brzezinski wrote:
> IN some Dali biography I once read Gala's Russian name. Dali always said he named her, so at the time they met and when she was married to Paul Eluard she must have been going by her Russian name. They had been in Switzerland, Gala and Paul, both of them recuperated in a hospital there from something they both suffered from, and i don't think
Gala met Dali before the famous encounter at Cadaques, where Gala and
Dali formed a bond and Paul left by himself. So what was her name
before? At this first meeting? Anyone know?
I don't know that, but it is curious how people used to meet. One of the
great mysteries as to how that all has changed, and how they can no
longer meet as they once did. That in itself is very surreal. As to
naming, and creating, we must remember that in many ways Dali created
Gala, for the public, as a fiction of Gala, that he loved to present to
them, while she kept from declaring herself publicly. It was, without
doubt, great fun for him, and perhaps for them both.
I am convinced that the surrealists meeting as they all did, then, could
never happen today, because people who share such interests tend to be
redirected and reorganized, by the social engineers who make
marrionettes of everything. Don't you think ?
If surrealism was the surrealists, then today there could be no
surrealism. It could never eveolve and happen. At least not as it did.
On the serious side of that, apart from my naughtiness in saying it as I
have said it, what would that mean for the development and growth of new
art movements ?
Do the social engineers who are rebuilding western society really intend
for artists to become strictly solipsistic and isolated, working as
solitaries as a kind of punishment ?
R.M.
|
|