+0
Picasso painted more than enough for them in unending variety. The range of his styles is staccato, full of interruptions, switchbacks, and even repetitions. "I don't develop," Picasso protested, "I am." His works reveal a restless self in fantastic discontinuity.

Could anyone explain for me "I don't develop," Picasso protested, "I am." grammatically and semantically?
+0
The life-span of an artist is typically dealt with by historians, critics, and biographers as a linear process of artistic, conceptual and stylistic development. Picasso is known, as the statement here indicates, for his multiple styles, which could run concurrently. True, there are the well-known blue periods, pink periods, primitive periods , cubist periods, etc. Picasso did not see any of these as developing from one to the next. He did not conclude one to embark on a new one. They emerged at will-early, late, early, middle, late, early-from the well of his essential nature. He saw himself as sheer force. 'I am that I am' is also one of the names of God, and Picasso, in the context of art, understood, and lived, the nature of pure creativity, a power that does not start in a limited way, then gets stronger, or better, as it matures, but a power that is always full no matter what the form of its manifestation.

I don't see a grammatical problem in his protest. The philosophical difference between 'I am' and 'I [don't] develop' is the classical 'Being versus Becoming'.
Comments  
If my memory serves me right, you're an artisit, right?

This is definitely your kind of work, davkett, and the explanation, nicely done!

Thank you!