The significance of Picasso attempting to paint a painting without any trace of Picasso in it should give rise to thought. Could he do it? Was it possible for him to be so disengaged from the work that its meaning and interpretation would be entirely up to the viewer? Picasso, intriguingly, may have set out to accomplish this, but I would wager he failed. What he was attempting – a total distinction of the subject from the object – is a deceptive goal. Neutrality is not a plausible option for us, since intentionality is an unrelenting dimension of who we are. After all, being erased, unnoticed, excluded from participation in creativity would not be human. We are present, involved, and continually leaving traces of ourselves in time. This dynamic truth amounts to the gift of a perspective of the world and humanity that shows us the subject and the object are commissioned to interact with each other. Meaning and interpretation, therefore, cannot ever be reduced to the viewer, as the creator - painter always plays a role in what’s created - painted.
