I think that those who hold themselves up as exemplars of a movement need to demonstrate integrity with regard to their ethics and values. Otherwise, as an audience we experience at some level the incongruence of their art and their actions. Dalí’s fascism countered Breton’s position — but ironically, they overlap in the occult Breton turned to in 1937. Then, Dalí took refuge in the over-the-top Catholicism that informs his later imagery. We don’t know whether Dalí used fascism to capture attention, to differer from the Surrealists, or to separate from the struggling Spanish proletariat as a scion of the Franco regime. Whatever the motive, he is responsible for his choices. If these incurred the suffering of others, then historians should acknowledge so, rather than sweep it under the rug.

This incongruence is difficult for the viewer, because his qualities of imagination and consummate skill co-exist with greed and fascist tendencies. It is important to see both together in any artist. This does not mean we can condemn him as a artist because we don’t like his politics — but it does mean that we don’t have to like him as a human being, that we don’t have to support his character flaws, which damaged the lives of others. If we feel strongly, we don’t have to engage with his art. Many writing in the art world today seem to adhere to what humanists called, “the intentional fallacy”: literally meaning, “trust the tale and not the teller”. If we see only the tale, and not the teller, we wear historical blinkers.

We also need to separate biography from art. Unfortunately the art world exhibits an increasing tolerance for the ‘transgressive’ for its own sake. Are we so corrupted by the notion of art as a separate and inviolable realm that we are impressed only by status and renown? On the other hand, Dalí is so irreverent and outrageous, that we can’t help but be fascinated by him.

… those who hold themselves up as exemplars of a movement need to demonstrate integrity with regard to their ethics and values. Otherwise, as an audience we experience at some level the incongruence of their art and their actions.

The same exists with Ezra Pound’s poetry. Because he later espoused fascism and anti-Semitism, through radio broadcasts and personal statements, does that discredit the transcendent poetry he wrote in his earlier years? There are those who will not read him; yet his poetry is finely crafted; he is a superb translator of the Chinese poets, who obviously had nothing to do with his politics. We have to separate his poetry from his political affiliations — while recognizing that his character encompasses both.

Finally, I think it is a mistake for many artists to get so involved in politics. Many artists tend to present the issues in moralistic all or nothing terms. Maybe it’s better to write an article where your ideas can be examined in the arena in which they have currency, rather than using art to editorialize for politics. With art it’s best to stick with what you know.