidence that it has introduced a new movement in Modern art, including Postmodern elements with it. This emphasis given on the medium is important, as for structuralist the reality is built in the discourse itself thus it is not independent of us, it is the inherent part of the system of language−medium, for art−making an analyist in need to investigate the medium densely to understand the artwork in question.

Picasso introduced not a new style of painting only, but a new style of creating artworks; as Metzinger points out. Unlike most critics claim, he did not deny the existence of the object, but he enlightens the object with his own gaze−his perceptions, tactile capacities and intelligence. Thus, a new relationship is developed between the artist and the object, the  spectator and the object as well, having its first signs in the paintings of Cezanne. Apollinaire deals with Cubism in his different works. He claims that Cubists, just like Impressionists/Fauvists, attempt to go back to the first principles of expression (line, inspiration and color respectively); but unlike Impressionists, Cubists do not reject the existence of form completely. Apollinaire, in “On the Subject in Modern Painting”, makes an important point that with Cubism, art has reached the status of pure art, with the intense austerity introduced by them. What does he means by this statement is that the fact art no longer imitates the nature, but creation in a world where verisimilitude does not mean aesthetic value is at issue. The relation of geometry and emergence of Cubism, he  also talks about: According to his argumentation , the emergence of non-Eucklidian geometry, Einstein’s relativity theory and the Cubist art goes parallel historically and theoretically. Lastly, he introduces four types of cubisms as scientific, physical, orphic and instinctive by introducing relations between them that are open to discussion. Riviere, in the “Present Tendencies in Painting”, introduces the present tentencies of painting as the need to eliminate the light and the perspective to create a timeless, pure, austere work of art; replacing the light and perspective with the most revealing angle and light instead of the particular and accidental one-shot occurence of one aspect of light and perspecitve. From this point of view, the attempt of Cubists can be seen as the providing the most timeless representations  that can be made sense with a close analysis of the medium which distorts the light and perspective completely. Most importantly, the Cubism as an art movement corresponds an important issue and question in art history. Braque, in “Thoughts on Painting”, points out that the notion of limit is an important part of the Modern Art, and traces us back to the Kantian roots building the Modernism as the theory of Modern Art. For the last word on Cubism, it is proper to turn to Picasso himself rather that all critics of art. He, in his interviews with Marius de Zayas in 1923, talks about the superfluousness of the analysis and search when the art is the issue. With this claim, he as an artist, sees the whole history of art in a connected unity−not as critics think the jumps and epochs of imitation and creation exist−providing us an insight on the distinction of the point of views of artist and art critic.

*Bottle of Vieux Marc, Glass, Guitar and Newspaper (1913)