Surrealism
Juha Rislakki
I've thought that surrealism is very often just pure fun. No matter if
it's Salvador Dali or David Lynch... Surrealists put stuff in their
paintings or films just because they feel good in them.
I can imagine David Lynch thinking: "Hmm...let's use a dwarf here. I
have no idea what it means, but it's fun. Yeah...Let's have him talk
backwards."
So, if this is right (and I'm sure in some cases it is), then there is
no deeper meaning for the surrealist stuff. And therefore the Red Room
scenes of Twin Peaks wouldn't be any more complex than what Eraserhead
is.
I also want to point out that surrealists have a very good sense of
humour. And maybe it could be said also that surrealism is a branch (?)
of humour.
Provocative, maybe. But, please, share your opinions.
--
*// J.R. \\*
"Things have changed. Circumstances, Jerry. Beyond the, uh...acts of
God, force majeure..."
Simbabbad
Juha Rislakki <juha.r...@skynet.be> a écrit dans le message : 3BFCF3DC...@skynet.be...
> Insipired by Simba's "Devil's Advocate against Eraserhead":
Glad I inspired you, don't hesitate to reply in that thread, I had pleasure
to answer you.
> I've thought that surrealism is very often just pure fun. No matter if
> it's Salvador Dali or David Lynch... Surrealists put stuff in their
> paintings or films just because they feel good in them.
Actually, no. Lynch never called what he did "surrealism", because he
hates to label what he does, and he's right. Dali, on the other hand, did
belong to the group founded by Breton - the surrealists.
Believe it or not, but surrealists had plenty of rules. Breton was some
sort of narrow-minded tyran, which is actually quite ironical. He hated
homosexuals, for example, which caused a problem for Garcia Locas,
a close friend of Dali who at a time wanted to make love with him (Dali
refused, he definitely wasn't bisexual or homosexual) - and to Aragon,
married but gay (and schizoid, most historians agree with that).
Anyway... they had techniques and a very strong interest for
psychoanalysis. Dali also had, but such a free mind and genius was
bound to have problems with them. He was a lot more "inspired"
than surrealists, he was connected with some sort of special creativity
area, just like Lynch.
> I can imagine David Lynch thinking: "Hmm...let's use a dwarf here. I
> have no idea what it means, but it's fun. Yeah...Let's have him talk
> backwards."
Don't you know the story of the creation of the Lodge ?
Well, I'm sure you know BOB (Frank Sylva) was used in the last minute
for the pilot. The Lodge has the same kind of story.
Lynch was filming the European ending (yes, the ending everyone hates
actually gave birth to the Black Lodge/Red Room, just imagine Twin
Peaks without it), and was waiting for somebody in a parking. Then, he
put his hands on the motor shield, which was very hot, and suddenly
everything appeared to him : Michael Anderson, whom he contacted for
the dead-before-birth "Ronnie Rocket" project, dancing and talking
backwards/forwards in a room with zigzags and red drapes.
He filmed the scene for the European ending, then used the footage
for the dream in Episode 2 (or was it 3). It was first used by the
writers as a clue to Jacques Renault's cabin, then as the world we
now all know.
> So, if this is right (and I'm sure in some cases it is), then there is
> no deeper meaning for the surrealist stuff. And therefore the Red Room
> scenes of Twin Peaks wouldn't be any more complex than what Eraserhead
> is.
Ah, but it's more complicated, friend.
You see, what to me is the most interesting in symbols and Art in
general, are archetypes. To Jung (socio/psychoanalysis), there *is*
a common mind area to nearly all humanity, and a larger one for one
given society. Therefore, something coming to an artist's mind without
being thought-up intellectually, *can* have meaning for others, and
touch them.
IMO, Eraserhad appeals to others because it's so strange that they
put their own meaning into it. Instead of some works that does reach...
*something* common to all our psyches.
IMO, the second one is greater Art than the second one. On a more
realistic level, Shakespeare, for example, is incredibly not outdated,
because IMO he touches something very, very important to mankind.
This is why it's so strong.
So there can be deeper meaning, because it's our common subconscious.
> I also want to point out that surrealists have a very good sense of
> humour. And maybe it could be said also that surrealism is a branch (?)
> of humour.
Yes. Buñuel and Dali's works were often very humorous.
> Provocative, maybe. But, please, share your opinions.
Done !
;-)
Juha Rislakki
> hates to label what he does, and he's right.
Well...he doesn't say he is a surrealist. But certainly his films have very typical surrealist
moments/things/scenes.
> Breton was some sort of narrow-minded tyran, which is actually quite ironical. He hated
> homosexuals, for example, which caused a problem for Garcia Locas,
> a close friend of Dali who at a time wanted to make love with him (Dali
> refused, he definitely wasn't bisexual or homosexual) - and to Aragon,
> married but gay (and schizoid, most historians agree with that).
Hey! You know a lot about this subject! :-) The theories with which I began this thread weren't
really based upon any facts. So it wasn't anything scientific or historically accurate.
Just...well...argh.
> Don't you know the story of the creation of the Lodge ?
Yup, I do. I do. Okay...so he got the idea very quickly. Free flow of thoughts. Just writing down
whatever pops into his mind. Is that really different than writing down just what feels right? There
is a connection between those two.
> So there can be deeper meaning, because it's our common subconscious.
Right...subconsciously. That is very true. But consciously...that's different. I don't think even
the artists themselves really understand what they are creating. Surrealists just 'fall asleep' and
somehow enter their subconscious...
Just like if you wake up in the middle of the night and still remember the dream you were just
having, and then write it down. It doesn't make any sense in the morning (if it was a strange
dream), but it is a form of truth.
> > I also want to point out that surrealists have a very good sense of
> > humour. And maybe it could be said also that surrealism is a branch (?)
> > of humour.
>
> Yes. Buñuel and Dali's works were often very humorous.
And Lynch, who in one way or another, is definately a surrealist.
PJC
news:3BFCF3DC...@skynet.be...
>
> I also want to point out that surrealists have a very good sense of
> humour. And maybe it could be said also that surrealism is a branch (?)
> of humour.
A bit like one of my favourite 'light bulb' jokes, perhaps?
Q. How many surrealists does it take to change a light bulb?
A. The fish.
(Or is that absurdist humour?)
Trichome
"PJC" <p...@UNSPAM.section1.com> wrote:
> "Juha Rislakki" <juha.r...@skynet.be> wrote in message
> news:3BFCF3DC...@skynet.be...
>
> Q. How many surrealists does it take to change a light bulb?
> A. The fish.
(to be read quickly)
So there are these three penguins in a bathtub,
and the one on the left says to the other one,
"Pass the soap".
And the third one says,
"No soap, radio !"
Q: Why is a mouse when it spins?
A: $4.39 with tax
I like to tell a series of corny, fast-paced meta-jokes where I
swap the punchlines of very old, commonly known joke with the
punchlines of other familiar jokes. This requires that the audience
is classicly trained in the humor of the language, knowing jokes
that no one tells anymore.
Q: Where does an 800lb. gorilla sit?
A: To get to the other side.
Q: Why did the chicken cross the road?
A: Because he wanted to make hay while the Son shines.
Q: What do you get when you cross a parking meter with a fire
hydrant?
A: Orange you glad I didn't say "Banana"?
There are many subtle variations to be found within this premise.
I like to use the missing part from one joke in the next, and keep
that rhythm so the listeners can begin to anticipate. Then throw in
a few lines that aren't from any known joke. Sometimes the pairings
can add up to new meanings entirely.
Mix it up.
Trichome
--
"And he's got the electricity fouled up, reversed or somethin' so's its around
the wrong way and all the power is suckin up light . . . he's making darkness
as fast as you can pee your pants and with this darkness buddy comes confusion
and this confusion gets stronger as you get close to him." - Ronnie Rocket
Simbabbad
Juha Rislakki <juha.r...@skynet.be> a écrit dans le message : 3BFE183A...@skynet.be...
> > Actually, no. Lynch never called what he did "surrealism", because he
> > hates to label what he does, and he's right.
> Well...he doesn't say he is a surrealist. But certainly his films have very typical surrealist
> moments/things/scenes.
Well, it all depends of what you put behind the word...
> > Breton was some sort of narrow-minded tyran, which is actually quite ironical. He hated
> > homosexuals, for example, which caused a problem for Garcia Locas,
> > a close friend of Dali who at a time wanted to make love with him (Dali
> > refused, he definitely wasn't bisexual or homosexual) - and to Aragon,
> > married but gay (and schizoid, most historians agree with that).
> Hey! You know a lot about this subject! :-) The theories with which I began this thread weren't
> really based upon any facts. So it wasn't anything scientific or historically accurate.
> Just...well...argh.
Hehehe...
That's sort of what I wanted to point out. When we say "surrealist", we should
use the terme referring to what the surrealists actually were.
Of course, the word gained a broader meaning, not linked to the surrealist movement,
but I'm afraid this kind of weakens it.
So, in short : the surrealists from the original movement were careful of what they
wrote and did and say, one could even say "too much careful" (that's what I
wanted to point out with Breton, he annoyed Dali for a long time when Dali were
far more talented than he).
> > Don't you know the story of the creation of the Lodge ?
> Yup, I do. I do. Okay...so he got the idea very quickly. Free flow of thoughts. Just writing down
> whatever pops into his mind. Is that really different than writing down just what feels right? There
> is a connection between those two.
Oh, I wasn't disagreeing, on the opposite. I thought you didn't know it, otherwise
you would have told it. It totally goes your way (in the case of Lynch, anyway).
> > So there can be deeper meaning, because it's our common subconscious.
> Right...subconsciously. That is very true. But consciously...that's different. I don't think even
> the artists themselves really understand what they are creating. Surrealists just 'fall asleep' and
> somehow enter their subconscious...
Yes, or just artists in general (in any case, many of them). That's why asking Lynch who's
the Mystery Man is sort of missing the point : he doesn't really know it himself.
Jeff Gower
"PJC" <p...@UNSPAM.section1.com> wrote:
> Q. How many surrealists does it take to change a light bulb?
> A. The fish.
Hahahahaha!!!!
Thanks,
Jeff