The source of the Dali double images is two fold. Occasional works by
di Chirico who is very interesting because some of his most radical
works make representational again the analytic cubist paintings of
Braque and Picasso. Braque almost did it himself. turning a
still-life into a self portrait more than once, or aportrait of some
one else. Picasso turned a painting of a famous occasion-the party
for le Douanier Rousseau-into a still life. The double image had a
modernist genealogy before Dali, who painted bad cubist paintings
along the way to his final style. The big source for Dali for quite a
while was di Chirico, who comes out of cubism. By the way something I
have not noticed the art historians aware of.
But the great source for Dali was an artist rediscovered by the
surrealists before he hit. the Italian Mannerist painter Arcimboldo.
Arcimboldo is interesting, although unlike another bizarre imagery
painter, Hieronymus Bosch, not a great painter in terms of his ability
to form. Arcimboldo had a huge unfluence on popular art and those
images continued through the 19th century. There was an American issue
of Spratt's series of figures of tradesman and others made up out of
the tools of their trade. The latest one came out in the later part of
the century. There also were Images Epinal, so it is even possible
Dali saw them there, too.
The point is well taken that Dali was derivative. But I am on record
in saying that the only work of his I think worthwhile are his first
two double image paintings, because since he could never get a space
or form right, they are examples where it isn't necessary. And they ae
otherwise interesting
Please note. I have not maligned one living being in this. Nor have I
mentioned the name of one. In all things, if you have something to
discuss, name calling is not a rhetorical or logical device. It only
points to spleen and lack of respect on the part of the name caller.
Is it easy to feel embattled in this world? Yes it is. But does that
mean that any one who disagrees with you in any particular ought to be
attacked personally? Does this strengthen an argument? Of course not
it shows that the name caller has only weak argument at his/her
command.
Now on Cezanne. I wrote an article on him which got published in the
old art news around the late 1960s. It also includes one of my old
landscapes. Among otherthings I connect him with Courbet. More
important he can be connected with several other great and
revolutionary figures in different times and places. Two of them are
Giotto and Huang Kung Wang.
One of the problems in all of this is that I do not believe in
progress although I believe in its possibility. Cave engraving and
painting is not worse than Greek or Roman painting. Renaissance
painting is not better than the paintings in the Villa of the
Mysteries, Baroque painting is not better than Titian,
Bellini,Giorgione, Raphael Etc.
So the academic standard used for Cezanne -he can't draw-could surely
be used for Giotto, Huang Kung Wang[and any other Chines painter of
Sung or Yuan you cae to mention-Han Kan, Wu Tao tze, Kuo Hsi Etc.
If many of our great ancestor's in various classical traditions could
draw or paint or at least as well as later artists, why those of us
now who can, must be the best of the best. Is there any one who truly
believes inthis? Or that this was true of the late nineteenth century
artist, say Hyppolite Flandrin? Has any one except their contemporary
flack throwers ever said this?
It is a good ideal for a young artist to want to be as good
as---someone out there in the past. But except through his/her work,
it is not reasonable to inflict this ideal on everyone else.
I prefer to think that we are living in kali yuga, the age of brass.
And that we do the best we can in these times. The behavior of some
of you would support my belief. If you check out the kinds of behavior
typical of kali yuga and of the ages which preceded it The Age of Gold
and the Age of Silver, you will instantly know why.
Sincerely,
Gabriel