On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 19:30:30 +0100 "James Heartfield"
<Heartfield at blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
> Yes, it is daft to take issue with Dali's political statements, which
> were surrealist provocations, not really political statements at
> all. Like Sid Vicious wearing a Swastika, or Big Tom of Finland
> drawing hunky Nazis.
It seems to me that in the beginning that was true. It is pretty clear that Dali's shift to the right during the Spanish Civil War was motivated largely by opportunistic reasons. He wanted to be on the winning side. However, it seems to me that over the years that his support for Franco solidified. He remained a strong supporter of Franco's regime right up to the end of that dictator's life. He made many public statements in support of that regime's repressive policies including the executions of "terrorists". Indeed, to the extent that ventured any criticisms, it was that the regime wasn't executing enough "terrorists."
True enough his political statements continued to take on the character of surrealist provocations, but to the extent that he was sincere about anything, he was a fascist.
For an unforgiving account of Dali's politics, see Vicente Navarro's piece:
http://www.counterpunch.org/navarro12062003.html
>
> I think there is some evidence that in later life he was a bit
> uncomfortabele about what might have been a homosexual relationship
> with Lorca.
>
> There is also the case of Bataille of The Accursed Share, who also
> flirted with Fascist imagery - much pilloried for that, but probably
> just trying to add a frisson of danger to his secret blood-drinking
> cult.
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
____________________________________________________________ Free information on buying a New Vehicle. Click Here. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTLa8uROngnwR6okUpkrSvZCvjlwGD7wR4BXxcvlMGtsKkKCNXH4Mg/