I wouldn't call it diabolical.I would say his attempts at abstraction are typically grotesque saying much about the author and next to nothing of the subjects he paints.Which in turn makes his works typically not the art of painting because the proper object is imitation of the subject painted, but instead a hideous visual autobiographical study of the painter.
I don't think diabolical - much of it is self- centered and ugly , at least in my opinion.
thank for showing this, Terry - years and years since I have thought of these early works. I remember going to the huge Picasso show in the...80's (?) in NYC and being amazed at the prints (until I saw the marks showing they had been pulled by pros, not him) but still...the subtle forarm shortening, the eye-feast of color - to us now maybe they are like advertising or light-weight - but hey - I Still like these. don't hurt me. Lou
Lou, I think the Walker had a show in the '80's as well - I remember being very impressed with his work.
For a far better explanation of what's wrong with Picasso, you might refer to This Post by John C. Wright.
Please comment with charity and avoid ad hominem attacks. I exercise the right to delete comments I find inappropriate. If you use your real name there is a better chance your comment will stay put.