is it surrealism or memorex?
pony...@my-deja.com
surreal or not instead of doing it. wot is the point of that? do the
thing or do not do it and let the critics worry about the theoretical
aspects. some guy named barrett said that a real surrealist is most
likely to say they are not a surrealist. i think the person most
likely to be a surrealist is the one who does not spend all the time
talking about whether or not what they are doing is surrealism and
instead just does what he or she wants.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
brandon...@my-deja.com
Parry
> i think the person most
> likely to be a surrealist is the one who does not spend all the time
> talking about whether or not what they are doing is surrealism and
> instead just does what he or she wants.
That’s not called “surrealism,” that’s called “being rich.”
-- 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! =-----
barrett john erickson
>>>
people seem to be spending much time deciding whether a thing is surreal or
not instead of doing it. wot is the point of that? do the thing or do not
do it and let the critics worry about the theoretical aspects. some guy
named barrett said that a real surrealist is most likely to say they are not
a surrealist. i think the person most likely to be a surrealist is the one
who does not spend all the time talking about whether or not what they are
doing is surrealism and instead just does what he or she wants.
<<<
if you're going to refer a post that's _11 days old_, at least be accurate
so i don't have to re-post the clarification i had to make _10 days ago_
when nik made an equally careless read:
"i said that, if presented with two groups of people, a surrealist is more
likely to find "fellow travelers" among those saying "i am _not_ a
surrealist" than he/she is among those who claim "i _am_ a surrealist" while
simultaneously arguing that the term "surrealist" has no meaning that they
need to acknowledge."
[ and for the record, my original words were these:
"in fact, taking this another step, those who proclaim "i am not a
surrealist" are far more likely to be defendable as "qualifying" for the
label "surrealist" than those who adopt the label but deny its meaning." ]
as for the point you're trying to make...
there is no barrier to be found between surrealist theory and surrealist
action and doing one does not prevent you from doing the other.
[ i'd prefer to think you're implication that "critics" have _any_ authority
when it comes to discussing surrealist theory was just the result of an
unfortunate brain event from which you've now recovered. ]
-- 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
> there is no barrier to be found between surrealist theory and surrealist
> action and doing one does not prevent you from doing the other.
I have this friend, Andrew Nellis, who fights spam (unsolicited bulk
email) in a semi-official way for a particular ISP. At one point he was a
very vocal person about this. He would post details and instructions and
encourage other people at the ISP to take part and take action in the
whole spam fighting project.
One day, Andrew got bored of talking about fighting spam. He was too busy
fighting spam to promote the idea of fighting it. For a while, he decided
to fight spam, and not devote any time to the public relations angle of
things. He was curious to see what would happen.
People were disappointed by his sudden disappearance. They asked where he
was, and what he was doing. Eventually they all gave up on the project
and wandered away. They never put too much of an effort in the whole
thing anyway, so they weren't missed. Meanwhile, Andrew was fighting more
spam than ever before, getting lots and lots of work done.
In the end, he gave up on the PR aspect of his job, and focussed on
fighting the fight.
Given that we have a limited amount of time per day, it seems we have one
or two things we can do -- spend all our time talking and debating what
surrealism is, or go out and live a surrealist life.
A false dichotomy, of course. Subatomically speaking, we can either know
how fast a particle is, or know exactly where it is. Same seems to go for
life. You can either be stopped and introspecting about your life, or you
can be living it.
The more I think about it, the less sense there seems to be in explaining
yourself, debating, defining, and communicating with others. Maybe with a
select few, sure, but overall the advice and sounds coming from the world
are without use to me. It is very easy to get bogged down in the chatter
and the noise, and forget to live.
What am I saying? I don't know. Maybe that usenet is very annoying and
I'd like to stick it full of pins and watch it bleed. Maybe not.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to bed.
Nik
--
"I dote on myself. There is a lot of me, and all so luscious." -- Whitman
The Nik Maack Art Gallery
http://www.nikart.com
brandon...@my-deja.com
> I have this friend, Andrew Nellis ...
HA! HA! HA! HO! HO! HO!
Laura
> people seem to be spending much time deciding whether a thing is
> surreal or not instead of doing it. wot is the point of that? do the
> thing or do not do it and let the critics worry about the theoretical
> aspects. some guy named barrett said that a real surrealist is most
> likely to say they are not a surrealist. i think the person most
> likely to be a surrealist is the one who does not spend all the time
> talking about whether or not what they are doing is surrealism and
> instead just does what he or she wants.
I haven't seen any "real" attempts to answer your question here, so I
thought I'd just jump right in and babble a bit.
I think part of what you are seeing is the result of this being a newsgroup.
There is only so much surrealism one can "do" on a newsgroup. Part of being
on a newsgroup is having the desire to discuss issues you feel are
important. Surrealism is important in some way to everyone here. Hence,
you are going to find a lot of people that enjoy debating and discussing the
ins and outs of the theory behind surrealism.
At the same time, as you may have seen, some people choose to post works
that they have produced. Sometimes people discuss their projects, or point
each other to URLS with interesting work/information.
I think maybe what you are getting at is that the whole group tends to
degenerate at certain points and fall to bickering (at least it reads that
way). I think you'll find that this happens, not only on any newsgroup you
could possibly frequent, but in any large group of people that feel
particularly passionate about a topic.
Theory is just as important as the doing, whereas the doing is just as
important as the theory. If doing is the most important part for you, then
do it :)
Though I don't like it at times, the arguing about what is and what is not
surrealist appears to be a symptom of the fact that surrealism is so
difficult to define. I'm one of those people that isn't quite so concerned
about it, and like you, I'm more for the doing. At the same time, I enjoy
reading about the theory and listening to people that feel very passionate
about the theory.
Laura, feeling a little wordy
pony...@my-deja.com
cythera <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> barrett recently reposted some of his "definitions". They are easy
> to find through a Deja search.
everyone here posts too much. it is very difficult to keep up. i am
sorry for not responding to so many posts.
i looked at barrett's definitions. barrett's definitions are too
complex. defining surrealism does not have to be so wordy. it is his
definition of surrealism though and he can have it if he wants it.
i think each individual surrealist should define surrealism for
themselves. if someone feels strongly about surrealism he should have
his own unique definition of surrealism. we each should. tell people
your definition if you would like but do not expect them to understand
it or you.
i do not have to live up to your expectations. you do not have to live
up to my expectations. if there is overlap then that is cool. we can
talk then. if there is no overlap then so wot? lots of other people to
talk to.
cythera seems to expect people to live up to her expectations. i do not
understand wot the point of this is. judge people by your own
expectations and they will always fall short because they are not you.
brandon...@my-deja.com
> i looked at barrett's definitions. barrett's definitions are too
> complex. defining surrealism does not have to be so wordy.
The unwordy version:
Surrealism is the freedom of the mind.
The problem with this definition is that now we have to ask: what do we
mean by "freedom" and what do we mean by "mind"?
This can get very icky.
barrett john erickson
<pony...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8qg2fv$8im$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8qf00r$2g$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> cythera <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > barrett recently reposted some of his "definitions". They are easy
> > to find through a Deja search.
>
> everyone here posts too much. it is very difficult to keep up. i am
> sorry for not responding to so many posts.
>
> definition of surrealism though and he can have it if he wants it.
>
> i think each individual surrealist should define surrealism for
> themselves. if someone feels strongly about surrealism he should have
> his own unique definition of surrealism. we each should. tell people
> your definition if you would like but do not expect them to understand
> it or you.
>
> i do not have to live up to your expectations. you do not have to live
> up to my expectations. if there is overlap then that is cool. we can
> talk then. if there is no overlap then so wot? lots of other people to
> talk to.
let's get the key point out of the way:
in saying this, are you saying you can decide to unilaterally stretch
"surrealism" to embrace a position that has already been strongly denounced
by surrealists in the past, and would be denounced by all living surrealists
you presented it to?
Parry
> i looked at barrett's definitions. barrett's definitions are too
> complex. defining surrealism does not have to be so wordy. it is his
> definition of surrealism though and he can have it if he wants it.
I once offered a spare 30 word definition that tried to distinguish the
different usage of the word (theory, art movement, revolution) and
someone complained it was too dull. Looks like an other instance of
Three Bears Syndrome.(1) I reject the implication that users of this
group are too studious.
-- Parry
-------------------------------------------------
FOOTNOTES:
(1) The Three Bears is a folk tale that has become a children’s
favourite. Its origins are unclear to me. It does not appear in Basile,
Perrault, or Grimm. The oldest known printed version appeared in 1831.
In this version, the home invader is an old crone; the Bears deal her a
Rasputin-ish comeuppance -- burning her, drowning her, and finally
impaling her on the spire of St. Paul’s Cathedral. In subsequent
versions, the burglar simply runs when the bears arrive home. Later in
the century, the old crone was replaced with Silver Hair, and in 1918
she became Goldilocks.
Despite the tale’s dud of an ending, the story is beloved by children,
who appreciate the repetition and simple differentiations (“This
porridge is too hot. This porridge is too cold. This porridge is just
right.”). The story’s most recent re-telling, “Goldie,” emphasizes the
trauma of victimization suffered by the Bears.
Laura
> > appears to be a symptom of the fact
>
How about this:
appears to be a symptom of the general problem with defining surrealism.
> > that surrealism is so difficult to define.
>
> barrett recently reposted some of his "definitions". They are easy
> to find through a Deja search.
Easy to find, but was surrealism easy to define? Are his definitions the
only known standing definitions? I did not say that surrealism could not
be defined, rather I said it is difficult to define. I figured this could
be
assumed as true judging by the incredible amount of posts there are here
over whether something is or is not surrealist, what is or is not
surrealism,
how one goes about being a surrealist, and so on.
Laura
Laura
> Some people's sentences are concise but at the same time, very rich
> in information. In such cases, you need to look at all the elements
> in a sentence: weigh them, and move them around in your mind.
> Let them sit there for awhile. See it you can restate them in terms
> that are easier for you.
>
> It's a fun exercise that will also help you get smarter.
cythera, sometimes I sit back and wonder if you were beaten with books
as a small child, or maybe words attacked you in a dark alley somewhere.
I'm not attempting to insult you here, but I've just noticed how intense you
seem to feel about reading things. Not only reading them, but reading them
with a similar intensity to yours. I have this image in my head of you
reading
the entire newsgroup, possibly writing each post out in long hand just to
let
things sink in, and then mixing things up, mulling them over, rewriting,
maybe
performing a short story about them, and then forming your reply.
I'm not even sure why I'm telling you this as it shouldn't matter to you
what
crazy images you conjure in my head...
Laura
Laura
snip...
> > as it shouldn't matter to you what crazy images you conjure in my
> > head...
>
This is another thing I've seen with you. It's very important to you that
everyone retain responsibility to their own actions, thoughts, words, and
so on. You won't let expressions of the English language slip by, but
instead
take them literally and insist on correcting the person using the
expression.
Does it make you feel better if I say: "as it shouldn't matter what crazy
images
I conjure up in my head about you"
> Last time you were here, you said that Dale and I were pulling you
> into an argument, and I asked you if you are a free agent. Same
> question.
I bet you were a good and careful reader and went back in Deja and searched
for
that little tidbit. I hope you looked at all the elements, weighed them and
moved
them around in your mind. And it appears you restated them in terms that
made
sense to you. Do you feel smarter?
If you mean am I a free agent as in creating my own reality, yes, I am a
free agent.
I conjure my own images and I make my own arguments. I do not remember the
particular post I made about you and Dale pulling me into arguments, but
with
hindsight, I'd have to say I pull myself into my own arguments. As you've
seen, I
often jump right in with both eyes wide open.
Laura
Laura
> Then why don't you ask a surrealist.
Asking one surrealist would give me one definition, yet I've seen that many
different
people have many different definitions. Which one is the "right" one? How
do I know
that I've asked the right person?
If so many people have so many different definitions, how could I begin to
believe
that surrealism is easy to define?
If surrealism is easy to define, why are there so many arguments here over
what is
or is not surrealism?
If surrealism is so easy to define, just by asking a surrealist, why is it
that art history
teachers find it so difficult to instruct their class on just what the
movement was/is?
Regardless, if you feel it is easy to define, so is your reality.
Laura
Laura
> You really must be an idiot. I remembered them.
I was being petty and attempting to show you how your words feel to me
sometimes.
It was catty of me.
> And now if you'll excuse me (or even if you won't), I'm going to go
> get the smartest, funniest, most free and imaginative MATURE MALE BOOK
> and fuck his brains out.
Oh man... that made me laugh out loud :)
I came on here again this morning because I have a very strong urge to
apologize to you. I started this little offshoot in a very rude outreaching
of bitchy behavior.
I am sorry cythera. I was going to write you an email to apologize, but
then I was worried that I wouldn't appear sincere or you would wonder why I
couldn't say sorry in front of the entire group.
Laura
john adams
Laura wrote in message <5Z4z5.4989$P5.1...@news1.rdc1.ab.home.com>...
>cythera, on my comment that surrealism is hard to define:
>
>> Then why don't you ask a surrealist.
>
>Asking one surrealist would give me one definition, yet I've seen that many
>different
>people have many different definitions. Which one is the "right" one? How
>do I know
>that I've asked the right person?
>
>If so many people have so many different definitions, how could I begin to
>believe
>that surrealism is easy to define?
>
>If surrealism is easy to define, why are there so many arguments here over
>or is not surrealism?
>
>If surrealism is so easy to define, just by asking a surrealist, why is it
>that art history
>teachers find it so difficult to instruct their class on just what the
>movement was/is?
>
>Regardless, if you feel it is easy to define, so is your reality.
>
>Laura
>
Surrealists argue very little over the main crux of what surrealism is -
they have for the most part arleady arrived at the destination of
understanding the basic tents - though there are the small details and
interpretations that can and are brought up, and as you should know now
surrealism is flexible by nature, yet there are the defining characteristics
which make it what it is.
Art history teachers have a difficult time because usually they themselves
are ill-informed.
They specialize in teaching a general overview of the history of all art
(atleast in the intro classes) and in general many of them fail because they
can not make it past the obvious misconceptions.
And when were the critics ever expert in anything other than analyzing the
end product of 'other's' creation.
john
brandon...@my-deja.com
> Art history teachers have a difficult time because usually they
> themselves are ill-informed. They specialize in teaching a general
> overview of the history of all art (atleast in the intro classes) and
> in general many of them fail because they can not make it past the
> obvious misconceptions.
The misconceptions are worse in the intro classes, but still exist in
the upper level classes. I once heard a history teacher talk about
Surrealism which according to him is what James Joyce was doing. Idiot.
I wanted to slap him. And everytime I hear a definition that
includes "unconscious" "literary" or "art" I want to vomit. I spent a
two hour class period once trying explain to a group of artists what
Surrealism is. It didn't work. They got nothing out of it, and the most
I got out of it was one guy saying: "I like this class because you
argue with the professor a lot! Its exciting!" Shit. And every student
I met that WAS interested in Surrealism was only interested from a
critical standpoint (oh, look at me: I can make fun of old dead Breton,
I can read lots of Hal Foster's BS, I love Mary Ann Caws, etc).