Automatism --> Prose, Advertising
Sven
ideas without filters. I asked an earlier question about where lay the
dividing line between automatism and what, by this definition, would be
considered not surrealism: i.e. ideas restricted by demands and filters, for
example, catering to a specific audience, writing a piece with entertainment
in mind.
In a sister thread, the question is being asked, "is a picture of a woman
kissing a swan surrealist?"
I'm not a visual artist; I don't know if pictures can be drawn
automatically. I suspect that, unlike prose, a skill like painting requires
too much forethought for the image to be created "on the fly". So, the
image is arrived at in the mind (by some process), then the picture is
created.
So in this case, it would appear that the process is all-important; the
actual execution of the picture is irrelevant.
By this reasoning, it is impossible to tell whether any piece of art is
surrealist, because it is simply impossible to tell how it was created.
Moreover, by the process of automatism, a perfectly mundane idea may be
generated. A mundane picture may be drawn, and this is by definition
surrealist.
Certain disparaging remarks have also been made about the use of images in
MTV, advertising etc. These are dismissed as not being surrealist. How do
you know? If the act of selling or creating the work is important, then
surrealism is not merely the process, it is something else.
Sven
I just wanted to add the following (the "Prose" bit in the header).
When does a piece of writing stop being surrealist? If the idea is
generated automatically, is a piece of text (non-automatic) describing or
exploring this idea not surrealist?
Dale Houstman
"Sven" <svenh.this...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:B5D5E1DA.11489%svenh.this...@blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> Certain disparaging remarks have also been made about the use of images in
> MTV, advertising etc. These are dismissed as not being surrealist. How
do
> you know? If the act of selling or creating the work is important, then
> surrealism is not merely the process, it is something else.
The essential reason is that these images (as startling and entertaining as
they can be) are being used to exploit people's desires, and even to falsify
those desires, so as to generate interest where none may exist. This - in no
way - can be classified as a surrealist enterprise, despite the beauty of
the packaging.
dmh
>
Sven
In other words, the *form* in which automatically generated ideas are used
*is* important. I say this because I was earlier informed (I think by
brandon) that surrealism was restricted to the process itself; that all
subsequent manipulation was not of interest to surrealists. Are these two
positions consistent?
Also, referring to my previous post, would a mundane image created by
automatic means be regarded as surrealist?
One last question: if the enterprise taints the art, as it were: if the use
to which a piece of art is put affects whether or not it can be considered
as surrealist, then this surely means that the same piece of art can be
considered as surrealist or not depending on the context. And since the
original intent of the artist can never be definitively known (for example,
a short visual break in MTV might originally have been made as a piece of
independent film, then sold to MTV) this surely makes the classification
independent of its original creator, and thus *entirely* divorced from the
process by which it was brought into existence?
brandon...@my-deja.com
> It has been said that surrealism is about allowing the mind to
> generate ideas without filters.
Hey, that kinda sounds good.
> In a sister thread, the question is being asked, "is a picture of a
> woman kissing a swan surrealist?" ... I'm not a visual artist; I
> don't know if pictures can be drawn automatically. I suspect that,
> unlike prose, a skill like painting requires too much forethought for
> the image to be created "on the fly". So, the image is arrived at in
> the mind (by some process), then the picture is created ... So in
> this case, it would appear that the process is all-important; the
> actual execution of the picture is irrelevant.
The processes don't always have to take place prior. I remember when I
used to paint ideas would spring out while I was painting.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Sven
> Sven wrote:
>> It has been said that surrealism is about allowing the mind to
>> generate ideas without filters.
>
> Hey, that kinda sounds good.
OK, maybe it was me that said it... (hastily copyrights phrase)
>> In a sister thread, the question is being asked, "is a picture of a
>> woman kissing a swan surrealist?" ... I'm not a visual artist; I
>> don't know if pictures can be drawn automatically. I suspect that,
>> unlike prose, a skill like painting requires too much forethought for
>> the image to be created "on the fly". So, the image is arrived at in
>> the mind (by some process), then the picture is created ... So in
>> this case, it would appear that the process is all-important; the
>> actual execution of the picture is irrelevant.
>
> The processes don't always have to take place prior. I remember when I
> used to paint ideas would spring out while I was painting.
That's interesting. I've never been sure how easy it is to be spontaneous
while painting. I suppose it does depend a little on the technique.
Laura
> The processes don't always have to take place prior. I remember when I
> used to paint ideas would spring out while I was painting.
You know, I was going to make the same comment. When I paint, I often
don't set out with a plan or any pre-conceived idea as to what the finished
product will look like. I just let my mind do the wandering and I struggle
and
try my best not to guide my painting. I've found my best works have
resulted
from simply following the first things that pop into my head as I'm working.
A painting I started one day began as a squiggle, turned into a stem, became
a deep red flower and later was an incredible finger painted sunflower of
many
colors with huge roots sticking up out of a mound of earth. I would never
have
chosen to paint a flower if I had planned the painting from the beginning.
I hate
flowers. :)
Laura
Sven
> In article <B5D601E5.114B0%svenh.this...@blueyonder.co.uk>,
> Sven <svenh.this...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> cythera wrote:
>>
>>> In article <B5D5E1DA.11489%svenh.this...@blueyonder.co.uk>,
>>> Sven <svenh.this...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> In a sister thread, the question is being asked, "is a picture of
>>>> a woman kissing a swan surrealist?"
>>>
>>> Ahem; no it was not. And no, it is not.
>>>
>>> Please go back and re-read.
>>
>> Okay... (here I quote from an earlier post)
>
> Well, actually you're quoting from two separate posts, aren't you.
> Perhaps that's where the confusion lies.
>
[...]
>
> How from this:
>
> What is it in the swan painting's appearance that makes it surrealist?
> (I agree that it is, btw.)
>
> do you get:
>
> In a sister thread, the question is being asked, "is a picture
> of a woman kissing a swan surrealist?"
>
> Didn't I state that by its appearance, I agree with Brandon that the
> painting _is_ surrealist. And what else do we have to go on but
> appearance at this point?
>
> Also: Would the swan painting still be surrealist...?
>
> And that's a separate question.
I *really* hope you don't think this is important.
> "Misquoted" and "misrepresented" are not the same.
I didn't quote you. I paraphrased a question.
>> This has nothing to do with him. Why do you keep bringing him up?
>
> I was making a comparison.
Make a comparison to something else, for a change. And to insinuate (yes,
you did insinuate, this time) that I will misquote (which I didn't do) in
future is quite insulting.
Sven
> In article <B5D61BF8.11625%svenh.this...@blueyonder.co.uk>,
> Sven <svenh.this...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> cythera wrote:
>
> What do you think the difference between paraphrasing and quoting is,
> and what does that have to do with "misrepresentation"?
OK, if we're going to be pedantic... :)
paraphrase \Par"a*phrase\, n. [L. paraphrasis, Gr. ?, from ? to say the same
thing in other words; ? beside + ? to speak: cf. F. paraphrase. See Para-,
and Phrase.] A restatement of a text, passage, or work, expressing the
meaning of the original in another form, generally for the sake of its
clearer and fuller exposition; a setting forth the signification of a text
in other and ampler terms; a free translation or rendering; -- opposed to
metaphrase.
quote \Quote\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Quoted; p. pr. & vb. n. Quoting.] [OF.
quoter, F. coter to letter, number, to quote, LL. quotare to divide into
chapters and verses, fr. L. quotus. See Quota.] [Formerly written also
cote.] 1. To cite, as a passage from some author; to name, repeat, or
adduce, as a passage from an author or speaker, by way of authority or
illustration; as, to quote a passage from Homer.
2. To cite a passage from; to name as the authority for a statement or an
opinion; as, to quote Shakespeare.
3. (Com.) To name the current price of.
4. To notice; to observe; to examine. [Obs.] --Shak.
5. To set down, as in writing. [Obs.] ``He's quoted for a most perfidious
slave.'' --Shak.
(from Webster's)
And maybe I did overreact. I was tired. You pissed me off. Sorry.
However, the phrase "you don't even know me" doesn't *really* have any
meaning on usenet. I could respond to any criticism of yours by saying,
"You don't even know me. You don't know what I meant." All we can do is
try to work out what people mean by what their words say. We are how we
represent ourselves; misunderstandings are part and parcel of the whole
thing.
I do get a peculiar paranoia, though, in some newsgroups, which translates
to, "everyone has met and knows each other face to face except for me".
People don't generally declare greater knowledge of other posters, usually
because it doesn't come up, sometimes so they can do a little
conspiracy-type thing and play tricks... I know David Mackenzie personally,
but I think he's only posted here once. Apart from that, you're all just a
bunch of text, albeit a friendly and interesting bunch of text.
barrett john erickson
> Dale Houstman wrote:
>
> >
> > "Sven" <svenh.this...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:B5D5E1DA.11489%svenh.this...@blueyonder.co.uk...
> >>
> >> Certain disparaging remarks have also been made about the use of images
in
> >> MTV, advertising etc. These are dismissed as not being surrealist.
How
> > do
> >> you know? If the act of selling or creating the work is important,
then
> >> surrealism is not merely the process, it is something else.
> >
> > The essential reason is that these images (as startling and entertaining
as
> > they can be) are being used to exploit people's desires, and even to
falsify
> > those desires, so as to generate interest where none may exist. This -
in no
> > way - can be classified as a surrealist enterprise, despite the beauty
of
> > the packaging.
> >
> > dmh
>
> In other words, the *form* in which automatically generated ideas are used
> *is* important.
what he's saying is that the _process_ that produces and distributes this
advertising -- not the form the final ad takes, or how people react to it --
is an act of exploitation and falsification, an attempt to manipulate rather
than explore, and further that "using" any artifact of the creative process
(even those produced by surrealists) in such an attempt is intrinsically
counter-surrealist.
> I say this because I was earlier informed (I think by
> brandon) that surrealism was restricted to the process itself; that all
> subsequent manipulation was not of interest to surrealists. Are these two
> positions consistent?
>
> Also, referring to my previous post, would a mundane image created by
> automatic means be regarded as surrealist?
"surrealist" is not a characteristic to be found in objects (however they
may have been created), it is a description of a human process of creative
engagement.
> One last question: if the enterprise taints the art, as it were: if the
use
> to which a piece of art is put affects whether or not it can be considered
> as surrealist, then this surely means that the same piece of art can be
> considered as surrealist or not depending on the context. And since the
> original intent of the artist can never be definitively known (for
example,
> a short visual break in MTV might originally have been made as a piece of
> independent film, then sold to MTV) this surely makes the classification
> independent of its original creator, and thus *entirely* divorced from the
> process by which it was brought into existence?
>
again, the object in isolation is irrelevant. it is the human process
(i.e., the relationship to the object -- when creating, _or_ when
encountering it) that is either surrealist or not. so for any given
artifact of the creative process, there are two places at which a surrealist
process may be initiated or subverted.
advertising subverts both with varying degrees of "success".
[ and "detournement" is the attempt to reinstate the subverted subversive
aspects inherent in any creative act. ]
-- 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
==============================================