Humour and Surrealism
Nikolaus Maack
Nik
---
PSST! Wanna buy a postcard?
Original hand painted art, for cheap. See:
The Nik Maack Art Gallery
http://www.chat.carleton.ca/~mrtribe
Mags
We take our art seriously.
We take everything seriously.
Ask Dali about his mustache. It's a very serious matter.
Even dada would agree - seriousness all the way.
No room for making fun, for making this weirdly funny.
All has to be straightforward and serious.
Stop laughing.
Mags
Elephants are not camels.
Nikolaus Maack
>No. All surrealists are very serious people. We take life seriously.
>We take our art seriously.
>We take everything seriously.
>Ask Dali about his mustache. It's a very serious matter.
I understand. I will discard all attempts at humour and replace them
with moustaches immediately.
>Even dada would agree - seriousness all the way.
>No room for making fun, for making this weirdly funny.
>All has to be straightforward and serious.
>Stop laughing.
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to laugh. What I meant to do was engage you
all in a rousing philosophical discussion about the origins of
surrealism, and how they relate to the construction of the very first
cream pie.
Mags
> Mags <mk...@is9.nyu.edu> wrote:
> >No. All surrealists are very serious people. We take life seriously.
> >We take our art seriously.
> >We take everything seriously.
> >Ask Dali about his mustache. It's a very serious matter.
>
> I understand. I will discard all attempts at humour and replace them
> with moustaches immediately.
Please, twirl the mustaches according to the rule A346.
>
> >Even dada would agree - seriousness all the way.
> >No room for making fun, for making this weirdly funny.
> >All has to be straightforward and serious.
> >Stop laughing.
>
> I'm sorry, I didn't mean to laugh. What I meant to do was engage you
> all in a rousing philosophical discussion about the origins of
> surrealism, and how they relate to the construction of the very first
> cream pie.
>
That's properstrous! Good thing I have prevented this.
The days has been saved and sprinkled with marshmallows again.
Mags
Elephants are not camels.
Brandon J. Freels
> Is there any room for humour in surrealism?
Not with you around. I mean, how can we have any fun when you can't even
take any of my criticisms? Suppose someone makes a joke which you find
offensive ... we'll have to go through your pouting and whinning all over
again. No one likes a party pooper, Nik. You are that party pooper.
dale houstman
Nikolaus Maack <ac...@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote in message
news:38214858...@news.ncf.carleton.ca...
> Is there any room for humour in surrealism?
>
reveal manic senses of humor. Duchamp is a cooler example, and in fact
helped to usher in an entire breed of post-modern humor all by himself, VERY
dry. The Surrealists revered Jarry who has to be one of the funniest
absurdists ever. I think Chants de Malador is hilarious. Etc.
Surely you know all this?
DMH
Harpentuan-1stClass
> Is there any room for humour in surrealism?
Is there any surrealism for room in humor?
Leo Sgouros
Harpentuan-1stClass <co...@babylon.net> wrote in message
news:OzWhZ8xJ$GA.168@cpmsnbbsa02...
>
> > Is there any room for humour in surrealism?
>
> Is there any surrealism for room in humor?
>
>
>
Seen in London:
Humor to let.
Seen in the France in my pants:
I bidet all the live long gray.
Mags
On Thu, 4 Nov 1999, dale houstman wrote:
>
> Nikolaus Maack <ac...@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote in message
> news:38214858...@news.ncf.carleton.ca...
> > Is there any room for humour in surrealism?
> >
> Breton edited a volume about Black Humor, and both Arp's and Peret's poetry
> reveal manic senses of humor. Duchamp is a cooler example, and in fact
> helped to usher in an entire breed of post-modern humor all by himself, VERY
> dry. The Surrealists revered Jarry who has to be one of the funniest
> absurdists ever. I think Chants de Malador is hilarious. Etc.
>
> Surely you know all this?
>
Nope, Dale, I did not know that. Thank you for enlightening the masses :)
Mags
Personally, I think his posts are funny. His nitpicking has a sort of a
charm.
Also, if you can't take criticism, why try to accomplish anything, eh?
Nik is nice, leave him a lone, humor rocks!
Mags
On Thu, 4 Nov 1999, cythera wrote:
> In article <38214858...@news.ncf.carleton.ca>,
> ac...@freenet.carleton.ca (Nikolaus Maack) wrote:
> > Is there any room for humour in surrealism?
> >
> > Nik
>
> I WONDER WHY YOU HAVE TO ASK!
> Would you please stop making it so easy for everybody!
> CHRIST! Someone else needs the wood! A blockhead or two might still
> confuse me with you!
>
> "I went to San Francisco last night and all I got was this crummy hair
> shirt!"
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
>
Elephants are not camels.
dale houstman
Mags <mk...@is9.nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.3.96.991104...@is9.nyu.edu...
>
>
>
> Nope, Dale, I did not know that. Thank you for enlightening the masses :)
>
and gaseous green night
Nik is a reindeer
with intra-groin blight.
DMH
dale houstman
Nik is Nik.
Everything is true.
The opposite of opposite is love.
Surrealism is mainly about homeless whippets.
Etc.
Nik is a tick.
That's it...
DMH
Brandon J. Freels
> Nik is nice, leave him a lone, humor rocks!
I'm not leaving him a loan. He's the type of person that never pays you
back.
Galactor5
>and gaseous green night
>Nik is a reindeer
>with intra-groin blight.
reindeer are not camel groin
Nikolaus Maack
this newsgroup laughing?
By the way:
A real surrealist doesn't use a toilet. Going to the bathroom using
such a device is giving in to social forces. In every sense, it's
exactly like submitting to the tyranny of language. Using a toilet
causes you to have certain social relations to your shit that THEY
want you to have. It's supposed to be done in private, something to
be embarrassed about, and is flushed away after?
All of this is about creating a sense of personal shame. People
should revel in their bowel movements. A real surrealist would get up
on the table, in the middle of their meal, and excrete on their own
plate, thus displaying to all their secret shame. Any of you who use
toilets are false surrealists, and I'll have nothing to do with you
poseur assholes.
dale houstman
> If there is room for humour in surrealism, why are so few >people in this
newsgroup laughing?
I think most of them (the intelligent ones) are laughing at you. I know that
Barrett and I find you alternately dense and amusing. But, to be honest,
little of what you attempt to pass off as humor is; humor done awkwardly
only makes you feel first pity for the performer, and then resentment for
producing that pity. And -even more pertinent - this statement of yours
reveals (once and forever) that you are incapable of seeing what is not
about you, or you might have noticed many of us making jokes over the last
week or so. Some of them about you (since you are the perfect butt)...
>A real surrealist doesn't use a toilet. Going to the bathroom >using such
a device is giving in to social forces.
So... since you have insisted that you are a surrealist before we can assume
that you don't use a toilet? Or are you admitting that you are not a
surrealist? Or - as I suspect - have you once more failed to work out the
"joke-idea" of yours to its conclusion? Even if you shit all over yourself I
am quite sure the smell would be covered up by your overwhelming reek of
desperate failure.
>In every sense, it's exactly like submitting to the tyranny of >language.
Using a toilet causes you to have certain social >relations to your shit
that THEY want you to have. It's >supposed to be done in private, something
to be >embarrassed about, and is flushed away after?
Well... if you think sanitation is only about embarrassment try shitting on
your floor for a few months. You will soon find that it is about disease and
discomfort and personal aesthetics. And there is essentially nothing social
about this reaction: most animals instinctively avoid or bury their own
waste.
>
> All of this is about creating a sense of personal shame. >People should
revel in their bowel movements.
Strangely enough, people do. Whether or not it is done in public view.
But none of this has anything to do with surrealism, which (despite your
insistence to the contrary) is NOT about resisting all social conventions,
but about reinvestigating them in light of their tendency to restrict free
rein of the imagination... If you find that shitting is the epitome of your
imaginative impulse (which I do not find hard to believe in your case
honestly) I suppose you must drop your oppressive Canadian knickers and
compose your poem... How will you make it rhyme? Or do you intend to go with
free verse, which I assume will require a looser turd.
But since you insist on this infantile "idea" I look forward to seeing you
in the papers: "Naked Ottawan Idiot Shits in Public."
DMH
DMH
Nikolaus Maack
>>A real surrealist doesn't use a toilet. Going to the bathroom >using such
>a device is giving in to social forces.
Dale:
>So... since you have insisted that you are a surrealist before we can assume
>that you don't use a toilet?
Yes, it would be safe to assume that. After all, what other possible
reason could I have to put forward such theories? It's quite clear
that if I state a theory in this newsgroup, it *must* be something I
believe. It *must*. There is no other possible explanation. None.
None whatsoever.
Michael Voytinsky
"dale houstman" <dm...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> But since you insist on this infantile "idea" I look forward to
> seeing you in the papers: "Naked Ottawan Idiot Shits in Public."
Nik has in fact taken a public shit - on a Saturday afternoon in the
Rideau Mall here in Ottawa. He even sent press releases about this
even to the Ottawa Citizen and the Ottawa Sun - but both were more
interested in covering whatever the corporations want them to cover.
There was not a mention of the event in the press, despite the
commotion and liberation of consciousness it caused. Fucking stooges
of corporate interests!
Anyway, I had to go and bail Nik out. The desk sergeant told me that I
have to keep my friend under control, and lauched into this monology
about how "People just do not do this sort of thing!". I pointed out
to him that he was obviously mistaken - that one person actual did do
precisely that sort of thing. For some reason he went totally
balistic and threatened me with spending the night in the lockup.
I asked him if he became a police officer because he enjoys shouting,
and in fact did end up spending the night in the lockup. My cell-mate
was a drunken old bum who seemed to be suffering from Korsakoff's
Syndrome, and could not remember where he was and why for more then a
minute or so. He was truly free from the usual limits to our
imagination - he was not limited by the past, which did not exist for
him.
--
Michael Voytinsky
Ottawa Ontario Canada
http://www.igs.net/~michaelv
Brandon J. Freels
Nikolaus Maack wrote
> A real surrealist doesn't use a toilet.
How is a toilet oppressing people? Again you're mistaking a *tool* for a
social force.
On the other hand, I would have no trouble calling someone who shits on a
dinner table a friend.
> It's supposed to be done in private, something to
> be embarrassed about, and is flushed away after?
You're very cultured Nik, and that's your problem. Haven't you ever shitted
next to someone before, shitted while on the phone, shitted on the side of
the road. You need to get out and shit some. I think that's why you're so
full of shit.
> All of this is about creating a sense of personal shame. People
Brandon J. Freels
> Yes, it would be safe to assume that. After all, what other possible
> reason could I have to put forward such theories? It's quite clear
> that if I state a theory in this newsgroup, it *must* be something I
> believe. It *must*.
Not necessarily. You're a submissive sophist currently going through your
aggressive idiot phase due to my overloading of your theological circuits.
That's why you have put forward such theories. Duh?
Mags
Uh-oh. That destroys my hopes for ebay and marriage then. Or maybe you
are a liar. Loans are imaginary. I did not comb my hair today.
dale houstman
> Dale: So... since you have insisted that you are a surrealist >before we
can assume that you don't use a toilet?
>
reason could I have to put forward such theories? >It's quite clear that if
I state a theory in this newsgroup, it >*must* be something I believe. It
This is intriguing Nik, since you make such an odious stink about being
honest and forthcoming, yet you seem so hurt when we take you at face value.
Of course, I know that anyone who can dribble the vague drool that you do
day after day is liable to be saying something that they either do not
believe themselves, or that they only cloudily comprehend. But I made the
mistake (willfully) of responding to you as if you were a human being who
could be trusted to do something just a little bit more difficult than
blathering ineptitudes for the mere sport of blathering ineptitudes. If you
are going to repeat such idiocies as "everything is true" and "everything is
equal to everything else" over and over and over, you should at the very
least not be surprised when people take what you are saying for what it's
worth.
At any rate, I thought you said you were not going to have anything more to
do with us poseurs? Why oh why couldn't that (at least) be true?
The point here is: whether or not you BELIEVE what you said (and I am firmly
convinced you believe in nothing but your own impermeability), it is what
you put forth to be responded to, so your sarcastic riposte (as awkwardly
constructed as anything in your "oeuvre") is irrelevant, and only serves to
further isolate you from true communication. Which, of course, you remain
incapable of.
DMH
dale houstman
Michael Voytinsky <mich...@igs.net> wrote in message
news:7vv5mu$dv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Sure... We believe you. The only thing that Nik ever publicly shat upon is
his own mind. And I guess you're the children's primer he wiped his ass on?
Just a theory: of course, using Nik's typical posture, I claim that just
because I wrote it doesn't mean I believe it.
I think the most agreeable surrealist act at this point would be to fire a
pistol pointblank into Nik's useless head.
But why waste bullets on an empty bowel?
DMH
Brandon J. Freels
Michael Voytinsky <mich...@igs.net> wrote in message
news:7vv5mu$dv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Nikolaus Maack
[blah, blah, blah...]
Dale, riddle me this: do you have a sense of humour? Specifically, do
you have a sense of humour when it comes to your surrealist beliefs?
Do you have the ability to point at yourself and laugh? Can you point
at surrealism and laugh? Can you make up "surrealist belief systems
and theories" that are inherently ridiculous?
Dali did. Is that why you hate him? Dali *loved* being ridiculous.
Some might even say it was his full time job. He was a funny
surrealist, and that's why he is so loved.
See, I think I have discovered another interesting connection between
"feminism" and surrealism in my creative exploration of this newsgroup
and its people -- humourlessness.
There is nothing worse, in my mind, than being unable to laugh at
oneself. Watch this:
Yes, everything is true and nothing is true. That's why I eat
everything for breakfast, and nothing for dinner. I warm up the
everything in the microwave, thus turning it into my nothing for
dinner. I believe that the moon is the sun, and lie on my front porch
trying to get a tan. When this doesn't work out, I file a lawsuit
against God.
All things being equal, I label my next door neighbor God, and sue
him. He gets irritated, and uses his own sense that everything is
equal, and labels me Jesus, and asks me, "Why hast thou forsaken me?"
The issue eventually is handed over by the courts to the local bishop,
who crucifies both me and my neighbor, thus decisively ending the
debate. I'm typing this with a stick in my mouth as I hang from the
cross. You were mistaken when you called me Joan. I'm Jesus. It's a
common mistake.
See, I joke about my beliefs constantly. Over and over again, you
fail to notice when I'm joking and when I'm not. Evidently in your
world people don't mock themselves. Often I deliberately make a crack
against myself -- I'm paranoid when I read Stephen King on the bus,
because I think people are judging me -- and you swoop in and point
this out like I didn't just say it.
"You're paranoid for thinking reading Stephen King will get you
judged! You're stupid!"
Hey, didn't I just SAY that about myself?
I guess what I'm trying to say, and have been trying to say for years,
is, RELAX.
Brandon still thinks -- as do you, it seems -- that when I said,
"You're a poseur surrealist because you still speak in complete
sentences with sensible words!" that I was SERIOUS. He thinks I was
quite seriously saying, "You're a fake Brandon, because you won't
gouge your eyes out with a fork!"
It is possible to play with words in a poetic way, but it's also
possible to play with ideology and beliefs. We can bend and play with
those too. That is, so long as we don't take our own beliefs too
seriously.
To sum up -- I love you, Dale Houstman. I love you enormously.
Brandon J. Freels
Nikolaus Maack wrote
> Dale, riddle me this:
Who the fuck are you now, the Riddler? Run into your Batcave and never come
out you little puke.
> Dali did. Is that why you hate him? Dali *loved* being ridiculous.
Dali loved to make money and get attention. He had no interest in freedom.
That's why we *hate* him.
> He was a funny surrealist, and that's why he is so loved.
No. He is *loved* because he took advantage of American capitalism. For a
long time Americans thought he was the *only* Surrealist.
scot...@earthlink.net
wrote:
>In article <7vuh2h$nns$1...@nntp4.atl.mindspring.net>,
> "dale houstman" <dm...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> But since you insist on this infantile "idea" I look forward to
>> seeing you in the papers: "Naked Ottawan Idiot Shits in Public."
>
>Nik has in fact taken a public shit - on a Saturday afternoon in the
>Rideau Mall here in Ottawa. He even sent press releases about this
>even to the Ottawa Citizen and the Ottawa Sun - but both were more
>interested in covering whatever the corporations want them to cover.
What you describe is a preplanned event (in this case a scheduled
event) and a rigged experiment. The performer knew exactly what he
was going to do and knew exactly the outcome he wanted. The event had
a utilitarian purpose. To shock and to allow a situation as you
describe:
>...told me....... how "People just do not do this sort of thing!". I pointed out
>to him that he was obviously mistaken - that one person actual did do
>precisely that sort of thing.
What you describe fits a definition Nik was giving surrealism last
summer:
>I was always under the impression that surrealism is about making art that
>tries to shock people into thinking, or being aware of themselves and
>their surroundings. That's it.
The event you describe (whether it occurred or not) is not a
spontaneous event, not a surreal act, not an individual running
experiments with his own perception of reality, and not an invitation
for collaboration.
It is an example of an exercise in power and manipulation. It is a
rigged experiment; a teaching experiment connected to a lesson plan.
From one perspective the performer in your scenario was behaving with
a certain boldness; in that the act risked and in fact resulted in an
arrest.
From another perspective the performer was risking really nothing, and
rather than bold, the best adjective to describe such an event might
be boring.
Galactor5
>Dali loved to make money and get attention. He had no interest in freedom.
>That's why we *hate* him
i had a pet named Salvidor Doggie.
walking him one day, his leash became Toulouse
and he Rachmanin off right into
a passing Van-gogh, sadly.
he often spouted small bits of Bacon, i recall.
It was a ridiculous display of attention-seeking.
dale houstman
<scot...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:oZQkOIlAZgIJzP...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 05 Nov 1999 17:55:44 GMT, Michael Voytinsky <mich...@igs.net>
> wrote:
>
> What you describe is a preplanned event (in this case a >scheduled event)
and a rigged experiment. The performer >knew exactly what he was going to
do and knew exactly the >outcome he wanted. The event had a utilitarian
purpose. >To shock and to allow a situation as you describe:
Perfectly correct. One shouldn't forget that Nik consistently confuses these
pointless little exercises of egotism for surrealism. That they are
(somewhat) more attuned to Dadaism (although much dumber) fails to involve
his attention, no matter how often others try.
>
>
> The event you describe (whether it occurred or not) is not a
> spontaneous event, not a surreal act, not an individual >running
experiments with his own perception of reality, and not an invitation for
collaboration.
>
> It is an example of an exercise in power and manipulation. >It is a
rigged experiment; a teaching experiment connected >to a lesson plan.
Precisely: Nik has consistently placed himself in the position of teacher or
the one who enlightens. What he always forgets is that surrealism is
primarily concerned with liberation of one's self through the medium of
collaboration. He continues to have pointless confrontations that amount to
self-promotion. In this instance (which I do not believe occurred) I have to
say the real butt of the joke is the idiot who took a public shit.
But - I have killfiled the Absurdist Hopfrog - since I have spent too much
time on such an impenetrable consciousness. I have no doubt that within the
next ten years, his odious thrashing about for more and more sensationalism
to pique his fading attentions will lead to an arrest for voyeurism or
public exposure to a elementary school student. Once these addictions to
"disturbing events" begin, what can be the end? Maybe he shall be discovered
hanging from a basement pipe, his pants about his ankles and an onion
"artistically" thrust up his ass.
DMH
Brandon J. Freels
who strive to be superstars. Most notiably Dennis Rodman and Marylin Manson.
I feel that both of these individuals have abandoned any kind of worthy
*drive* in hopes that they can achieve fame. Rodman is the most pathetic,
because he does nothing but feed off the media. Manson's recent decent from
*shock* to *glam* is almost as disgusting. The point is that I feel both of
these individuals' pathetic *bent over* desire to be accepted by the public
has its roots in Salvador Dali. My image of these individuals, and my image
of Dali, can be summed up by the recent Mary Katherine Gallagher movie
Superstar
[ http://www.superstarmovie.com/ ].
I wrote
> Dali loved to make money and get attention. He had no interest in freedom.
That's
> why we *hate* him. He is *loved* because he took advantage of American
Kristina
Galactor5 <gala...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991106180401...@ng-cg1.aol.com...
>
> >Dali loved to make money and get attention. He had no interest in
freedom.
>
> i had a pet named Salvidor Doggie.
> walking him one day, his leash became Toulouse
> and he Rachmanin off right into
> a passing Van-gogh, sadly.
> he often spouted small bits of Bacon, i recall.
> It was a ridiculous display of attention-seeking.
I find myself wondering what sort of lover Bacon would have made...(yeah, I
know, I'm going through some weirdo sex thing)
I think he would have been a rather fascinating experience...or perhaps it
is true, that the most creative of people are bad in bed, but put them on a
squeaky ass, and presto proccutio! .....instant orgasm!
...wood is good!
Kristina.
Galactor5
Bacon was into wooden mannequins, and quite adept at arranging them into artful
and seductive positions. This is an example of truly creative eroticism, if it
were true.
john
Kristina
>
> Bacon was into wooden mannequins, and quite adept at arranging them into
artful
> and seductive positions. This is an example of truly creative eroticism,
if it
> were true.
>
> john
I have heard that too...I think it is true... It has been years since I've
really read anything on Bacon, but did study his work and such forth some
time ago.....I watched a film on him years ago, it spun me out totally. He
is rather incredible to listen to, the way he expresses himself, and the
delivery in the words,such an intense personality. His studio had piled up
layers upon layers of dried paint, he never cleaned anything!!!...huge
"mountains" of it. I was amazed...I was also around seventeen at the time.
LOL.
Yes, agreed, it would have been a rather amazing adventure into the
sublimely erotic...
Anyway, I found this tonight, and thought I'd post it here...I love the last
quote.
Kristina.
"We live with this vast sea which we call the
unconscious and which we don't know. Everything
which is going on probably sinks into it. Every so
often
these images refloat."
"I think of myself as a maker of images. The image
matters more than the beauty of the paint ... I
suppose
I'm lucky in that images just drop in as if they were
handed down to me. I always think of myself not so
much as a painter but as a medium for accident and
chance ... I think perhaps I am unique in that way,
and
perhaps it's a vanity to say such a thing, but I don'
t
think I'm gifted; I just think I'm receptive ..."
"I've always tried to put things over as directly and
rawly
as I possibly can, and perhaps, if a thing comes
across
directly, people find that it is horrific. Because
people
tend to be offended by facts, or what used to be
called
the truth."
"I'm just trying to make images as accurately off my
nervous system as I can. I don't even know what half
of
them mean. I'm not saying anything. Whether one's
saying anything for other people, I don't know. But
I' m
not really saying anything, because I'm probably much
more concerned with the aesthetic qualities of a work
than, perhaps, Munch was. But I've no idea what any
artist is trying to say, except the most banal
artists."
"If brevity is the soul of wit, then I'll fuck off
your
handcuffs and slice your wrists"
Francis Bacon.