Surrealism and Painting
Brandon J. Freels
trans. Simon Watson Taylor. Harper and Row: New York, 1972.
"The very narrow concept of imitation which art has been given as its aim is
at the roots of the grave misunderstanding that has managed to perpetuate
itself right up to the modern era. In the belief that man is only capable of
reproducing with any degree of felicity the image of something that moves
him, painters have shown themselves far too conciliatory in their choice of
models. The error lay in thinking that the model could only be selected from
the external world, or, less dogmatically, that the model could legitimately
be selected from that world. Certainly human sensibility is capable of
conferring an entirely unforeseen distinction upon even the most
vulgar-looking object; none the less, to make the magic power of figuration
with which certain people are endowed serve the purpose of preserving and
reinforcing what would exist without them anyway, is to make wretched use of
that power. In fact it constitutes an inexcusable abdication. It is
unthinkable, in any case, at the present state of development of thought
structure, when the external world, in particular, seems increasingly
suspect, to agree to submit any longer to such a sacrifice. In order to
respond to the necessity, upon which all serious minds now agree, for a
total revision of real values, the plastic work of art will either refer to
a purely internal model or will cease to exist" (p. 4).
"In the field of art, a work can be considered surrealist only in proportion
to the efforts the artist has made to encompass the whole psychophysical
field (in which the field of consciousness constitutes only a very small
segment). Freud has demonstrated that at these unfathomable depths there
reigns the absence of contradiction, the relaxation of emotional tensions
due to repression, a lack of the sense of time, and the replacement of
external reality by a psychic reality obeying the pleasure principle alone.
Automatism leads us in a straight line to this region. The other road
available to surrealism to reach its objective, the stabilizing of dream
images in the kind of still-life deception known as trompe-l'oil (and the
very word 'deception' betrays the weakness of the process}, has been proved
by experience to be far less reliable and even presents very real risks of
the traveller losing his way altogether" (p. 70).
Leo Sgouros
Brandon J. Freels <fre...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:RTqn3.18472$9.74...@news1.teleport.com...
I say it is automatism that can be the problem in that it can reinforce
repetitious and sometimes growth inhibiting acts.
It is no link to the psychic.
Conciliatory in the choice of models, mine soured, I looked up and it hit
me.
The guy was an asshole.
Dale Houstman
Leo Sgouros wrote:
>
>
> I say it is automatism that can be the problem in that it can reinforce
> repetitious and sometimes growth inhibiting acts.
There is truth in this, and it is probably part of the reason that
Breton abandoned his "purist" stance on automatism publicly, and
privately at an earlier date. Even in the Manifestos Breton admits that,
in the throes of automatic writing, one might begin to repeat oneself,
and advised stopping and returning later. However, automatism,
understood as only one aspect of surrealist activity is still not to be
entirely disparaged. ANY "notion," once it has fossilized into a system,
can create the paralysis and habit you speak of, leading to eras of
"mannerism" and pastiche throughout art history. But I think it is
possibly too much to consider automatism "the" problem, anymore than
convention or blind following is, and at least it has the advantage of
seeming to be internally rather than externally prompted. This is also
debatable.
But Breton often speaks of how one must avoid systems at any cost. He
moved on from automatism as "the" answer to stasis and either invented
or fathered different approaches. There is no doubt more experimentation
occurring as we speak.
>It is no link to the psychic.
I don't clearly understand this statement; do you mean "psyche"?
DMH
Leo Sgouros
Dale Houstman <dale.h...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:379E5FF5...@gte.net...
>
>
> Leo Sgouros wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > I say it is automatism that can be the problem in that it can reinforce
> > repetitious and sometimes growth inhibiting acts.
>
>
> There is truth in this, and it is probably part of the reason that
> Breton abandoned his "purist" stance on automatism publicly, and
> privately at an earlier date. Even in the Manifestos Breton admits that,
> in the throes of automatic writing, one might begin to repeat oneself,
> and advised stopping and returning later. However, automatism,
> understood as only one aspect of surrealist activity is still not to be
> entirely disparaged. ANY "notion," once it has fossilized into a system,
> can create the paralysis and habit you speak of, leading to eras of
> "mannerism" and pastiche throughout art history. But I think it is
> possibly too much to consider automatism "the" problem, anymore than
> convention or blind following is, and at least it has the advantage of
> seeming to be internally rather than externally prompted. This is also
> debatable.
>
I also take issue with automatism being equal or similar to automatic
writing.
Certainly the industrial revolution gives a different slant to that word in
particular.
> But Breton often speaks of how one must avoid systems at any cost. He
> moved on from automatism as "the" answer to stasis and either invented
> or fathered different approaches. There is no doubt more experimentation
> occurring as we speak.
>
> >It is no link to the psychic.
>
> I don't clearly understand this statement; do you mean "psyche"?
>
> DMH
I meant what Breton meant(what I think he meant)that somehow our psychic or
mystical connection was tied to our sexuality-this is interesting in that
poltergeist activity was reputed to be often associated with young women and
their first periods-however this may be the tag added after the fact.Do you
follow?
Dale Houstman
Leo Sgouros wrote:
>
> Dale Houstman <dale.h...@gte.net> wrote in message
> news:379E5FF5...@gte.net...
> >
> >
>
> I also take issue with automatism being equal or similar to automatic
> writing.
> Certainly the industrial revolution gives a different slant to that word in
> particular.
Yes, but that "slant" is irrelevant to the subject under discussion: the
invention of the rubber tire gave a new slant to the phrase "I'm tired"
I suppose, but I don't see the point.
>
> I meant what Breton meant(what I think he meant)that somehow our psychic or
> mystical connection was tied to our sexuality-this is interesting in that
> poltergeist activity was reputed to be often associated with young women and
> their first periods-however this may be the tag added after the fact.Do you
> follow?
I don't really want to head down this path again: Breton's interest in
"psychic" and "mystical" events was the interest of an archaeologist: he
found them interesting clues to the workings of human imagination. So I
still don't follow this lead.
As for poltergeists: come on.
DMH
Leo Sgouros
> >
> > I meant what Breton meant(what I think he meant)that somehow our psychic
or
> > mystical connection was tied to our sexuality-this is interesting in
that
> > poltergeist activity was reputed to be often associated with young women
and
> > their first periods-however this may be the tag added after the fact.Do
you
> > follow?
>
> I don't really want to head down this path again: Breton's interest in
> "psychic" and "mystical" events was the interest of an archaeologist: he
> found them interesting clues to the workings of human imagination. So I
> still don't follow this lead.
>
> As for poltergeists: come on.
>
> DMH
Dale you are doing it again/you are at the wrong level-
Breton was a Freud fan?
Is it too much to think he tied the sexuality he found in Freud's theories
and applied them to his understanding of the mystical?
And then claims artists are too conciliatory in their use of models.
Dale Houstman
Leo Sgouros wrote:
>
> Dale you are doing it again/you are at the wrong level-
Lingerie and walnuts?
> Breton was a Freud fan?
Fan? Groupie perhaps? Did Breton do a plaster cast of Freud's libido?
> Is it too much to think he tied the sexuality he found in Freud's
theories
> and applied them to his understanding of the mystical?
No, of course not (I am quite aware of Andre's inclination to connect
any thought to any other thought; his texts are cognitive webs), but the
implication (willful or not) is that Breton "believed" in the mystical
as opposed to being interested in it. That's what I was responding to,
rightly or otherwise.
And I still say: poltergeists? Come on...
Actually Jung was far more tied into this tendency to dramatize simple
coincidence into a system of a "psychic universe." Freud was quite put
off when, visiting Jung, a bookshelf crashed to the floor as Carl was
discussing synchronicity, and Carl took it as a sign of great
importance. It struck him, as it does myself, as inordinately silly.
Breton's notions of "prophecy" and such are rarely florid, and much more
apt to be "poetic science" rather than naive belief. Considering the
history of debate here, I don't think this point can be over-stressed.
Still; you might be right: I could have misconstrued the intent of the
post, but it reads that way to me. Let's put it down to a mutual
miscommunication and move forward.
DMH
Leo Sgouros
Dale Houstman <dale.h...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:379F6A85...@gte.net...
See you did catch it.
Watch those buttons.
I am not here to argue in circles, I happen to agree with you on alot of
issues.
See how easy it is to use words like poltergeist or psychic and get the
wrong impression or give it.
Unfortunately the only way to overcome seems to be through a fairly long
term
distinguished interaction-that was what I was trying to get across to Julie.
"fairly distinguished long term interaction"?
I am sick, pardon me.
Regards,
Dale!
Nikolaus Maack
Dale Houstman (dale.h...@gte.net) writes:
> Actually Jung was far more tied into this tendency to dramatize simple
> coincidence into a system of a "psychic universe." Freud was quite put
> off when, visiting Jung, a bookshelf crashed to the floor as Carl was
> discussing synchronicity, and Carl took it as a sign of great
> importance. It struck him, as it does myself, as inordinately silly.
Of course, Freud can be stupid too.
Once upon a time, Jung and Freud were on a train together, travelling.
Jung described a dream he had, which Freud interpreted as unresolved
Oedipal troubles -- except the symbols were such that Freud decided they
meant Jung wanted to kill him! Freud was so upset by this intrepretation
that he fainted.
Apparently the less extreme notion, that Jung dreamed of getting out from
under Freud's shadow, never occurred to him.
(Freud tends to take his own theories a little too seriously. They're
just *models* of reality, Ziggy! Relax!)
Another example of Freud's less than critical thinking is his relationship
with Fliess. Mister Fliess believed that all neurotic symptoms originated
from one source -- the nose.
(I am not making this up.)
Fliess performed surgery on noses to cure mental illness. Freud, who was
completely enamored with Fliess' theories, actually allowed the crazy man
to perform surgery on his own nose on more than one occasion. It was only
when he watched Fliess botch an operation on a young woman -- and blame
the excessive bleeding on her deep routed mental problems -- that Freud
decided Fliess was full of bull-puckey.
And the moral of the story is, take your theories from more than one
source. Worshipping Freud without considering Jung is just as stupid as
worshipping Jung without considering Freud.
Or for that matter, worshipping Breton and not considering anybody else.
Is Breton guilty of being a Freudian "cultist"?
> Breton's notions of "prophecy" and such are rarely florid
From the quotes from Breton I've seen tossed around in this newsgroup, I
was wondering if any of his writings *weren't* florid. Not to diss your
favorite thinker more than I have to, but did the man have something
against writing in simple language?
Nik
--
"Everybody lives in fear. We all think we're incredibly weird and
depraved and bonkers, and if people knew the real us they'd squirt acid in
our faces and make us live in a Canadian mental institution."
-- Cynthia Heimel, essayist
elag
>
> From the quotes from Breton I've seen tossed around in this newsgroup, I
> was wondering if any of his writings *weren't* florid. Not to diss your
> favorite thinker more than I have to, but did the man have something
> against writing in simple language?
I wish that someone would read his work in French before criticizing his
style. Many translations are merely literal approximations, or that
queer animal which translators call "translationese".
Nikolaus Maack
elag (el...@concentric.net) writes:
> I wish that someone would read his work in French before criticizing his
> style. Many translations are merely literal approximations, or that
> queer animal which translators call "translationese".
A friend of mine who loves really bad movies loaned me a film that is
basically a bad version of Godzilla. I've forgotten the name of the film
series, but it's in my signature file -- oh irony of ironies.
The film I watched tonight was dubbed, badly, with all the characters
pausing in their speech. It went something like this:
"Tell no further lies regarding... your brother! If you do not study, you
will not find your self... in a good school! How many times must have I
told you this?"
When someone recently posted "translations" of Breton, I must admit that I
was tempted to translate the translations into simpler English.
Milan Kandera wrote, in an introduction to one of his novels, that for
over a decade he'd struggled to get out a GOOD English translation of this
one book. The first translator left out material they felt didn't
contribute anything. The second translator didn't like the way some
paragraphs were seperated, and so squished them together.
The version that came out, which Kandera liked, was one where he worked
hand in hand with the translator.
I speak French. I'm Canadian, dontcha know. Next time someone finds
themselves tempted to post Breton quotes, do it "dans la langue d'amour".
Nik
--
"Is he a bird or a reptile?"
"Let's just say he's a monster."
-- GAMERA promos
Dale Houstman
Poltergeists are brats with mustard
tossing plates and throwing custard
until the mother comes to kneel
before their unrelenting zeal
and grants them grace before their dinner:
brats eating brats. Now there's a winner!
Something synchronous and limp
the prostitute to Carl Jung's pimp,
a simple case of accidental
cracks within the fundamental
basis of the foggy bottom
thoughts that think where noone thought'em
squeezed out through a cogno-pump
replete with ghosts that don't go bump
in the night when odd things happen
and leave the rumor-roots a'flapping
over fences made of ecto-
plasm that can't get erecto.
DMH
Dale Houstman
Nikolaus Maack wrote:
>
> Dale Houstman (dale.h...@gte.net) writes:
> > Actually Jung was far more tied into this tendency to dramatize simple
> > coincidence into a system of a "psychic universe." Freud was quite put
> > off when, visiting Jung, a bookshelf crashed to the floor as Carl was
> > discussing synchronicity, and Carl took it as a sign of great
> > importance. It struck him, as it does myself, as inordinately silly.
>
> Of course, Freud can be stupid too.
No doubt about it. Cocaine will do that to you.
>
> Once upon a time, Jung and Freud were on a train together, travelling.
> Jung described a dream he had, which Freud interpreted as unresolved
> Oedipal troubles -- except the symbols were such that Freud decided they
> meant Jung wanted to kill him! Freud was so upset by this intrepretation
> that he fainted.
Dream interpretation has pretty sorry history for the most part, and
even Freud's is suspect. There is a woman at work (an extremely silly
woman but a woman nonetheless) who seems to feel all her dreams are
messages from the great beyond. She is tiresome to the extreme.
> Apparently the less extreme notion, that Jung dreamed of getting out from
> under Freud's shadow, never occurred to him.
Cocaine makes you paranoid.
>
> (Freud tends to take his own theories a little too seriously. They're
> just *models* of reality, Ziggy! Relax!)
One has to believe in a system to follow its connections through. It is
up to us to critique it. Creators are often obsessives, and far too
close to the thing. The thing about Freud though (validity of system or
not) is that he is a much better writer than Jung.
> Another example of Freud's less than critical thinking is his relationship
> with Fliess. Mister Fliess believed that all neurotic symptoms originated
> from one source -- the nose.
>
> (I am not making this up.)
I know. This sort of "rising to the level of one's incompetence" occurs
to a lot of people: Kubler Ross' notions on dealing with grief are fine,
but then she wafts (permanently) off into her unforgiveable "light at
the end of the heavenly hallway" schtick. Lilly thinks the dolphins want
to talk to him, when (as it turns out) they probably just wanted to slip
a date-rape drug into his orange juice and hump him until he cried.
There are other examples I am sure. Let's not even mention Timothy
Leary, who seemed to lose it almost as soon as he got it. So at least
Frued and Jung aren't lonley in stupid heaven.
>
>
> Or for that matter, worshipping Breton and not considering anybody else.
Never have done this. I don't "worship" anyone, and Breton's certainly
no exception. He can be unbearable, and many of his ideas are the
far-flung debris of romanticism. But he formulated surrealism out of his
own experiences in the war and painted it with his own scientific
poetics. I don't worship Artaud either, but also appreciate his
different "neurological" take on surrealism. I find Duchamp endlessly
fascinating (and even more difficult to "read" than Breton), and Man Ray
a marvel. It goes on and on; my enthusiasms are too thinly spread to
coagulate into worship. Yet, to attempt to speak of or act in surrealism
without considering Breton is foolish, no matter what you think about
him.
> From the quotes from Breton I've seen tossed around in this newsgroup, I
> was wondering if any of his writings *weren't* florid. Not to diss your
> favorite thinker more than I have to, but did the man have something
> against writing in simple language?
I find his writing perfect to the effect he is attempting to achieve.
"Simple" language is no more "real" than "convoluted" language, and
Breton's knots are often poetic interlinks. He is above all a poet
(although this is forgotten often) and his texts are prose poems, with
metaphorical flights. I happen to like grace of language, and the often
difficult task of reconciling oppositions while maintaining a certain
"flexibility" in the texts creates this labyrinthic style. There are
all sorts of styles. I find Breton's marvelous.
>
DMH
Dale Houstman
Nikolaus Maack wrote:
>
> When someone recently posted "translations" of Breton, I must admit that I
> was tempted to translate the translations into simpler English.
>
But the very point of Breton's "style" is its tendency not to "settle"
for the easy meaning. Your translation into a "simpler" English would
have destroyed this basic quality. In actuality (since I have read
Breton in French) I can inform you that it is even more "florid" than
you thought, since the metaphorical puns are more numerous.
> I speak French. I'm Canadian, dontcha know. Next time someone finds
> themselves tempted to post Breton quotes, do it "dans la langue d'amour".
>
>
Certainly. Yet strangely enough there are people out there who don't
read French and will only have to translate it at any rate. The problem
of translation remains a compromise.
But one must attempt a translation with feeling for the material. Any
translation of Breton that tries to smooth out his rhetoric is
antithetical. He isn't Hemingway for cod's sake! His writings are not
meant to elicit simple responses, and have a poetic weave to them. you
may like this or not, but your desire to "simplify" the texts is
uncalled for.
DMH