
I recently read that Salvador Dali hated cinema as a medium, but used it because he could reach a public that would never set foot in a gallery to see his paintings. Especially in this age, less than a century after Dali started his cinematic endeavours, cinema has become the medium in which to reach the large public. It has also become the artform with the biggest salary, so to speak. This brings up a question that has started to become more and more important since Warhol invented "Popular art". Can art created to please masses still be art? Progressive artists should never be asked to compromise their often unpopular views in order to be able to produce their work. Of course they have been for centuries, but the compromises of today are getting harsher, it feels. Sometimes I feel that the only way to justify the things I make (and the things you see in my gallery) by saying that I like doing them. That they are for nobody but myself and that I do not aim to make a living by it. Which is quite far from the truth.
On the other side of the spectrum are the people who make things aimed at pleasing as many people as possible. It is not their goal to create something new, but quite the opposite: they know the public wants something to identify itself with, something nice and familiar. These people can be creative in the literal meaning of the word, but they lack the artistic mindset to make something more than beautiful or even truly original. My problem with all this is that its these people who seem to reap the most recognition and have the largest share in the attention of the public.
I think there are two ways to go at this, two different compromises. If we compromise our products and make what the public wants to see, our art will no longer be our own. Or we can compromise the uniqueness and availability of our work. Think about Keith Herring, for example, whose work has been reduced to assembly line products. Or indeed Dali. Whose work, despite his huge popularity and the reproductions on posters, t-shirts, clocks etc has lost none of its strength.
Dalí & Film - A Groundbreaking Show At Tate Modern
Did Dali really love cinema? (Dutch)





Create your own visitor map!
























Devious Comments
--
The world needs people who really care about something and work hard at it. -Alphonse Elric
By the way: a lot of classic artists who did portraits etc for commissions had an even better scheme. They'd put little details in their work to show their own opinion of the commissioner... Something in the background, something subtle. I'm not entirely sure of any examples I could name, but if you step into your local museum with such paintings you'll see what I mean.
Thanks for your elaborate reaction
--
Supporting and informing deviants near you
--
Sine Somnis, Sumus Nemo.
--
The world needs people who really care about something and work hard at it. -Alphonse Elric
--
The world needs people who really care about something and work hard at it. -Alphonse Elric
I mean, I agree, and it is hard to go above and beyond what it known and comfortable, but when is something original? and then another question should also be asked: what is art and what are the different kinds of art. there is freelance, artists that just make what they make and people can decide to buy it but is their own thing. Their is art in categories, furniture, graffiti even make up.. to name a few random things. They are not all as easily used for expression yet they all seem to be unique, and doesnlt all art in a way communicate with the public? I mean, if it doesnlt I guess it become ignored and left to be unknown. no commun ication, no attraction or repulsion.
WOW.. sorry, rant!
--
Morality, like art, means drawing a line someplace.
-Oscar Wilde
Previous PageNext Page