Comrade Breton, Eluard et al
boiled guts of byrds
'30's Surrealists, despite the later Trotskyite leanings of Breton &
co.
Also what role did the various Surrealists play in the Resistance
movement ?
And the Spanish Civil War ?
Matthew Moffett
>
> What do you think the attraction of Stalinist "communism" was for the
> '30's Surrealists, despite the later Trotskyite leanings of Breton &
> co.
>
1. Communism was fashionable at the time. Many artist types (actors,
musicians, writers, etc) at least flirted a bit with Communism because
it was the cool thing to do at the time.
2. There is also a link, however tenuous, between the tenets of
Communism and some of the tenets of Surrealism. One of the thoughts of
Surrealism was to bring art to everyone, rich or poor, and that since
everyone has a subconsious everyone, potentially, has the ability to be
an artist. I'm really paraphrasing here, but this was the link in that
Communism's primary belief is the importance of the common worker. I'd
look at _What is Surrealism?_, selected writings by Andre Breton. It's
edited by Franklin Rosemont, self professed leader of Surrealism in the
U.S. in the 70's. His view of Breton is _very_ slanted towards
Communism and how it relates to Surrealism, so it might answer some of
your questions.
> Also what role did the various Surrealists play in the Resistance
> movement ?
>
> And the Spanish Civil War ?
Don't know the answer to this, really. Dali did some paintings kind of
in protest of the Spanish Civil War, and of course there's Picasso's
_Guerica_. While not Surrealist per se, it was certainly influenced by
it a bit.
Breton is credited, at least to a small extent, to a revolution in
Haiti. This can also be found in the Rosemont book. Bunuel may have
some films related to this, but I don't know enough about him to say.
good luck
barrett john erickson
"Matthew Moffett" <fkmo...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:39FF7F...@erols.com...
> boiled guts of byrds wrote:
> >
> > What do you think the attraction of Stalinist "communism" was for the
> > '30's Surrealists, despite the later Trotskyite leanings of Breton &
> > co.
> >
> There are two primary reasons I'm aware of, and both are debatable.
>
> 1. Communism was fashionable at the time. Many artist types (actors,
> musicians, writers, etc) at least flirted a bit with Communism because
> it was the cool thing to do at the time.
certainly you don't mean to suggest surrealists were drawn to associate
themselves with the communists because they found it "fashionable" or
"cool"?
> 2. There is also a link, however tenuous, between the tenets of
> Communism and some of the tenets of Surrealism. One of the thoughts of
> Surrealism was to bring art to everyone, rich or poor, and that since
> everyone has a subconsious everyone, potentially, has the ability to be
> an artist. I'm really paraphrasing here,
granted but, paraphrasing or not, it is important to understand that there
is a significant difference between wanting to "bring art to everyone" --
which sounds like an elitist mission statement for the Walker Art Center --
and saying "poetry must be made by all" (Lautreamont/Ducasse) -- which might
be the perfect sound bite for surrealists.
the former assumes and encourages passivity in the masses (art is something
artists do), the later encourages active participation in constructing a
more complete and creative daily reality for all (living can be better, and
i need to do something about that).
in this sense, the link was more than "tenuous".
[ the _association_ was tenuous, however, because it was quite clear from
the beginning that surrealists would not betray the "revolution of the
mind", while they quickly recognized that the communists were betraying the
revolution of the workers. ]
> but this was the link in that
> Communism's primary belief is the importance of the common worker. I'd
> look at _What is Surrealism?_, selected writings by Andre Breton. It's
> edited by Franklin Rosemont, self professed leader of Surrealism in the
> U.S. in the 70's. His view of Breton is _very_ slanted towards
> Communism and how it relates to Surrealism, so it might answer some of
> your questions.
> > Also what role did the various Surrealists play in the Resistance
> > movement ?
> >
> > And the Spanish Civil War ?
> Don't know the answer to this, really. Dali did some paintings kind of
> in protest of the Spanish Civil War,
Breton's first wife Simone, Bunuel, Miro, Penrose, Gascoyne, and Peret all
went to Spain to support the Republicans (see Polizotti).
Dali on the other hand, who had already been rejected by surrealists for
such attitudes, was a supporter of Franco.
-- barrett
BLUE FEATHERS #3 is now available
http://www.MagneticFields.org/blue/
bar...@MagneticFields.org
http://www.MagneticFields.org/
surrealists in minnesota
Sur...@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
==============================================
Nikolaus Maack
> certainly you don't mean to suggest surrealists were drawn to associate
> themselves with the communists because they found it "fashionable" or
> "cool"?
I found this paragraph amusing, and I wish to pull it out of its original
context and leave it here, gasping for breath. Oh you poor, funny,
miserable little paragraph! You were so young, starting the very day you
were born -- young to this day, young for all of eternity. Civilizations
will rise and fall around you, but you, paragraph, will always have the
dopey look of a babe fresh out of cunt, glistening with afterbirth,
mewling softly to a ceiling fan that fails to spin.
Nik
--
NOW AVAILABLE! Art by Nik in mass produced formats!
'L. Ron' t-shirts, coffee mugs, and mouse pads.
Just click: http://www.cafepress.com/nikart
john adams
I'm not sure what the whole stink is about. Was it the punctuation?
john
Nikolaus Maack wrote in message <8tqb77$gli$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>...
Nikolaus Maack
> Admittedly, your reaction to barrett's reaction leaves me a little
>perplexed. I'm not sure what the whole stink is about. Was it the
>punctuation?
Allow me to explain my feelings in more detail, for those of you who --
like yourself -- have grown inured to clumsy and brutal assaults on the
English language. Barrett wrote the following of his own free will,
presumably while not under the influence of tranquilizers:
>Certainly you don't mean to suggest surrealists were drawn to associate
>themselves with the communists because they found it "fashionable" or
>"cool"?
I hear the voice of an almost retired high school principal in court for a
parking violation, trying to throw out vague legalese sounds in an effort
to impress the judge. See the spittle in the corner of his bloodless lips
as he mouths words he read once on the certificates hanging in a dental
office waiting room?
It's the language of a doddering old man attempting to woo an eighteen
year old girl into his cold, dirty bed. I can smell the yellow sheets in
the very letters of each word. How can the woman -- that is, the reader
-- react with anything but disgust?
Let's look at the individual offenses.
"Certainly you don't mean to suggest..."
A fawning, patronizing, overly-familiar hand, meaty and sweaty, places
itself on your shoulder. It's the hand of an uncle who wants to do
unspeakable things to you in the poolhouse, but first he wants to convince
you that it's entirely your idea.
"...surrealists were drawn to associate themselves with communists..."
A drunk is trying to tiptoe across a room without teetering to the left or
right. His manufactured poise makes each step all the more suspect. This
is a man who is trying to trick you. Your natural instinct is to push him
over. Accede to it.
"...because they found it 'fashionable' or 'cool'?"
Your father is trying to both bond with you and make fun of you -- he's
having difficulty deciding which. He selects certain out of date
catchphrases he has heard on the evening news, and delivers them with a
slightly sardonic twist. Something about his delivery reminds you just
how out of touch your father has become, and you wonder if it's time to
start looking at nursing home brochures. It is. Please pick the home
that hires former convicts.
john adams
Unless you were just 'trying' to write yourself out into the lost wake of
oblivion.
The remark was quite simple and you are, to me, blowing this one way out of
proportion. Is this a session in 'automatic psycho-analysis'?
Along lost freeways of burnt humor and dingey corpses? I don't know...that's
why I'm asking you.
john
Nikolaus Maack wrote in message <8tqr50$auu$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>...
>"john adams" (johnqa...@yahoo.com) writes:
>> Admittedly, your reaction to barrett's reaction leaves me a little
>>perplexed. I'm not sure what the whole stink is about. Was it the
>>punctuation?
>
>Allow me to explain my feelings in more detail, for those of you who --
>like yourself -- have grown inured to clumsy and brutal assaults on the
>English language. Barrett wrote the following of his own free will,
>presumably while not under the influence of tranquilizers:
>
>>Certainly you don't mean to suggest surrealists were drawn to associate
>>themselves with the communists because they found it "fashionable" or
>>"cool"?
>
Dale Houstman
"john adams" <johnqa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:IE7M5.152220$g6.69...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com...
> Nik, i really think you've short-circuited somewhere recently.
I must remark - as kindly as possible - that your use of the word "recently"
above strikes me as a sign of incipient dementia, since Nik has been engaged
in exactly this sort of adolescent bile and repulsive game-playing for
roughly forever now. The fact that it surprises you is the only surprise.
dmh
Nikolaus Maack
> I must remark - as kindly as possible - that your use of the word "recently"
> above strikes me as a sign of incipient dementia, since Nik has been engaged
> in exactly this sort of adolescent bile and repulsive game-playing for
> roughly forever now.
This sentence is even more sickening than the one Barrett created. What's
wrong with you people?
"I must remark..."
I see. So it's not that you choose to speak, but that some external force
-- a poltergeist perhaps? -- has latched on to you and forced you to make
commentary. Why not take responsibility for your own words?
"...as kindly as possible..."
Why do people incessantly claim to be doing the opposite of what they are
actually doing? For example:
"...a sign of incipient dementia..."
This is kindness, telling someone they are on the brink of insanity?
"...has been engaged in..."
Ew. The passive voice. How sadly quaint and misguided.
"...this sort of..."
A little vague, aren't we?
"...adolescent bile..."
Calling someone childish or child-like or immature is, ironically, one of
the most childish insults. It dates back to schoolyard days when one
bed-wetter referred to another bed-wetter as a baby because they possessed
the added plight of thumb-sucking. Cliched insults, even when disguised
as something new, insult only the person who speaks them. In other words,
you can dress up your 8-track to look like a CD player, if you'd like, but
I'm still not loaning you my copy of the latest Radiohead disc.
"...repulsive game-playing..."
It depresses me to hear such words come from a self-proclaimed surrealist.
Game-playing is an essential staple of surrealism itself. There's nothing
wrong with playing games -- unless the games you always choose happen to
be the mass-produced kind.
Here. If you can't write well, I'm going to have to do it for you. This
time I'll do it for free, but next time there will be a charge to your
VISA card.
Dale admits to having constructed the following typographical miscarriage:
> I must remark - as kindly as possible - that your use of the word "recently"
> above strikes me as a sign of incipient dementia, since Nik has been engaged
> in exactly this sort of adolescent bile and repulsive game-playing for
> roughly forever now.
This can be translated into:
"Mysterious forces beyond my control have latched on to me, thus forcing
me to tell you, John, that you're as crazy as a fire-eating pyromaniac
living inside a gasoline soaked sponge. Nik engages in his playful
amusements on a regular basis -- amusements, I might add, that I am too
constipated to enjoy. My bowels are so blocked up, my doctor is
consulting with demolition experts on what the next step should be --
depth charges or a single stick of suppository dynamite."
Jean-Jacqu...@wanadoo.fr
<fkmo...@erols.com> wrote:
>Don't know the answer to this, really. Dali did some paintings kind of
>in protest of the Spanish Civil War, and of course there's Picasso's
>_Guerica_.
It is now well known that picasso already had finished the so-called
"guernica" under the name of "corrida" and then change it in order to
(positively) protest against this or (negatively) take a piece of pub
coming from it.
your choice.
--
UBU
Il n'y a pas de liberté de conscience en astronomie, en
physique, (...). S'il en est autrement en politique, c'est
parce que, les anciens principes étant tombés, il n'y a
point (...) de principe établis.
A. Comte
john adams
Dale Houstman wrote in message
<3a0151ae$0$28251$65a9...@news.citilink.com>...
Well well well...well. Well! The fact is, that although your feeling
me being demented because of my remark that his remark regarding barrrett's
remark was in a way recently different, I fail to be surprised whatsoever by
such dilapidated analysis. All of this is not to be confused with the
hi-lar-ious antics of 'Three's Company'.
john
Kristina
"cythera" <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8tt372$68o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Oh yes, and what was that I wrote a few days ago about Nik trying to
> have an insight.
>
> My apologies.
I don't know, what are you responding to, and what is it you wrote anyway?
Kristina.
>
> cythera.
>
> In article <8tskp5$pd7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> cythera <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > In article <8ts0p7$305$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>,
> > ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Nikolaus Maack) wrote:
> > > "Dale Houstman" (dm...@citilink.com) writes:
> > > > I must remark - as kindly as possible - that your use of the
> > > > word "recently" above strikes me as a sign of incipient
> > > > dementia, since Nik has been engaged in exactly this sort of
> > > > adolescent bile and repulsive game-playing for roughly forever
> > > > now.
>
> > > This sentence is even more sickening than the one Barrett created.
> >
> > "The smell of it surrounds you." (Lynard Skynard.)
> >
> > http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=478124790
> >
> > cythera.
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
> >
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Kristina
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message
news:3a0151ae$0$28251$65a9...@news.citilink.com...
Dale,
I fail to see the point of contributing to Nik's little fetishes, although
granted, I find no pleasure or interest in what he contributed in regards to
Barrett's post. I simply ignore that which I find unchallenging and
repetitive... I can't understand why this newsgroup constantly goes on the
Nik bandwagon. It's not very productive let alone pleasurable.
I must admit, I was somewhat surprised at your words in regards to John's
post. Who cares! I'm sure John is fully aware of Nik's babbling-history
and focusing on the past and parcel of Nik-vision is not really what I want
to read in here. As long as everyone keeps supporting Nik's perspective
and questioning his thinking in such depth and then each other's stance on
it... it's a neverending story about as exciting as midday soap opera. You
don't miss much -- it just goes on and on mindnumbingly.
Kristina.
john adams
Dale Houstman wrote in message
>
>"Kristina" <starf...@today.com.au> wrote in message
>news:3a0231ca$0$28143$7f31...@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au...
>absent from this geek pit for some time now, and only popped in because of
>Nik's aggressively stupid response to Barrett's rather straightforward
>statement of fact.
>
>As for John's response: it still strikes me as disingenuous, and feel my
>statement to him is valid.
>
>And now I'm going back outside...
>
>dmh
There is nothing valid about it. You yourself have just stated you came out
of
hiding because of his recent aggressive remark towards barrett. This strikes
me
as contradictory and also the previous as the grappling of empty vapors,
because
you could come up with nothing better to lob at me (perhaps due to the
after-taste of a former
embarassing exchange). Endless posing, not enough honest communication [from
your
bracket A].
And hello Kristina.
john
Dale Houstman
"Kristina" <starf...@today.com.au> wrote in message
news:3a0231ca$0$28143$7f31...@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au...
>
Nikolaus Maack
> I fail to see the point of contributing to Nik's little fetishes, although
> granted, I find no pleasure or interest in what he contributed in regards to
> Barrett's post. I simply ignore that which I find unchallenging and
> repetitive... I can't understand why this newsgroup constantly goes on the
> Nik bandwagon. It's not very productive let alone pleasurable.
"I must admit that I fail to see the point of engaging in the
ackowledgement of Nikolaus Maack's occasional textual follies, although
granted making comments in regards to his writing does allow me to partake
in the not very productive but strangely pleasurable act of pretentiously
doling out slices of my inflated ego -- an ego which, of course, I'm sure
that you are all fully aware of."
Cram any more bureaucratic buzzwords into your writing, Kristina, and
you'll cause the entire Internet to implode.
Nikolaus Maack
> Every weekend someone calls my house in the middle of the night and
> babbles into the answering machine.
It's not me, and I strongly resent the accusation that it is me. I have
better things to do than babble into your answering machine. Many other
people have far more interesting answering machines than you -- besides,
I, uh, never heard your answering machine before. Yeah.
So how dare you accuse me of calling you at precisely 3:25 AM every
Saturday morning to talk about my latest insights into horticulture and
psychology. That's not me. Maybe it's just a friend of mine who broke
into my home to use my phone and is disguising their voice to sound like
mine. Did you ever consider THAT option? Of course not. You're always
looking to blame me for all your woes.
Stop playing the blame game, Cythera, and maybe I... I mean, that person,
whoever he is -- or she! It could be a she! Whoever they are,
they'll stop calling you if you stop blaming me for everything.
john adams
It's ironic you would post something about making sense
now that you mention it. And, it's ironic a "surrealist", i mean staunch
literalist,
would nit-pick over a particular use of phrase in order to subvert the truth
of the matter. And by this yes I am refering to dale's kinky little words,
the ones you stand by like a blow-up doll.
john
cythera wrote in message <8u0vk9$7sn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>Every weekend someone calls my house in the middle of the night and
>babbles into the answering machine. That person makes about as much
>sense as you do.
>
>cythera.
>
>In article <ejIM5.157473$g6.71...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com>,
> "john adams" <johnqa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Dale Houstman wrote in message
>> <3a02a881$0$28258$65a9...@news.citilink.com>...
>> >
>> There is nothing valid about it. You yourself have just stated you
>came out
>> of
>> hiding because of his recent aggressive remark towards barrett. This
>strikes
>> me
>> as contradictory and also the previous as the grappling of empty
>vapors,
>> because
>> you could come up with nothing better to lob at me (perhaps due to the
>> after-taste of a former
>> embarassing exchange). Endless posing, not enough honest
>communication [from
>> your
>> bracket A].
>>
>>
>> john
john adams
Nikolaus Maack wrote in message <8u14b4$ivb$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>...
>cythera (cyt...@my-deja.com) writes:
>> Every weekend someone calls my house in the middle of the night and
>> babbles into the answering machine.
>
>better things to do than babble into your answering machine. Many other
>people have far more interesting answering machines than you -- besides,
>I, uh, never heard your answering machine before. Yeah.
>
>So how dare you accuse me of calling you at precisely 3:25 AM every
>Saturday morning to talk about my latest insights into horticulture and
>psychology. That's not me. Maybe it's just a friend of mine who broke
>into my home to use my phone and is disguising their voice to sound like
>mine.
Then apparently you have turned into that brainless wonder toad of an otter
trouser wearing mother's
tapir, john adams. My prescription for you is to hang yourself upside down
bleeding by the noose
formed of your grandmother's leathery - rather like a dingo bird in heat -
neck. Hopefully this will jar the languaging process of your sub-literary
journals into peak stabilization.
john
Kristina
> Every weekend someone calls my house in the middle of the night and
> sense as you do.
Oh, how unimaginative and infantile of you. I suppose you want to be
congratulated for it now. I'm sure John really appreciates your deeply
thought out response. We're all in awe of you.
Kristina.
> cythera.
Nikolaus Maack
> Then apparently you have turned into that brainless wonder toad of an otter
> trouser wearing mother's
> tapir, john adams.
I am all things to all people, but only if they are looking for a dead dog.
> My prescription for you is to hang yourself upside down
> bleeding by the noose
> formed of your grandmother's leathery - rather like a dingo bird in heat -
> neck. Hopefully this will jar the languaging process of your sub-literary
> journals into peak stabilization.
The stilted stench of stagnant swamp sits in my sentences, sucking the soul
out of stealthy syntax.
That doesn't even make sense, which kind of proves my point.
Parry
>
> "Matthew Moffett" <fkmo...@erols.com> wrote in message
> news:39FF7F...@erols.com...
> > boiled guts of byrds wrote:
> > >
> > > What do you think the attraction of Stalinist "communism" was for the
> > > '30's Surrealists, despite the later Trotskyite leanings of Breton &
> > > co.
> > >
> > There are two primary reasons I'm aware of, and both are debatable.
> >
> > 1. Communism was fashionable at the time. Many artist types (actors,
> > musicians, writers, etc) at least flirted a bit with Communism because
> > it was the cool thing to do at the time.
>
> certainly you don't mean to suggest surrealists were drawn to associate
> themselves with the communists because they found it "fashionable" or
> "cool"?
One can only guess which prominent aspects of history the poster has
missed. The reality of class divisions? The tremendous brunt of war and
economic depression laid on the working class by laissez-faire
capitalism? The significance of the Russian Revolution to the west? The
difference between Marxism and Stalinism? The surrealists’ early
repudiation of Stalinism?
> > 2. There is also a link, however tenuous, between the tenets of
> > Communism and some of the tenets of Surrealism. One of the thoughts of
> > Surrealism was to bring art to everyone, rich or poor, and that since
> > everyone has a subconsious everyone, potentially, has the ability to be
> > an artist. I'm really paraphrasing here,
>
> granted but, paraphrasing or not, it is important to understand that there
> is a significant difference between wanting to "bring art to everyone" --
> which sounds like an elitist mission statement for the Walker Art Center --
> and saying "poetry must be made by all" (Lautreamont/Ducasse) -- which might
> be the perfect sound bite for surrealists.
>
> the former assumes and encourages passivity in the masses (art is something
> artists do), the later encourages active participation in constructing a
> more complete and creative daily reality for all (living can be better, and
> i need to do something about that).
>
> in this sense, the link was more than "tenuous".
Another link was Hegel, a significant figure for both Marx and Breton.
>
> [ the _association_ was tenuous, however, because it was quite clear from
> the beginning that surrealists would not betray the "revolution of the
> mind", while they quickly recognized that the communists were betraying the
> revolution of the workers. ]
>
> > but this was the link in that
> > Communism's primary belief is the importance of the common worker. I'd
> > look at _What is Surrealism?_, selected writings by Andre Breton. It's
> > edited by Franklin Rosemont, self professed leader of Surrealism in the
> > U.S. in the 70's. His view of Breton is _very_ slanted towards
> > Communism and how it relates to Surrealism, so it might answer some of
> > your questions.
> > > Also what role did the various Surrealists play in the Resistance
> > > movement ?
> > >
> > > And the Spanish Civil War ?
> > Don't know the answer to this, really. Dali did some paintings kind of
> > in protest of the Spanish Civil War,
>
> Breton's first wife Simone, Bunuel, Miro, Penrose, Gascoyne, and Peret all
> went to Spain to support the Republicans (see Polizotti).
>
> Dali on the other hand, who had already been rejected by surrealists for
> such attitudes, was a supporter of Franco.
Anyone interested in this area may want to read “The Politics of
Surrealism” by Helena Lewis.
-- Parry
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Parry
>
> Nik, i really think you've short-circuited somewhere recently.
> Unless you were just 'trying' to write yourself out into the lost wake of
> oblivion.
> The remark was quite simple and you are, to me, blowing this one way out of
> proportion. Is this a session in 'automatic psycho-analysis'?
> Along lost freeways of burnt humor and dingey corpses? I don't know...that's
> why I'm asking you.
>
> john
>
> Nikolaus Maack wrote in message <8tqr50$auu$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>...
> >
> >Your father is trying to both bond with you and make fun of you -- he's
> >having difficulty deciding which. He selects certain out of date
> >catchphrases he has heard on the evening news, and delivers them with a
> >slightly sardonic twist. Something about his delivery reminds you just
> >how out of touch your father has become, and you wonder if it's time to
> >start looking at nursing home brochures. It is. Please pick the home
> >that hires former convicts.
“Certain out of date catchphrases he has heard on the evening news.” As
young Nik belabours his silliness, he forgets that Barrett was only
quoting words from the post to which he was replying.