In Dal ı’s lengthy and colourful autobiographical work, The Secret Life of Salvador Dal ı (1942), the artist recollects how the late 1930s marked his reorientation toward a new twentieth-century Renaissance-inspired art with sublimation at its foundation. When visiting Freud’s house in London in 1938, he had appeared to convince himself of the inextricability of sublimation and classical art, asserting that ‘the sexual instinct must be sublimated in aesthetics’. He concluded that the more cohesive and harmonious aesthetic sensibility that classicism represented could resuscitate a Europe eroded by war and cultural nihilism. Through the example of his own visual craftsmanship, Dal ı believed he would become the new movement’s foremost practitioner and leading exponent. Thus began what has come to be known as Dal ı’s ‘sublimatory’ turn, a phase that has often been considered a definitive break from the ideas and practices he pursued with the surrealists. His reorientation to the ‘classical’ has been taken as evidence of a nefariously conservative nature that coloured his artistic tastes as it did his socio-political views. It is this view, in particular, which I wish to take issue with, for I believe that to take Dal ı’s classical ambitions at face value risks ascribing a unilinear intentionality to his later works and eliding their many contradictions. In my view, his hallmark and very ingenuity lay in his inconsistency, sense of play and ability to create montages out of disparate, if not oppositional, styles and credos in both textual and visual media. My reading is to some extent foreshadowed by a number of postmodern interpretations of the artist (such as those by Vilaseca and LaFountain) that have rejected essentialising accounts of his work and persona and have focused on his inauthenticity. While the later works of Dal ı (after 1940) no longer heeded the edicts of surrealism’s chief theorist, Andr e Breton (who situated the movement beyond all aesthetic concerns and rejected classicism), they did continue to betray a preoccupation with paradox and contradiction which had begun in his earlier surrealist phase. Indeed, this preoccupation was only to be taken to further

中文翻译：

---

在悖论与游戏之间：萨尔瓦多·达利后期作品中升华的表象

在达勒冗长而丰富多彩的自传体作品《萨尔瓦多·达勒的秘密生活》（1942 年）中，这位艺术家回忆了 1930 年代后期如何标志着他重新定位于以升华为基础的 20 世纪文艺复兴风格的新艺术。1938 年参观弗洛伊德在伦敦的家时，他似乎说服自己升华与古典艺术密不可分，声称“性本能必须在美学中升华”。他得出的结论是，古典主义所代表的更具凝聚力和和谐的审美感可以使被战争和文化虚无主义侵蚀的欧洲复苏。通过他自己的视觉工艺的例子，Dalı 相信他将成为新运动的最重要的实践者和领先的指数。就这样开始了后来被称为 Dalı 的“升华”转向，这个阶段通常被认为是他与超现实主义者追求的想法和实践的明确突破。他对“古典”的重新定位被视为一种邪恶的保守性质的证据，这种性质影响了他的艺术品味，就像影响了他的社会政治观点一样。正是这种观点，尤其是我想提出异议的，因为我相信，将达勒的古典野心视为表面价值，有可能将单线性意向性归因于他的后期作品并消除它们的许多矛盾。在我看来，他的标志和独创性在于他的前后矛盾、游戏感以及在文本和视觉媒体中从不同（如果不是对立的）风格和信条中创造蒙太奇的能力。我的阅读在某种程度上预示了对艺术家的一些后现代解释（例如 Vilaseca 和 LaFountain 的那些解释），这些解释拒绝了对他的作品和角色的本质化描述，并专注于他的不真实性。虽然达勒的后期作品（1940 年后）不再听从超现实主义首席理论家安德烈·布雷顿（Andr e Breton）（他将运动置于所有审美关注之外并拒绝古典主义）的命令，但它们确实继续表现出对悖论和矛盾的关注从他早期的超现实主义阶段就开始了。事实上，这种关注只是为了进一步 安德烈·布雷顿（Andr e Breton）（他将这场运动置于所有审美关注之外并拒绝了古典主义），他们确实继续暴露出对悖论和矛盾的关注，这种关注始于他早期的超现实主义阶段。事实上，这种关注只是为了进一步 安德烈·布雷顿（Andr e Breton）（他将这场运动置于所有审美关注之外并拒绝了古典主义），他们确实继续暴露出对悖论和矛盾的关注，这种关注始于他早期的超现实主义阶段。事实上，这种关注只是为了进一步