Lost in the jungle of posts
johamar
I'm no newcomer to alt.surrealism: Ask barrett.
I seem to have a talent for insulting people with what I write.
This too intellectual ( I nearly said academic, but I insulted barrett
with that word no so long ago) and too silly was aimed at the
whole newsgroup but at no one in particular. This is just my
overall feeling of the group. You can take it as an insult to
you personally if you want but it was not so intended by me.
"The Tree Bear story" is not known to me. Is it a yankee
specialty? Maybe it was why I said there where no surrealists
in alt.surrealism that insulted you, I don't know.
I like barretts dedication to surrealist principles,
and Dale is very well read, but that alone does not make them
surrealists.
So then the good points: There is in alt.surrealism more
poetic tolerance than in rec.arts.poems for example. And you
can send pictures. And there is that feeling that alt.surrealism
could become a place of some importans. I don't know from
where that feeling comes but it is there.
Parry
>
> Hey Parry you seem to have mis-understod me.
I mistook you for a green grouser. I apologize.
> I'm no newcomer to alt.surrealism: Ask barrett.
> I seem to have a talent for insulting people with what I write.
> This too intellectual ( I nearly said academic, but I insulted barrett
> with that word no so long ago) and too silly was aimed at the
> whole newsgroup but at no one in particular. This is just my
> overall feeling of the group. You can take it as an insult to
> you personally if you want but it was not so intended by me.
Actually, it never occurred to me to take your comments as a personal
affront until you just suggested it. Grrr...
> "The Tree Bear story" is not known to me. Is it a yankee
> specialty?
Not “tree” bear, “three” bears. Surely you know this folk tale for
children, but maybe under a different name than “Goldilocks.” In it, a
little girl invades a bear family’s domicile, eats their food, sleeps in
their linen, etc. Eventually, the bears return home and the girl runs
away -- a real lousy ending, so I lied and changed it. [I'm posting from
Canada, incidentally. That's north of yankeeland, south of the skunk's
tail.]
> Maybe it was why I said there where no surrealists
> in alt.surrealism that insulted you, I don't know.
No insult taken. I don’t consider myself a surrealist; and from the
straw poll I once took it appears that virtually no one else on this
newsgroup wears the tag either. In my view, for the integrity of the
word “surrealism,” a surrealist must have (at some point anyway) contact
with group activity, and I haven’t had such contact.
> I like barretts dedication to surrealist principles,
> and Dale is very well read, but that alone does not make them
> surrealists.
> So then the good points: There is in alt.surrealism more
> poetic tolerance than in rec.arts.poems for example. And you
> can send pictures. And there is that feeling that alt.surrealism
> could become a place of some importans. I don't know from
> where that feeling comes but it is there.
I think the optimism and idealism you’ve expressed would be necessary
for that to happen.
-- Parry
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Dale Houstman
"johamar" <joh...@mi.is> wrote in message news:39BAB3F6...@mi.is...
> I like barretts dedication to surrealist principles,
> and Dale is very well read, but that alone does not make them
> surrealists.
Unless you are claiming to be an expert on surrealism itself (which I assume
you are not) how can you make such a judgement?
Of course being "well read" doesn't make you a surrealist, and I certainly
never said it did! So I don't understand why you make this statement.
I don't make such large claims myself: but I do know (from personal
experience) that surrealism has made an important (essential) contribution
to my very existence, and I must say that - for all intents and purposes - I
have always been a surrealist, and long before I knew the word, or read the
history and texts. Coming across them was like coming home for the first
time. You have your reasons for saying such things, and I presume they are
sincere, but sincerity isn't such a grand thing; one can be sincere about
about any one of a million horrors in life. Your belief in my "surreality"
is of no importance to my comprehension of my position in that process. To
me my "membership" in the grand scheme of the surreal is both self-evident
and reassuring. It goes without saying, and the saying of it is quite
secondary.
dmh
johamar
Dale Houstman wrote:
you are a self acclaimed surrealist. There is no
authority that can support your claim to be a surrealist. You are fantasizing.
And your bitterness shows through. Andre Breton is dead.
Dale Houstman
"Parry" <pa...@zxOMITmail.com> wrote in message
news:39BAF7...@zxOMITmail.com...
>
>
> > Maybe it was why I said there where no surrealists
> > in alt.surrealism that insulted you, I don't know.
>
> No insult taken. I don't consider myself a surrealist; and from the
> straw poll I once took it appears that virtually no one else on this
> newsgroup wears the tag either. In my view, for the integrity of the
> word "surrealism," a surrealist must have (at some point anyway) contact
> with group activity, and I haven't had such contact.
I faintly recall the poll, but think there must have been some
misunderstanding (typical of polls) as to its significance. I don't think it
is essential one wear a label, but I would consider (given a reason to do
so) myself a surrealist, both in the inuitive sense (pre-physical contact
with any group) and in the sense you imply here. Sorry to skew your
statistics!
dmh
johamar
cythera wrote:
> In article <39BB3C4C...@mi.is>,
> johamar <joh...@mi.is> wrote:
>
> > Dale Houstman wrote:
>
> > > "johamar" <joh...@mi.is> wrote in message
> news:39BAB3F6...@mi.is...
>
> > you are a self acclaimed surrealist. There is no authority that can
> > support your claim to be a surrealist.
>
> Perhaps Dale would reject that authority if it came from outside
> himself.
>
> > You are fantasizing. And your bitterness shows through.
>
> > Andre Breton is dead.
>
> Breton spoke about the Surrealist Voice and certain of its
> manifestations in the ancient world up through modern history, in the
> first manifesto. I'm not an expert on surrealism, but I don't recall
> him having ever claimed to be that voice.
You are right. Perhaps I'm too hard about Dale. I was just
wondering if there is no authority on surrealism and no Breton
who can then say that you are a surrealist. I can see your point.
There is something timeless about surrealism. I myself do
sometimes look at myself as a surrealist and sometimes not.
Probably that will surprise you after what I have written.
I was in a combat mood.
>
>
> Andre Breton is dead. We live. I'm quite certain that I can hear a
> voice, sometimes distant, sometimes not.
>
> cythera
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
barrett john erickson
> I'm no newcomer to alt.surrealism: Ask barrett.
[ yes, i can confirm that. ]
there is a problem with newsgroups (as johamar and i experienced in a recent
exchange):
the annonymity with which a new screen name appears in a newsgroup (or as in
this case, a name new to a particual participant) has the inevitible
consequence that the poster suffers from the company he/she keeps.
> [...]
> So then the good points: There is in alt.surrealism more
> poetic tolerance than in rec.arts.poems for example. And you
> can send pictures. And there is that feeling that alt.surrealism
> could become a place of some importans. I don't know from
> where that feeling comes but it is there.
while i certainly recognize its potential, and will continue to work for its
realization, i can't say i feel optimistic for this space.
-- 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
==============================================
Dale Houstman
"johamar" <joh...@mi.is> wrote in message news:39BB93AC...@mi.is...
>
>
>
> You are right. Perhaps I'm too hard about Dale.
Most people are hard about me. I think it's the testosterone IV I sport like
an ascot.
>I was just wondering if there is no authority on surrealism and no Breton
> who can then say that you are a surrealist.
The connection here of "authority" and "surrealism" is probably central to
the miscomprehension. We don't need no stinkin' authorities. Surrealism is
not in dire need of "controlling authorities," and anyone CAN simply
proclaim themselves as such. Of course, once they take on that sobriquet,
they are opening themselves up to debates over their quality of
understanding. This is as it should be. But if a worldwide web of surrealist
groups (and a very extensive historical record) do not constitute at least
some small basis for determining the rough outlines of what a surrealist is
and isn't, what possibly could? It's no different - in this score - that
saying you are a nuclear engineer. You have every right to do so (I even
encourage such role-playing) but having said it you will be under scrutiny
by both historical precedent and the nuclear family to stand up under
investigation into your validity.
Having spent most of my life (bitter or otherwise) either in pursuit of or
involvement in the realm of surrealism as it exists and as it existed, I
feel no compunction in declaring quite freely my "membership" if I am called
upon to do so. It makes little difference that this is "self-proclaimed" as
it seems to be based on a body of experience and knowledge that is
sufficient to the cause.
dmh
Dale Houstman
"cythera" <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8ph2sh$fsg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>
> I don't think there is, thank goodness. I myself have a particular
> problem with Breton's and some of the other early surrealists'
> tendency to put women on pedestals: by romanticizing women, woman's
> true nature is overlooked, and to some extent negated.
> (I remember reading that Frida Kahlo thought he was pompous and a bore)
I share your "problem" with Andre, and there is little doubt he was both
pompous and a bore. Luckily, I think we all learned a long while ago that
creators and other interesting figures often don't satisfy our need for
"nice company." This said, it does not follow that "bad company" (ala N)
makes for interest.
Go figure...
dmh
>
brandon...@my-deja.com
> And I see nothing counter-surrealist in your ideas, and I remember
> them from last fall when I began here, up through now.
I don't. Tell me about these "ideas."
johamar
cythera wrote:
>
> Oh yes and Johamar I wanted to let you know that your recent post
> about Artaud didn't show up, except as garbled html, and to ask you to
> please repost it.
If you are only using Deja than I understand why you didn't see the post
(4 pictures of Antonin Artaud) because Deja doesn't show pictures.
I see them in my browsers.
I took them from http://www.hydra.umn.edu/ artaud/gallery.html
The pictures of him smoking and moving his head backwards.
johamar
cythera wrote:
>
> (I remember reading that Frida Kahlo thought he was pompous and a
> bore.)
>
> That said, I do love him for what he did. A great man.
>
I don't care if he was boring or not in company. His writing is beautiful
and passionate.
>
>
> > I myself do sometimes look at myself as a surrealist and sometimes
> > not.
>
> Will you elaborate?
>
If I can. The thing is that I was a member of the only surrealist
group in Iceland, active circa 1979-1986. And I still read surrealist
books and think allot about surrealism. I have also interest in other
writings, especially expressionists. And by the way I liked Kafka.
I cannot really answer your question. It is just that I sometimes
look at myself as a surrealist. When I was in the surrealist group
( called Medusa) I was a surrealist and many years after, but now
there are also other tings that influense my thinking.
And here is that Artaud link again:
http://www.hydra.umn.edu/artaud/gallery.html
johamar
cythera wrote:
> In article <39BD138A...@mi.is>,
> johamar <joh...@mi.is> wrote:
>
> > cythera wrote:
>
> > > (I remember reading that Frida Kahlo thought he was pompous and a
> > > bore.)
> > >
> > > That said, I do love him for what he did. A great man.
>
> > I don't care if he was boring or not in company. His writing is
> > beautiful and passionate.
>
> His was the last writing that moved me to wet eyes. And as for his
> perceived "boringness" and "pomposity", that might have had a lot to
> do with shyness or insecurity or any number of his feelings that we
> have no access to.
> I myself am most drawn to the so-called "difficult" people...
What do you mean by difficult people? Just curious. I don't
associate "shyness or insecurity" with Breton. The dadaist
called him Napoleon. A man that knew his destiny.
[...]
> > I have also interest in other
> > writings, especially expressionists.
>
> Who do you recommend? Incidentally, I'm halfway through rewatching
> the original "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari". What a marvelous filmwork.
I recommend paintings by Ernst Ludwig Kirchner
>
>
> > And by the way I liked Kafka.
>
> I've only read _Metamorphosis_, (in a very good translation by
> someone whose name I've forgotten). I love it.
You must also read the Trial by him. It is a book that has haunted me for
years.
If you want to know the man Kafka or a part of him then
his diaries are worth it. He was a very difficult person. Probably half
mad.
[...]
> > but now
> > there are also other things that influense my thinking.
>
> Yes, I am influenced by many things too, but they don't feel
> antithetical to surrealism. Is there something in the surrealist
> "life" that you reject?
No, I don't. I would wish that my life could be more surreal:
To be more absentminded and more dreamlike in a positive manner.
Dale Houstman
"johamar" <joh...@mi.is> wrote in message news:39BD824C...@mi.is...
>
>
>
> What do you mean by difficult people? Just curious. I don't
> associate "shyness or insecurity" with Breton. The dadaist
> called him Napoleon. A man that knew his destiny.
>
him is correct - sexually insecure would be appropriate. He does seem to
have had an aversion to sex, and a "problem" with women as independent
beings. Of course, he wasn't all that strong on independence in others of
any sex it seems. If this can be classified as "insecurity" he appears to
have had it. To the main point then - the infusion of surrealist activity
and theory with a ridculously Ideal Woman - cythera's notion appears
relatively sound. It's a cliche that control freaks are acting to sublimate
their insecurity, but there can be no doubt Breton had "control issues" and
that these created situations in which his personal relations could be seen
as less than "fulfilling."
Still, I wouldn't mind having had him toss me out of the group for wearing
the wrong color tie to a soiree, if only I could have met him.
By this time it would have become an amusing anecdote.
dmh
johamar
cythera wrote:
> In article <39BD824C...@mi.is>,
> johamar <joh...@mi.is> wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
> > > > And by the way I liked Kafka.
>
> > > I've only read _Metamorphosis_, (in a very good translation by
> > > someone whose name I've forgotten). I love it.
> >
> > You must also read the Trial by him. It is a book that has haunted
> > me for years.
> > If you want to know the man Kafka or a part of him then
> > his diaries are worth it. He was a very difficult person. Probably
> > half mad.
>
> Thank you for the suggestions. What translators do you recommend?
I read the Trial in icelandic translation. But his diaries are published
by
penguin modern classics; The Diaries of Franz Kafka -- Edited by Max
Brod.
The translators are; 1910-13 translated from the German by Joseph Kresh,
1914-23 translated from the German by Martin Greenberg with the
cooperation of Hannah Arendt. I have only seen this translation.
>
>
> > [...]
>
johamar
Dale Houstman wrote:
> "johamar" <joh...@mi.is> wrote in message news:39BD824C...@mi.is...
> >
> >
> >
> > What do you mean by difficult people? Just curious. I don't
> > associate "shyness or insecurity" with Breton. The dadaist
> > called him Napoleon. A man that knew his destiny.
> >
> I don't know that I'd "diagnose" him as shy, but - if the story I read about
> him is correct - sexually insecure would be appropriate.
From where did you get that story?
> He does seem to
> have had an aversion to sex, and a "problem" with women as independent
> beings. Of course, he wasn't all that strong on independence in others of
> any sex it seems. If this can be classified as "insecurity" he appears to
> have had it. To the main point then - the infusion of surrealist activity
> and theory with a ridculously Ideal Woman - cythera's notion appears
> relatively sound.
The Idealization of woman is a part of surrealist theory. Breton himself
said somewhere that _ love _ was the more optimistic side of surrealism
compared
to the romantic darkness the movement stood for. To put woman on
a pedestal is very primitive, I agree, but isn't it partly because of this
primitivism
that the influence of the surrealist movement has survived up until now.
> It's a cliche that control freaks are acting to sublimate
> their insecurity,
probably Breton was a "control freak" but it was necessary for the movement,
his close knit group of fanatics wouldn't have been anything with out it.
Dale Houstman
"johamar" <joh...@mi.is> wrote in message news:39BEA34A...@mi.is...
>
>
> Dale Houstman wrote:
>
> > "johamar" <joh...@mi.is> wrote in message
news:39BD824C...@mi.is...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > What do you mean by difficult people? Just curious. I don't
> > > associate "shyness or insecurity" with Breton. The dadaist
> > > called him Napoleon. A man that knew his destiny.
> > >
> > I don't know that I'd "diagnose" him as shy, but - if the story I read
about
> > him is correct - sexually insecure would be appropriate.
>
> From where did you get that story?
Well, there was a bio published (last year), but that's only one source (and
so many of its attitudes strike me as flawed); but I have read enough about
Breton's relations with other men and with women over the years, that I
could draw this conclusion myself without much aid. It might be that he was
just inherently non-sexual in a totally secure way, but he did seem uneasy
with sexual matters; the idealization (and de-sexualization) of women, his
homophobia (although not unusual for the time, maybe we could have expected
better from the man?), his difficulty in sustaining relationships, etc.
>
>
> The Idealization of woman is a part of surrealist theory.
Yes, but Breton helped - in great part - to formulate that theory, and to
further its existence, so I don't see that this ameliorates the problem in
any way. One assumes he stamped the theory with his personality.
>Breton himself said somewhere that _ love _ was the more optimistic side
of >surrealism compared to the romantic darkness the movement stood for. To
put >woman on a pedestal is very primitive, I agree, but isn't it partly
because of this
> primitivism that the influence of the surrealist movement has survived up
until now.
It's interesting, but I don't think so. But - even if it were a reason - it
is irrelevant to the question of whether this aspect arose out of an
insecurity. And as for "love" Breton's take on it (from what I gather) is
very non-sexual in character.
>
> > It's a cliche that control freaks are acting to sublimate
> > their insecurity,
>
> probably Breton was a "control freak" but it was necessary for the
movement,
> his close knit group of fanatics wouldn't have been anything with out it.
I'm not denying this, but again whether or not the group (and the theory)
depended on this control for survival is irrelevant to the question of
whether or not this control arose from insecurity. I am certainly not saying
that because (if) a portion of surrealism was born in Breton's neuroses then
the movement is invalidated.
>
dmh
johamar
Dale Houstman wrote:
> "johamar" <joh...@mi.is> wrote in message news:39BEA34A...@mi.is...
> >
> >
> > Dale Houstman wrote:
> >
> > > "johamar" <joh...@mi.is> wrote in message
> news:39BD824C...@mi.is...
>
> >
> >[...]
>
> Well, there was a bio published (last year), but that's only one source (and
> so many of its attitudes strike me as flawed); but I have read enough about
> Breton's relations with other men and with women over the years, that I
> could draw this conclusion myself without much aid. It might be that he was
> just inherently non-sexual in a totally secure way, but he did seem uneasy
> with sexual matters; the idealization (and de-sexualization) of women, his
> homophobia (although not unusual for the time, maybe we could have expected
> better from the man?)
His "homophobia" is because there is hypocrisy in the word homosexual.
Why does the homosexual wants to join a society that does not want
anything to do with him? I thought you knew that.
Dale Houstman
"johamar" <joh...@mi.is> wrote in message news:39BEBF9C...@mi.is...
I wonder why the main thrust of the gay movement has been reduced recently
to getting into the military?
But I am not sure I understand the connection between the quite reasonable
disregard of some gays for "societal bonding" and Breton's rather obvious
disgust with the very notion of man-on-man love. It seems more a function of
his regard than of any attitude on the part of gays. His homophobia doesn't
exactly turn me off: it is very much of his time, and he didn't go out of
his way to exercise any power over the situation. But I do think he was put
off by the very idea of the acts involved (and the turning away from the
Ideal Woman) more than he was by any semantic situation.
dmh
johamar
cythera wrote:
> In article <39BEA34A...@mi.is>,
> johamar <joh...@mi.is> wrote:
>
> > The Idealization of woman is a part of surrealist theory.
>
> Well, of surrealist theory as described by _certain_ male
> surrealists... but has (for example) Leonora Carrington ever
> revealed, either through her short stories or visual art, that she
> bought into that?
No she didn't.
From an interview with Leonora:
"Paul- You know of the saying that all the great Surrealist
artists were men, and the woman were ignored.
Leonora- They had on masks, the mask of a Muse, so you had to
bear this muse even if it was crazily allocated. They all
believed that that was the way it goes, an women accepted
that. But, to tell you the truth, there were not many
good artist, male or female."
johamar
Dale Houstman wrote:
Yes, exactly what I am saying: What a disgusting thing to a surrealist to want
to join a social institution like the military. Better to go underground as
they
did after the second world war.
johamar
barrett john erickson wrote:
> "johamar" <joh...@mi.is> wrote in message news:39BEBF9C...@mi.is...
> well, i would be quite pleased to discover this was the case. i find the
> absurdly conformist attitudes of those gays who militantly fight for their
> "right to serve" in the military, or for a "right" to a state sanctioned
> relationship (marriage), etc., worthy only of contempt.
>
> but it was my impression that Breton's attitudes in this area were well
> documented and assumed it was just the influence of his times.
>
> have you come across anything specifically supporting this interpretation
> that you can point me toward?
>
> -- barrett
I point you to Rene Crevel. This about the hypocritical use of the word
homosexual is from one of his novels. I don't remember what it is called.
The use of the word homosexual is a 20. century phenomena. And in
it is the believe that the "homosexual" can join society. That idea is as
far from surrealism as it can get.
Dale Houstman
"Sven" <svenh.this...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:B5E501A0.127C9%svenh.this...@blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> This is nonsense to me. If someone could explain how there could be
> hypocrisy in a word, I'd be very grateful.
Language can be used as a tool of power, so it seems to me a word could be
hypocritical.
>
> >> I wonder why the main thrust of the gay movement has been reduced
recently
> >> to getting into the military?
>
> Because that is where the major discrimination lies. If you're arguing
> against the military (and I would too) then argue that it be disbanded.
> While it exists, and is an accepted social institution, it should be open
to
> everyone.
Of course, but you misunderstand me. While I support the right of anyone to
freely associate in any group, I find it disconcerting that the main thrust
of the gay liberation movement had to be entry into such an organ of power
and coercion. It is no different from being appalled if I found out that
Jews were fighting to be SS troopers. They certainly have every right to
join, but the desire is still appalling. And I don't think for a moment that
the major source of discrimination lies in a gay's inability to join in on
the military adventurism of the US. Even gays I have talked with have
expressed much the same dismay with this policy push, and not a few leaders
of the movement have since found it to be a flawed strategy, especially as
it has gained them so little.
>
> If any kind of discrimination is legal, then homophobia has a mandate.
>
> > Yes, exactly what I am saying: What a disgusting thing to a surrealist
to want
> > to join a social institution like the military. Better to go underground
as
> > they
> > did after the second world war.
>
> In which case, disapprove of soldiers, not homosexuals in particular.
But I do: but this conversation relates to homosexuals, and to their desire
to join an oppressive force, so the disapproval is relevant. Next week I
would be glad to disapprove of grocers who are fighting to join the KKK, if
that is the subject at the time. For now, it is homosexuals fighting to join
the military. And if I disapprove of soldiers in general, and gays become
soldiers, then I will also be disapproving of gay soldiers. I have no
special regard for minority oppressors, in fact I find their position even
more disturbving, not less.
> >> But I am not sure I understand the connection between the quite
reasonable
> >> disregard of some gays for "societal bonding" and Breton's rather
obvious
> >> disgust with the very notion of man-on-man love. It seems more a
function of
> >> his regard than of any attitude on the part of gays. His homophobia
doesn't
> >> exactly turn me off: it is very much of his time, and he didn't go out
of
> >> his way to exercise any power over the situation. But I do think he was
put
> >> off by the very idea of the acts involved (and the turning away from
the
> >> Ideal Woman) more than he was by any semantic situation.
>
> Did Breton say anything specific along these lines?
I would have to read up. For now it isn't so much his public statements, but
the history of his relations, and what was said about him by others (several
of them women.) His general thrust (in the form of a poetic stance) was to
continue what can only be a harmful act of idealization of women. In
surrealist poetry (including his) The Woman is used mainly as a mysterious
other, full of compelling powers of change and solace. This is just an
extension of woman as succor, as nurse, as advisor, and is not particularly
stunning in its approach to the subject. Again, I don't find this an
overwhelming fault on Breton's part, merely another lapse in what was
otherwise an extreme program of liberation from old idealistic ruts.
dmh
johamar
cythera wrote:
> > > Dale Houstman wrote:
> > "johamar" <joh...@mi.is> wrote in message
> news:39BD824C...@mi.is...
>
> > > I wonder why the main thrust of the gay movement has been reduced
> > > recently to getting into the military?
>
> > Yes, exactly what I am saying: What a disgusting thing to a
> > surrealist to want to join a social institution like the military.
> > Better to go underground as they did after the second world war.
>
> Hi; I'm not sure what you mean. Will you please explain about them
> being underground after the second war? I know that some were
> underground during that war, but not what occurred after.
>
> Louis Aragon: Mobilized in 1917; met Andre Breton while studying
> military medicine during the war. Active participant in the French
> Dada movement. Later one of the principal members of the surrealist
> group. Broke with the surrealists in 1931 and joined the Communist
> Party. Taken prisoner by the Germans during World War II, escaped to
> the Unoccupied Zone, and became one of the leading figures in the
> Resistance. Much of his finest poetry was written during this period.
>
> Rene Char: Char was an active participant in the surrealist movement
> in the early thirties and published a collaborative work with Breton
> and Eluard, _Ralentir travaux_. Broke with the surrealists in 1935.
> During the war he joined the _maquis_ and became a Resistance leader
> in the field.
>
> Robert Desnos: One of the most important members of the surrealist
> group in the twenties, praised by Breton as having played a "necessary,
> unforgettable role" in the development of the movement. Broke with
> Breton in 1930. Active during the war as a journalist and
> participated in the Resistance. He was arrested by the Gestapo in
> February 1944 and sent to Buchenwald in April. He died shortly after
> the liberation the following year, in the German concentration camp in
> Terezine, Czechoslovakia.
>
> Paul Eluard: A participant in the activities of French Dada and later
> a major presence in the surrealist movement. A prolific poet, he
> published a number of collaborative works (with Breton, Peret, Char,
> Aragon), as well as several prose collections. Eluard broke with
> surrealism in 1938 and joined the Communist Party. A member of the
> Resistance during the war, he remained in Paris during the four years
> of the German Occupation, constantly changing his address to avoid
> arrest. His clandestine poetry of that period gained him recognition
> as a national figure.
>
> Max Jacob: One of the key members of the group that formed around
> Apollinaire. Although born a Jew, he converted to Catholicism at age
> 39. Arrested by the Nazis in February 1944. He died the following
> month in the concentration camp at Drancy.
>
> Benjamin Peret: Active and ardent surrealist from the beginning of the
> movement (1924) until his death. Co-founder and first editor of the
> review _La revolution surrealiste._ Fought in the Spanish Civil War.
> Arrested by the Germans in 1940 for "subversive activities," but
> managed to escape to Mexico.
>
> Philippe Soupault: Founder of the review _Litterature_ in 1919 with
> Breton and Aragon. Co-author of _Les champs magnetiques_. Soupault
> was arrested by the Germans in 1942 and spent six months in prison.
>
> Tristan Tzara (Sami Rosenstock): Co-founder of Dada movement in Zurich
> in 1916. Participated in the Resistance during the war.
>
> _The Random House Book of Twentieth-Century French Poetry_, edited by
> Paul Auster with translations by American and British Poets, A Dual-
> Language Edition. Random House, Inc., New York; and simultaneously
> in Canada by Random House of Canada, Toronto, 1982; pp. 606-619.
> ISBN 0-394-52197-8.
>
> Thanks.
> cythera.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
the surrealist movement as a whole did go underground
both symbolically speaking and in reality after the war. It is a known
fact.
There came this existential period, you know.
And all those who where in the war and on the right side
became heroes. The majority of the surrealists didn't fight.
They where in an exile in the U.S.A.
Sven
This is nonsense to me. If someone could explain how there could be
hypocrisy in a word, I'd be very grateful.
>> I wonder why the main thrust of the gay movement has been reduced recently
>> to getting into the military?
Because that is where the major discrimination lies. If you're arguing
against the military (and I would too) then argue that it be disbanded.
While it exists, and is an accepted social institution, it should be open to
everyone.
If any kind of discrimination is legal, then homophobia has a mandate.
> Yes, exactly what I am saying: What a disgusting thing to a surrealist to want
> to join a social institution like the military. Better to go underground as
> they
> did after the second world war.
In which case, disapprove of soldiers, not homosexuals in particular.
>> But I am not sure I understand the connection between the quite reasonable
>> disregard of some gays for "societal bonding" and Breton's rather obvious
>> disgust with the very notion of man-on-man love. It seems more a function of
>> his regard than of any attitude on the part of gays. His homophobia doesn't
>> exactly turn me off: it is very much of his time, and he didn't go out of
>> his way to exercise any power over the situation. But I do think he was put
>> off by the very idea of the acts involved (and the turning away from the
>> Ideal Woman) more than he was by any semantic situation.
Did Breton say anything specific along these lines?
Dale Houstman
"johamar" <joh...@mi.is> wrote in message news:39BEEC69...@mi.is...
This still doesn't quite explain (to me at least) how this ameliorates or
explains Breton's homophobia, especially as this was - in no way - an issue
at the time.
>
It is equivalent to the main thrust of the women's movement of the last ten
years being to get females into the corporate world at a precipitous rate.
Though it is understandable they wish to heighten their "profile" and gain
access to what they perceive as money and power, I find it not so intriguing
an idea. I am also not at all interested in voting tons of women into
political position just on the basis of "equivalence" since I think most of
us realize that a powerful woman has more in common with a pwoerful man than
she does with any unempowered woman, and that the general run of things will
not be improved by such a ploy. In other words, the "feminine power" of
Indira Gandhi, Maggie Thatcher, and Queen Victoria does not excite me.
dmh
barrett john erickson
"johamar" <joh...@mi.is> wrote in message news:39BEBF9C...@mi.is...
well, i would be quite pleased to discover this was the case. i find the
absurdly conformist attitudes of those gays who militantly fight for their
"right to serve" in the military, or for a "right" to a state sanctioned
relationship (marriage), etc., worthy only of contempt.
but it was my impression that Breton's attitudes in this area were well
documented and assumed it was just the influence of his times.
have you come across anything specifically supporting this interpretation
that you can point me toward?
-- barrett
barrett john erickson
"Sven" <svenh.this...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:B5E501A0.127C9%svenh.this...@blueyonder.co.uk...
the "major discrimination" is intrinsic to the institution.
gays fighting for the "right to serve" are taking a position in support of
the very institution that is not only responsible for the specific
discrimination they are reacting against, but has as its primary mission the
protection of the state that sanctions such discrimination in all its
varieties.
what they are really doing is little more than begging to be allowed a place
in the oppressive apparatus, with the unwarranted (and self-centered)
expectation that once they get in, they can prevent it from working against
_them_.
and this is a classic example of how protest movements -- if, in effect, all
they really want is to become their enemy -- get absorbed into the existing
power structure where they no longer pose a threat to its stability.
but, come on, fighting for the "right to serve" is not only contemptable it
is absurdly comic.
[ and to argue "while it exists, and it is an accepted social institution,
it should be open to everyone" reminds me too much of those who thought our
involvement in Vietnam was wrong, but "now that we're there, we can't just
leave." attitudes like this prolong the carnage. ]
Sven
That's what they're fighting. As I said above, get rid of the
discrimination, or get rid of the institution. You seem to be saying,
"Don't like it, it's broke, let's not bother fixing it."
> gays fighting for the "right to serve" are taking a position in support of
> the very institution that is not only responsible for the specific
> discrimination they are reacting against, but has as its primary mission the
> protection of the state that sanctions such discrimination in all its
> varieties.
But they're fighting for *change*, and you can't change something from the
outside. The idea of serving in the army is abhorrent to me, but even more
so is the idea that such discrimination exists on such a large scale. If
gay people want to be soldiers, the avenue *should* be open to them. Many
people derive benefit from "serving"; although we may not understand, that
doesn't mean we shouldn't support them. As long as such fundamental
institutions are blatantly and legally discriminatory, homosexuals will
*never* attain the equality they are due.
> what they are really doing is little more than begging to be allowed a place
> in the oppressive apparatus, with the unwarranted (and self-centered)
> expectation that once they get in, they can prevent it from working against
> _them_.
It's got to change. And the only way to change it is to open it up. If you
had your way, black people would never have joined the police force.
> and this is a classic example of how protest movements -- if, in effect, all
> they really want is to become their enemy -- get absorbed into the existing
> power structure where they no longer pose a threat to its stability.
>
> but, come on, fighting for the "right to serve" is not only contemptable it
> is absurdly comic.
Fighting for your right to do *anything* that discrimination forbids you is
never contemptible. As I've said before, as long as discrimination appears
to be accepted like this, it will never be successfully countered.
> [ and to argue "while it exists, and it is an accepted social institution,
> it should be open to everyone" reminds me too much of those who thought our
> involvement in Vietnam was wrong, but "now that we're there, we can't just
> leave." attitudes like this prolong the carnage. ]
No, it's not. Not at all. I don't even see how you can begin to make the
comparison.
brandon...@my-deja.com
relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same
sex." How does "hypocrisy" exist within that definition? Perhaps I
would understand your position if you would word it better. Do you mean
that "hypocrisy" exists in the Gay Liberation Movement, or do you
spacifically mean that gay mean and women are simply born hypocritical?
If so I would love to here your argument.
As for homosexuals "joining" society, I would argue that they are
already a part of society. Perhaps you live in one of the less
liberated cultures of the world. I also think you're making an
assumption that "society" doesn't want homosexuals. As for what
appeared to be a quote (or paraphrase?) of Crevel, I think the entire
notion of "the homesexual" as being an outsider to society and culture
is very outdated.
johamar wrote:
> His "homophobia" is because there is hypocrisy in the word homosexual.
Sven wrote:
> This is nonsense to me. If someone could explain how there could be
> hypocrisy in a word, I'd be very grateful.
Johamar later wrote:
> I point you to Rene Crevel. This about the hypocritical use of the
> word homosexual is from one of his novels. I don't remember what it
> is called. The use of the word homosexual is a 20. century phenomena.
> And in it is the believe that the "homosexual" can join society. That
> idea is as far from surrealism as it can get.
brandon...@my-deja.com
> The Idealization of woman is a part of surrealist theory.
Dale Houstman wrote
> Yes, but Breton helped - in great part - to formulate that theory ...
Can someone please explain this theory to me. Are we talking about the
idealization of gender stereotypes? I never got that. Nor did I ever
get the impression that this "idealization" was sex-restricted. Rather
than being an idealization of woman, don't we really mean the
Surrealist idealization of "the other," that being that if a Surrealist
were, say queer or a female, they might idealize the male sex instead?
I always thought his emphases was on love---the source of the
idealization---and love is not sex restricted.
Or perhaps I've missed something, and maybe you could direct me towards
a text that would enlighten me on the subject.
Dale Houstman
"johamar" <joh...@mi.is> wrote in message news:39BFF654...@mi.is...
>
>
>
> the surrealist movement as a whole did go underground
> both symbolically speaking and in reality after the war. It is a known
> fact.
> There came this existential period, you know.
> And all those who where in the war and on the right side
> became heroes. The majority of the surrealists didn't fight.
> They where in an exile in the U.S.A.
But - as an unneeded corrective - we must mention that not a few of the
"great" writers (Cocteau for an example) simply stayed behind and attended
lavish Nazi parties. And also that, as recent trials and investigations in
France have revealed, many more of the French people were collaborators than
previously thought. The mythological image of a vast number of brave
underground fighters in France is pretty much a busted item now.
Tough times, tough choices.
dmh
>
Dale Houstman
<brandon...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8pprls$pjm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> johamar wrote
> > The Idealization of woman is a part of surrealist theory.
>
> Dale Houstman wrote
> > Yes, but Breton helped - in great part - to formulate that theory ...
>
> Can someone please explain this theory to me. Are we talking about the
> idealization of gender stereotypes? I never got that. Nor did I ever
> get the impression that this "idealization" was sex-restricted. Rather
> than being an idealization of woman, don't we really mean the
> Surrealist idealization of "the other," that being that if a Surrealist
> were, say queer or a female, they might idealize the male sex instead?
> I always thought his emphases was on love---the source of the
> idealization---and love is not sex restricted.
Yes, but the majority of surrealist "knowns" at the time were men, and their
works are indeed filled with images of the Idealized Woman, a figure in
which all hope is invested, but who seems only to have an imagistic or
totemic power. It's a continuation of the Romantic Ideal, a very old idea,
that would have been more interesting if it had been investigated rather
than taken in whole hog. This attitude does appear to lead to a degree of
disappointment in "real time" females, and to an exaggeration of their
foibles. When one expects too much... Rene Crevel was queer and though I
haven't gotten around to reading a lot of his work (its availability is
limited), I don't recall a great bound into idealization of the male,
although this does happen, if Whitman is a good example. Male "characters"
in surrealist poetry tend to be wandering spirits who are transformed by The
Woman. Whether or not this is a result of a merely "arbitrary" majority of
men, the results are the same.
>
> Or perhaps I've missed something, and maybe you could direct me towards
> a text that would enlighten me on the subject.
>
I'll certainly look into it.
>
dmh
Dale Houstman
"cythera" <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8pq1eg$l3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8pprls$pjm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> brandon...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > johamar wrote
> > > The Idealization of woman is a part of surrealist theory.
>
> > Dale Houstman wrote
> > > Yes, but Breton helped - in great part - to formulate that theory
> ...
>
> > Can someone please explain this theory to me. Are we talking about
> > the idealization of gender stereotypes? I never got that.
> > Nor did I ever get the impression that this "idealization" was sex-
> > restricted. Rather than being an idealization of woman, don't we
> > really mean the Surrealist idealization of "the other," that being
> > that if a Surrealist were, say queer or a female, they might
> > idealize the male sex instead?
> > I always thought his emphases was on love---the source of the
> > idealization---and love is not sex restricted.
>
>
> Here's something I feel portrays woman specifically as an ideal, and
> akin to a goddess.
>
> Excerpt from Au-dela de la peinture, 1936, by Max Ernst.
>
> Then my eyes perceived human heads, various animals, a battle ending
> in a kiss (Fiance of the Wind), rocks, The Sea and the Rain,
> Earthquakes, The Sphinx in her Stable, Little Tables around the Earth,
> Caesar's Palette, False Positions, an Ice-Flower Shawl, Pampas.
> Whip Lashes and Threads of Lava, Fields of Honour, Floods and Seismic
> Plants, Scarecrows, The Sprinting Chestnut Tree.
> Teenage Lightning, Vaccinated Bread, Conjugal Diamonds, The Cuckoo,
> Origin of the Pendulum, Dead Man's Meal, Wheel of Light.
> A Solar Money System.
> The Habits of Leaves, The Fascinating Cypress.
> Eve, The Only One Left to Us.
>
> c.
I suppose we might say that this is probably a little more marvelous than
just calling them "bitches." But - as Idealized Women go - Aphrodite was
known to be quite a bitch. Disappointment leads to anger.
dmh
barrett john erickson
> cythera quoted
> _The Random House Book of Twentieth-Century French Poetry_, edited by
> Paul Auster with translations by American and British Poets, A Dual-
> Language Edition. Random House, Inc., New York; and simultaneously
> in Canada by Random House of Canada, Toronto, 1982; pp. 606-619.
>
> > [...]
> > Louis Aragon: Mobilized in 1917; met Andre Breton while studying
> > military medicine during the war. Active participant in the French
> > Dada movement. Later one of the principal members of the surrealist
> > group. Broke with the surrealists in 1931 and joined the Communist
> > Party. Taken prisoner by the Germans during World War II, escaped to
> > the Unoccupied Zone, and became one of the leading figures in the
> > Resistance. Much of his finest poetry was written during this period.
depends on who you ask i suppose (e.g., i know Breton would have disagreed
with that statement).
but, more importantly, let's not forget what a vengeful weasel Aragon became
when placed in a position of some authority during the persecutions that
followed the "liberation".
brandon...@my-deja.com
> Yes, but the majority of surrealist "knowns" at the time were men,
> and their works are indeed filled with images of the Idealized
I guess this was sort of my point. Sort of.
But anyway, I hate the idea of approaching this theory as sex
restricted for I know that the modern feminist critique would simply
rip it apart.
But hey, does Unica Zurn not idealize, in some sort of way, the man of
Jasmine? Poor Hans, he never had a chance.
johamar
brandon...@my-deja.com wrote:
> The last I checked the word "homosexual" specifically meant "Of,
> relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same
> sex." How does "hypocrisy" exist within that definition? Perhaps I
> would understand your position if you would word it better. Do you mean
> that "hypocrisy" exists in the Gay Liberation Movement, or do you
> spacifically mean that gay mean and women are simply born hypocritical?
> If so I would love to here your argument.
You are taking my statements down the wrong track.
>
>
> As for homosexuals "joining" society, I would argue that they are
> already a part of society. Perhaps you live in one of the less
> liberated cultures of the world. I also think you're making an
> assumption that "society" doesn't want homosexuals. As for what
> appeared to be a quote (or paraphrase?) of Crevel, I think the entire
> notion of "the homesexual" as being an outsider to society and culture
> is very outdated.
You are probably right. But you are still twisting my argument. I have said
everything I want to say about this subject. If you don't agree, then so
be it.
brandon...@my-deja.com
> You are taking my statements down the wrong track.
Am I? I proposed some questions that you refuse to answer. Basically, I
said that if you believe there is hypocrisy in queer politics, well
then fine, but if you believe that homosexuals are biologically
hypocritical, well, I think YOUR homophobia is a bit out of control. I
simply can't understand how two men, or women, being in a sexual and/or
emotional relationship can be viewed as "hypocritical." All I'm asking:
if this is your view, please explain. If not, simply say no. Where did
I get off on the wrong track.
> You are probably right. But you are still twisting my argument. I
> have said everything I want to say about this subject. If you don't
> agree, then so be it.
How can I agree or disagree, I'm not sure what your position is? Agian
I'll ask, when you use the word "homosexual" are talking about "queer
politics" or simply being "queer."
Shit, what it all boils down to is that Breton was afraid of men who
suck dick. Plain and simple. There is never REALLY a political stance
involved in homophobia. It's purely psychological. His fear of them has
EVERYTHING to do with HIM, and NOTHING to do with THEM.
I enjoy Breton's writings and even his personality just as much as the
next Surrealist, but I'm not going to pretend his flaws didn't exist,
nor am I going to place the blame for his homophobia on homosexuals.
Michael DiCola
>> I think the entire notion of "the homesexual" as being an outsider to
>> society and culture is very outdated.
("Billy! What the hell are you doing to that drier vent?!!! Martha, looks
like our boy's a gol-durned homesexual!!")
Parry
>
> "Sven" <svenh.this...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:B5E501A0.127C9%svenh.this...@blueyonder.co.uk...
> recently
> > >> to getting into the military?
> >
> > Because that is where the major discrimination lies. If you're arguing
> > against the military (and I would too) then argue that it be disbanded.
> > While it exists, and is an accepted social institution, it should be open
> to
> > everyone.
Especially drunks and psychopaths.
> Of course, but you misunderstand me. While I support the right of anyone to
> freely associate in any group, I find it disconcerting that the main thrust
> of the gay liberation movement had to be entry into such an organ of power
> and coercion. It is no different from being appalled if I found out that
> Jews were fighting to be SS troopers.
Not all gays want to join the military, of course. Many want to join the
clergy!
-- Parry
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Dale Houstman
"Parry" <pa...@zxOMITmail.com> wrote in message
news:39C1D6...@zxOMITmail.com...
> Dale Houstman wrote:
> >
> > "Sven" <svenh.this...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:B5E501A0.127C9%svenh.this...@blueyonder.co.uk...
> > recently
> > > >> to getting into the military?
> > >
> > > Because that is where the major discrimination lies. If you're
arguing
> > > against the military (and I would too) then argue that it be
disbanded.
> > > While it exists, and is an accepted social institution, it should be
open
> > to
> > > everyone.
>
>
>
> > Of course, but you misunderstand me. While I support the right of anyone
to
thrust
> > of the gay liberation movement had to be entry into such an organ of
power
> > and coercion. It is no different from being appalled if I found out that
> > Jews were fighting to be SS troopers.
>
> Not all gays want to join the military, of course. Many want to join the
> clergy!
>
At that point, it becomes a surrealist game (Noxious Comparisons) to figure
out which "entry point" is the most odious. Of course, then there are those
gays who want to be military chaplains. A convergence of appalling desires.
One can only step back and hope the next jet crash happens in the Army
chapel.
dmh
elag
> > and their works are indeed filled with images of the Idealized
> > Woman ...
>
> I guess this was sort of my point. Sort of.
>
> But anyway, I hate the idea of approaching this theory as sex
> restricted for I know that the modern feminist critique would simply
> rip it apart.
>
> But hey, does Unica Zurn not idealize, in some sort of way, the man of
> Jasmine? Poor Hans, he never had a chance.
Hmm-mm-mm... The most common reaction I get when I show Bellmer's work
to people is "poor Unika"... She did ultimately jump out of a window.
Breton thought he was nuts... though he did get on famously with Bataille.
Two of my happiest finds in the book stores in Chatelet were tiny (6" x
6") books of Bellmer's drawings/sculptures &
paintings/gouaches/collages. His portrait of Unika (the "anal" one)
still haunts my nightmares.
brandon...@my-deja.com
> Poor Hans, he never had a chance.
Elag wrote:
> The most common reaction I get when I show Bellmer's work
> to people is "poor Unika"...
Well, poor both of them then.
> His portrait of Unika (the "anal" one) still haunts my nightmares.
Nightmares?
elag
>
> In article <39C42DB5...@concentric.net>,
> el...@concentric.net wrote:
> > brandon...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > > Dale Houstman wrote:
> > > > Yes, but the majority of surrealist "knowns" at the time were
> > > > men, and their works are indeed filled with images of the
> > > > Idealized Woman ...
>
> > > I guess this was sort of my point. Sort of.
>
> > > But anyway, I hate the idea of approaching this theory as sex
> > > restricted for I know that the modern feminist critique would
> > > simply rip it apart.
>
> > > But hey, does Unica Zurn not idealize, in some sort of way, the
> > > man of Jasmine? Poor Hans, he never had a chance.
> >
> > Hmm-mm-mm... The most common reaction I get when I show Bellmer's
> > work to people is "poor Unika"...
>
> Kokoschka’s doll?
>
> Oskar Kokoschka (1886-1980), was an Austrian-born British Expressionist
> painter who, in his youth, had an affair with the former wife of
> composer Gustav Mahler. Alma Mahler was perhaps best-known for bedding
> and wedding some of Europe's greatest artistic geniuses. When Alma
> left Oskar, the painter went literally mad. In his sexual frenzy, he
> commissioned a seamstress to sew a life-like replica of Alma, exact in
> all its anatomical details. The poor woman, confused and frightened by
> the artist's monomania, did the best she could do [...]
Photos of the doll exist and they make plain the reason for Kokoschka's
disappointment. The face looks like a mask and the body is covered in
what looks like thick fur... it looks more like some legendary
half-human creature than a real woman.
Now I'm really gonna have nightmares!
>
> > She did ultimately jump out of a window.
> > Breton thought he was nuts... though he did get on famously with
> > Bataille.
>
> > Two of my happiest finds in the book stores in Chatelet were tiny
> > (6" x 6") books of Bellmer's
> drawings/sculpturespaintings/gouaches/collages. His portrait of Unika
> > (the "anal" one) still haunts my nightmares.
>
> elag, will you please scan these?! That would be marvelous...
I'm kinda between scanners right now... however I'll see what I can do.
If it helps, the title is "cephalopode" (1968).
Until then this link ought to tide you over:
johamar
brandon...@my-deja.com wrote:
> johamar wrote:
> > You are taking my statements down the wrong track.
>
> Am I? I proposed some questions that you refuse to answer. Basically, I
> said that if you believe there is hypocrisy in queer politics, well
> then fine, but if you believe that homosexuals are biologically
> hypocritical, well, I think YOUR homophobia is a bit out of control...
When did I say "that homosexuals are biologically hypocritical"?
We where talking about the use of a word. You are rather quick in
jumping to conclusions.
Yes; "there is hypocrisy in queer politics".
No one is "born hypocritical". Or was this a joke.
elag
>
> > His portrait of Unika (the "anal" one) still haunts my nightmares.
>
> Nightmares?
You know, those Velvety-Black Yellow-Fanged horses.
john adams
cythera wrote in message <8q3k1v$ldi$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>Thanks. Does anyone have more Bellmer links? I was going to post the
>Poupees from Mark Hardin's Artchive, but I see that he's had to pull
>Bellmer (and Magritte, and Ernst) from his site. Here is a little
>something though:
>
>A photograph.
>http://www.od-arts.com/berggruen/indexgb.html
>
Here is a little more bellmer, at your own fine arts of san francisco:
http://search.famsf.org/4d.acgi$Search?list&=1&=bellmer+hans&=And&=Yes&=&=&=
&=Yes&=Yes&=f
(don't forget to utilize the zoom option).
john
el...@concentric.net
? In article ?39C510E0...@concentric.net?,
?
? ? Photos of the doll exist and they make plain the reason for
? ? Kokoschka's disappointment. The face looks like a mask and the body
? ? is covered in what looks like thick fur... it looks more like some
? ? legendary half-human creature than a real woman.
?
? Poor Kokoschka must have been quite mad to carry that around with him.
? Did you learn about this at art school?
Yes, a little. I read about the basic scenario in a book called
"Anecdotes of Modern Art" which serves me as an infinite font of
inspiration.
? ? Now I'm really gonna have nightmares!
?
? I'm dying to see photos of ?Alma?! Did her body resemble a wolf's?
The photos are pretty creepy, I'll tell you that! His painting "Blue
Woman" is of the doll.
?
? ???She did ultimately jump out of a window.
? ??? Breton thought he was nuts... though he did get on famously with
? ??? Bataille.
?
? ??? Two of my happiest finds in the book stores in Chatelet were tiny
? ??? (6? x 6?) books of Bellmer's
? ??? drawings/sculpturespaintings/gouaches/collages. His portrait of
? ??? Unika (the ?anal? one) still haunts my nightmares.
?
? ?? elag, will you please scan these?! That would be marvelous...
?
? ? I'm kinda between scanners right now... however I'll see what I can
? ? do.
?
? Thanks. Any time is fine with me. :) I realized as I clicked ?Send?
? that you would probably have to email the images to me. I haven't
? found a way to view images now that Remarq is, ostensibly, gone.
Since you're using Netscape you could try subscribing to the (open) news
server:
this should allow you to view images.
Parry
> > > Two of my happiest finds in the book stores in Chatelet were tiny
> > > (6" x 6") books of Bellmer's
> > > (the "anal" one) still haunts my nightmares.
> >
>
> If it helps, the title is "cephalopode" (1968).
It’s not “Iridescent cephalode,” 1939, with the striped socks?