Talk:The Disintegration of the Persistence of Memory
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
I just wanted to bring up this point before I delete this bit altogether: "To Dalí, this image was symbolic of the psychological effect that the advent of the atomic bomb had on humanity" is a grossly simplistic and largely innaccurate analysis of Dali's own perception of his work. The painting is instead (in a one-sentence summary) much more concerned with illustrating the power of the new concept of quantum mechanics. See [[1]] for an excellent source of more sohpisticaed analysis which could be used as a re-writing source.
- I'm not sure that's correct. From quotes I have read, Dali seemed to view the nuclear bomb incorrectly, as effecting a "disintegration" of matter, and in this context the blowing apart of the fabric of the painting's elements is appropriately understood. The wording of the sentence you mention is clumsy, but if the 'psychological effect' is taken to mean that on Dali himself rather than humanity at large, it makes some sense. I think it has more to do with the process (and consenquence) of explosion than just theory. MegdalePlace 18:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Boat? edit
I think I see a rectangular boat with a trianular flag in the bottom right hand corner of the painting. Does it have any significance? --Ye Olde Luke 02:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC) Salvador Dali rocks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.12.108 (talk) 02:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Cite error edit
This article has had a "Cite error" for years; I have made a "best guess" attempt to resolve it. Apparently the Tush and King refs correspond to specific sections in the exhibition catalog that were written by these two authors; the third ref appears to refer to the catalog as a whole. If anyone has access to this catalog and can confirm or deny this guesswork, please go ahead and make any changes that might be needed. If Wikipedia ever gets a cite template for "chapter in a multi-author book" or something similar, these refs could be further refined. Piperh (talk) 09:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)