The influences he had received was always an issue for his critics: “His evolution was largely a result of his class and the privileges he secured. In his work it is possible to observe influences, adjustments, based on the lessons of Picasso, Braque, Gris, Matisse, Le Corbusier, de Chirico”. His own view was: “No art is native and free of foreign influences. But the degree of influence is sometimes big and sometimes small – and of course it is preferred to be small. Or, at least, the foreign influences have to be assimilated over time and no longer distinguish themselves from the same and distinct character of the art of every place and age. ”
The criticism often had a … political starting point, since Ghika was a representative of the bourgeoisie, a man always placed on the side of the conservative faction. For many years this was a “red flag” for the other side.
As a scholar of Ghika’s work, Nicos Paisios writes: “Ten years after Ghika’s death, when the passions and class enemies he caused in his passage have settled down, what is the conclusion? Was Ghika a copywriter of Picasso or Braque? Generally, no. He did not waste the talent he was given. He worked and worked hard to unite and integrate influences insensible with his work. ”