Which COUNTRY has produced the greatest literature?

[Kafka's Crow]

As far as the influence is concerned, the French thought and Literature has stronger influence in spite of the linguistic advantage that British Literature enjoys. Although the Troubadour poets wrote before Chaucer and Villon was influential in his own time, the French influence became very observable in works of people like Montaigne and the neo-classical debates between Boileau, Perrault and Fontenelle which provided the tension which erupted into a revolution during the next century; the age of Diderot, Voltaire and Rousseau, the brilliant 19th century novelists, les symbolistes the exceptional 20th century writers, the whole existentialism debate, the postmodern theorists like Derrida, Lyotard. Foucalt, Deleuze, the contemporary theorists like Badiou and the future, secure in the hands of younger French philosophers like Quentin Meillassoux who is already established as Badiou's most able pupil. The French literature may not 'seem' as great as English Literature because of the linguistic difference still this difference can not hide the influence of the French thought on literature through the ages. Come on, even Edgar Allen Poe is more influential than any English poet. The great flowering of Irish literature in last 100 years has strong links with France. Apart from Yeats (but Maud Gonne was educated and brought up in France!), not many of the major figures in Irish Literature show much of British influence. Bernard Shaw and Wilde looked to France for naturalism. Wilde called Gautier 'the most fascinating of modern poets.' Huysmans' À rebours is the single most significant influence on The Picture of Dorian Gray. People like George Moore, Beckett and Joyce looked straight to France for inspiration bypassing the huge land-mass that separates Ireland form France, i-e England. If looked closely, the revolutionary French spirit has been the driving force behind the Western Literature for at least 300 years. English has the linguistic advantage, the real game is played in France, that is where the ideas come from which inspire writers everywhere.

The book also cited "...other Elizabethans, the seventeenth-century poets including Milton, and the Romantic poets..." It continued to say "And they've got competitive entries in all the other categories, too---from the epic (The Faerie Queene, Paradise Lost) and the romance (Malory's Morte d'Arthur) to the essay (Bacon, Addison and Steele, Dr.Johnson)."



If you were to include German philosophers, you might also say Schopenhauer, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, Marx, and last but certainly not least, Nietzsche. However, I wouldn't include philosopers in a debate about literature.

I think the area that American's most excel at is the short form (short stories and poetry). A few more Americans that come to mind: Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Hawthorne, Whitman, etc.

... and don't forget Stone-cold Steve Austen!

[stlukesguild]

As far as the influence is concerned, the French thought and Literature has stronger influence in spite of the linguistic advantage that British Literature enjoys.

A stronger influence upon whom? Subsequent French writers? Certainly the lyrical poetry tradition travels from France to Britain... but then again... it comes to France initially from Italy. Undoubtedly French literature has had a major impact upon the literatures of other nations but I think you are seriously underestimating the influence of British literature.

Although the Troubadour poets wrote before Chaucer and Villon was influential in his own time, the French influence became very observable in works of people like Montaigne and the neo-classical debates between Boileau, Perrault and Fontenelle which provided the tension which erupted into a revolution during the next century; the age of Diderot, Voltaire and Rousseau, the brilliant 19th century novelists, les symbolistes the exceptional 20th century writers, the whole existentialism debate, the postmodern theorists like Derrida, Lyotard. Foucalt, Deleuze, the contemporary theorists like Badiou and the future, secure in the hands of younger French philosophers like Quentin Meillassoux who is already established as Badiou's most able pupil.

It is fascinating that French literature has such great schools of theorists. It may be the reason they seemingly lack those highly original outsiders who couldn't give a rat's a** about theory and rules. Derrida, Lyotard, Foucault. God! Give me Joyce or Faulkner or Kafka or maybe even Steven King!

The French literature may not 'seem' as great as English Literature because of the linguistic difference still this difference can not hide the influence of the French thought on literature through the ages.

What is this linguistic difference that disguises the superiority of French literature? French literature and culture in general are undoubtedly hugely influential upon the whole of Western civilization... especially when you consider the fact that France and England long stood as the two dueling cultural and artistic superpowers of Europe. I wouldn't be so quick to underestimate the British contribution or influence. Certainly Schiller and Goethe didn't when they turned to British writers as models for the development of German literature. The novel... perhaps THE central literary form for two and a half centuries or more certainly owes far more of its development to British writers such as Richardson, DeFoe, Goldsmith, Sterne, Fielding, Smollett, on through Scott, Austen, Dickens, Hardy, and Joyce than it does to French contributions. Its been suggested that without Shakespeare British literature could not compete... as if he were a single isolated towering figure... but where is the French epic poet that could surpass Spencer, Chaucer or Milton? Edgar Allen Poe is more influential than any English poet? Give me a break. Where is the poet that had more impact than Wordsworth upon his era? As for the link between the great Modern Irish writers and French literature... certainly this is undeniable. As the center of the development of Modernism France and French writers clearly impacted writers from Ireland as well as England, the United States, Spain, Germany, Russia, etc... If you believe that these influences were far more important than those offered up by the great examples of writers within the native cultures and languages of Ireland, Spain, Germany, etc... however, you would be sadly mistaken. You are also ignoring the question of influence over quality. Huysmans may have been the major influence upon Wilde (arguable) but Wilde is certainly a better writer. T.S. Eliot may have been deeply enamored of Valery Larbaud and St, John Perse (enough to have translated the latter)... but neither poet even begins to approach Eliot's level of achievement.

If looked closely, the revolutionary French spirit has been the driving force behind the Western Literature for at least 300 years.

Yeah. By the way... it is always interesting to hear speak of the French revolutionary spirit while ignoring the fact that the Revolution and establishment of a Democratic form of government in America preceded it by quite some time... instigated, by British colonists. It also ignores the fact that Britain had implemented certain limitations upon the rule of the Monarchy through the establishment of a Parliament for quite some time.

English has the linguistic advantage, (again... with this "linguistic advantage"?) the real game is played in France, that is where the ideas come from which inspire writers everywhere.

Yeah. And France has been leading the music scene and still leads in the visual arts, right?

[Etienne]

It is fascinating that French literature has such great schools of theorists. It may be the reason they seemingly lack those highly original outsiders who couldn't give a rat's a** about theory and rules. Derrida, Lyotard, Foucault. God! Give me Joyce or Faulkner or Kafka or maybe even Steven King!

I'm not sure what you mean by that... are you saying that no French author "went out of theory?". And what's with comparing philosophers and theoricians to authors?

What is this linguistic difference that disguises the superiority of French literature?

I think he means that English language, mostly through America, is more international, and therefore gives English Literature a greater exposure, which is completely right. Although saying French literature is superior to English is really comes down to a matter of interest more than any objective reasoning.

French literature and culture in general are undoubtedly hugely influential upon the whole of Western civilization... especially when you consider the fact that France and England long stood as the two dueling cultural and artistic superpowers of Europe.

I'm afraid that France has been much more a "cultural superpower" of Europe in history, but mostly due, again to a greater exposure, same as English right now. French was the "universal" language of Europe for a long time, just like now English is the "universal" language. Paris was literally the cultural capital of Europe for a while.

The novel... perhaps THE central literary form for two and a half centuries or more certainly owes far more of its development to British writers such as Richardson, DeFoe, Goldsmith, Sterne, Fielding, Smollett, on through Scott, Austen, Dickens, Hardy, and Joyce than it does to French contributions.

I would disagree here, from Rabelais to Proust going by Balzac, Diderot and Flaubert, the influences are absolutely comparable.

Its been suggested that without Shakespeare British literature could not compete... as if he were a single isolated towering figure...

Perhaps you are referring to me, but that's not what I meant at all, I was just tired of people thinking they get the last word just by throwing the name of Shakespeare around.

but where is the French epic poet that could surpass Spencer, Chaucer or Milton?

You are right that French's epic literature is not as prominent, there has been a couple of half-success, the greatest French epic is probably Hugo's Légende des siècles, which I have not read, but is said to stand up to the greatest epics.

Edgar Allen Poe is more influential than any English poet? Give me a break. Where is the poet that had more impact than Wordsworth upon his era?

I believe Baudelaire, for example, had a much greater influence.

Yeah. And France has been leading the music scene and still leads in the visual arts, right?

What do you mean by that? France influence in both music and visual art is historically of a primary importance...

Music:
Berlioz, Bizet, Debussy, Offenbach, Saint-Saëns to name a few. (but I know much less in this field, France does hold a great place though)

Visual arts:
Doré, Cézanne, Rodin, Monet, Renoir, Gaugin, van Gogh, Matisse, Chagall, Duchamp, etc. Not to mention that it has been a "meeting ground" for many other artists (I'm thinking about Picasso and Dali on top of my head).

I don't want to turn this in a France vs England debate, only I feel there is a lot of ignorance which leads to hasty conclusions. For example, when all I knew about literature was what I learned in school, I thought France had a so much greater contribution to literature than any other. Before I came to these forums, I'll admit, I always found English contributions relatively poor, except for a few names, but then, so many people are very much stuck with English language literature here (in general it is quite international, but you can tell that most people are English speaking), and I learned a lot about English literature and I realized that I thought that only because I didn't know enough.

I believe that if many among you would frequent, say a literature forum in French (or German, or Italian, or Spanish), and learn about it's richness, you would have a different opinion, as much of a culture's richness is not very visible from the exterior. I mean how many people have read Rabelais? I've made a search on the forums and beside the times where I mentioned it, the name of Rabelais has been mentioned barely a few times, and his works are not even on the website! But it is a towering figure of French literature! That's in great part why I'm trying to make the forum book-club read to be Rabelais.

I'll give an example: How many people have said that Russian haven't produced anything bad, but have produced less literature? The thing is, from Pushkin onward, there was probably as much literature as anywhere else and many bad writers in the lot: we just don't know about it because Russian culture is relatively remote, and most of it is not translated, or translated in smaller editions. Great Russian writers are relatively unknown in the West, that doesn't mean that they don't exist, that they are not geniuses and that in Russia they are not heroes.

I am not saying either that people are ignorant and I know so much more, it's only being a matter of being conscious of and admitting what we do not know.

[Eric Cioe]

If you were to include German philosophers, you might also say Schopenhauer, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, Marx, and last but certainly not least, Nietzsche. However, I wouldn't include philosopers in a debate about literature.

I might say those others, but I was making the list for myself. Schopenhauer is interesting and so are Nietzsche and Hegel, and I guess Schelling is fine insofar as he is related to Goethe, but Marx or Fichte do nothing for me. Kant was only mentioned ... well, come look at how much of my ink, blood, and tears of frustration are in my copy of the first Critique.

I don't pretend to be able to make any sort of objective list, because I don't believe that this question could be answered objectively. Lots of countries have put out fine books by fine authors. Reasonable people can disagree about the good books from any given country. The ones I listed were ones that particularly resonated with me. I can't speak for anyone else, which is why I only included people that have had a big influence on my life.

[JBI]

German philosophy (philosophy here referring to philosophers, not writers who have philosophical depth) is, I would argue, unquestionably superior to English, however, This argument is futile. To argue along the lines of influence, would mean two things. The only possible source for most influencial, is either Israel (or Canaan as it was then) or Greece (insert alternate birthplace of choice). By far the two strongest works, in terms of contribution, are the Book of J, and The Iliad/odyssey. Next to those, only Aristophanes, Aeschylus, and Montaigne stand as possible candidates.

The history of literature is no doubt built on the backs of giants, but none of them could really have worked with out the previous ones (or most of them at least). It is fair to say that Cervantes worked without the help of Shakespeare. However, it is not possible to say that Cervantes worked alone.

The only fair way to judge this (and I don't think this is really fair) is to compile a list of books written by that country worth mentioning (meaning with significant value, and significant status in terms of contribution and authenticity) and to see which list is longer.

The reason names like Shakespeare get shoved around so much, is because he is regarded as the best man of English letters. Next to him, I don't think anyone has had such a profound affect in earning such high critical acclaim (he is the most preformed playwrite, and most quoted man in English, which is the biggest western language). That being said however, he isn't all of literature, or all of English literature.

If we are making piles, I'm afraid America would probably win, due to its vast population. Though I wonder if I can consider Pound or Eliot to be American.

[Eric Cioe]

Though I wonder if I can consider Pound or Eliot to be American.

Eliot grew up in the Midwest and studied at Harvard. That sounds pretty American to me. Pound grew up in Idaho ... end of story.

[Erichtho]

This thread could be utterly laughable if it wasn't for the ignorance, arrogance and presumptuousness that pervades many posts here.

Already the title is highly misleading, because countries - as has been mentioned before - are not a deciding factor when it comes to categorising literature, but rather the language one writes in, since this is what sets our boundaries and possibilities in expressing ourselves literarily.

I'm afraid that France has been much more a "cultural superpower" of Europe in history, but mostly due, again to a greater exposure, same as English right now. French was the "universal" language of Europe for a long time, just like now English is the "universal" language. Paris was literally the cultural capital of Europe for a while.

Indeed, French used to be THE language of diplomacy for a long time, thus it was expected of every educated person to speak it and French literature was very popular all over Europe. I'm sure its influence was and is in Germany much greater than that of British literature, and also in Russian literature I constantly find references to French authors and works.

I don't want to turn this in a France vs England debate, only I feel there is a lot of ignorance which leads to hasty conclusions. For example, when all I knew about literature was what I learned in school, I thought France had a so much greater contribution to literature than any other. Before I came to these forums, I'll admit, I always found English contributions relatively poor, except for a few names, but then, so many people are very much stuck with English language literature here (in general it is quite international, but you can tell that most people are English speaking), and I learned a lot about English literature and I realized that I thought that only because I didn't know enough.

Seconded. I have made very similar experiences. Going from what I learnt in school, I could be thinking that German literature far tops that of any other nation. Only when I registered here I noticed that English literature isn't as poor as I thought.

Everybody here jugdes out of his very limited, often too narrowminded experience with literature, and especially if you are only able to read in one language you have hardly any chance to touch more than the surface of an other nation's literature.
I would like to know of those who have given a concrete answer how well-read they really are in anything but their national literature.

[Abraxas]

The thing is, from Pushkin onward, there was probably as much literature as anywhere else and many bad writers in the lot: we just don't know about it because Russian culture is relatively remote, and most of it is not translated, or translated in smaller editions.

This is interesting. I would have answered the topic by saying that I consider Russian and German literatures to be the greatest, but that's in fact, probably, because the authors of that language which I have read are only the greatest of their countries, since the others aren't translated (or the translations are difficult to find). So my opinion is necessarily warped...

Anyhow, I too am of the opinion that you can't say that one country produced better literature than others: our vision is too culturally-oriented, for one thing (I haven't seen many people extolling Japanese literature, even if you can find wonderful writers and poets there). And deciding on the "best" literature also boils down to the belief in a sort of "national genius", whereas there's been a lot of contamination between countries, as has already been pointed out. And it's difficult to decide which country had more influence, if you take only Britain and France: during the eighteenth century, I think that English authors were the inspiration for French ones (Diderot was cited here, but he was very much influenced by British thought). At the end of the nineteenth, it seems to have been rather the reverse (and Huysmans was the main inspiration behind Dorian Grey). And during the modernist period, lots of American and British authors came to live in France, so I suppose they both inspired and were inspired by French literature.
Even Shakespeare didn't create ex nihilo (rather the contrary, since he was more than heavily inspired by Classical authors, Petrarch, Montaigne, other humanist authors, and some of his British predecessors...). Although I suppose one could argue that it is what an author makes of his influences that counts...

If we are making piles, I'm afraid America would probably win, due to its vast population. Though I wonder if I can consider Pound or Eliot to be American.

I'm not sure America would win, since its literature is far more recent -how many great authors do you find there before the nineteenth century, after all? And no, Pound and Eliot are more European! like Henry James or Poe, for that matter...

But if you're looking at contemporary literature, it might "win"... although the Brits aren't half bad either. The French are rather rotten nowadays (maybe because there have been too many theorists?).

[Kafka's Crow]

I have always maintained that anglocentrism is an anathema. There is a huge big world outside the reach of the English language. Japan, China, the Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Africa, India.... If we know only one language, it does not entitle us to deny the existence of the other cultures and their achievement. I am shocked to hear that remark about the inferiority of the French novel! And the visual arts, don't even go there, I'd say. I am sure most of these posters believe that Hollywood is the hallmark of good cinema. I bet none of them know anything about the French cinema.

I wrote some remarks about Persian poetry in 'Poetry' section, I am sure they would shock many here, but rest assured there are more people in the world who know many of the Persian poets than even Wordsworth who enjoys a wast following among the speakers and students of English language and literature. I live in London and I know English people who never heard of Wordsworth and who think that Lord of the Rings is only a series of action movies. Ignorance knows no borders nor is it limited to nationalities. Art is the knowledge of human expression, not national expression. Every nation produces great artists and writers at one time or another in its history. Our task should be to go above these small distinctions and look for the best in every culture, understand it, love and pass it on to the future generations as art is the heritage of the whole humanity, not some nation, linguistic group or country.

[Kafka's Crow]

I agree. Pound and Eliot are American, not just by birth or nationality, but with regard to their work as well.

Eliot disowned America, America disowned Pound. 'Nuf said!

[stlukesguild]

Etienne... In no way would I underestimate the French literary contribution... or its contributions to culture in general. I don't think, however, that it is so easy (as Kafka's Crow seemed to have suggested) to prove that French literature is clearly superior to the British contribution. My opinion is not formed by any sentiment of nationalism as I am American and have no problem with admitting that French, British and any number of other nations far supersede the American contribution to the arts. I agree that France stood long as perhaps the leading cultural powerhouse of Europe... due to British isolationism and hostility toward France. This would seem to go against KC's assertion of a British linguistic advantage. Even Goethe's early works are influenced more by French models than English.

As for the various art forms... I certainly agree that Rabelais stands along side Cervantes as one of the greatest precursors of the novel. Certainly the French contributions to the development novel in the 19th rank along side of the British and Russians. Personally, I actually prefer Proust to Joyce but I would probably need to agree that he was THE towering figure of Modernism. In spite of Diderot, Les Liaisons dangereuses, and Rousseau's Julie, I don't think the French contribution to the early development of the novel can match that achieved by DeFoe, Sterne, Fielding, Richardson, Smollett, etc... In theater both nations have their strengths with Shakespeare throwing the whole thing. Poetry...? I would take the early British (Spencer, Donne, Herbert, Herrick, Melville, Sidney, Marvell, Marlowe, Daniel, Traherne, and Shakespeare) over the French (Ronsard, duBellay, and the rest of La Pléiade)... but then again I must admit that I am limited to what has been translated... and translated well... and this was not a period that is well represented in English translation. Romanticism in poetry I would give to Britain and Germany hands down (in spite of Victor Hugo) but certainly the situation is reversed with poetry of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Baudelaire is almost certainly the central poet there. Essay? Non-Fiction? Montaigne and Voltaire vs Boswell and Johnson and Burton... Diderot vs Gibbon... but this all grows tiring, does it not... and proves, if anything, that the decision is certainly not a clear hands-down choice of France over Britain... or vis-versa. Personally... I am glad to have both... and all the rest.

As for my comments on music and the visual arts... trust me, I have no illusions of British (or American for that matter) dominance in either field. My comment was directed at KC's comment about the "real game" being played in France. One often gets the feeling that many have failed to recognize that Paris is no longer the center of the art world. French hegemony of the visual arts probably does not begin until J.L. David... in spite of Poussin, Le Nain, Champaigne, etc... Before that time it was Italy and to a lesser degree, the Netherlands. France certainly dominates the visual arts from David until the Second World War. Now? New York and London and Germany... with a growing influx from Asia. Besides... French Modernism should be forever damned thanks to the contribution of Duchamp who is almost single-handedly responsible for the plethora of Conceptual crap that now infests the art scene. Music? I don't think that's even close: Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms, Schubert, Schumann, Wagner, Haydn, Gluck, Handel, Johann Strauss, Richard Strauss, Schoenberg... Between France and Britain? No comparison. What can the British muster to counter Ravel, DeBussy, Faure, Bizet, even Offenbach? Vaughan Williams? Of course they do have the better orchestras.

I believe that if many among you would frequent, say a literature forum in French (or German, or Italian, or Spanish), and learn about it's richness, you would have a different opinion, as much of a culture's richness is not very visible from the exterior. I mean how many people have read Rabelais? I've made a search on the forums and beside the times where I mentioned it, the name of Rabelais has been mentioned barely a few times, and his works are not even on the website! But it is a towering figure of French literature! That's in great part why I'm trying to make the forum book-club read to be Rabelais.

I agree completely. Clearly I read non-English language literature in translation out of the selfish desire to find as much worthy of reading as possible... but I also read it in order to open myself up to other cultures. I am adamantly against the notion of reading merely as a means of reinforcing my own culture or prejudices. It bothers me when the argument about the greatest Romantic poet ignored any contributions of Schiller, Novalis, Holderlin... even Goethe or Hugo. To make a sweeping statement about the centrality of early Modernist French or English poetry ignores the huge contributions made by American and Spanish writers... to say nothing of the Russians. And certainly... unlike music or painting... much of one nationalities literary contribution is "lost in translation"... or lost because there is no translation. We can always find Dante and Homer and Virgil... but there are almost no translations of the great Spanish poets and playwrites from the so-called "Golden-Age". I just recently came across a decent new translation of the Spanish poet Gongorra.

Cheers.

The only fair way to judge this (and I don't think this is really fair) is to compile a list of books written by that country worth mentioning (meaning with significant value, and significant status in terms of contribution and authenticity) and to see which list is longer.

No... I don't think that would work. It ignores the relative importance of each "significant artist". If we were to compare German and Spanish painting in the 20th century, for example, the "significant" German painters would probably well outnumber the Spanish... but then again... Picasso has probably had a greater influence than all of them combined. We'll have to come up with another plan.

I wonder if I can consider Pound or Eliot to be American.

If Poussin is still French, in spite of all his years in Rome, and Picasso is still Spanish in spite of having lived most of his adult life in France and Stravinsky is Russian despite his years in France and America, then Pound and Eliot are American.

If we are making piles, I'm afraid America would probably win, due to its vast population.

Actually... wouldn't it then go to China who has the upper hand in terms of both population and age of its culture?

[JBI]

If we are making piles, I'm afraid America would probably win, due to its vast population.

Actually... wouldn't it then go to China who has the upper hand in terms of both population and age of its culture?

No, because we are somewhat ethnocentric here on this board, and pretty much limited to only Western Literature. Quick name 20 Chinese authors worth mentioning. I reckon you will have a far easier time naming 20 American ones.

[Kafka's Crow]

No, because we are somewhat ethnocentric here on this board, and pretty much limited to only Western Literature. Quick name 20 Chinese authors worth mentioning. I reckon you will have a far easier time naming 20 American ones.

Exactly! You call it ethnocentric, I call it anglocentric. Same thing. How many read Faulkner, compare it with the number of people who read Anita Desai or Rabindranath Tagore or Arundhutti Roy or Gao Xingjian (a French, yes French, Nobel Prize winner who writes in Chinese!) We are talking about big countries here. India has the second largest publishing industry after the US. It caters entirely for the gigantic domestic market whereas a large chunk of American books are printed for export. What do these billions of people read?

[JBI]

Exactly! You call it ethnocentric, I call it anglocentric. Same thing. How many read Faulkner, compare it with the number of people who read Anita Desai or Rabindranath Tagore or Arundhutti Roy or Gao Xingjian (a French, yes French, Nobel Prize winner who writes in Chinese!) We are talking about big countries here. India has the second largest publishing industry after the US. It caters entirely for the gigantic domestic market whereas a large chunk of American books are printed for export. What do these billions of people read?

Still Chinese is one of the hardest languages to be able to read, and perhaps the hardest to write in (I can't even create legible Latin Characters). Unless you specifically go to school to study these languages, it is rather unlikely that you will come across the literature written in them.

I know that a new poetic translation of the Mahabharata is underway, but still, no one really has time to read a 12000 page epic. I think it is fair to say that the easiest languages to learn by a European are other European languages, simply because they have the same root. To even begin to conquer the other side of the Canon is to undertake a feet for a lifetime. I can't think of anyone who has conquered both to such a degree that they became an authority on both sides.

[Etienne]

but this all grows tiring, does it not... and proves, if anything, that the decision is certainly not a clear hands-down choice of France over Britain... or vis-versa. Personally... I am glad to have both... and all the rest.

Then we might agree I believe, my point is very much the futility of such judgments.

French Modernism should be forever damned thanks to the contribution of Duchamp who is almost single-handedly responsible for the plethora of Conceptual crap that now infests the art scene.

Duchamp is not so much responsible, as he did great works, and his "ready-made" was more meant as a joke, "take something and declare it a work of art". Some people just took it too seriously...

However that reminded me a funny quote of Dali about Picasso: "Picasso is responsible for the generalized ugliness of contemporary art." Haha, I do like Picasso in general however, just not his stupid pottery paintings... ugh..