Ballard on Dali

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
The sage of Shepperton summarises Dali's achievement:
http://arts.guardian.co.uk/art/visualart/story/0,,2088399,00.html

Is his assessment on the money or just bollocks?

I was recently wandering around the art galleries of Madrid and what struck me the most was just how good Dali was. I can live without the lobster telephone and can also live without some of his clocks and sticks but I found that most of the paintings that really stood out for me turned out to be his.

It is a shame that he is looked down on by the art elite but for my money, he was class.

I also took a chance to see some of his film work and I'd agree that it was well ahead of it's time though I couldn't help thinking that his motivation in film was a bit stuck up and pretentious.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

What isn't new? Sorry, but I don't see what exactly you are talking about. Dadaists were essentially an elitist movement against another type of elite.

The Dadaists are more precursors of contemporary art than surrealism, in my opinion.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Ballard is holding him up for his exhibitionism and that he pushed the envelope of shock art towards the general public. That, I think, are undeniable. Dadaism failed or didn't really want to achieve this, so I don't think what he says is necessarily wrong (although you might not agree).

As for your question, I'd say mostly against the cultural elite of the time and the standards of art at that time. I'm no expert on Dadaism but I always felt they were trying to create something through opposition and not particularly through innovation (although both opposition and innovation are intertwined, simply the source is different).