WTF

[laika]

I agree and that's the exact sentiment I expressed earlier, so let me rephrase the question. What is it about Dali's work that you guys don't like?

I think it's a cheap, sensationalist, watered-down version of surrealism that leans too heavily on a seemingly virtuoistic style of painting and on superficial shock. The latter is more problematic to me. I don't believe that Dali ever wanted to mobilize shock the way that Breton did--I don't think there was a real political passion (however bourgeois) driving him. As a consequence, and in contrast to some of the other surrealists (Bellmer and Ernst, for example), his work appears banal and dated even when viewed in its proper temporal context. There is simply no urgency and I find that boring.

What do you (or did you) like about him?

[Fade to Black]

hm.. i had to do research a bit on the internet..but now it seems kinda clear at least that makes most sense to me especially in the historical context the word was created, that kitsch is derived from "verkitschen" which is jidish for foisting sth. upon so

two places I've never been that I find absolutely fascinating reading about and hearing from people who are from or been there - Germany and Switzerland. I really wonder what life woulda been like had I been born a German or grew up in Zurich.

[noerml]

two places I've never been that I find absolutely fascinating reading about and hearing from people who are from or been there - Germany and Switzerland. I really wonder what life woulda been like had I been born a German or grew up in Zurich.

ah... i bet u'd miss Hongkong. And this goes beyond the "grass is always greener on the other side"...
Germany, (especially Munich and Berlin) and Austria (vienna ) were a wonderful place to be around the "fin de ciecle" (sp? :P) now they are rather oppressive..they lost their freedom, their innovation and their flair. YOu see tourists hunting down the past, citizens pretending the past, and disoriented people who moved in.
don't get me wrong..there's probably more identity left in cities like Munich and Zurich, than otheres ever had.
Personally i wouldn't wanna move away, Munich is my perfect niche between the rural mountain village i grew up and the metropolis i can unfold.. yet...



oh and on the Dali subject... the late Walt Disney started a colaboration on some Anime with Dali, which never got finished. However someone finished the project recently (like 2002?)...forgot the name of the movie tho. Still it pretty much sums up what i despise about Dali, even tho Disney was a genius in his own way.

[Faust]

two places I've never been that I find absolutely fascinating reading about and hearing from people who are from or been there - Germany and Switzerland. I really wonder what life woulda been like had I been born a German or grew up in Zurich.

What's so fascinating about Switzerland (besides magnificent nature)? It's just a bunch of boring bankers.

[Faust]

I think it's a cheap, sensationalist, watered-down version of surrealism that leans too heavily on a seemingly virtuoistic style of painting and on superficial shock. The latter is more problematic to me. I don't believe that Dali ever wanted to mobilize shock the way that Breton did--I don't think there was a real political passion (however bourgeois) driving him. As a consequence, and in contrast to some of the other surrealists (Bellmer and Ernst, for example), his work appears banal and dated even when viewed in its proper temporal context. There is simply no urgency and I find that boring.

What do you (or did you) like about him?

I disagree that he had no technical virtuosity. This is just one example, but it surely looks difficult to me! Why is it "seemingly virtuosic"? And yea, I think his work is very surrealist and that's what appeals to me. I like Max Ernst too (Fireside Angel is my favorite painting), but I personally couldn't say that his work has more virtuosity than Dalis work (except maybe Europe after the Rain).

[Chinorlz]

I don't see much Bosch in Dali aside from a taste for the grotesque, however Chirico with his dream logic and reflection on temporality is a good example of an artist that shared some of his sensibilities.

that's exactly what I was going for... for certain Dali pieces as well, the "busy" nature of the painting with little things here and there. That's where I parallel the two.

I'm an art novice so I'll have to look into Chirico. Not enough hours in the day to be well versed enough on all the esoteric aspects of all facets of the arts hehehe

[laika]

I disagree that he had no technical virtuosity. This is just one example, but it surely looks difficult to me! Why is it "seemingly virtuosic"? And yea, I think his work is very surrealist and that's what appeals to me. I like Max Ernst too (Fireside Angel is my favorite painting), but I personally couldn't say that his work has more virtuosity than Dalis work (except maybe Europe after the Rain).

Well, I didn't say he has no technical skill, which is what you are implying there. If we call everyone with technical skill or talent a virtuoso, the word loses its meaning, no? Virtuosity entails not only technique buts its mastery; the ability to control technique (and talent) and to submit it to constraints. I guess that nuance is more easily perceptible in the context of music, but I think wire.artist illustrates it very well in his anecdote about Chillida and Matisse...

Also, the comparison with Ernst had nothing to with virtuosity.

[laika]

I'm an art novice so I'll have to look into Chirico. Not enough hours in the day to be well versed enough on all the esoteric aspects of all facets of the arts hehehe

de Chirico also has a really wacky, dreamy book that I love called Hebdomeros...it's a nice accompaniment to the paintings (which I also love).

[gerry]

What's so fascinating about Switzerland (besides magnificent nature)? It's just a bunch of boring bankers.

Switzerland's boringness is precisely what makes it so fascinating! I've never met such "old" and old fashioned young'uns in my life!
Plus having a Swiss passport means being able to travel much more freely.

[Faust]

Well, I didn't say he has no technical skill, which is what you are implying there. If we call everyone with technical skill or talent a virtuoso, the word loses its meaning, no? Virtuosity entails not only technique buts its mastery; the ability to control technique (and talent) and to submit it to constraints. I guess that nuance is more easily perceptible in the context of music, but I think wire.artist illustrates it very well in his anecdote about Chillida and Matisse...

Also, the comparison with Ernst had nothing to with virtuosity.

Yes, I do think he had virtuosity in that sense.

[Faust]

^ For starters, he was a lousy painter. (That being said, I don't believe that one needs to be a good painter to make good art, or even good paintings. But most of Dali's paintings were lousy.)

Glancing over the last page...Faust, I know you've already conceded that your personal definition of kitsch might differ from the norm, but I think for the purposes of discussion it's worth mentioning that traditionally, kitch is not defined as "high" culture degraded, but rather as "low" culture elevated.

I think this is wrong. Kitsch borrows everything from high culture, thus degrading it.

[Fade to Black]

Switzerland's boringness is precisely what makes it so fascinating! I've never met such "old" and old fashioned young'uns in my life!
Plus having a Swiss passport means being able to travel much more freely.

exactly

based on what i've read about that place, i'm fascinated by how a place can operate with such mechanical precision. Well I been to Japan, I guess that comes close...

[black horizons]

So, what is it about Dali that you guys don't like?

Hmmmm, well, I'd agree with Laika, his art is cheap. His technical ability aside, which only plays a part in the value of his work, he didn't really follow along with the artistic movement of surrealism or the IDEAS, the most important part.

He was very early on expelled from the surrealist movement, for supposed nazi sympathizing (see the titles of his paintings). He moved to Spain, and painted over-done examples of "surrealist" work, that were sold to art collectors. Does this make his work a bit hollow? I would think so.

That being said, I do like looking at his paintings. However, I find much more substance in the writing of Lautréamont and Breton.

[black horizons]

from wikipedia;

"André Breton accused Dalí of defending the "new" and "irrational" in the "the Hitler phenomenon," but the artist quickly rejected this claim, saying, "I am Hitlerian neither in fact nor intention."[30] However, when Francisco Franco came to power in the aftermath of the Spanish Civil War, Dalí's support of the new regime, among other things, eventually resulted in his purported expulsion from the Surrealist group.[23] At this, Dalí retorted, "I myself am surrealism."[18] André Breton coined the anagram "avida dollars" (for Salvador Dalí), which more or less translates to "eager for dollars,"[31] by which he referred to Dalí after the period of his expulsion. The surrealists henceforth spoke of Dalí in the past tense, as if he were dead. At this stage, his main patron was the very wealthy Edward James. The Surrealist movement and various members thereof (such as Ted Joans) would continue to issue extremely harsh polemics against Dalí until the time of his death and beyond."

[droogist]

I think this is wrong. Kitsch borrows everything from high culture, thus degrading it.

But borrowing has no effect on the value of the original cultural artifact. To use your example of Dali-printed napkins (assuming, of course, that we accept the napkins as a legitimate example of kitsch, and the original Dali as something of great value in high culture): no matter how many of them they print up, as long as the relationship between reproduction and original remains transparent, we can't rightly speak of a degradation of the original work. An ocean of crappy reproductions does nothing to lower its aesthetic value - it's still the same painting, after all - and, on the other hand, probably does quite a bit to increase its monetary value. The only real damage the work can be argued to have sustained is to its psychological value - the too-many-people-like-this-so-it-can't-be-good effect - which, though it clearly exists, is entirely subjective, not strictly rational, and not quantifiable by any objective means.

An art theory prof of mine had an anecdote that illustrates all this rather nicely: he used to worked at the MoMA, and at one point when the museum was strapped for cash, the directors decided to sell 3 works from the permanent collection. Their method for determining which 3 works was to send an intern down to the gift shop to ask for the 3 bestselling postcards.

I should have clarified in my original statement that I was referring to the art-theoretical definition of kitsch, by the way...