@3, yes! So, begging Fnarf's pardon, I hope he doesn't mind if I repost this, which he wrote when Will tried it back on Dec. 22. It's a favorite of mine:

oh, good, you're dredging that up again.

You never saw any Picasso exhibit at the "Palmes de Court" because no such place has ever put on a Picasso exhibit and in fact no such place has ever existed.

Indeed the word "palmes" doesn't mean what you think it does in French; it's "flippers". It could mean "palm fronds" to an illiterate, but that would still be wrong, because the place you are thinking of is named after "palms" as in "the palm of your hand", which is a different word: "paume".

You are almost certainly thinking of the Musée du Jeu de Paume, which was the chief repository of impressionist works in Paris until they were moved in 1986 to the Musée d'Orsay. They only ever exhibited possibly one Picasso there, and never had a Picasso exhibit.

The current occupant of the building is the Galerie Nationale du Jeu de Paume, which shows contemporary art, not Picassos. It occupies the site of tennis courts where "jeu de paume" was played -- tennis played with the palms of the hands instead of rackets. This is undoubtedly where your confusion arises, though you refuse to admit it.

The exhibit at SAM comes from the Musée Picasso. It has never been exhibited anywhere else, certainly not in the Jeu de Paume, or the "Courts de Palme".

You are a phony and an imposter, a charlatan and a fake, Will. You've retailed this lie about the "Courts de Palme" here before, but the nature of your mistake proves that you know nothing about these museums you claim to have visited, or Paris, or the French language. You're an utterly bogus person.

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…

@7, you didn't say "Jeu de Paume", you said "Courts de Palme".

If you read my bit above, you'll see that I knew you were talking about the Jeu de Paume but were confused about the name.

You are also confused about what you saw there. They have never had a Picasso exhibit, either at the current Galerie Nationale that is in that building now, which shows only contemporary art, or, if you were there before 1986, in the famous impressionist collection that was there at the Musee du Jeu de Paume, which is now all in the Musee d'Orsay. They also have never had a Picasso exhibit, though they have shown, I believe, a total of ONE Picasso painting.

I have no idea whether you ever visited the Musee Picasso or not, which is the only place you could have seen any of the pieces in the SAM exhibit. There are also, of course, some major Picasso works in the Pompidou Centre, but you also didn't say anything about that. You specifically mentioned the works in the SAM show, none of which came from the Pompidou.

Even your corrected version here, (i.e., copied out of mine), is wrong; they do not "put on exhibits here, usually art"; it is a proper full-time art museum. It has not actually been tennis courts since 1861, which I imagine is a bit before your time.

So: you're a liar. You did not see what you claim to have seen, you did not see it in the place you claim to have seen it, and you got the name of that wrong place wrong. Your little Picasso adventure, which you have mentioned three times now on Slog, never took place and could not have taken place. You weren't there, you didn't see anything.

Give up, Will; we're on to you and your ridiculous, obvious lies. Copying stuff out of my posts and pretending that's what you meant all along is fooling nobody.

It's not petty to lie repeatedly about every aspect of your life. One of the things Will is doing here is saying nothing about the Picasso exhibit and instead relating the only thing he knows -- the echoing in the void of his brain. The only thing he has to offer is what happened to him, and how it somehow makes him important. Which it wouldn't do even if it had really happened, which it has not.

To bring this back on track, I just got back from the Picasso exhibit myself tonight. I wish they'd brought more of the sculpture, the little things made out of wire, but still the overall effect is the incredible facility and variety of the work. It starts off with the paintings, in the style you know, but quite soon, by even 1910, he's just exploding, creating not just Cubism but twenty different kinds of Cubism all in a period of a couple of years, and then blasting out in a dozen directions from there.

For me the peak will always be those early Cubist masterpieces of hammered grey and brown and black and white, but there are so many other things to see. I always think how frustrating it must have been for Braque and Gris and the others when Picasso anticipated their every move, every stroke, and did it better (though for me Juan Gris will always be the special one, more limited than Picasso but so charming and strange).

There's even a video of the man just whacking out a duck in clay, blam blam blam, like that's all he's ever done for fifty years. Ten minutes later he's up a ladder polishing off a dozen large paintings like nothing anyone else could do.

It's great to see the many, many masterworks on paper -- the etchings and drawings and the lithographs. Picasso, your full-service art jobber, made ten of everything that anyone has ever imagined and a thousand things that no one ever did.