![]() ![]() |
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
67.171.231.175
In Reply to: RE: Un chien andalou available on Netflix posted by Victor Khomenko on June 08, 2010 at 05:31:24
fsd
Follow Ups:
.
![]()
fsd
If you want to claim de Chirico was good because he was a surrealist - go ahead, for he was an artist first and foremost. OTOH, Dali was a total fraud regardless of the school.
![]()
many paintings including the Last Supper, Columbus discovering America, the Ear/Madonna one, the droopy clock, and many others.
He did have an amazing amount of dreck, sure, but what artist doesn't cash in when he has such amazing success? Not all Picasso efforts were astounding, nor those of Matisse.
Of course Magritte and de Chirico were surrealists! How many schools have more than a handful of great artists, anyway? How many great cubists? Impressionists? Abstract? Pop? Minimalists?
.
![]()
Now, you may not appreciate Dali, but his place in 20th century art is firm.
...purely commercial sense. It is not likely that the museums will throw out into garbage his pathetic stupid opuses, where they belong.If they did, what would the teens go "Wow!" over? Rembrandt, maybe? Romney? Yeah, right... but give them that mundane drooping clock and you have bought their heart... for months! :)
Edits: 06/09/10
historical importance (Dali influenced more than one revolutionary filmmaker, i.e. Ray; Bunuel; Artaud; Cocteau) and the absolute quality of their artistry; in Dali's case, superb draftsmanship. He also was instrumental in bringing Freud onto the palette and giving the subconscious a role in painting. No Dali, quite simply, no Arshile Gorky.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: