The case of Dimitrije Popović, after his great fifty-year retrospective in Zagreb’s Klovićevi Dvori, indicates the final trivialization of an opus that promised great manner and relevant content in its beginnings, when there was still no need for grotesque surrealization in a society of spectacle. In Dorfles’ words, Popović’s painting has eventually brought to the same level Salome and Severina, the body of Christ “shown in the symbol of sliced bread or a Madonna whose physical grace turns into a refined appearance of a photo model.” Dimitrije chooses the drama of existence and great subjects hoping that they will do the work themselves, that is, become great art by the mere fact that they have been borrowed from Dante or Leonardo. This is the kind of laziness of the spirit, the gemütlichkeit that produces, as A. Moles would say, the “comfort of the heart” by copying the language of the past, as if art were contagious and one must merely be near it or reach for it to partake in its greatness. But instead, the case is more probably that, as L. Giesz would say when describing a kitschmensch like Dimitrije, “in his hands, even great art turns into kitsch.”, Slučaj Dimitrija Popovića nakon velike petdesetljetne retrospektive u zagrebačkim Klovićevim dvorima uputio je i na finale trivijalizacije jednog opusa koji je obećavao veliku maniru i relevantan sadržaj na početcima kada još nije bilo potrebe za grotesknom nadrealizacijom u društvu estradizacije. Dorflesovski rečeno, Popovićevo je slikarstvo s vremenom u istu ravan dovelo Salomu i Severinu, Kristovo tijelo, „prikazano u simbolu kruha koji je narezan na kriške ili Madonu koje se fizička ljupkost pretvara u rafinman izgleda nekog foto-modela.” Dimitrije bira dramu egzistencije i velike teme u nadi da će one odraditi posao za sebe, to jest pukim izborom, primjerice, sadržaja iz Dantea ili Leonarda, postati velikom umjetnošću. To je ona vrsta lijenosti duha, onaj gemütlichkeit koji proizvodi, kako bi rekao A. Moles „komfor srca” kopiranjem jezika prošlosti, kao da je umjetnost prijelazna i da je samo dovoljno biti u njezinoj blizini i za njom posegnuti pa da i sami postanemo dijelom njezine veličine. No ipak će biti, kako kaže L. Giesz opisujući kiččovjeka nalik na Dimitrija, da se „u njegovim rukama i velika umjetnost pretvara u kič.”