Most modern art is understood, this goes without saying with Cubism. The style developed most entirely by Braque and Picasso, whether this essay would like to admit it or not. The essay does indeed make a good point that Cubism was not solely the work of the previously stated envelope pushers. It is good to know that Gleizes and Metzinger did in fact pioneer Cubism before Picasso. Past that though the essay barely mentions the pair.
So why is this essay named after them, I find that somewhat ridiculous. The essay is informative as an essay should be and is very helpful in comprehending Cubism but really does nothing to convince me that the two were amazing individuals. Among the initial movement I'm sure there was talent but to be honest it was mostly concentrated in Picasso and Braque. Gleizes and Metzinger developed ideas that Picasso had played around with before, so what is so amazing about their work?
In everything I have learned about Cubism those two are barely mentioned and certainly don't show themselves to be pioneers or poignant examples of anything extremely extraordinary. It would seem that others in the group like Duchamp would go on to different and expansive things, while these two would just co-write an essay defining Cubism (which has often been described as indefinable). So neither of them had a complete grasp on Cubism and they needed each other to define it. This much seems disappointing, the two seem to be just disappointing and obsolete and generally useless to me.
Moving on from how much I dislike the naming of this essay, Cubism was truly something different. While it is often misunderstood and more than often unappreciated it truly is something to be admired. In my opinion Cubism is the culmination of everything modern art can be. At least the culmination of everything it had been until that time and also an expansion into the expression of feelings through art. Borrowing from...