Breton article
Brandon J. Freels
http://socialequality.com/arts/1997/jun1997/breton1.shtml
Andrea Chen
>
> Communism is about making every man free. Surrealism fits in nicely. Stalin
> fucked Communism up.
>
Do you mean Stalin fucked up Marxism? There are lots of movements
which considered themself communist.
> Capitalism is about making the rich free (so its no good since Surrealism is
> against the rich)
>
Marx argued in an evolution of societies based on the technological
base. He believed capitalism was a necessary step to socialism and that
the revolution could not occur in places like Russia (which would simply
be another peasant revolution.)
Marx was a "materialist" arguing that technology decided economics
which decided the shape of the society including culture and politics.
> Fascism is about repression (its obviously no good since Surrealism's worst
> enemy is repression --- am I wrong?)
Revolution is a complex issue. Under Stalin's orders the German
communist party in the late twenties and early thrties devoted most of
their effort to battling the Social Democrats (also Marx influenced)
because this "false" revolutionary doctrine was a greater danger, in
fact the repression of the Nazis was expected to spur revolution. It
didn't work, but it is plausible. Social dynamics are complex, serious
discontent that spurs change may be more likely to occur under
repression. So possibly you are wrong, but I doubt if you have the
background for a serious discussion on politics. This in itself would
not necessarily be a problem, but you seem determined to speak in almost
meaningless generalities (fascism is about repression) which would make
an effort worthless.
Incidently the communist record against fascsm is mixed. Even in Spain
they spent a lot of effort stomping out the anarchists rather than
uniting against the common enemy. The Stalin/Hitler pact is notorious
with communists in France, England and other countries opposing war with
Germany, then rapidly reversing their position when Hitler broke the
pact.
I also don't find Breton doing much for the Resistance during the war.
He was safe in Mexico. So what exactly is the nature of this battle
against fascism?
>
> At least these are my takes on the issues as I understand them, but its been
> awhile since I did my political research.
I don't see much evidence that you've done any research in these
directions. Once again as in the case of Freud you seem to lack
knowledge of the larger social environment in which the surrealists
acted.
Can anyone clarify these points
> anymore?
> ---BJF
Nikolaus Maack
"Brandon J. Freels" (Fre...@ethergate.com) writes:
>I recently ran across an article on Breton at the World Socialist Web Site:
> http://socialequality.com/arts/1997/jun1997/breton1.shtml
Not to dig up dead horses and beat them with a stick, but:
From the article:
>Such excursions, no matter how often Breton and others solemnly
>rejected the existence of the supernatural, led the Surrealist group
>at times into the swamp of spiritualism. According to Nadeau, for
>example, "a hosannah in honor of the East," constituted almost the
>entire third issue of La Révolution Surrealiste, edited by Antonin
>Artaud in the spring of 1925. Artaud, Robert Desnos and others had
>discovered a "new kind of mysticism" associated with "the mysterious
>East of the Buddha and the Dalai Lama." At this point Breton
>reassumed editorial control of the journal and soon afterward
>developed an orientation toward Marxism and the Communist Party.
Of coure Breton never got his hands dirty with that Buddha nonsense, so I
guess that's what's important, er for some of us, anyway. So you mean to
tell me our stupid argument -- religion and surrealism and Buddhism -- has
been muddying surrealism since the 1920s? Wow. Surrealists (us included)
really do suck.
The other thing I don't get is if surrealism is supposed to be about
thought freed from "any control exercised by reason, exempt from any
aesthetic or moral concern" (sayeth Breton), why are all the surrealists
COMMUNIST? How can Breton justify his communist leanings? Wouldn't it
make more sense if they were apolitical? Can someone explain this to me?
I don't get it.
Nik
--
"kind of a pleasant sensation, if you don't fight it, not
having the slightest idea what anybody is talking about"
--Richard Martin
Brandon J. Freels
fucked Communism up.
Capitalism is about making the rich free (so its no good since Surrealism is
against the rich)
Fascism is about repression (its obviously no good since Surrealism's worst
enemy is repression --- am I wrong?)
At least these are my takes on the issues as I understand them, but its been
awhile since I did my political research. Can anyone clarify these points
anymore?
---BJF
Brandon J. Freels
> I don't see much evidence that you've done any research in these
>directions. Once again as in the case of Freud you seem to lack
>knowledge of the larger social environment in which the surrealists
>acted.
Brandon:
Unfortunately, again, you avoid the original question. Let me paraphrase
Nik's question: "How do Surrealism and Marxism interconnect?" Instead, Chen,
you have taken the opportunity to reply to my pressing of your buttons.
Sorry if it was inconvenient for you, but it was something that had to be
done. Any negative response I receive from you will only be seen as either
fear of my power, or love for my power. Now, if you have an answer to Nik's
question please do post it, otherwise do not respond. Thank you.
Ktzoah of Pic
> "Brandon J. Freels" (Fre...@ethergate.com) writes:
> >I recently ran across an article on Breton at the World Socialist Web Site:
> > http://socialequality.com/arts/1997/jun1997/breton1.shtml
[snip]
> Of coure Breton never got his hands dirty with that Buddha nonsense, so I
> guess that's what's important, er for some of us, anyway. So you mean to
> tell me our stupid argument -- religion and surrealism and Buddhism -- has
> been muddying surrealism since the 1920s? Wow. Surrealists (us included)
> really do suck.
ISTR that Artaud was something of an admirer of the Dalai Lama.
> The other thing I don't get is if surrealism is supposed to be about
> thought freed from "any control exercised by reason, exempt from any
> aesthetic or moral concern" (sayeth Breton), why are all the surrealists
> COMMUNIST? How can Breton justify his communist leanings? Wouldn't it
> make more sense if they were apolitical? Can someone explain this to me?
> I don't get it.
*ahem* -- "all the surrealists..."? Breton certainly was
into Marxism for a while, although that article mentions that
he later renounced it. I do not think that many of the others
followed his lead in that case. It's a decent article, but the
writer does show a tendancy to attempt to claim the parts of
surrealism that he likes for his cause of (I presume) Marxist
revolution.
Why would you suggest that surrealists should have been
apolitical? Why should surrealists not take sides in the
political arguments of the day? The article does state
that Breton favored anarchism (after renouncing Marxist
ideals c. 1950) but most likely not an apolitical form
of anarchism.
I can't imagine how a surrealist today could devote himself
to Marxism, but in case you've forgotten, things were a
little bit different in 1925. hmmm... if Breton were
around today, I bet he'd get along fine with Hakim Bey.
_
Brandon J. Freels
>*ahem* -- "all the surrealists..."?
Brandon:
Yes, I agree. The link between Surrealism and Marxism can only be seen
through Breton, Aragon, and a few others. The problem is that they were the
main theoreticians of Surrealism, so the political view gets askewed.
But, on all occasions I see Surrealism as completely anti-fascist. For those
who are doubters here is a quote from Surrealist Pierre Yoyotte in Race
Traitor #9 "the surrealists immediately oriented themselves towards the
defense of desire, towards individual expression, toward a solution
diametrically opposed to Mussolinian or racist militarization" (p. 10).
Not to be an advertisement, but this entire issue of Race Traitor is devoted
towards Surrealism's anti-racist, anti-fascist view. For more information on
Race Traitor go to www.postfun.com/racetraitor (its in the zine, never been
there myself).
Nikolaus Maack
Ktzoah of Pic (ax...@dhp.com) writes:
> Why would you suggest that surrealists should have been
> apolitical? Why should surrealists not take sides in the
> political arguments of the day?
If the surrealist group was formed to probe the irrational mind, avoiding
moral and ethical matters, it seems odd that surrealists of the day would
then get involved in the overly rational and excessively ethical world of
political arguments. I'd imagine that taking political stances would be
outside the realm of the surreal entirely. Or that one would be forced to
take nonsensical positions, in order to be consistent with their beliefs.
Then again, I suppose the Ottawa Golf Club occasionally writes up
statements against bombing Iraq, though why they'd talk about anything
beyond golf, I don't know. Come to think of it, Breton (amongst others)
tried to keep spiritualism out of the movement, and it still crept in.
Impossible to control where a large group of people will take an idea, I
suppose.
> The article does state
> that Breton favored anarchism (after renouncing Marxist
> ideals c. 1950) but most likely not an apolitical form
> of anarchism.
Anarchy, I believe, would be more consistent with the beliefs of
surrealism. Personally, I would rather stick with art and avoid the realm
of politics altogether. But that's me. And maybe in 25 years I'll turn
into a communist. Who knows?
Nik
--
"It could be a total disaster, but it could also be the next
best thing to killing and eating a real angel."
--Bill Cleere
scot...@earthlink.net
<Fre...@ethergate.com> wrote:
>Communism is about making every man free.
Just about any political/economic system will claim to make men free.
Freedom is a word with many variations of meaning. This fact does
not necessarily have anything to do with dishonesty or game playing.
>Surrealism fits in nicely.
As "Communism" actually develops in the real world, in large scale
systems: ... probably no.
As Communism can develop in the imagination of a human being:
...maybe. And it should be noted that within the human imagination
there are many variations as to what "Communism" means. Small
scale "communist" systems involving voluntary participants
frequently arise. Sometimes they respect human beings and human
imagination, sometimes they do not. Either way these systems have
tended to be temporary and not long lasting.
(interesting thought: is the net a new and different kind of
experiment in "communism"?)
>Stalin fucked Communism up.
Sometimes I've pretended to think this is true. The ease and speed
with which Stalin fucked up the Russian experiment, and the inability
of the experiment to self correct, IMO goes to issues that are outside
of Stalin and that have something to do with the nature of the
experiment itself.
scot...@earthlink.net
<fallin...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Incidently the communist record against fascsm is mixed. Even in Spain
>they spent a lot of effort stomping out the anarchists rather than
>uniting against the common enemy.
It's been a long time since I've thought about this. My memory is
that this issues does not come across all that vividly if one reads
histories of the Spanish Civil war, but becomes very vivid if a person
reads George Orwell's account of his experience in Spain (he fought in
an anarchist militia) and if a person reads the letters of returning
veterans that appeared in leftist publications of the time.
>The Stalin/Hitler pact is notorious with communists in France, England
I think that Paul Nizan, who at one point had been the head of the
communist party in France was assassinated by the communists because
he balked at the pact.
It could be argued that these issues really have nothing to do with
Communism but are related to Stalin's corruption of the communist
experiment. This pretends the real world is not the real world, and
avoids the question as to why the experiment could be so quickly
and easily corrupted.
aphrodite k.
surrealism helped dismember the surrealist group.
I think the origins of surrealism [ Dada ] and it's whole practice [let's
not forget Breton's metaphysical inclinations] points more to anarchy than
to communism.
Of course, communism as UTOPIAN social theory is something altogether
different. And I think this was essentially Breton's concept.
Anyway, it's been established that surrealism had a lot more to do with
the french May of 1968 as spontaneous reaction to apathy and consumerism
and bringing fantasy to life than to USSR'S application of marxism.
Any more ideas about may '68?
Talysman
write in alt.surrealism:
:)Of coure Breton never got his hands dirty with that Buddha nonsense, so I
:)guess that's what's important, er for some of us, anyway. So you mean to
:)tell me our stupid argument -- religion and surrealism and Buddhism -- has
:)been muddying surrealism since the 1920s? Wow. Surrealists (us included)
:)really do suck.
"During these last few years surrealism has often had
the opportunity of turning to account everything that
could link the poetry of this last century to initiatory
tradition. Previously, in _Arcane_17_, which I wrote
in Canada, I expressed the conviction that the process
of artistic discovery is invested in the form and the
means of the advancement of high magic. Today it is
well established--we have proof of it--that esoteric
thought has strongly attracted of influenced most of
surrealism's precursors, such as: Hugo, Nerval, Bertrand,
Fourier, Baudelaire, Lautreamont, Rimbaud, Mallarme,
Jarry, Roussel, Kafka. To the extent that surrealism
obeys historical determinations in passing through them,
it is plain that it could not skirt the esoteric in its
turn; that, even though confining itself to poetic ground,
it would be led to verify certain fundamental esoteric
theses. Surrealism long since had begun to have a
presentiment of this; the important thing is that it
should be assured of it from now on."
I'm sure Brandon is fuming right now and wants to scream "stop
taking the words of these mystics as having any sort of bearing
on the surrealist project! surrealism has *no* connection to
magic or esotericism! these may be of *interest* to surrealists,
but only as images to work with, not as fundamental truths!"
but let's keep going with the quote, to see if this so-called
surrealist will redeem himself and renounce religion:
"We know that surrealism started from the systematic
recourse to the unconscious. In the so-called
reasoning phase of its activity, it worked to make
the conscious benefit from the results of its
exploration--that is, it undertook, with what it
brought back from the depths of the unconscious, to
extend the limits of the conscious. I think this
is the beginning of the dialectical approach which
must bring about the fusion of the two terms in a
third that surmounts their contradiction. But this
third term can only be the recognition of the precept
that governs alchemical philosophy as well as the
wisdom of ancient China, namely, that the whole
matter consists of going from conscious action to
unconscious action. Only unconscious action is
natural; it alone is capable of accomplishing physical
and chemical operations which cannot be rendered in
terms of reason. The ancient Chinese summed it up
in these words: `Follow nature,' signifying by this
that `not to do does not mean to do nothing, it means
not to hinder the course of nature,' and also, `all
that flows from the source accords with the will of
heaven.'"
gah! sacrilege! this paragraph started out pretty good, I bet
even Brandon agrees with it... but then the writer starts talking
about Chinese philosophy as if it were a great truth, and even
quotes from taoist writings! and he states that unconscious
action can help someone to *literally* perform alchemy! plus,
here he is talking about "not to do [wu wei] does not mean to do
nothing..." Brandon has already pointed out that the taoist idea
of wu wei is COMPLETELY INCOMPATIBLE with surrealism. and here
is some *fool* telling us that wu wei is the ultimate goal and
hidden precept of surrealism!
the scoundrel!
but let's give him one more chance. maybe he'll add that these
old philosophies and mystical beliefs are only false attempts to
grasp the truths of surrealism, although I have to admit he's
pretty much proven himself unfamiliar with the background and the
goals of the surrealist project as Brandon and Barrett have so
thoroughly described it. carry on, mystic:
"In _Surrealism_and_Painting_ I was able to say that a
work could not be considered surrealist unless it
attained the total psycho-physical field (of which the
conscious field is only a small part), and as an example
I suggested the building of a bird's nest. I have watched
birds a great deal on Bonaventure Island, off shore from
Perce; never have I listened to them so much, or heard
them so well, as in the Canadian forest. In the present
stage of its evolution I want to say that it is no longer
only in poetry and art that surrealism aspires to regain,
to put back into working order, this natural principle
that bestows on them their plumage and song, this _tao_
of the Chinese that also assures us that `the seasons
roll around' and that `the phoenix soars.' Surrealism
continues to count on this principle, and intends to
found upon it its effort to bring human conduct into
equilibrium again, and to restore to humankind a higher
understanding of life."
NO! more mysticism! and an explicit reference to taoism! Brandon
is spinning in his grave! who is this foul mystic who has such a
complete lack of understanding for the real aims of the surrealist
project?
Andre Breton. this was something he read on Radio-Canada in 1953.
--
cement jeans are asking buttoned-up farmhouses about patron ambiguity.
His Most Feathered Eminence, the Ur-Beatle
Talysman
write in alt.surrealism:
:)The other thing I don't get is if surrealism is supposed to be about
:)thought freed from "any control exercised by reason, exempt from any
:)aesthetic or moral concern" (sayeth Breton), why are all the surrealists
:)COMMUNIST? How can Breton justify his communist leanings? Wouldn't it
:)make more sense if they were apolitical? Can someone explain this to me?
:)I don't get it.
add to the other comments people have made on this thread:
"communism" is more than just socialism or state communism.
marxist ideas also influenced the anarchist thinkers, who
formed the anarchocommunist branch of anarchism (contrasted
with the anarchocapitalist and anarchosyndicalist branch.
yes! "Monty Python" didn't make up that word!)
one of the main anarchist and anarchocommunist writers was
Peter Kropotkin, form russian prince and opponent of all
government authority. he wrote the entry for "anarchism"
in the Encyclopedia Brittanica (1914 edition, I think.)
*this* is probably what the surrealists were thinking of
when they espoused marxist ideas; they certainly weren't
thinking of stalinism or leninism. the fact that Breton
later claimed anarchist leanings signifies, to me, not
a change of opinion, but a clarification of what he believed
all along.
ARSENAL 4 gives an interesting account by Mary Low of her
experiences in Prague after the Nazis invaded. her and her
companions were in personal danger because they had just
come from the Spanish Civil War, where they were involved
with an independent marxist group, POUM. she and her friend
Juan Brea were trotskyists, but they also called themselves
"surrealists", which was lucky (the Nazis left the czech
surrealists alone, mistaking them for just an art movement.
--
ask me who dreamed in contours of pity.
Perceptor
> Any more ideas about may '68?
Paris, Berkeley, Everywhere it seemed.
Hope had become outraged once again
and had gone to the barricades..
It seems to me that wars breed a generation
of surrealists who take the fight to streets.
But when the dust settles it all reverts back to insipid apathy.
Then another war comes and the survivors children
find themselves needing to become surrealist all over again.
Perceptor
> which was lucky (the Nazis left the czech
> surrealists alone, mistaking them for just an art movement.
Lets hope we can be so lucky after the fundamentalist christians turn over
copies
of our cross posts (no stake in the heart pun was intended) to to their news
groups.
An off subject comment (sorry)
> ask me who dreamed in contours of pity.
> His Most Feathered Eminence, the Ur-Beatle
OK
Who dreamed in cross posts of piety ?
elag
Talysman wrote:
(...)
Andrea Chen
> one of the main anarchist and anarchocommunist writers was
> Peter Kropotkin, form russian prince and opponent of all
> government authority. he wrote the entry for "anarchism"
> in the Encyclopedia Brittanica (1914 edition, I think.)
> *this* is probably what the surrealists were thinking of
> when they espoused marxist ideas; they certainly weren't
> thinking of stalinism or leninism.
Actually Breton was involved with the party. I will discuss my views
on this in the comments on Taz.
Nikolaus Maack
Talysman (taly...@softhome.net) writes:
> Andre Breton. this was something he read on Radio-Canada in 1953.
I love you, Talysman. Thanks for that. Watch Dale and Brandon completely
ignore it. That's what happens when your world view is contradicted and
you can't deal with it. *sigh*
"Yes, but that contradicts the early, historically valid Breton that we
know and love!"
Dale Houstman
You must think everyone's ignorant; of course we know that Breton wrote a book
called "Arcanum17" and of course we know that all thought is open to
consideration by surrealism. We have spoken here before of this, in reference to
the religiosity of Blake (a mystic embraced by Surrealism) and of Bosch (a
hard-line hellist embraced by Surrealism), but the point is that Breton always
stressed the independence and incorruptibility of surrealist; what Breton is
interested in when considering esoteric thought is the "thought" itself and not
the "belief" which is an entirely different horse to ride upon.
A belief in gods produces esoteric thoughts (or rather esoteric thoughts
produces a belief in gods) and esoteric forms (art, writing, ritual) all of
which are surreal in character. In some way Breton is approaching the entire
realm of idea as an archaeologist. Just because one is digging in and intrigued
by Egyptian culture doesn't mean one believes in Ptah.
"Arcanum 17" was written at a time of world turmoil (1944) and is an
affirmation of the liberty of human imagination, and the power of that
imagination to survive by alchemical transmutation of the world itself. He
"chose" alchemy thus as a guiding principle for what he believed needed to be
reaffirmed. But not once will you see him standing before a sublimating beaker
attempting to turn lead into gold! But why not, if (as you seem to hold) he had
come to accept mysticism as a belief? Simply put, because he hadn't. In many
ways he felt that mystical notions were beautiful forms that had been wrongly
applied; in this case for instance he reapplies all that to the image of (once
more) THE WOMAN. Not a god, or some pie-in-the-sky concept, but a woman. Now we
could argue here about his female-image (way too romantic and ephemeral it now
seems), but there is no indication that Breton went to mysticism to find god.
Thus he is not a mystic.
Even with movements much more closely tied with surrealism this sort of
independence asserted itself; speaking of romanticism (which surrealism is the
grand epitome of in the 20th century) he says that while surrealism is the tail
end of romanticism, it is a "very prehensile tail". If he felt he was
independent of romanticism, what could he possibly think of mysticism?
Breton considered and used the forms and symbols of alchemy, but was not an
alchemist and (obviously) did not believe in its physical presumptions. Breton
was a doctor and a man of science; he knew you couldn't heal people for example
by heating mercury in a test tube and spouting nonsense Latin over a crucible.
"How long shall we have to wait for a brand new laboratory where established
ideas, "no matter which", beginning with the most elementary ones, the ones
most hastily exonerated, will be accepted only for the purposes of study,
contingent upon an examination "from top to bottom" and by definition free from
all preconceptions? I say that one day these ideas should no longer lay claim to
being accepted, they should only be taken note of for the sake of inventory."
ANDRE BRETON, "Arcanum 17"
If that's the voice of a mystic, then you're the Queen of May.
DMH
barrett john erickson
>ARSENAL 4 gives an interesting account by Mary Low of her
>experiences in Prague after the Nazis invaded. her and her
>companions were in personal danger because they had just
>come from the Spanish Civil War, where they were involved
>with an independent marxist group, POUM. she and her friend
>Juan Brea were trotskyists, but they also called themselves
>"surrealists", which was lucky (the Nazis left the czech
>surrealists alone, mistaking them for just an art movement.
don't you think that text indicates just the opposite (that they were very
much in danger)?
The entire text is about their efforts to evade the Nazi's and their concern
for their friends. After obtaining exit visa's through the intervention of
someone they'd met at a social function, they erased their names and sent
the visa's to Toyen.
at the end of the text we find:
"Did it help her? Certainly she [Toyen] and Heisler and the others all
eventually reached Paris or London, but by what means i do not know."
don't you think the fact that Low and Brea and others survived is evidence
of their luck and skill (in juxtaposition with the bureaucratic ignorance of
the Nazi's) rather than being left alone?
-- 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
barrett john erickson
>>
>> Any more ideas about may '68?
>
>Paris, Berkeley, Everywhere it seemed.
>Hope had become outraged once again
>and had gone to the barricades..
>It seems to me that wars breed a generation
>of surrealists who take the fight to streets.
A good point. This does seem to be the case.
And not too surprising when one realizes that these are the times when the
young feel most connected to the reality of their lives because they (and/or
their friends) are directly threatened with conscription and death. When
they ask why, they see it is to protect an existing order in which they have
little stake.
It is at these times that the "appalling contrast," as the situationists put
it, "between the possible constructions of life and its present poverty" is
most visible.
>But when the dust settles it all reverts back to insipid apathy.
>Then another war comes and the survivors children
>find themselves needing to become surrealist all over again.
Sadly true.
barrett john erickson
> ...
>but let's give him one more chance. maybe he'll add that these
>old philosophies and mystical beliefs are only false attempts to
>grasp the truths of surrealism, although I have to admit he's
>pretty much proven himself unfamiliar with the background and the
>goals of the surrealist project as Brandon and Barrett have so
>thoroughly described it. carry on, mystic:
first, you have again ascribed a position to me rather than describe one
i've taken.
i have argued against religious/mystical belief, and any attempt to
proclaim such belief compatible with the surrealist project.
Second, i have always found much to argue against in what i perceive as
Breton's mystical interests (i think these are to a large degree the
consequence of his time and a lack of scientific understanding). Alas,
i never had an opportunity to do so -- he died when i was 16. But it
needs to be pointed out (again!) that he makes _all_ his comments from
a firmly surrealist stance and that he allows no room for such mysticisms
as a discipline or foundation of "belief".
This is his _continuous and pervasive_ context.
He is _always_ appraising the paths taken by others in terms of how that
path is or is not related to the path of "surrealism". His observations of
congruencies should not be mistaken for an endorsement of the entirety of
that other tradition, or an attempt to incorporate that tradition into
surrealism. These are assessments of what others have done that indicate an
underlying common project from which we have all evolved.
That underlying common project has been always found, for Breton (and for
me), its truest expression in the surrealist project.
Perceptor
> Talysman wrote in message ...
>
> >ARSENAL 4 gives an interesting account by Mary Low of her
> >experiences in Prague after the Nazis invaded. her and her
> >companions were in personal danger because they had just
> >come from the Spanish Civil War, where they were involved
> >with an independent marxist group, POUM. she and her friend
> >Juan Brea were trotskyists, but they also called themselves
> >"surrealists", which was lucky (the Nazis left the czech
> >surrealists alone, mistaking them for just an art movement.
>
> don't you think that text indicates just the opposite (that they were very
> much in danger)?
>
> The entire text is about their efforts to evade the Nazi's and their concern
> for their friends. After obtaining exit visa's through the intervention of
> someone they'd met at a social function, they erased their names and sent
> the visa's to Toyen.
>
> at the end of the text we find:
>
> "Did it help her? Certainly she [Toyen] and Heisler and the others all
> eventually reached Paris or London, but by what means i do not know."
>
> don't you think the fact that Low and Brea and others survived is evidence
> of their luck and skill (in juxtaposition with the bureaucratic ignorance of
> the Nazi's) rather than being left alone?
>
> -- 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
Yes , Of course.
I see my poverty In my communication skills. What I was meaning to imply was not
that our
peril is anything like that experienced by the Intelligentsia in the 30s and 40s
but that given the right conditions Totalitarian, fascist, Repressive,
(add a million more adjectives) forms of power over societal groups always seem
to fester up to the top of the political dung heap and that the current
geopolitical time bubble (Euro/Western/ Democratic-Condescended Human Rights and
Liberty) regimes we find ourselves living in of corrupt bread and circus , free
speech/press societal bodies are historically short lived.
I personally and cynically feel that there is no defense against the "knock on
the door in the middle of the night - take them to the camps" type of living
nightmare except trough flight and evasion
(for the lucky ones).
My comment was to illustrate my perception that now is a good time to start
thinking about evasive battle tactics when, if the time comes that it is
necessary, to fight with what ever weapons we have familiarized ourselves with
whether they be keyboards , paintbrushes or even ticking bombs of
yet to be born ideological manifestos.
I am still trying to discover whether or not I am a true cynic or just a
pessimist. The difference between the pessimist and the optimist is that the
optimist forms his world view from what he is fed by Television and the
pessimist forms it from reading history from the perspective of Science Fiction
come to pass.
don wheeler-mings
Andrea Chen
> "During these last few years surrealism has often had
> the opportunity of turning to account everything that
> could link the poetry of this last century to initiatory
> tradition. Previously, in _Arcane_17_, which I wrote
> in Canada, I expressed the conviction that the process
> of artistic discovery is invested in the form and the
> means of the advancement of high magic. Today it is
> well established--we have proof of it--that esoteric
> thought has strongly attracted of influenced most of
> surrealism's precursors, such as: Hugo, Nerval, Bertrand,
> Fourier, Baudelaire, Lautreamont, Rimbaud, Mallarme,
> Jarry, Roussel, Kafka. To the extent that surrealism
> obeys historical determinations in passing through them,
> it is plain that it could not skirt the esoteric in its
> turn; that, even though confining itself to poetic ground,
> it would be led to verify certain fundamental esoteric
> theses. Surrealism long since had begun to have a
> presentiment of this; the important thing is that it
> should be assured of it from now on."
>
Hi Mr. Breton:
I'm glad you could join us. As you may or may not know we are
considering the start of a loose movement(s) (name(s) unknown but
possibly having something to do with mirrors.
I find your mentions of magic interesting because anarchist theatre of
this type interests several in alt.surrealism and alt.pouting.sandwich
has several authorities on the arcane mystic thoughts of knights
templar.
The use of magic is very appropiate in this medium for some of us have
used it to cast spells through the repetition and linking of symbols.
There have at times been some "strange coincidences."
Anyway welcome to alt.surrealism. I wonder if you would like to join
our discussion today which is the relationship of surrealism and peanut
butter (or is it true you wear dentures.)
Incidently I notice your first name is Andre. I find it flattering that
you want to imitate me.
_Your Friend_
> "We know that surrealism started from the systematic
> recourse to the unconscious. In the so-called
> reasoning phase of its activity, it worked to make
> the conscious benefit from the results of its
> exploration--that is, it undertook, with what it
> brought back from the depths of the unconscious, to
> extend the limits of the conscious. I think this
> is the beginning of the dialectical approach which
> must bring about the fusion of the two terms in a
> third that surmounts their contradiction. But this
> third term can only be the recognition of the precept
> that governs alchemical philosophy as well as the
> wisdom of ancient China, namely, that the whole
> matter consists of going from conscious action to
> unconscious action. Only unconscious action is
> natural; it alone is capable of accomplishing physical
> and chemical operations which cannot be rendered in
> terms of reason. The ancient Chinese summed it up
> in these words: `Follow nature,' signifying by this
> that `not to do does not mean to do nothing, it means
> not to hinder the course of nature,' and also, `all
> that flows from the source accords with the will of
> heaven.'"
>
>
Andrea Chen
>
> Talysman wrote in message ...
>
> >ARSENAL 4 gives an interesting account by Mary Low of her
> >experiences in Prague after the Nazis invaded. her and her
> >companions were in personal danger because they had just
> >come from the Spanish Civil War, where they were involved
> >with an independent marxist group, POUM. she and her friend
> >Juan Brea were trotskyists, but they also called themselves
> >"surrealists", which was lucky (the Nazis left the czech
> >surrealists alone, mistaking them for just an art movement.
>
> don't you think that text indicates just the opposite (that they were very
> much in danger)?
>
Let me explain something very clearly to you:
There is no comment on the degree of danger they are in. So your
remark isn't an opposite, but an irrelevance designed to disguise the
clear implication that:
Despite the fact that they were widely known, the Nazis did not regard
surrealist as any sort of threat or enemy.
This contradicts the frequently mentioned claim in this group that the
surrealists were major opponents of fascsm, individually they may have
been; but there is no question that German intelligence (like all
intelligence agencies) collecting the clippings the interviews etc. In
fact German intelligence did it more so than most intelligence agencies
because they were working on the 5th column. Yet the Germans found
nothing threatening in these surrealists (who were already suspect).
It was because surrealism was considered non political (artistic). Of
course anyone examined by German authorities was in danger. They ran an
arbitrary police state. But that wasn't the point. Why did you change
the point?
Brandon J. Freels
Yes, Talysman, I read the article. Unfortunately Breton had fallen under the
spell of eastern introduction. Oh, those easterners are so interesting,
blah, blah, blah. If you take the equation any thing can be Surrealism:
Christians follow Christ. Christ is the unconscious. Therefor Christians are
Surrealists.
The catch here is that Christians don't see Christ as the unconscious just
as Taoists don't see nature as the unconscious.
The unconscious is what the occults mistakenly call "dangerous territory."
(Manifestos, p. 40)
Alchemy, as described in the second manifesto, can be used as a metaphor for
Surrealism. Alchemists change base metals into precious metals, Surrealists
change base thoughts into precious thoughts. E.A. Hitchcock, a writer on
Alchemy, tried to make a case that Alchemists tried to change base man into
pure man, but this is a disputed by many Alchemist experts.
Magic, a traditional belief in superstitions based on a hidden wisdom that
goes against all reason, is the closest to Surrealism, but in magic the
outcome will always be the same: one magic word will always have the same
outcome no matter how many times its spoken. Surrealism would differ in that
the magic word's outcome would always change.
Mysticism, a connection between man and the supernatural, can be applied to
the equation shown above:
Mystics connect with the supernatural. The supernatural is the unconscious.
Therefor Mystics are Surrealists. Unfortunately, Mystics don't believe they
are connecting to the unconscious, but with the supernatural.
Spiritualism, the nineteenth century believe in contacting the dead through
a medium, fits the same equation:
Spiritualists connect with the dead. The dead are the unconscious. Therefor
the Spiritualists are Surrealists. The only problem, again, is that the
Spiritualists don't believe they are connecting with the unconscious, but
with the dead.
Understood?
Andrea Chen
>
> The catch here is that Christians don't see Christ as the unconscious just
> as Taoists don't see nature as the unconscious.
>
The yin?
Alas a discussion I'm too weary to dare. Trying to explore Taoism to
someone who read the definition in a rather poor dictionary.
> The unconscious is what the occults mistakenly call "dangerous territory."
It's not dangerous?
>
> Alchemy, as described in the second manifesto, can be used as a metaphor for
> Surrealism. Alchemists change base metals into precious metals, Surrealists
> change base thoughts into precious thoughts. E. A. Hitchcock, a writer on
> Alchemy, tried to make a case that Alchemists tried to change base man into
> pure man, but this is a disputed by many Alchemist experts.
>
Not just E Alfred Hitchcock (I loved his movies), but many others
(including Jung) made this claim.
> Magic, a traditional belief in superstitions based on a hidden wisdom that
> goes against all reason, is the closest to Surrealism, but in magic the
> outcome will always be the same: one magic word will always have the same
> outcome no matter how many times its spoken.
Are you sure?
>Surrealism would differ in that
> the magic word's outcome would always change.
>
What do you call it when different spells evoke the same response (eg.
Nazi (as predicted in Godwin's Law)) and the victim of that spell boasts
that the response is original?
Is this meta surrealism?
barrett john erickson
in response to a question i put to Talysman,
"Andrea Chen" wrote...
> Let me explain something very clearly to you:
thanks, that gave me a good laugh (although i assume you didn't intend it
to).
> There is no comment on the degree of danger they are in. So your
>remark isn't an opposite, but an irrelevance designed to disguise the
>clear implication that:
wasn't meant to be an opposite or a disguise, just a straight forward
question to Talysman as to a different read of a text he referenced while
stating that the nazi's left the Czech group alone.
> Despite the fact that they were widely known, the Nazis did not regard
>surrealist as any sort of threat or enemy.
and you can say this, of course, because you were a well-connected nazi in
WWII?
[readers: please note the subtle but significant shift of subject "Andrea"
makes (a common MO) from the threat perceived by surrealists to that
perceived by the nazi's. while i don't dispute "her" claim that the nazi's
were widely known, i made no assertion as to how they regarded
surrealists -- but i do question "hers".]
> This contradicts the frequently mentioned claim in this group that the
>surrealists were major opponents of fascism,
you've offered no such contradiction.
what your tortured reasoning implies is that for one group to oppose
another, the second group must also consider the first a threat. therefore,
no perception of threat = no opposition and we can all will our opponents
away by simply refusing to recognize them.
sounds like the tactic Daley, et. al., tried in '68 at the democratic
national convention. but of course they blew it by swinging the billy
clubs.
>individually they may have
>been; but there is no question that German intelligence (like all
>intelligence agencies) collecting the clippings the interviews etc. In
>fact German intelligence did it more so than most intelligence agencies
>because they were working on the 5th column. Yet the Germans found
>nothing threatening in these surrealists (who were already suspect).
again with the omniscience that lacks a sense of direction.
if it mattered to me, id ask you to explain why you feel so comfortable in
declaring what the germans did or did not find threatening. but it doesn't.
> It was because surrealism was considered non political (artistic). Of
Which means, of course, that the nazi's were as ignorant of "surrealism" as
it existed then as others are of contemporary "surrealism" today.
[and let me try to avoid the confusion i suspect that thought might provoke
in you:
i am _not_ saying that those who are ignorant of contemporary "surrealism"
are nazi's.]
>course anyone examined by German authorities was in danger. They ran an
>arbitrary police state. But that wasn't the point. Why did you change
>the point?
hell, i don't know... to clarify a reference made by Talysman? or, maybe
for another opportunity to observe your conceptual dyslexia in action?
Andrea Chen
>
> > There is no comment on the degree of danger they are in. So your
> >remark isn't an opposite, but an irrelevance designed to disguise the
> >clear implication that:
>
> wasn't meant to be an opposite or a disguise, just a straight forward
> question to Talysman as to a different read of a text he referenced while
> stating that the nazi's left the Czech group alone.
>
Then why did you write:
>
>
> don't you think that text indicates just the opposite (that they were *******
>very much in danger)?
Either you are a liar or you are unable to understand what you wrote.
If you had said something like, "however they were still in great
danger" your claim not to challenge the original post would be valid.
However you indicated that what was written was *opposite* to the truth
and then when challenged you deny what you wrote.
Andrea Chen
> > Despite the fact that they were widely known, the Nazis did not regard
> >surrealist as any sort of threat or enemy.
>
> and you can say this, of course, because you were a well-connected nazi in
> WWII?
>
> [readers: please note the subtle but significant shift of subject "Andrea"
> makes (a common MO) from the threat perceived by surrealists to that
> perceived by the nazi's. while i don't dispute "her" claim that the nazi's
> were widely known
Clever, but the "surrealists were also well known" is valid.
]
>
> > This contradicts the frequently mentioned claim in this group that the
> >surrealists were major opponents of fascism,
>
> you've offered no such contradiction.
>
> what your tortured reasoning implies is that for one group to oppose
> another, the second group must also consider the first a threat. therefore,
> no perception of threat = no opposition and we can all will our opponents
> away by simply refusing to recognize them.
My logic isn't tortured. It's based on a simple observation. If the
surrealists had spoken loudly and frequently against fascists, if they
had subjected them to the same sort of mockery that they subjected (the
relatively harmless) French middle class to, if they had been a viable
movement of change; then the Nazis would have known who they were and
considered them a threat.
You offer one viable alternative. This is that the surrealists were
secretly plotting against fascism. Evidence? Did this plot have any
success? In point of fact the rejection of politics (such as you
espoused) because all was corrupt, along with the communist rejection of
defending France (which other surrealists went along with) helped to
demoralize the French nation and army with both the left and right
opposing the war. Look lots of people took some serious risks to battle
the fascist tendencies in Europe. I'm sure these include some
individual surrealists, but SHOW me the record of opposition or stop
making the claim that surrealism is a major force against fascism.
Historically it hasn't been.
barrett john erickson
Andrea Chen wrote:
>
> barrett john erickson wrote:
> >
> > > There is no comment on the degree of danger they are in. So your
> > >remark isn't an opposite, but an irrelevance designed to disguise the
> > >clear implication that:
> >
> > wasn't meant to be an opposite or a disguise, just a straight forward
> > question to Talysman as to a different read of a text he referenced while
> > stating that the nazi's left the Czech group alone.
> >
>
> Then why did you write:
>
> >
> >
> > don't you think that text indicates just the opposite (that they were *******
>
> >very much in danger)?
i've made an accurate statement of my purpose. my reply was directed at the phrase
"the Nazis left the czech surrealists alone, mistaking them for just an art
movement."
i can see upon rereading the original post, however, that i hadn't made this
sufficiently clear to avoid all possibility of misconstruing this intent.
barrett john erickson
> [...]
> In 1935 Breton, Peret, Claude Cahun and other surrealists cofounded with
> Georges Bataille and several of his co-thinkers a revolutionary political
> group, Counter-Attack. In a prospectus of their program, referring to the
> Nazis' notorious love for the Fatherland, they declared that "We too can
> love fanatically, but what we love---although we are of French origin---is
> not the French Community but the human community; not France but Earth."
(p.
> 10)
thanks, Brandon, you save me some time.
"Andrea" wrote:
> You offer one viable alternative. This is that the surrealists were
> secretly plotting against fascism. Evidence? Did this plot have any
> success? In point of fact the rejection of politics (such as you
> espoused) because all was corrupt, along with the communist rejection of
> defending France (which other surrealists went along with) helped to
> demoralize the French nation and army with both the left and right
> opposing the war. Look lots of people took some serious risks to battle
> the fascist tendencies in Europe. I'm sure these include some
> individual surrealists, but SHOW me the record of opposition or stop
> making the claim that surrealism is a major force against fascism.
> Historically it hasn't been.
first, i made no claim on this subject. "Andrea" did.
but i'll make one now:
the surrealist project (when understood as the integration of the liberated
imagination with every day living) is intrinsically anti-fascist. it is
also intrinsically anti-nationalist and intrinsically anti-religious.
also, and this is what the "personalists" can't seem to understand, it is
inherently social and collective -- seeking the liberation of all
imaginations integrated with an enhanced reality.
these were/are only "secrets" to those who don't understand "surrealism".
undermining the french (or any) state and army is not an unwelcomed side
effect, but a natural consequence.
and to be clear: i did not "espouse" the "rejection of politics ... because
all was corrupt" (which strikes me as a typically "post-modern" attitude)
but rather denounced the poverty of political discourse for its evasions and
treasons against the imagination (a surrealist attitude).
"Andrea's" failure to see this distinction is but another reason "her"
comments on "surrealism" carry no weight.
Brandon J. Freels
Andrea Chen wrote
> You offer one viable alternative. This is that the surrealists were
>secretly plotting against fascism. Evidence?
Quotes from Franklin Rosemont's article "Surrealists on Whiteness" in Race
Traitor #9
Implacable enemies of fascism, they were constatly denounced in the fascist
press. Unlike Stalinists and social-democrats, however, surrealists never
let their hatred of fascism blind them to the systemic radism, massacres and
other atrocities committed by the great imperialist powers, which then (as
now) liked to call themselves "democracies." (p. 9)
Perceptor
> Perceptor wrote in message <367E1095...@optonline.net>...
> >>
> >> Any more ideas about may '68?
> >
> >Paris, Berkeley, Everywhere it seemed.
> >Hope had become outraged once again
> >and had gone to the barricades..
> >It seems to me that wars breed a generation
> >of surrealists who take the fight to streets.
>
> A good point. This does seem to be the case.
>
> And not too surprising when one realizes that these are the times when the
> young feel most connected to the reality of their lives because they (and/or
> their friends) are directly threatened with conscription and death. When
> they ask why, they see it is to protect an existing order in which they have
> little stake.
>
> It is at these times that the "appalling contrast," as the situationists put
> it, "between the possible constructions of life and its present poverty" is
> most visible.
>
> >But when the dust settles it all reverts back to insipid apathy.
> >Then another war comes and the survivors children
> >find themselves needing to become surrealist all over again.
>
> Sadly true.
>
> -- 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
As I simply my own experience.
It is the slow awakening of the awareness
of the poverty of the soul.
That all of the banal normality projected by the
society and perceived by its
members as culture
is a huge collective lie created as a defense
mechanism of denial against the
surreal possibility that an alternative way of being
could or would exist.
It is the conscious decision to live rather than exist.
As such it is always the clear and present danger
to any totalitarian military industrial complex.
*end of rant*
Nikolaus Maack
barrett john erickson (bar...@skypoint.com) writes:
> i can see upon rereading the original post, however, that i hadn't made
>this sufficiently clear to avoid all possibility of misconstruing this
>intent.
That is absolutely beautiful. While explaining how you might have been
unclear, you write a jumbled piece of verbiage that is painful to read.
(This is probably because you are trying to avoid taking blame for your
own mistakes.) Here, let me do a rewrite for you:
Having reread my original post, I see that I wasn't clear on this matter,
and that's why my intentions are being misconstrued.
How's that? "I can see upon rereading the original post, however," is
quite a mess, so I straightened that out. "Sufficiently," like many an
adverb, acts mostly as padding. The "however" is just a textual tic
getting in the way. "To avoid all possibility" is a bit lofty, and can
therefore be taken out. Besides, the "possiblity of misconstruing" has
already occured. Someone did miscontrue your intent, so talking about the
possibility of it is silly. Hence, my rewrite.
In future, why don't you email all your postings to me so that I can fix
them for you? There will be a slight fee for these servivces.
Dale Houstman
>
> > In future, why don't you email all your postings to me so that I can fix
> > them for you? There will be a slight fee for these servivces.
I think this is a marvelous idea, if you would only email all your
postings
to me so I could destroy them. I won't charge a nickel, it would be my
pleasure.
By the by, circuitous sentence structure or no, at least barret has
something
worth saying. Your "clarity" in comparison is vacuous. Not one of us has
forgotten your hilariously bad "slogans" that even a Hallmark intern might
have
improved upon. As a critic you don't hold the water your head does.
Anyway, I like the baroque stylings: plain speech is fine too. But I found
nothing painful in the reading of his original post. Could it be you just
don't
have the upstairs wattage for the task? The point is, if you don't, you'll
never
know.
DMH
barrett john erickson
Nikolaus Maack wrote:
> (This is probably because you are trying to avoid taking blame for your
> own mistakes.)
no, actually it was because i was accepting my share of the "blame" for something
that:
1) probably only mattered to "Andrea" because
2) it was just another of "her" insignificant provocations (considering that i'd
already explained my intent).
> In future, why don't you email all your postings to me so that I can fix
> them for you?
hare professor,
i disrespectfully decline your invitation for the following reasons:
1) you've already proven yourself unable to properly "translate" my work.
2) i prefer that my ideas be accurately represented and this requires someone with a
thorough understanding of the surrealist project.
3) i say exactly what i want to say when i want to say it as i want to say it --
except on rare occasions. at such times, i have no problem making corrections in
exactly the way i choose to make them.
4) i don't much care if you don't much care for the way i write.
5) i suspect that when you use the word "fix" you mean an operation to neuter.
Nikolaus Maack
Dale Houstman (dale.h...@gte.net) writes:
[Yer stoopid.]
All that text, just to give an elaborate school yard taunt. *sigh*
barrett john erickson
Perceptor wrote:
>
> As I simply my own experience.
> It is the slow awakening of the awareness
> of the poverty of the soul.
> That all of the banal normality projected by the
> society and perceived by its
> members as culture
> is a huge collective lie created as a defense
> mechanism of denial against the
> surreal possibility that an alternative way of being
> could or would exist.
> It is the conscious decision to live rather than exist.
> As such it is always the clear and present danger
> to any totalitarian military industrial complex.
> *end of rant*
yes.
when we reject the banalities imposed and "take our desires for reality", any act --
_every act_ -- has revolutionary potential.
most people abdicate their (social as well as personal) responsibility for the
revolution of the mind.
Stefan Kapusniak
On Monday, I had about half an hour when it was possible
for me to write as fast as I can type -- about 60/70 wpm.
And it all made perfect sense rather than being goobledegook.
This is not at all usual for me. Instead I normally end up
stopping every ten words or so for some one reason. I
think it is party a lack of trust that I will be able to
keep going without stopping to either pause and think or
to check back at what I have already written.
For instance, I just went back and edited that whole
paragraph there. And now I've stopped and fiddle with
the cursor a bit, and distract myself with thoughts on
how to phrase it all better.
But as I say on Monday it just seemed to flow completely
without thought up from the depths. Rather strange.
I also remember times when I've been coding or debugging
when everything I did was completely inevitable, somehow
pre-ordained. It wasn't that I knew what I was going to do,
it was that the code and the fixes flowed out of me flawlessly
without consciousness being much more than an innocent
bystander. Those were the times when I have been most
productive and the bugs were most accurately fixed.
Bill said something in another post about the batter in
baseball not thinking about hitting the ball the ball but
simply clearing themselves of all thought and trusting
the that the training they had undertaken would make the
the hit upon the ball happen. These seems to be true for
superlative performance in many physical fields. You
hear about how Bob Beaman (sp?) broke the long jump record
to post a figure that was not surpassed for decades, and
completely amazed all who witnessed it. This is the sort
of thing I guess that martial arts are supposed to foster.
So perhaps if we are talking about the tao and surrealism
maybe we should ask ourselve what it is that the
_consciousness_ exercise of surrealism is training us for.
-- Kapusniak, Stefan m
elag
>what it is that the _consciousness_ exercise of surrealism is training
Everything.
Perceptor
> > A surrealist rubicks cube ???
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
> [Image]
I wish I had a magnifing glass big enough to see it
It looks good to me.
Talysman
alt.surrealism:
:)Glad you're still in here, Talysman.
glad to be had.
I took a short vacation (away from computers) for the holidays,
and also have some problems with sending mail to work out, but
I am still around. trying to wade through 400+ unread messages
in alt.surrealism.
for Xistmas, I got a magnetic poetry book.
hmm. I'll finish out this post with some poetry (not the magnetic
kind,) since I'm in the mood. I'll use one of Brandon's old posts
as fodder and mother.
__SURREALISM:_IMPORTANCE OF__
don't
don't
don't come
don't come do
I do absolutely nothing.
you cannot destroy the ideas
you want to
or unify contradictions
existing in both
closed & opened
eyes.
teenagers don't need to be
the movement of the damned
blindly building bullets
but enjoying it.
creation daycare
conversations
firing bullets directed at
orientalism
formulas in fact against formulas
it will destroy itself.
surrealism is an amazon
at two o'clock in the morning
it is your mind
rejecting
& emancipating
its ability to shape the fool.
surrealism is the demand to
further reality, labeled mad.
don't tell surrealism, but
I am from societies artificial
I call for more use of first person
I am entertainment
buy my book & you'll
FUCK and SHIT
when you feel like it,
artist or not.
look up &
you'll see yourself.
--
warm sins howl in our dreams.
His Most Feathered Eminence, the Ur-Beatle
Talysman
:)in response to a question i put to Talysman,
:)"Andrea Chen" wrote...
:)> There is no comment on the degree of danger they are in. So your
:)>remark isn't an opposite, but an irrelevance designed to disguise the
:)>clear implication that:
:)wasn't meant to be an opposite or a disguise, just a straight forward
:)question to Talysman as to a different read of a text he referenced while
:)stating that the nazi's left the Czech group alone.
I disagree with Chen's reading of surrealism *not* being
opposed to fascism (I thought I proved it *was*,) but I
do agree your different reading of the text--*my* text--
introduced an irrelevancy.
OF COURSE Mary Low and Juan Brea were in danger. their
passports proved they were in Spain during the Civil War
and passed through antifascist-controlled territory.
however, they escaped partly because the Nazis didn't
understand surrealism or recognize its threat.
to quote Mary Low:
"Though expecting persecution, the Surrealists had
not so far been molested. (Perhaps the Nazis did
not know what Surrealism was?)"
here is what I wrote:
"ARSENAL 4 gives an interesting account by Mary Low
of her experiences in Prague after the Nazis invaded.
her and her companions were in personal danger because
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
they had just come from the Spanish Civil War, where
they were involved with an independent marxist group,
POUM. she and her friend Juan Brea were trotskyists,
but they also called themselves "surrealists", which
was lucky (the Nazis left the czech surrealists alone,
mistaking them for just an art movement.)"
OK, I wrote "her and her companions" instead of "she and her
companions", but obviously I state they were, in fact, in
danger, but that they were not harrassed in part because they
were surrealists, which the Nazis didn't see as a threat.
this was a paraphrase of Mary Low's statement above.
how on earth did you construe "Mary Low and her companions
were in personal danger" as "they weren't in any danger"?
--
the cloisters mock our bloody frontiers.
barrett john erickson
Talysman wrote:
> was lucky (the Nazis left the czech surrealists alone,
> mistaking them for just an art movement.)"
>
> how on earth did you construe "Mary Low and her companions
> were in personal danger" as "they weren't in any danger"?
i was questioning the statement that the czech surrealists had been "left alone" and
the implication that Low and co. wouldn't have felt endangered if they hadn't
participated in spain.
the apparent ignorance of the nazi's they encountered re: "surrealism" was certainly
to their advantage, but my read of that text is that they all felt quite the opposite
of "left alone" and were seeking escape (and that it wasn't just because of spain).
just my read v. yours, perhaps, as i have no specific info that i can offer and it's
not a pressing issue.
as i agreed later, my intent wasn't sufficiently clear.
Andrea Chen
>
> I disagree with Chen's reading of surrealism *not* being
> opposed to fascism (I thought I proved it *was*,) but I
> do agree your different reading of the text--*my* text--
> introduced an irrelevancy.
>
It depends on how you read "opposed." If Charlie Chaplin had fallen
into the hands of the Nazis, they would have found some excuse to punish
him unless diplomatic pressure saved him. He took a stand with a
movie. Surrealism a well known movement didn't find time to splash pie
in the German ambassadors face or otherwise make a stink about the
tragedy developing. This doesn't mean that surrealists liked Nazis or
that individual surrealists didn't act; but there was no indentification
of surrealism as a threat or anything more than an art movement among
the Nazis. Look if you publicly "oppose" fiercely and noisely it would
be known. This in itself doesn't mean surrealism is invalid, but it can
make no claim as a major player in the battle against fascism.
Perceptor
> His Most Feathered Eminence, the Ur-Beatle
Funny, funny I found this poem sitting way back here on the list of
old stale alt.my. surrealism. is. better. than. your. surrealism.
posts all alone by it's self with nary a reply of fuck all you
surrealists , or were you talking about me , you feathered dung
roller. Or even, Elag I think that poem was the funniest thing I have
read here this month !
I mean it weird, It's like every one got abducted by the alienated
clowns just to get an audience . I had better check my watch
to make sure it really is me who is writing this.
don (i like bannanas because they got no bones) wheeler-mings
six foot, seven foot,eight foot bunch
daylight come an i wanna go home
scot...@earthlink.net
> > A surrealist rubicks cube ???
And I found Mr. President.