Surrealism and technology.
johamar
is a bigger question mark than lute girl thinks.
And it seems that she is rather talking about Futurism
than anything else. Surrealism has always existed in
the minds eye of a handful of people. To talk
about "old school surrealism" is misleading.
Therefore I ask, where is the new school?
And who is its leader? When I say the "nameless
surrealism of today " I mean that there still are
people who see the world from the same standpoint
as Andre Breton and his friends. And some of
them do not know that they are surrealists.
fluffy...@prodigy.net
the dream world, and with the liberation of creativity, that it is
difficult for me to equate it per se with technology. Yes, with a
fancy computer you can create surrealist-looking art work, and with a
computer, you can write faster than you can by hand and certainly share
you work with more people. (I am currently doing an exquisite corpse
via email.) But I don't know that those tools open up the
subconscious. And I definitely don't believe that technology has
necessarily liberated the human spirit. The industrial revolution made
people slaves to the machine rather than the land. The information
revolution made people slaves to the computer rather than the machine.
The television enslaves us all to images. (Ever try NOT to watch a
television that's on in a restaurant?) More and more technology takes
up space that our minds used to occupy on their own. And I personally
find that too much time in front of the computer or television makes me
increasingly more numb, no matter how "stimulating" the subject
matter. Humans were not born to spend our entire lives around metal
and cathode ray tubes (antiquated image, but I still like it).
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Leo Sgouros
hehe
--
Choose mind control, often.
www.mkshadows.net
"johamar" <joh...@mmedia.is> wrote in message
news:388A1373...@mmedia.is...
joh...@my-deja.com
fluffy...@prodigy.net wrote:
> I equate Surrealism so much with the exploration of the subconscious,
> the dream world, and with the liberation of creativity, that it is
> difficult for me to equate it per se with technology. Yes, with a
> fancy computer you can create surrealist-looking art work, and with a
> computer, you can write faster than you can by hand and certainly share
> you work with more people.
popularity was never the goal of the surrealist
movement
> (I am currently doing an exquisite corpse
> via email.) But I don't know that those tools open up the
> subconscious. And I definitely don't believe that technology has
> necessarily liberated the human spirit. The industrial revolution made
> people slaves to the machine rather than the land. The information
> revolution made people slaves to the computer rather than the machine.
> The television enslaves us all to images. (Ever try NOT to watch a
> television that's on in a restaurant?) More and more technology takes
> up space that our minds used to occupy on their own. And I personally
> find that too much time in front of the computer or television makes me
> increasingly more numb, no matter how "stimulating" the subject
> matter. Humans were not born to spend our entire lives around metal
> and cathode ray tubes (antiquated image, but I still like it).
I thank you for taking me seriously.
>
> johamar <joh...@mmedia.is> wrote:
> > That technology has fulfilled the dreams of surrealism
> > is a bigger question mark than lute girl thinks.
> > And it seems that she is rather talking about Futurism
> > than anything else. Surrealism has always existed in
> > the minds eye of a handful of people. To talk
> > about "old school surrealism" is misleading.
> > Therefore I ask, where is the new school?
> > And who is its leader? When I say the "nameless
> > surrealism of today " I mean that there still are
> > people who see the world from the same standpoint
> > as Andre Breton and his friends. And some of
> > them do not know that they are surrealists.
> >
> >
>
barrett john erickson
the comments of both Laura and Johamar center on an essential
point which i think deserves emphasis:
the difference between "science" and "technology".
"science" is, at its core, as much an exploration of the marvelous
as "surrealism" (and can also reach poetic levels when approached
this way). as such, "science" and "surrealism" are _human
processes_ without "utility". they may be driven by the same
self-justifying, inherent, and perpetual passion to expand the
creative reality of daily living.
but "technology" is _applied_ science, and as such, inextricable
from the concept of "utility". it can be "useful" or not,
relative to a specific intent, but has no value apart from the use
to which it is put by a specific individual who paints it with any
value or meaning that use reveals.
"technology" is defined in the specific context of how individuals
use it.
"science" and "surrealism" are processes dynamically defined at
social levels (beyond the context of any specific individual) by
their identifiable approaches to exploration.
-- barrett
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
==============================================
<fluffy...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:86is51$bu0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> I equate Surrealism so much with the exploration of the
subconscious,
> the dream world, and with the liberation of creativity, that it
is
> difficult for me to equate it per se with technology. Yes, with
a
> fancy computer you can create surrealist-looking art work, and
with a
> computer, you can write faster than you can by hand and
certainly share
> you work with more people. (I am currently doing an exquisite
corpse
> via email.) But I don't know that those tools open up the
> subconscious. And I definitely don't believe that technology
has
> necessarily liberated the human spirit. The industrial
revolution made
> people slaves to the machine rather than the land. The
information
> revolution made people slaves to the computer rather than the
machine.
> The television enslaves us all to images. (Ever try NOT to
watch a
> television that's on in a restaurant?) More and more technology
takes
> up space that our minds used to occupy on their own. And I
personally
> find that too much time in front of the computer or television
makes me
> increasingly more numb, no matter how "stimulating" the subject
> matter. Humans were not born to spend our entire lives around
metal
> and cathode ray tubes (antiquated image, but I still like it).
>
>
>