| .....Some have already abandoned Impressionism and Neo-Impressionism, because they have seen that these tendencies encompass all the difficulties of the art of painting. Others more unconscious do not see the pitfall and play the process excessively; they want to exaggerate the incoherent symbolism with the rudiments of the two aforementioned tendencies. This brings us the Tribute to Gauguin.
In a fictitiously archaic landscape, of a deliberate naivety, with chaotic lines, with the abracadabrant polychromy: the Last Supper; The Master, Gauguin, presides, flanked by two Tahitians and surrounded by disciples; accessory characters, whose gestures or attitudes are inopportune, embellish the foreground of this composition. This master, these vahines, these disciples, and those inexplicable beings, seem to bear all the weight of a whole atavism of madness, alcoholism, and neurasthenia; life is a burden to them, and the art of M. Girieud prolongs their torment. Let us not dwell on the description of this bad pastiche of the primitive seasoned with modern aberration.
Since there is symbolism here, the apparent symbol for me: there must be a Judas in the story. A peephole in the flesh and bone; Is it the one that makes the homage interested or the friend of Gauguin tolerates the macabre farce? |