Great read. Really curious to hear your interpretation of the man Dali added in the background.
I’m not good at interpreting these things but maybe he put the man in between the city and the monster as a way to remind people to protect their city from the monster. The relative size of the monster compared to the man might also be his way to compare the relative damage that war can bring to each individual.
I don't know, it's just a thing that Dali does sometimes; there are more little people in the back of "Transformation of Narcissus" and what looks like a little city in "Archeological Reminiscence of the Angelus." From what I know of Dali, he just did it for fun.
Enjoyed this, William. Interesting how the cubist and surrealist portrayals of war pack more of a gut-punch (at least for me) than more traditional, classical depictions. Even the Goya, while more traditional, is powerful because of the exaggerated, almost mask-like expression he gave the central figure.
What do you think of this theory—that paintings used to glorify war, but sometime in the early twentieth century they stopped doing so? I can't recall any painting of the last hundred years portraying war in a positive light.
Great read. Really curious to hear your interpretation of the man Dali added in the background.
I’m not good at interpreting these things but maybe he put the man in between the city and the monster as a way to remind people to protect their city from the monster. The relative size of the monster compared to the man might also be his way to compare the relative damage that war can bring to each individual.
Or maybe I’m completely off 🤣
I don't know, it's just a thing that Dali does sometimes; there are more little people in the back of "Transformation of Narcissus" and what looks like a little city in "Archeological Reminiscence of the Angelus." From what I know of Dali, he just did it for fun.
Interesting. Well I’m glad I demonstrated my overthinking skills!
Par for the course in art criticism!
Enjoyed this, William. Interesting how the cubist and surrealist portrayals of war pack more of a gut-punch (at least for me) than more traditional, classical depictions. Even the Goya, while more traditional, is powerful because of the exaggerated, almost mask-like expression he gave the central figure.
What do you think of this theory—that paintings used to glorify war, but sometime in the early twentieth century they stopped doing so? I can't recall any painting of the last hundred years portraying war in a positive light.
Absolutely. WWI was a horror show.