Shay wrote:

> Problem is, the presentation might have been "borrowed" in the first
> place. I didn't know about this guy until a week ago, so hopefully Jim
> will drop in here with a little history if I'm wrong, but it appears
> that the look which we associate with surrealism was stolen from:
> http://www.mcs.csuhayward.edu/~malek/Chirico.html .

The early 'metaphysical' works of de Chirico were championed by the 
early surrealist leaders ( I think it was Breton primarily ) as havin a 
quality that epitomized the very essence of surrealism.


> This is what I meant when I characterized Jim's image as "antagonistic."
> It is a picture of Miro, but appears to me to be very anti-Miro. Jim
> posted a link to one of his references, Miro's own protrait of himself.
> Here is a link to another of his sources (though perhaps not
> specifically this painting):
> 
> http://www.moma.org/momalearning/images/pop_ups/miro_small.jpg
> 

I realized as I was making the picture that elements of it were rather 
contradictory if it is taken as a strict *tribute* to Miro.  "Perverse" 
was the actual word that kept coming into my head.  Especially with the 
saccharin, perfumy colors and the easy drama of the realistic eyes.  I 
let the picture lead the way.  It was a gamble.  As your link 
illustrates, it was the space of the later Miro "constellation 
paintings" with a kind of silhouetted screen over an ambiguous soup of 
color, that had my interest.  I guess one point that I wanted to make 
was that this flat yet infinite soupy space was as common to surrealism 
as was the infinite horizon 'dreamscapes' of Dali and followers.

-Jim

Post a reply to this message