Autograph manuscript signed – M. DORIVAL NOUS LA BAILLE BELLE!
Breton vehemently criticizes the Cubist exhibition at the Museum of Modern Art. This text appeared in the magazine Medium, Surrealist Information , in February 1953.
"It should come as no surprise that we consider the way the 'Cubism' exhibition is presented at the Museum of Modern Art to be scandalous."
Sold
André Breton (1896.1966).
Autograph manuscript signed – M. DORIVAL NOUS LA BAILLE BELLE!
A large quarto page on the back of a sealed star
Undated (February 1953)
"It should come as no surprise that we consider the way the 'Cubism' exhibition is presented at the Museum of Modern Art to be scandalous."
Breton vehemently criticizes the Cubist exhibition at the Museum of Modern Art. This text appeared in the magazine Medium, Surrealist Information , in February 1953.
“ We Surrealists have never considered the theoretical speculations that gave birth to Cubism to be of more than documentary interest . We are careful not to forget that with Cubism, the artist's attention remained entirely focused on the external : he did not escape perception in any way, and on the contrary, he immersed himself in it. If, for the viewer, a certain hermeticism resulted from the new mode of representation (hence, initially, our attraction to the mystery), the taste that the younger generation after ours may have had for it has steadily declined, transforming today into complete detachment.”
To the path of subjecting the artist to the external object – of the resulting obnubilation – a path which, by shattering all apparent aspects of this object, leads to cubism, we know that we oppose, deeming it ROYAL, the one which, starting from Uccello, Bosch, Grünewald, without leaving aside Vinci, Durer, and Baldung, passes in the 18th century through Fussli, Goya, Blake to, in the 19th century, extend to Gustave Moreau, Henri Rousseau, Redon, Filiger, Gauguin, Seurat, Munch, Kubin and culminate in the 20th century through Chirico and Duchamp.
That said, Cubism, in fact embodied by two powerful personalities, Picasso and Braque—and championed by Apollinaire—contained the potential for a (lyrical) transcendence of its initial intentions. This transcendence occurred very early on in the work of the three Duchamp brothers—Villon, Picabia, Mondrian, and even Delaunay.
Under these circumstances, it is no surprise that we consider the presentation of the "Cubism" exhibition at the Museum of Modern Art scandalous . Considering the prominence given (Picasso and Braque aside) to genuine artists like Gris, Laurens, Metzinger, and Marcoussis, this exhibition, by the unjustifiable importance it bestows upon others (Gleizes: 15 ratatouille vases, Lhote: 12 lard-like pieces), defies all rigor and demonstrates a complete lack of any sense of quality. What could be more aggressively stupid and ugly than Léger's "The Seamstress" (no. 44) or the pair of buttocks entitled "Portrait of Florent Schmidt" by Gleizes (no. 172)? What could be more worthless and repulsive than the so-called "Portrait of J. and I. Rivière" by Lhote (no. 49)? Suffice it to say that Marcel Duchamp (represented by a grand total of two canvases) is shamefully relegated to a corridor above the fire hydrant —a completely unintentional joke—while one of the poorest imitators of Cubism, the decorator La Fresnay (with ten works on display), receives special attention (a highly polished drawing, in the most reactionary of spirits, seemed to warrant a display case). This tells us quite a bit about the preferences of the organizers, preferences that some critics have had the audacity to praise and which run counter to any acceptable hierarchy, already established outside this country. André Breton.
Bibliography: André Breton (Edited by Marguerite Bonnet with the collaboration of Philippe Bernier, Marie-Claire Dumas, Étienne-Alain Hubert and José Pierre), “'Medium, Surrealist Information' (notes)”, Alentours II, Complete Works , Volume III, Bibliothèque de la Pléiade, Paris, Gallimard, 1999, pp. 1085-1087, entry pp. 1461-1462