Trying to Define Surrealism.
Andrea Chen
>
> Kaleem Witcher wrote:
>
> > Take A Look:
>
> > In this week's Slate (www.slate.com), Daniel Menaker discusses the rash
> > of surreal films like The Truman Show, The Matrix, The Game and
>
> Surreal in what sense? Apparently you mean ''surreal'' in some descriptive
> sense, a sense void of any historical, critical, or analytical content. A
> film is visually hyperbolic; hence, ''surreal.'' A film is vividly unreal,
> or it questions ''the distinction between appearance and reality''; hence,
> ''surreal.'' But would the writers, directors, editors, set designers,
> cinematographers et al. call themselves ''surrealists?'' Probably not.
I think many would, the word is somewhat complimentary. Certainly the
critics have clustered many into the surrealist pattern.
The question is whether this is a primary identification or if it has
much meaning.
There *are* a small number of artists who class themselves as
surrealist. They often are somewhat dogmatic and rail againt the
oppular usage. There are others who use the term as a primary
identification, but much more loosely. We had one a few months back who
identified herself as the "nostalgic surrealist." She was rejected
(with not a glance at her art) because according to some surrealism
can't be nostalgic (though others would say it can be nothing else.)
One possible definition of surrealism might be the employment of
certain techniques. This is rejected by purists because it can be used
by impure people. Some interesting issues are raised by more recent
ideas such as the "medium is the message." In this case the new ways of
portraying the world are considered as important as actual content.
Related to this are recent arguments which connect the "sixties" to
many corporate created concepts such as "the Pepsi Generation," a part
of the process in defining the new generation. Certainly if surrealism
is about "liberation of desire" (not technique) as some in this group
have claimed the business controlled media have been crucial in the
transformation of the self denying human of earlier in this century.
At this point we get into things like "authentic" and "artificial"
desire, Marcuse and all the rest. We need a model of the liberation.
Is it as some have claimed allowing the polymorpheous sexuality which
Freud felt was incompatible with civilization? This would certainly be
consistent with the original surrealist time frame as would automatic
writing as a form of free association.
One of my issues with those who have defined themselves as the
arbitraters of surrealism is that such issues are only addressed as
cliches.
I personally am interested in any defintion of surrealism and am happy
to accept the popular usage. But one hears claims that surrealism isn't
about art, but is in fact a revolutionary movement; one does want to
hear the theory and the pragmatic acts of this revolution.
The failure to do this on the part of the self proclaimed surrealists
makes me suspect that there impulse is actually conservative, a
collection of "feel good" slogans which give the impression of activism
without requiring responsibility, work, risk or even thought. This
would be a step back from the arm chair revolutionary of the past who
could at least talk a good manifesto.
The kind of surrealism I've encountered here certainly serves the
status quo.
JerOnline
bundle name for those who return from sheer abstraction into
primitism.It is a cry for self-distinction, no more.
Of course, there were the great departers from tradition, who led the
troops to liberation from old restrictions.But they have done that in
the fashion of a trick: annihilating the foundations of the real as well
as its fruit. They have denounced the totality of reality, made the
world a compiliationof trajectories to pursue by lesser minds, who too
seriously the original, laid-out plan for abstraction from the real.And
that is the legacy that serves the slugish servants of fashion in the
artistic realm.
barrett john erickson
news:377CE1...@netvision.net.il...
> There can be not status quo in fashions. And Surrealism is a vague,
> bundle name for those who return from sheer abstraction into
> primitism.It is a cry for self-distinction, no more.
> Of course, there were the great departers from tradition, who led the
> troops to liberation from old restrictions.But they have done that in
> the fashion of a trick: annihilating the foundations of the real as well
> as its fruit. They have denounced the totality of reality, made the
> world a compiliationof trajectories to pursue by lesser minds, who too
> seriously the original, laid-out plan for abstraction from the real.And
> that is the legacy that serves the slugish servants of fashion in the
> artistic realm.
you seriously misunderstand surrealist project, which is, and always has
been, in quest of an _enhanced reality_ of daily living, not an abstraction
or departure from the real.
if you sincerely want to discuss this, we can.
-- barrett
bar...@MagneticFields.org
http://www.MagneticFields.org/
==============================================
"Everything tends to make us believe that there exists a
certain point of the mind at which life and death, the real and
the imagined, past and future, the communicable and the
incommunicable, high and low, cease to be perceived as
contradictions."
...André Breton
==============================================
Brandon J. Freels
world must continue to be linked with the activity of changing the world. We
maintain that it is the poet's, the artist's role to study the human problem
in depth in all its forms, that it is precisely the unlimited advance of his
mind in this direction that has a potential value for changing the world,
that this advance---insofar as it is an evolved product of the
superstructure---cannot help but reinforce the necessity to change this
world economically." Breton, Speech to the Congress of Writers, in
Manifestos of Surrealism, p. 240.
"We are interested . . . only in the development of this culture," Breton,
On the Time When the Surrealists Were Right, in Manifestos of Surrealism, p.
243.
Andrea Chen
> There can be not status quo in fashions. And Surrealism is a vague,
> bundle name for those who return from sheer abstraction into
> primitism.It is a cry for self-distinction, no more.
> Of course, there were the great departers from tradition, who led the
> troops to liberation from old restrictions.But they have done that in
> the fashion of a trick: annihilating the foundations of the real as well
> as its fruit. They have denounced the totality of reality, made the
> world a compiliationof trajectories to pursue by lesser minds, who too
> seriously the original, laid-out plan for abstraction from the real.And
> that is the legacy that serves the slugish servants of fashion in the
> artistic realm.
However much of the art which matters is that which weilds good work
onto the fashionable. Shakespheare is an example, he never shunned the
commercial. Many are like him. And those who decry this realm
typically have the work done by their publishers and the various parts
of the advertising machine, they make themselves pure by isolating
themselves from the actual propaganda.
"Surrealism" is a good word to colonialize, make of it what you will.
Just like the savvy author today writes of aliens rather than elves or
fairies, the function they serve is the same: the artists.
Therefore I say we define surrealism in whatever image suits us.
Brandon J. Freels
> Therefore I say we define surrealism in whatever image suits us.
You would, bitch whore!
Derek Tiberius Devareaux
>you seriously misunderstand surrealist project, which is, and always has
>been, in quest of an _enhanced reality_ of daily living, not an abstraction
>or departure from the real.
>
>if you sincerely want to discuss this, we can.
DTD: I think JerOnline is right, only in that he seems not to be describing
surrealism (as you've pointed out) but other forms of inane abstractions.
Sometimes I consider myself surrealist. Others have dismissed my work as
gory aestheticism, have nothing more than shock value.
(I can live with that, at least it has value!) However, they fail to
realize that the imagery is deeply rooted in symbology and psyche, and that
even the choice of color or however many times I bend a woman backward and
thrust her breasts like beacons into the sky shooting milk, etc., etc.,
there is a purpose: to reveal a simpler truth not so obvious by
conventional, specious forms.
What's this shit about fashions? It is modern art---the blank canvas on
the wall--which seems dictated by fashions, not surrealism.
Burn, baby, burn!
Andrea Chen
> What's this shit about fashions? It is modern art---the blank canvas on
> the wall--which seems dictated by fashions, not surrealism.
This is untrue. A month ago Breton was very popular in surrealism.
Last week we expelled him from the movement for misogny, anal
retentiveness and a bunch of other things. Next month we might let him
back again.
Incidently the false surrealists (we think they are victims of alien
mind control which is why we called in the Texas anti grey militia
before we put them on trial) will snarl (if they don't like you) that
"surrealism has nothing to do with art!!!!" Since you seem to be
agreeing with them they will probably chorus something like "exactly!"
But if pressed, they will admit that your art may not be truly
surrealist because you may not be following the "surrealist agenda."
Are you?
Derek Tiberius Devareaux
> This is untrue. A month ago Breton was very popular in surrealism.
> Last week we expelled him from the movement for misogny, anal
> retentiveness and a bunch of other things. Next month we might let > him
back again.
Sure, all the things that make art interesting, you fat, oily cur!
> Incidently the false surrealists (we think they are victims of alien
> mind control which is why we called in the Texas anti grey militia
> before we put them on trial) will snarl (if they don't like you) that
> "surrealism has nothing to do with art!!!!" Since you seem to be
> agreeing with them they will probably chorus something like "exactly!"
Who said surrealism had nothing to do with art, you fat, oily cur! Would
you like some more caviar with the riposte?
> But if pressed, they will admit that your art may not be truly
> surrealist because you may not be following the "surrealist agenda."
Expulsions? Agendas? Aliens? What the fuck are you talking about, you
fascist snob? May I point you in the direction of
alt.artbell.episcopalian.crazy-wacko?
I dont ask that you agree with me, only that you disagree with yourself.
Dale Houstman
Derek Tiberius Devareaux wrote:
>
>
> Who said surrealism had nothing to do with art, you fat, oily cur! Would
> you like some more caviar with the riposte?
Exactly nobody. We have said that surrealism main core of activity is
not concerned with art first and foremost, but only a madwoman would say
surrealism has nothing to do with art. This is obviously untrue. However
in surrealism art is (at least) meant to be one instrument in many with
which surrealists may work toward self-liberation. Surrealism cannot
(meaningfully) be reduced to "only" art. That said: Breton is an artist,
Duchamp one of the 20th century's greatest artists, Ernst an artist, Arp
an artist, etc.
This is just one more redundantly (and willfully) imprecise depiction of
a complex question, produced so as to make the dull program of "new
management" seem inevitable, when it is merely unenviable.
DMH