Ma Jolie, 1911-1912, is a large scale painting from the cubist era. One can stand in front of it and feel overpowered by its size and its deep, dark colors. The element of cubism creates an illusion of protrusion in the piece, as if the cubes are stacked onto each other and risen at the middle. The value of colors aids to this deception as well, highlighting edges of shapes as if there is light hitting them.
After searching, one can find more recognizable shapes and symbols within the painting. For example, a hand appears at the bottom right, a treble clef in the bottom center and parts of the shape of a guitar. This is a direct example of Gillian Rose’s Visual Methodologies. She defines a sign as a basic element of language and that it consists of two parts: the signifier and the signified. The signifier is the sound or symbol that represents the actual concept or object, the signified (p.74). From seeing a hand in the painting, that gives us the understanding that there must be a human figure or at least part of a human figure in the painting. We know this because the shape that Picasso depicts is one with four thin rectangular shapes one right next to the other, and with circular shapes at the ends of them, representative of a hand. We subconsciously relate things to ourselves whether we mean to or not. This idea allows humans to communicate with each other not only through words, but signs: an overarching mode of communication that involves far more (or less) than words. Therefore, when we see the painting of these shapes, we immediately come to the conclusion of the signified: a human.
Additionally, one can find a treble clef and the text “Ma Jolie” at the bottom of the piece. These are classic symbols and text that are an even more clear signifier for the viewer. Most people can recognize a treble clef and think of music, and whether you understand his language or not, most people may be able to figure out that Jolie is a name, and perhaps she was his. I must interrupt myself and admit that I have some prior knowledge of paintings from this time. It was common for men to paint their mistresses’. And I also had knowledge of Picasso’s frequent use of text and music notes in his paintings as well. However, if one came to see this painting with no prior knowledge of Picasso, the symbols are still evident and meant to be recognized. Picasso seems to want the viewer to search for a figure in his painting as his symbols hint at it.
Upon describing Ma Jolie, John Berger comes to mind in his argument in Ways of Seeing. What I come to understand from the painting may be completely different than someone else simply due to my background knowledge of the subject. None of our thoughts are original, they come from someone or somewhere in some part of our brain from which we learned it (p.11). So perhaps I am skewed by what little I actually know about him (and if that knowledge is historically accurate. It was taught to us only by historians, so they could be skewed too). Therefore, the true meanings and interpretations of paintings, in my opinion, are simply guesses. Sure, the artist can tell us what he meant by it, but without that information directly given, our judgement is as good as any historians’.
