Goodness, Ann, don't be horrified and ashamed! This is supposed to be fun. It's not worth tears! - unless, of course, a person is deeply moved to tears by my artistic genius and profound meaning, then tears are OK.
This is supposed to expand horizons. For example, now I need to do some research and find out who Dora is (the model in the painting, I assume) and who Père Ubu and Jarry are. It is I who should be ashamed.
You said "...the Picasso only"shows" you whatever it is you see when you look at it. That sounds trite..."
No! It doesn't sound trite at all. That is the entire basis for all "conceptual art", the idea that the art occurs in the viewer's mind and is partly comprised of thoughts and meanings the viewer has in place already. It's the idea that the physical piece of art is simply a catalyst and not the final piece. In that way, a piece of art is different every time it's viewed. I'm not saying Picasso was a conceptual artist. I think some purely conceptual art can get ridiculous. The benefit of the movement is the awareness that all art has a conceptual element - poetry too, I suspect.
In Night and Day we have a tree and a city street. Each viewer brings their own feelings into play. Maybe someone fell from a tree as a child and broke their leg. The sideways orientation of the tree might give them a disturbing feeling while someone who carves handmade canoes might feel an entirely different way.
Someone who drives one of those tourist carriages in a city would react differently to the night scene than someone who is an avid environmentalist and works in urban planning, right? As an artist, I have very little control over what happens after it leaves my hand.
In the Picasso, you were tapping into how it was made, the action of it being painted. Quilting popped into your head. That's very cool. That is a perfectly valid response. I love your poem.
One thing that went through my head was the handkerchief being up to her face and her mouth still being visible. In reality, you wouldn't be able to see both at once, so I was noticing the woman's action. I thought about her wiping her face repeatedly. I thought about how the hankie is so sharp and pointed right at her eyes. (Which also wouldn't be reality - it would be soggy) That's valid too. Both the artist and the model were in motion. We both saw the violence but in different ways.
Just being aware of this conceptual aspect of art makes me feel it was the right decision to turn the tree in Night and Day, to prevent any Christmas tree garland implications.
In these two masterpieces of art, "The Weeping Woman" and "Night & Day"
I would say "rhyme" occurs...
Between the woman's eyebrows & eyelashes and the stitching on her jacket
Between the edging on her handkerchief and the quilting on her jacket
Between all the triangles and especially the leaves on her hat and the far left wallpaper
Between the handkerchief and the eyelid area
Between her green fingers and her ear - also a tear and her earring
Between the light strings and the branches, especially the shadows of branches on branches
Between the small streetlights and the areas between the smallest branches
I'm looking forward to working on that D&A challenge with you.