Ask a Question
or
Create a Poll
  1. Home /
  2. Questions /
  3. Arts
  4. / Art
  5. / Artists
  6. / Salvador Dali

by Alonzo Garbonzo on May 20th, 2005

Alonzo Garbonzo

Question

Help answer this question below.

Was Salvador Dali a real artist or just a flamboyant self-promoter? How would one know the difference?

  • Like
  • Report
Share:
Other

Answers. 6 helpful answers below.

  • by RedJohn on October 2nd, 2005

    RedJohn

    Art is just the name of some cat I once knew.

    Any discussion about art and artists involves people arguing back and forth, sometimes for decades, about whether 'X' is an artist, an 'artist', a genious, or a hack. Such arguments have no solution in most cases. Some people claim that art is in the eye of the beholder. Some think everything anyone does is art, but the dictionary would disagree. Some hold out for those who are formally trained and approved by 22 of the world's 23 most important art critics.

    If Dali hits your 'art button', feel free to think of him as an artist. He was highly creative and most certainly a flamboyant self-promoter, but he is in good company there. He was more flamboyant than most and this rubs some people the wrong way. Artists are supposed to be dedicated to a noble craft, starve in a garret, and be discovered as creative geniouses after they die in poverty. (After which the art dealers can make the profits they refused the artist in life.) Dali was anything but. His imagery is often disturbing and this produces a negative reaction in some. Art is supposed to be beautiful and uplifting, after all.

    In short, Dali was a 'real' artist AND he was a flamboyant self-promoter. The latter does not negate the former.

    • Like
    • Report

    1 comment | Post one | Permalink

  • by tripwire on November 17th, 2006

    tripwire

    He was both! He had a gift which compelled him to produce some extremely bizarre imagery, and to produce it in a range of technical skill levels if you will. His behavior flew in the face of common, conservative ideas about what an artist should or shouldn't be doing, and so because of this, you could say he pushed the envelope of what defines art for us today. He was merely another agent of the constant evolution of that elusive term, "ART" and what it's perceived to be throughout history. It seems that whenever society gets too smug and complacent with its perceptions, someone comes along and totally shatters them to keep the concept alive and growing. The day we conclusively define what art and artists are, is the day they both die!
    Of course, that day will never come.

    • Like
    • Report

    1 comment | Post one | Permalink

  • by scymitar72 on May 24th, 2005

    scymitar72

    Look at his art. BTW - we are all artists in some way. Art is anything that anybody creates, everybody got they own art, man.

    And, producing "real art" does not preclude one from promoting oneself in a way some may deem distasteful. Sometimes there is no difference; Crazy genius painter = flamboyent charisma.

    Also, consider that a lot of artists don't have much say in how they are marketed - that's usually in the hands of an agent - talent agents have had a long history here in the US! In fact, it was Dali who created the dream sequence in Alfred Hitchcock's Spellbound (1945). So, ya - there were many hands with a stake in that pot.

    We could suppose all day long - and never really know unless we could meet him face to face and chat it up a bit. That won't happen anytime soon, so I'm gonna set this one on the back burner for now.

    • Like
    • Report

    2 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by aiar on October 16th, 2011

    aiar

    Yup, and he was a bit flamboyant! so?

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by DA BEN DAN yanggui zi on October 16th, 2011

    DA BEN DAN yanggui zi

    As far as I am concerned he was an artist. To me art is something that entertains me or something that I like.

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by Garrett_B5610 on October 16th, 2011

    Garrett_B5610

    He was a great artist for his time, and he admits he is far inferior to the greatest artists of the past. I have a copy of his book "50 Secrets of Magic Craftsmanship" that taught me as much as four years of college about painting techniques. I found this book at a library and copied passages from it years before I found my own copy of it. He rates some artists in it. Jan Vermeer van Delft of the Baroque period has the highest score, and many art historians agree, as I do. Just behind him are Diego Velasquez and Raphael. Dali's total score is about half as much as these masters, Pablo Picasso is much lower, and Piet Mondriaan is near zero in ability, according to Dali- and me. He was a self-promoter who had to adapt to a chaotic period in Art History when con artists are more common than fine masters of painting. He had great skill, and we who study Art History can appreciate him. Like any other field, art is esoteric, so the uninitiated are fooled by the con artists who actually produce nothing but eccentic trash. Paul Harvey reported that Picasso once admitted to an interviewer that he was only a, "...mountebank selling trash to fools". One must study long and hard to learn any subject, so don't expect the layman to know the difference between Picasso's admitted "trash" and genuine Art by Vermeer.

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

Want to attach an image to your answer? Click here.

Did this answer your question? If not, then ask a new question or create a poll.

More Questions. Additional questions in this category.

You're reading Was Salvador Dali a real artist or just a flamboyant self-promoter? How would one know the difference?

Follow us on Facebook!

Related Ads

Related Questions

Professionally Researched

ANSWERBAG BUZZ

Charismatic beautiful people salvador dali
Was salvador dali a good person
Flamboyant artists
Salvador dali s favorite hobbies other than art
Dali salvador promoter

Answerbag

a Demand Media company