Since I’m so late to the table here, I’ll try to be brief : When someone says Braque’s work in the 20s was “arguably” his greatest work, odds are they’re more interested in disparging Braque’s accomplishment in the High Cubist years up to 1914 rather than praising the later painting. I’ve never understood why so many Picasso scholars seem to think Cubist crticism is a zero-sum game. Apparently they think every laurel they strip away from Braque accrues to their guy. I have no problem admitting Picasso’s cubist work was broader, more daring, and “better” than his partner’s. But since I’m appreciating art, not rooting for my favorite football team, that doesn’t stop me from admiring Braque’s work.

Two thoughts, one on the show and the other on Braque:

Unfortunately, the 1920s are underrepresented at Aquavella. This was arguably Braque’s greatest decade as an artist, when he combined his cubist innovations in facture with a ripe, organic style of flattened drawing, making wonderful still lifes in the tradition of Chardin. This epoch of his work, well represented in the Phillips Collection, had a broad influence on American art 1925-1945, although not mostly
on artists we still look at.

Braque’s reputation is diminished, not just by the greater flamboyance of Picasso, but also by the fact that Braque’s genius for coloring, materials, and even overall composition was offset by his merely serviceable draftsmanship. His best pictures are those with the simplest, least ambitious drawing, leaving color and facture to work their magic without distraction.