Defining Surrealism [REPOST]
Nikolaus Maack
dear friends are returning to the newsgroup. My, but isn't it nice to see
everyone back from their little vacations, all polished and neat like
kindergarteners ready for their first day of school.
I posted the following before, but it still strikes me as a useful place
to start a fight. Did I say fight? I meant "conversation".
-----
Why should I define surrealism? Defining a word kills it, unless you
define it extremely carefully. A definition should be cloud-like,
imprecise, describing the ghostly area of probability around a word
instead of nailing it down and making it a certain fixed point. If I am to
define "surrealism", I want to do so in such a way as to not eliminate any
of its beauty by crucifying the word.
Surrealism, to me, is that mysterious something you experience when
nonsense makes sense. In a dream, for example, I might put a puppy into a
toaster-oven. Two minutes later, a dogwood tree bursts forth, clogging up
the kitchen with its enormous, sudden growth. I worry what my mother is
going to say, and frantically begin sawing off branches with a spoon.
In the dream, this all makes perfect sense. Perhaps even after I wake up
and lie in my bed for a while, I wonder if it really happened. When I go
downstairs, will the kitchen be stuffed full of tree? Only after I'm out
of bed and have had a shower, my "rational" mind comes to. A tree growing
out of a toaster oven? That's ridiculous. Never could happen. What was I
thinking?
Surrealist art and writing aims to prolong that moment of believing in the
unbelievable, because somehow the unbelievable, the dream-like, the
nonsensical describes a reality more real than reality. What we wish for
is more true than what we actually receive.
The "belief in the unbelievable" sensation is addictive. If you can cling
to the notion that there is a new universe created every time you blink
your eyes, then the universe becomes all the more beautiful and vital and
alive. And it's true -- the universe is constantly recreating itself. The
connections between seemingly unconnected objects -- my paperback copy of
"The Executioner's Song" sitting next to the monitor, and the pimple on
the neck of a man in South Africa -- becomes clear. There is a connection,
although there is no way for me to know precisely what it is.
I feel that the world is constantly trying to nail things down. A dog is a
dog. A lightbulb is a lightbulb. Do not confuse the two. Reality is that
which, when I stop believing in it, it doesn't go away. Two plus two is
four. If I mix baking soda and vinegar, I get foam.
While all of the above might be true, these aren't the important things.
These facts ignore the one element that we all possess -- imagination.
Today, for just one moment, let a dog be a lightbulb. Listen to it bark as
it glows in the ceiling. Let adding up two plus two produce wave upon wave
of foam.
That's my definition of "surrealism" for today. If you ask me for another
definition tomorrow, I might describe a cloud of an entirely different
colour. That, I think, is a good thing.
-----
So what do you think? Let the attacks, er, uh, thoughtful insights,
begin.
By the way, I must give you fair warning. I'm on the third chapter of the
book "How to Argue and Win Every Time" by Gerry Spence. So, like, watch
out.
I picked the book up, despite its rather silly title, because I saw it
mentioned on a webpage about the study of "social influence". They gave
the book high praise. What's interesting is that it is more of a
philosophical text than a strategy guide. A little simple, yet extremely
gripping. Quite an interesting and odd book.
What is its connection to surrealism? Well, the text promotes honesty,
exploration, spontaneity, openess, the questioning of authority,
expressing yourself, recognizing your own power, and many other issues
that have come up in this newsgroup.
Just thought I'd mention it.
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
Dale Houstman
"Nikolaus Maack" <ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:8t5p2b$7lc$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> What a fascinating coincidence! My auction follies are over, and all my
> dear friends are returning to the newsgroup. My, but isn't it nice to see
> everyone back from their little vacations, all polished and neat like
> kindergarteners ready for their first day of school.
>
> I posted the following before, but it still strikes me as a useful place
> to start a fight. Did I say fight? I meant "conversation".
No, you meant fight in your usual coy adolescent manner. I suspect you
haven't engaged in a conversation since Daddy hit you with your Mommy for
poking Sis with your Little Pony.
>
> Why should I define surrealism? Defining a word kills it, unless you
> define it extremely carefully.
A word doesn't exist without its denotations and connotations. To say that a
definition "kills" a word is the height of ignorance. A word IS its
definition, my little otter-faced trollop.
>A definition should be cloud-like,
> imprecise, describing the ghostly area of probability around a word
> instead of nailing it down and making it a certain fixed point.
Strangely enough, this is what most definitions are. I suppose you think you
made this idea up. But this is one reason there is such as diochotomy as
"denotation/connotation" (something most of us learn in school): anyone who
really understands language is intimate with the manner in which words tend
to "nebulize" over time, or interact with homonyms, etc. But still - to
exist as a word, a word must "tend" to point to something unique from what
other words point to, otherwise the redundance will eventually erode the
need.
> If I am to define "surrealism", I want to do so in such a way as to not
eliminate any
> of its beauty by crucifying the word.
You're entirely too late for this care, Pontius.
The rest of what you write is adolescent hysteria disguised as pop
psychology extruded through a pig's rectum.
But none of the words I used above mean what you mean by them. So feel free
to be flattered.
dmh
>
Nikolaus Maack
> A word doesn't exist without its denotations and connotations. To say that a
> definition "kills" a word is the height of ignorance. A word IS its
> definition
You say "a word IS its definition", yet you speak of connotations. A word
is its definition and far more. That's precisely what the word
connotation means.
From Merriam-Webster (www.m-w.com):
connotaton
1 a : the suggesting of a meaning by a word apart from the thing it
explicitly names or describes b : something suggested by a word or thing
In other words, "connotation" is defined as what a word means apart from
its explicit definition. The context of a word helps to define a word. A
word can be used to imply things. You say "a word is its definition." I
say words are far more complicated than mere definition.
What kind of connotations does the word "connotation" summon up?
>> A definition should be cloud-like,
>> imprecise, describing the ghostly area of probability around a word
>> instead of nailing it down and making it a certain fixed point.
>
> Strangely enough, this is what most definitions are.
This may be the case, but some treat definitions with far more reverence
than they deserve.
> But this is one reason there is such as diochotomy as
> "denotation/connotation" (something most of us learn in school): anyone who
> really understands language is intimate with the manner in which words tend
> to "nebulize" over time, or interact with homonyms, etc.
My argument is that there are times when we should encourage this
imprecision, this nebulous nature of language. Over-defining a word can
lead to a far too narrow perspective. By "scraping off excess" -- by
ignoring connotation and emphasizing denotation -- the word loses valuable
meaning.
There is a blatant difference between the word "bicycle" and an actual,
live, bicycle. A real bicycle has a smell, a taste, a feel. Cold metal.
Oily bicycle chain odours. The stench of tires. We can balance on a
bike, we can coast down hills, feel the breeze on our face. A bicycle
acts as wings for a child, a bicycle represents a kind of freedom and
power.
Merriam-Webster defines bicycle as:
: a vehicle with two wheels tandem, a steering handle, a saddle seat, and
pedals by which it is propelled; also : a stationary exercise machine that
resembles such a vehicle
Does this capture the feeling of a bicycle? Not really. That's why
poetry can sometimes define a word far better than a mere definition.
"Surrealism" is one of those words where some people turn to a definition,
thinking they have no experience of the word in real life. It is an
"ism", after all, which most take to mean it's some kind of intellectual,
philosophical principle. My definition of surrealism is based on the idea
that people have already had "surreal" experiences, they just don't know
it yet. I point at the experiences -- see? That's surrealism.
I think that pointing at the experiences surrealism emphasizes is a far
better (nebulous) definition of the word than saying "it strives to
liberate the imagination" or "it questions all authority" or "it is both a
living and historically based movement with many decades worth of
traditions". Those are aspects of the concept, yes, but they are not
surrealism in and of themselves.
Would you care to attempt your own definition, Dale? Post an old
definition of yours, or maybe create a new one. I know you think we are
all incredibly ignorant and waste our time playing games. Perhaps you
should lead by example, and try to take us where you think this newsgroup
should go.
I notice that in your latest messages you use a great many words trying to
destroy what other people have said, but very few words trying to create
anything new or interesting. Is surrealism about destruction, for you?
For me surrealism is about nurturing soap bubble thoughts that pop if you
look at them too hard.
Dale Houstman
"cythera" <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8ta9v7$82k$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8t6ipk$b9m$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>,
> ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Nikolaus Maack) wrote:
> > "Dale Houstman" (dm...@citilink.com) writes:
>
> > There is a blatant difference between the word "bicycle" and an
> > actual, live, bicycle.
>
One does tend to feel woozy in the presence of such brilliant flashes of
insight.
It is such an honor to be here when the child first discovers there is a
diffference between its fingers and Mommy's face. Though it strikes me as
slightly strange that he would publish such a epiphany, I suppose one should
applaud him for being able to type so soon.
dmh