Neo-surrealist page
Brandon J. Freels
>After World War II, the book of surrealism seemed closed --
Brandon:
You are accepting the critic's lies that Surrealism died with Breton in
1966. It obviously did not for there are Surrealist groups in Paris, I
believe Prague, Chicago, Wisconsin, etc. It is important to question the
critics, especially the American critics who often fill young minds with
bullshit. Critics like to re-write history.
CHENNO
After World War II, the book of surrealism seemed closed -- its importance
relegated to a particular historical context. Thus surrealism became important
only insofar as the role it played in spawning such smatterings as automatism
in writing and abstract expressionism in the visual arts.
So what is this "new surrealism"?
Perhaps most importantly, it is not a quantifiable something. Nor is it an
officially recognized movement, per se. Few of the artists I have included in
my listings are self proclaimed "new surrealists".
CHENNO ôżô
Painting is silent poetry, and poetry painting that speaks. - Simonides
CHENNO
http://members.aol.com/brownflowr/new.htm
Perceptor
Thank you chenno .I found some materiel here I have been looking for. very
helpful.
don
Ps I did not write that. I am asleep in bed now with the flu.
CHENNO
was of interest and wanted to share
barrett john erickson
>http://members.aol.com/brownflowr/new.htm
thanks for this link.
after reading quite a bit of the material i found much to recommend.
unfortunately, i also found confirmation of my suspicion as to the author's
need to proclaim a "new surrealism".
deep in the foundations of his/her project is a belief in "god" and a
respect for religion:
[ http://members.aol.com/brownflowr/email.htm#heaven ]
which, of course, sets the author against the entire history of the
surrealist movement -- then and now.
so, i stand by a post i made a long time ago (which, to the author's credit,
is linked from the description of this "new surrealism"):
>>>
date: 3july95b
subj: re: "new" surrealism
there are no "new" surrealists.
there are anti-surrealists and false surrealists and former surrealists and
dead surrealists and surrealists who prefer to avoid a chronically misused
label...
and, yes, there are living surrealists, old and young.
but to refer to "new" surrealism is like referring to "new" weather. it can
only seem "new" if you stand too still and small, too stuck in place to see
the larger context. it's only "new" if you mistake the perpetual change and
development of a single complex life form, as it passes by, for a series of
deaths and rebirths of something much simpler.
nevertheless, be certain that your disgust with the abuse of this space is
shared by many. it _is_ time to bring relevant discussion to this group.
engage.
~~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
Perceptor
Brownflowr
>after reading quite a bit of the material i found much to recommend.
>unfortunately, i also found confirmation of my suspicion as to the author's
>need to proclaim a "new surrealism".
>
>deep in the foundations of his/her project is a belief in "god" and a
>respect for religion:
>[ http://members.aol.com/brownflowr/email.htm#heaven ]
>which, of course, sets the author against the entire history of the
>surrealist movement -- then and now.
as the author and developer of both the brownflower creative group
(http://members.aol.com/brownflowr) as well as the "new surrealism" pages at
(http://members.aol.com/brownflowr/new.htm), i felt it appropriate to respond
to mr. barrett's recent post directly concerning the material on the new
surrealism that i have offered at the brownflower site.
first off, i really appreciate chenno's having posted the link to my pages in
this newsgroup, as visitors to brownflower are always a pleasure. so, thanks
to all who have emailed me and taken the time to read what i have to offer.
(the web often feels like a sort of glorified form of hubris, and i am by no
measure extinct from it...)
as to mr. barrett's objections to my logic and reasoning, i would like to make
two observations, but before i do, there is a predicate which must be paved --
and it is this: as i authored those pages (nearly two years ago), i became
accutely aware of mr. barrett's views on any way, shape, or form of a "new
surrealism" and of his disdain with the very mention of the concept. not only
did i (at that time as well as now) greatly admire his intelligence and
insight, but i also gained a certain respect for his views as a counterbalance
of and to my own. that being said, my two comments in regard to mr. barrrett's
recent post are by no means a rebuttle. rather, i would desire to create a
small context for my reasoning as to the "newness" of the "movement" of the new
surrealism. (please don't bombast me for my semantics in the preceeding
sentence. i'm hoping that the quotes around those words will for my fiercest
critics be ladybugs landing upon nuclear warheads...)
mr. barrett is right: deep in the foundational bowels of my "project" is a
belief in God. if the arguement at hand is that there can be no "new" weather,
then i would posit the following scenario. suppose that a small, Texas town
has never had a tornado strike ground. further, for the purposes of our
analogy, assume that the people of this town have never even seen a tornado in
real life. though they know tornadoes to exist, they have no frame of
reference for the *experience* of such a disaster except for their own feelings
as they have watched others on the television or read about them in the
newspapers... now, let's suppose that one day, a tornado DOES, indeed, strike
this small town. for this town, such an occurance would undoubtedly be "new".
certainly, the phenomenon of a tornado is nothing new. but as far as weather
patterns go, this event is unprecedented.
could it properly be said that this town has experienced NEW weather?
ah, but mr. barrett has already anticipated my logic here. this is why, in his
original approach to this subject, he said:
>it can only seem "new" if you stand too still and > small, too stuck in place
to see the larger
> context.
what mr. barrett has failed to recognize in his logic is the surreality of
experience and dreams. these lay claim to an entire realm of the numen with
which surrealism has always grappled. to deny such newness of weather patterns
to the realm of our experience is to confine one's history texts (of yesterday
AND today) to what is known and what is written and what is generally accepted
or observed.
...but, as we all know, surrealism has nothing to do with any of this. it is a
larger closet, and it knows not the confines of the reality with which we
comfort ourselves.
my second comment is a natural extension, then, of my first, and that is to say
that i would contend that the new surrealism is NEW precisely because of its
opposition to the "then and now" history of the surrealist "movement". in one
fell swoop, mr. barrett has run aground upon his own complaint when he writes
that my project's founding upon a belief in God
> sets the author against the entire history of the
> surrealist movement -- then and now.
if such a belief sets me against a historical confine, then does it not follow
that my belief is new?
furthermore, if such a "new surrealism" (ie: that founded on and coming from a
religious base) has no precident in the realm of our historical experience,
then does it not also seem that mr. barrett has proved the very thing he has
set out to lambaste?
mr. barrett seems to suggest that all surrealism -- both "then and now" --
must, of necessity, be agnostic. the fact that my own views on God have
interpolated themselves into the arguement by no means thins the paint.
certainly, the artists i present as part of the new surrealism do not all hold
my religious views. and even if they did, the dogma would have us all throwing
snowballs...
the newness of the new surrealism, for me, is not the question. the
counterpoint, however, is of utmost importance. and it is this: whether we
call it "the new surrealism" or "surrealism in 1999," we basically have the
same thing. (insert your favorite romeo "a rose by any other name" quote
here!) there are surrealist artists of our generation with which to contend,
and they are bringing something to the realm of experience which would likely
have been frowned upon by the likes of duchamp or breton as having no part of
the surrealist pie.
of what use, though, is speculation? these great men are dead. what stands
now is that we forge ahead and that we do so with the utmost conscience, with
the most horribly beautiful truths ringing their shrill laughter to the world
and also within each of us.
i offer the above only as points of contemplation. again, in no way do i wish
to demean mr. barrett or his views. as always, i will continue to respect his
convictions in this matter, and i welcome any and all complaints, questions,
and/or bananas from the readership of this list.
with much regard,
jeff brown
the brownflower creative group
http://members.aol.com/brownflowr
CHENNO
posted the link to my pages in
this newsgroup, as visitors to brownflower are always a pleasure.<<<
No problem, Thank you:) enjoyed the site.
RandmAxess
>believe Prague, Chicago, Wisconsin, etc.
gee if something is popular in Wisconsin it has to be a legitimate
movement!....maybe someday all cafe intellectuals will drink Old Milwaukee beer
and wear cheeseheads
The more the data banks record about each one of us, the less we exist.
-Marshall McLuhan
barrett john erickson
Brownflowr wrote...
> as to mr. barrett's objections to my logic and reasoning, i would like to
make
actually, i make no objection to your reasoning, only to belief, and to the
further dilution of the word "surrealism". on the contrary, it seems
appropriate in the light of your belief, that you assert your difference
from "surrealism", as you have.
[i only wish you'd proclaimed it with a bit more strength and not used the
word at all.
from what i was able to find at your site, however, i wouldn't argue against
any claim you might make for affinity with, or genealogical descent from
"surrealism" -- and our projects do appear to overlap considerably, making
us more ally than enemy, i believe.]
unlike some in this newsgroup, who blatantly claim the right to redefine
"surrealism" in their own image -- with no regard for existing
surrealists -- you have straight forwardly acknowledged that you are at some
level (to whatever degree, minor or major) at odds with "surrealism" in its
historical and current context.
for that you deserve respect.
as for describing that context as a "confine", i can only say that this is
in no way how i see it.
"surrealism" is a vibrant and continuously changing process of exploration
and experiment. it has no rules or laws or restrictions. its "definition"
is determined at any given moment only by the work and explorations of
surrealists past (its historical context) and the on-going work and
explorations of surrealists present (its current context).
this doesn't put a fence around "surrealism" future, it just determines the
context that any future action has relative to "surrealism" (i.e., is it an
extension of a path well trod, a new investigation of something previously
ignored, or does it stand in opposition to the positions of previous
surrealists?).
-- barrett