Was that mostly about the art he produced? Or was he just a shitty human being?
Not like you
9 Likes
Granted, much of the interest in Dali was based on his over-the-top personality, but on subjects of art… well… that’s like arguing over who’s favorite color is better than some other one.
5 Likes
I’ll do it.
Pablo Picasso was an asshole.
11 Likes
i think you either misunderstand or underestimate magritte. that belgian had a remarkable analytical process which he used to work through the “problems” he took on in his work. there is an enduring beauty running through most of his work. while dali made his fortune with technical skill, commercial flair, and the ability to suck up to el caudillo, magritte made his mark through intellectual curiosity and an appreciation for the absurd.
9 Likes
I’d also never heard of that guy- really interesting!
You missed a pretty old pop culture reference there.
6 Likes
Sure! But he was also a legit asshole!
7 Likes
Uh… should one believe Dali’s autobiography? In my opinion, one of his major talents was bullshitting.
22 Likes
They disagreed about aspects of photography.
1 Like
Not actually. That’s one of those “hey did you know” pop history things that doesn’t bear out with a cursory look at the subject. Like “hey man Tolkien loved weed”.
The impression is largely created by edits made to his personal papers by his estate. To specifically create the impression of a man who only spent his time with children. Removing or hiding records of his social life, beliefs, and general behavior that were considered improper at the time. Or for a children’s author and “friend of children” as he was apparently described. Along with the loss of the vast bulk of his photo portfolio and a public falling out with the Liddels over a supposed marriage proposal (Usually thought to be towards their Adult governess, maybe towards one of the older girls who was in her 20’s at the time). In hind sight the edits make him look like a pedo. But at the time letting the world know he like to drink at parties, sing dirty songs while he played the piano. And carried on multiple relationships with age appropriate women. Would have been worse.
Like wise with Dali. I wonder how many of these claims are actually confirmable. Dali was a known bullshitter. And writing an book about how much of a dangerous monster he was, only to be lauded for it. Would certainly fit with his whole shtick.
15 Likes
Orwell calling him a disgusting human being isn’t even the interesting part of that article. The acts mentioned are most certainly disgusting. But then he went on to say this -
But against this has to be set the fact that Dali is a draughtsman of very exceptional gifts. He is also, to judge by the minuteness and the sureness of his drawings, a very hard worker. He is an exhibitionist and a careerist, but he is not a fraud. He has fifty times more talent than most of the people who would denounce his morals and jeer at his paintings. And these two sets of facts, taken together, raise a question which for lack of any basis of agreement seldom gets a real discussion.
Orwell is unwilling to dismiss the value of Dali’s art, and distances himself from those who would do so on moralistic grounds. “Such people,” he writes, are “unable to admit that what is morally degraded can be aesthetically right,” a “dangerous” position adopted not only by conservatives and religious zealots but by fascists and authoritarians who burn books and lead campaigns against “degenerate” art. “Their impulse is not only to crush every new talent as it appears, but to castrate the past as well.”
28 Likes
I’ve seen 10, or maybe 8. I don’t go out of my way, for obvious reasons.
Did you know that he signed prints with both hands, for reasons of expedition.
1 Like
Never the less, his work was fashion.
Alright, fine.
But there are people who know about art and write about it.
It is not only in the eye of the beholder.
Needless art snobbery?
Check.
11 Likes
and whats wrong with fashion?
He would be very happy about the fact that we are arguing about him. The guy liked to shock people, and for people to be scandalized and to talk about him.
6 Likes
As someone else reasonably asked: why should anyone assume everything in Dali’s “autobiography” is factually true? By all accounts, especially as a young boy and man, Dali was very quiet and shy. I don’t try to claim Dali was an admirable fellow, but he possessed superior intelligence and an inventive mind…as his paintings show. His exhibitionism served as a mask to cover his innate timidity, and claiming terrible things about himself simply added to the image of the “sacred monster” he was intent to create for himself. Orwell showed great naivete in taking Dali’s stories about himself at face value. (For what it’s worth, British science fiction writer love Surrealism and he thought Dali’s auto-biography was a work of genius. He probably recognized the tremendous amount of pure surrealistic invention in Dali’s self-presentation.
9 Likes
