Lighter brother of surreal?
Chris Clark
dreamy version of surreal? I can't think of the name. What is the main
differences of this style to surreal?
Cheers,
CC.
--
"Music is a mysterious mathematics of the soul unconscious of it's
calculation" - Leibniz.
Dale Houstman
Chris Clark wrote:
>
> What is the name of the style of art/writing that is a lighter more
> dreamy version of surreal? I can't think of the name. What is the main
> differences of this style to surreal?
>
It's called crap, and the main difference is that surrealism isn't a
style.
DMH
Brandon J. Freels
Fantasy, Magic Realism, Subjective Classicism, etc.
I believe you must be simply referring to Fantasy art and literature. I have
always believed that Surrealist art was the clash of the artist's subjective
(inner) world with the objective (outer) world. Fantasy, or the style of art
you are describing, seems to differ in that it is completely dependent upon
the inner world.
But this brings us to the question, can there be an interior expression
without an exterior world? Aren't all our images derived from the objective
in some way or another?
*NOTE: Dale is correct. Surrealism is not a style of art, but styles of art
have definitely been inspired by Surrealist ideas.
Dale Houstman
Of course. To the original poster (and in fact to everyone interested in
the gothic or fantastic in literature) I highly recommend the two Black
Water collections, edited by Manguel. These are almost perfect.
NOTE: Dale is incorrect. Style is the surrealism of ideas inspired by
articles of the indefinite.
DMH
"Domine Memori Hominy"
B.S. The "lighter brother of surrealism" undoubtedly got that way by
frequent purging and the liberal use of laxatives.
Nikolaus Maack
Dale Houstman (dale.h...@gte.net) writes:
> Of course. To the original poster (and in fact to everyone interested in
> the gothic or fantastic in literature) I highly recommend the two Black
> Water collections, edited by Manguel. These are almost perfect.
Agreed. I love the two BLACK WATER anthologies. Are they fantastic or
surreal or both? Is Kafka surreal? Are these important questions? Not
really. They's juss good readin'. A number of the stories I read in
these books sent me scurrying to the library to locate more works by the
same authors.
Manguel's "Gates of Paradise" collections were somewhat lacklustre,
though. I read the first one, and found myself bored silly, but I tend to
be somewhat irritated by "erotica". Didja read those, Dale, and didja
like 'em?
Nik
--
"And I thought, 'Well, how much more bizarre can you get, the Queen of
England sacrificing children?' And, she said, when the blood started to
flow, they shape-shifted into reptiles."
-- David Icke, SuperKook
Brandon J. Freels
> Agreed. I love the two BLACK WATER anthologies. Are they fantastic or
> surreal or both? Is Kafka surreal? Are these important questions? Not
> really. They's juss good readin'.
Yes and no.
Yes---
If you are trying to understand Surrealism these are both good questions,
one of which I can't answer since I haven't yet read the BLACK WATER
anthologies. Kafka, well, maybe yes, maybe no. I'm split. Can't decide now.
No---
If you are just looking for something interesting to read the questions are,
like you stated, not really important. I find the fantastic, the gothic, the
supernatural all pretty interesting, and usually don't discriminate against
reading a book because it isn't surreal or not.
Dale Houstman
Nikolaus Maack wrote:
>
>
> Agreed. I love the two BLACK WATER anthologies. Are they fantastic or
> surreal or both?
The fantastic and the surreal are not mutually exclusive although not
entirely synonymous; in essence the fantastic is one more
instrumentation of the surreal.
>Is Kafka surreal?
Difficult to say, as surreal is not a quality exactly. Insofar as his
work (although fantastic in a compellingly pale way) tends to illustrate
the futility of the human struggle, it is more absurd than not. His last
unfinished novel Amerika seems to be pointing toward an more expansive
consideration of imagination as a weapon of triumph. none of these
considerations diminish Kafka's permanent values.
>
> Manguel's "Gates of Paradise" collections were somewhat lacklustre,
> though. I read the first one, and found myself bored silly, but I tend to
> be somewhat irritated by "erotica". Didja read those, Dale, and didja
> like 'em?
>
Erotica's appeals are narrower. The fantastic can contain the erotic,
but the erotic tends to be grounded in an invocation of a "tingle" which
limits its variety I would think. I didn't read those, although I did
read Manguel's "History of Reading" which is superb.
DMH
Paul Whitehead
<cj...@ozemail.com.au> writes
>What is the name of the style of art/writing that is a lighter more
>dreamy version of surreal? I can't think of the name.
Impressionism? Cubism? Romanticism?
> What is the main
>differences of this style to surreal?
Time is short: over to someone else!
Paul
Paul Whitehead
<dale.h...@gte.net> writes
Has anybody read Hermann Hesse's 'Steppenwolf' or 'Journey To The East'?
A surreal thread runs (in parallel with other threads) through much of
Hesse's work. Interestingly, I read on one of 'his' (he is long-ish
dead of course) web sites that he applied some rules of music to a lot
of his work.
Paul
Nikolaus Maack
<weste...@western-pr.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Has anybody read Hermann Hesse's 'Steppenwolf' or 'Journey To The East'?
I was paid to paint illustrations, page by page, in Steppenwolf.
Illuminating the work. It took me something like 8 months. The pay
was pathetic. But I read the book as I worked on it.
Very Jungian. I like Hesse's description of what art does. How the
artist splinters their own mind into characters, and then pits them
against each other. Hesse backs up my theory that writing is dreaming
while awake. Characters don't always do what you want them to. The
plot, even if scripted ahead of time, has a tendency to meander away.
But I don't see much of the surreal in Hesse's Steppenwolf. Care to
be more specific as to where you see it?
Nik
Dale Houstman
Paul Whitehead wrote:
>
> Has anybody read Hermann Hesse's 'Steppenwolf' or 'Journey To The East'?
Read both back in the 60s, when he and Vonnegut were college staples.
>
> A surreal thread runs (in parallel with other threads) through much of
> Hesse's work. Interestingly, I read on one of 'his' (he is long-ish
> dead of course) web sites that he applied some rules of music to a lot
> of his work.
>
This musical basis becomes manifest in "Magister Ludi; or the Glass Bead
Game." As for the "surrealism" of Hesse, I don't see it. For one thing
his use of symbolism is incredibly pre-scripted rather than particularly
exploratory, although he uses the quest as a plot line. His journeys
seem to be bound before-hand rather than unfolding before him and us. I
say this as a reader who enjoys much of his work. When (in Steppenwolf)
the character does get to the Marvelous it is oddly enough a
pay-for-view, a 60s-style drug freakout, and contains rather obvious (if
"muscularly drawn) evocations of social disorder. And, all in all, I
find Hesse either too pessimistic, or (the opposition growing from this)
too easily fallen into the mystification of desire to be "ranked" as
surreal. But there are strong aspects of the fantastic in an intelligent
framework, he has much to say about Germany at a particular point in
time, and I rather liked him when I was 20. If I haven't revisited him
in quite a time, it is scarcely because I don't find him "surreal" as I
am uninterested in such qualifications. It is mainly because there is so
little time and so many books.
DMH
Paul Whitehead
<ac...@freenet.carleton.ca> writes
>On Tue, 17 Aug 1999 14:48:21 +0100, Paul Whitehead
>>Has anybody read Hermann Hesse's 'Steppenwolf' or 'Journey To The East'?
>
What/who for? Has your work been published, if so, where? I'd love to
see it. I have an illustrated 'Treatise On The Steppenwolf' (the artist
is Jaroslav Bradac) and I saw the film (was he the artist for that?
>Illuminating the work. It took me something like 8 months. The pay
>was pathetic. But I read the book as I worked on it.
So, where is your work on this, perhaps my favourite book?
>
>Very Jungian. I like Hesse's description of what art does. How the
>artist splinters their own mind into characters, and then pits them
>against each other. Hesse backs up my theory that writing is dreaming
>while awake. Characters don't always do what you want them to. The
>plot, even if scripted ahead of time, has a tendency to meander away.
>
>But I don't see much of the surreal in Hesse's Steppenwolf. Care to
>be more specific as to where you see it?
>
> Nik
>
Let's not forget that Harry is the Steppenwolf - grappling with the dark
and light side of his nature.
For me, I guess there are surrealistic elements in The Theatre for
Madmen only - and where the reader sees scenes and can make a choice of
how to lead (take apart and rebuild?) his/her life (this bit is all to
do with personal salvation, apparently). Perhaps the theatre (which
does/does not exist) springs out of the subconscious of Harry Haller; or
is it a just a bit of magic that Hesse introduces, as an interesting
device?
Could the theatre be a dream sequence arising from Haller's
subsconscious...
Paul
--
Paul Whitehead
Nikolaus Maack
>>I was paid to paint illustrations, page by page, in Steppenwolf.
Paul Whitehead asks:
>What/who for? Has your work been published, if so, where? I'd love to
>see it. I have an illustrated 'Treatise On The Steppenwolf' (the artist
>is Jaroslav Bradac) and I saw the film (was he the artist for that?
I think I may have misrepresented myself. A friend of mine paid me to
take his paperback copy of Steppenwolf and paint in the margins and
spaces of the text. I put a minimum of one illistration per page
throughout the entire book. There is ONE single copy of this work,
and my friend owns it.
He was talking about scanning it at some point, to preserve it. I
should ask him to scan some of the better pages I did so I can get
them on to my web page.
>Could the theatre be a dream sequence arising from Haller's
>subsconscious...
In my mind, the entire text is meant to be read as a concoction by the
writer. Hesse makes it quite obvious that Harry Haller is a thinly
veiled version of himself. The entire book seems to be Hesse
considering his own life, scultping an imaginary story and imaginary
characters -- perhaps basing them on real life people he's
encountered? -- and then deciphering his own life.
Hesse (or Haller) is caught between two poorly constructed aspects of
himself. He uses the book to break his own mind, and then rebuild it.
There's criticism in the book that clearly explains what the book is
all about: every character represents an aspect of Hesse's own psyche.
Hesse was obsessed with Jung. Many of the characters are clearly
archetypes. There is an obvious anima, and an obvious shadow. (I
forget the character names; forgive me.)
In the sense that Hesse goes into his own head, explores his
imagination, and writes it all down as a novel, Steppenwolf could be
described as a surrealist work. That's my opinion on the matter,
anyway.
Nik
Dale Houstman
Nikolaus Maack wrote:
>
>
> In the sense that Hesse goes into his own head, explores his
> imagination, and writes it all down as a novel, Steppenwolf could be
> described as a surrealist work.
>
>
But in a very real sense this is what all art is, but all art is not
surrealist. Or is it? For the most part Hesse's work is (as you say when
you speak of archetypes) too self-consciously "symbolic" to be
considered surrealist, the "productions" of which tend to grow out of
some notion of automatism, and whose symbols at least strive to avoid
overt appropriation. This is all apart from whether or not I "like"
Hesse's work (I do), or whether I apprehend its fantastic or
psychological nature. But the very fact that it is (as you note) an
extension of Jung says a lot. Carl's idea of a "governing" body of
symbols, and his (I believe) naive day sorties into the mystical are not
appealing from a surrealist angle. Or from my personal perspective.
Freud has his own problems. And in a fashion, both these men can be
viewed as "fascistic" relative to the art philosophies that grew out of
them. But then, the poetic is always searching for both a way in and a
way out that is not bound to appeal to those who are attempting to
reconcile man to his society no matter how "useful" that may be.
In contrast, Leonora Carrington has a tale in which a young girl changes
into a coyote (or hyena?) and ends up slaughtering her family. There is
no reconciliation with the society that spawned her, and no easy
symbolic way out of her metamorphosis. I recommend Carrington's short
stories to anyone.
DMH
Paul Whitehead
What do people in this ng generally believe surrealism to mean (i.e
what is an accepted/standard definition of it)?
Thanks in anticipation
Paul
Dale Houstman
I think you'd find (given an extensive survey) that there is no
generally held notion of surrealism in this ng, and that is both good
and bad. I would like to say that surrealism is NOT a hastily compiled
string of non sequitors and self-serving nonsense, but an evolving
system of explorations (often using but not limited to art) that tends
to promote the free expression of the imagination, bring individuals
together in collaborative action, resist any and all powers that strive
to contain such expression, and challenges the prevailing wind despite
the "ism" that might attach itself to it. At the same time surrealism
attempts to denounce itself, to head off any fossilization of an
adventure into a bureaucracy of mere sensationalism and "aesthetic
tics". Surrealism is not a quality of some object or person but a
battery of chance into which a consciousness desires to stroll, taking
its chances as it were with the observable. Surrealism posits, in place
of the hierarchy of mysticism, the pursuit and celebration of the
marvelous, which reifies in that space between an eye "sleeping in the
will" and all events that occur beyond that eye's control. Surrealism
is NOT the unreal but the super-real, or a regaining of the greater
reality from which many of us were forced by utilitarian demands of
"efficiency" and "duty." The pornography of the merely sensational does
not interest surrealism whose shocks and unconventionalities derive from
all the desires mentioned and from the individual personalties that are
attracted by its seductions. It is not a matter of waking up others but
of EITHER waking up or falling asleep in quest of the marvelous. In
service of these notions, automatism and other approaches that invite
chance into production are central, if only to defeat the "artist as
god" or "art for art's sake" sentiments that have so aided in the
division of the world into the "them" and "us" of artists and "common
folk" when (in fact) the goal of surrealism is to liberate all into a
full range of their imaginative lives. That this necessarily includes
political actions, social critiques, and constant re-investigations of
surrealism's own agenda is not to wondered at: we know that a full army
of forces is ALWAYS arrayed against free desire, exercise of the
imagination, and free movement. Capitalism wishes you to stay very still
except when you are buying. Communism wants you to pretend all has been
fixed and you will soon get yours. Just be patient in your cell.
Catholicism wishes you to forgo too close an examination of any question
and wait for death to answer the questions you barely know to ask.
Liberalism desires to put a smiling face on the grafter.
Surrealism is enemy to all that. And more.
DMH
Nikolaus Maack
>> What do people in this ng generally believe surrealism to mean (i.e
>> what is an accepted/standard definition of it)?
Dale Houstman:
[snip]
>Surrealism is enemy to all that. And more.
I entirely agree and entirely disagree with everything Dale said.
That's my job.
It is impossible to see yourself. A mirror reflects an inverted
image. You could pull your eyeball out from its socket, turn it back
on itself, and catch a glimpse of some of you. But the eyeball in
your hand can't be made to look at itself.
Surrealism is an artist chasing her own tail. Using a sort of random
psychoanalysis, creating personal symbols and personal demons then
fighting them and defining them until the day you die, surrealists try
to see themselves, and the world, for what they are. And they can't.
It's a ridiculous task because nothing is actually real. Still, it's
fun to chase your own tail, so the artist does so until he collapses.
It's not random gibberish, because there's no such thing. Even ink
spots conspire to have meaning.
I think of surrealism as a pursuit of enlightenment with an artistic
bent.
(However, most surrealists view anything religious as offensive --
including enlightenment. But if you make sure to couch your talk of
religion in a "Let's just talk about the symbols of religion without
believing in the stuff," most surrealists will nod, and say, "Okay,
but you watch out, buddy! Religion tends to oppress people, and I
don't like being oppressed. Got it?")
Nik
---
Don't just hate me for my writing.
Also hate me for my painting.
http://www.chat.carleton.ca/~mrtribe
Brandon J. Freels
http://www-e815.fnal.gov/~romosan/surrealism.html
The Declaration of January 27, 1925
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1925surrealism.html
Dale Houstman
Nikolaus Maack wrote:
>
>
>
> I entirely agree and entirely disagree with everything Dale said.
> That's my job.
But are you paid?
>
> It is impossible to see yourself. A mirror reflects an inverted
> image.
There are mirrors that reflect you precisely as others see you. Is this
pertinent? I doubt it...
>
> It's a ridiculous task because nothing is actually real. Still, it's
> fun to chase your own tail, so the artist does so until he collapses.
Is fun real?
>
> It's not random gibberish, because there's no such thing. Even ink
> spots conspire to have meaning.
Yet if nothing is real how can you determine its degree of randomness or
tell an ink spot from a onion, or meaning from moaning?
>
> I think of surrealism as a pursuit of enlightenment with an artistic
> bent.
>
> (However, most surrealists view anything religious as offensive --
> including enlightenment.
Enlightenment is not a religious concept per se, just a transcendental
state, whuich obviously occur. All I would say is that the seeming
divinity behind such satoris is the human imagination. Personally I am
intrigued by religion, just as I am intrigued by all human myth-making;
these are resplendent examples of the human desire for patterns. It is
only when a ruling hierarchy attempts to bend these images to
suppression that I feel obligated to say something.
> But if you make sure to couch your talk of
> religion in a "Let's just talk about the symbols of religion without
> believing in the stuff," most surrealists will nod, and say, "Okay,
> but you watch out, buddy! Religion tends to oppress people, and I
> don't like being oppressed. Got it?")
So? Are you saying one has to believe in religion to apreciate its
symbols and myths? And are you saying that it is somehow incorrect to
dislike oppression?
Oh well... None of it is real anyway.
DMH
Dale Houstman
Yoyo wrote:
>
> Nikolaus Maack wrote:
> >
> > Paul Whitehead:
> > >> What do people in this ng generally believe surrealism to mean (i.e
> > >> what is an accepted/standard definition of it)?
> >
>
> >
> > Surrealism is an artist chasing her own tail. Using a sort of random
> > psychoanalysis, creating personal symbols and personal demons then
> > fighting them and defining them until the day you die, surrealists try
> > to see themselves, and the world, for what they are. And they can't.
> > It's a ridiculous task because nothing is actually real. Still, it's
> > fun to chase your own tail, so the artist does so until he collapses.
>
> Nonsense.
>
And cynical nonsense at that. You're correct of course, but this is a
pointless attempt anyway; the very fact that you used this marvelous
document signed by all those names will make Nik think you are being a
smarmy elitist. I don't quite understand his total resistance to
understanding surrealism as a complexity rather than as a bit of fluffy
sensationalism, but it does amaze me to find how derisive he is of the
very subject of the ng. But Nik believes in a particularly "religious"
manner, and logic will not convince him to budge off the median of his
self-satisfied "insights" into what is really a loose collection of
frenetic sensationalisms and abject swerves at absurdity.
He appears to believe in nothing in particular (it would be difficult to
since there is nothing in his view to believe in), or at least in
nothing he appears to have the ability to explain. But we must realize
that anyone who says "nothing is real" is beyond communication, and
certainly can never comprehend surrealism which is an extenuation and
redressing of what is most real. And while it is true that the
individual surrealists could engage in confrontation, the sort they were
always most interested in was their own confrontation with the poetic at
every turn. We can only then view Nik's projects as some buried portion
of himself attempting wildly to engage the rest of him, but only able to
produce sporadic (and eventually unsatisfying) fireworks of public
confusion he likens to an "awakening" but to what; why wake anyone up if
(as Nik says so often) "nothing is real"? What would be the point?
DMH
Nikolaus Maack
<dale.h...@gte.net> wrote:
>Yet if nothing is real how can you determine its degree of randomness or
>tell an ink spot from a onion, or meaning from moaning?
When I stumble across an object or an event, I use my pocket random
number generator to determine whether something is real. If it picks
the number thirteen -- from the numbers one to infinity -- the matter
in question is real.
In the unlikely event that the result is pi, a panel of hand-picked
Zen monks will assemble in Switzerland, where they will discuss the
pertinent aspects of the case, write a forty-seven page paper on that
matter, and hand it back to me. At which point I restart the process
by pressing the button that activates the machine to determine what is
really real and what is really not real.
Recently, using the machine to determine if the machine itself was
real, I got the result pi. Hand-picking Zen monks isn't as easy as
you might think, as monks are rarely, if ever, in season.
(Nonsense? You bet your bouncing bippy.)
>Enlightenment is not a religious concept per se, just a transcendental
>state, which obviously occur.
Enlightenment -- when you lose weight -- is not a religious reject, or
so says my purse, but a trance dental state -- that's the state where
you fall asleep in a dentist's chair, because of that sleepy yellow
light they shine in your eyes.
Dentist chairs are real, according to my random number generator,
which itself may or may not be real, which, presumably, means that its
results are very questionable.
>Are you saying one has to believe in religion to apreciate its
>symbols and myths?
If priests and popes
who are not dopes
can spend all night
tying theological ropes
into knots and bows
and cantaloupes
then, one should hope
that one can cope
with unbelievable beliefs
-- a slippery slope.
> And are you saying that it is somehow incorrect to
>dislike oppression?
I flipped a coin and it said "heads", which means that I say YES to
your question. It is incorrect to dislike anything. Learn to love
popcorn seeds caught in your teeth, or suffer the consequences.
>Oh well... None of it is real anyway.
Thank goodness you aren't, or I'd give you such a smack.
I mean a kiss, of course, silly. Whatever did you *think* I meant?
Nikolaus Maack
<fre...@teleport.com> wrote:
>The Declaration of January 27, 1925
>http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1925surrealism.html
Welcome to nearly the year 2000, you comical war amputee. It's seventy
five years later, and Andre Breton serves brussell sprouts to Jeffrey
Dahmer in Hell.
Surrealism now is defined as "an apparatus in chamber form for the
production of intense heat to melt metals, reduce ores, etc."
So says my dictionary, consulted at random.
Paul Whitehead
<dale.h...@gte.net> writes
>
<snip>
>We can only then view Nik's projects as some buried portion
>of himself attempting wildly to engage the rest of him, but only able to
>produce sporadic (and eventually unsatisfying) fireworks of public
>confusion he likens to an "awakening" but to what; why wake anyone up if
>(as Nik says so often) "nothing is real"? What would be the point?
>
>DMH
To see if it's true. To read another poem and slide along the mental
corridor and explore by emotive feel or whatever that nothing really is
real.
If 'nothing' really is 'real' then what is 'something'? More real, but
to what degree? But if 'nothing real' means there is no reality (or at
the least, nothing real in that reality, then humans must redouble their
efforts to do what they do best - create it (either reality, or real-
ness within that reality, or both).
In that enduring grey landscape that the mind can find itself in -
myriads of realities can be made to flower.
Or can they? If so, how? If not, why not?
Paul
Dale Houstman
Paul Whitehead wrote:
>
>
> >
> >DMH
>
> To see if it's true. To read another poem and slide along the mental
> corridor and explore by emotive feel or whatever that nothing really is
> real.
This makes almost as much sense as "nothing is real." If you firmly
believe (as Nik does) that "nothing is real" no amount of
experimentation will prove or disprove it; you are already convinced of
the unverifiable and all sensations become equally non-criitcal. If you
believe nothing is real and yet you strive to see if something is real,
then you don't believe that nothing is real.
>
> If 'nothing' really is 'real' then what is 'something'? More real, but
> to what degree? But if 'nothing real' means there is no reality (or at
> the least, nothing real in that reality, then humans must redouble their
> efforts to do what they do best - create it (either reality, or real-
> ness within that reality, or both).
Not to be offensive, but this is a relatively lame word play on the
meaning of the word "nothing" that is not in any way contained in Nik's
original statements on the subject, or non-subject. The phrase "nothing
is real" (as I am sure you realize) means "no particular something or
group of somethings is real."
>
> In that enduring grey landscape that the mind can find itself in -
> myriads of realities can be made to flower.
Not if nothing is real they can't!
>
I know such diddling obfuscation is popular on Usenet, but its
popularity doesn't make it any the less diddling obfuscation.
DMH
Dale Houstman
Nikolaus Maack,
just when you thought paper was the most nutritionless and indigestible
substance one could swallow, here comes Nik with more of his crapulent
nonsense.
surely this "nothing is nothing" pose is defensive in nature? To mask
your inability to comprehend the subject at hand?
despite your clouds of dither surrealists gather each day to reaffirm
the essential character of surrealism in all its aspects quite in the
full light of a liberated sun.
all your blather will not purchase you even a table near the bathroom.
I know that everything is real, except you...
DMH
Nikolaus Maack
<dale.h...@gte.net> wrote:
>This makes almost as much sense as "nothing is real."
Poor Dale. Like the legless grasshopper, he lies in the grass and
waves his antenae at the sky, convinced that he was always unable to
jump, though his legs were only just ripped from his body by the
naughty boy of ignorance.
[If you believe there is nothing real...]
>you are already convinced of
>the unverifiable and all sensations become equally non-criitcal.
Does this not sound like a wonderful state? Is this not what all
surrealists long for? Like all confused wanderers, you answer your
own questions, and fail to notice it.
Shame on you, Dale. Like the dandelion whose seeds have been sucked
away by the wind, you assume that you shall be bald for the rest of
your days, even as the new head of hair within you prepares to grow.
>If you
>believe nothing is real and yet you strive to see if something is real,
>then you don't believe that nothing is real.
Believing in nothing is like unwrapping a chocolate bar. Now
meaningless, the chocolate is even tastier.
>The phrase "nothing
>is real" (as I am sure you realize) means "no particular something or
>group of somethings is real."
No particular sensory perception is valid. I have only approximations
of a lie which I perceive thanks to faulty senses constructed out of
what I imagine to be crude biological apparatus. How vulgar.
I will smell the rose, not with my nasal passages, but with my mind.
I will perceive a rose where there is no rose, and for its lack of
reality, it will be all the more real.
Dale, like the anteater who believes his own name, you sit in a field
of termites and go hungry.
>I know such diddling obfuscation is popular on Usenet, but its
>popularity doesn't make it any the less diddling obfuscation.
Dale-san, like the petal-less daisy, you no longer remember if she
loves you, or if she loves you not.
Nikolaus Maack
>despite your clouds of dither surrealists gather each day to reaffirm
>the essential character of surrealism in all its aspects quite in the
>full light of a liberated sun.
All good tribes gather together at the end of the hunt to reaffirm
beliefs they have painted on the inside of an eggshell. The fool that
laughs, and steps on the egg, crushing it, will be crucified. Most
tribes cannot survive knowing that their rules are utterly without
meaning.
Dale, did you not once agree with me that all truth is fashion?
Consider then that our very perceptions, and how we interpret them,
are but another form of "fashionable truth". We would see pink
unicorns all around us, if taught, from birth, to see them.
>all your blather will not purchase you even a table near the bathroom.
I have to take what I'm saying and make it into a joke, in order to
make the talking enjoyable. I speak now, not to communicate with you,
but to communicate with myself. Each word I use is bent to my will.
It's fun to play God with the dictionary. Try it.
>I know that everything is real, except you...
Now you begin to understand. Like the wolverine shaved and dipped in
wax, you don't make a very good candle, but you're funny to look at,
given another source of light.
scot...@earthlink.net
Maack) wrote:
>Welcome to nearly the year 2000,
And here's something about a little boulder problem
my friend and I were working on a while ago.
Several moderately strenuous moves up an over hanging
wall brought you to a bomber hold right below a lip where
the angle of the wall reversed. Moving over the lip was the
crux of the problem. Moving over the lip appeared to involve
a very strenuous move that was beyond our ability.
But there happened to be another way.
When the right hand was secure on the hold below the lip
the right heel could be stuck on a small hold four feet to
the right at about shoulder height. When the left leg was
moved above and over the right leg gravity caused the body
to pivot at the right shoulder. The left arm moved up and a
critical hold above the lip was gained. Movement over the
lip was now easy.
Roger Williams
> What is Surrealism? by Andre Breton
> http://www-e815.fnal.gov/~romosan/surrealism.html
> The Declaration of January 27, 1925
> http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1925surrealism.html
How convenient it must be for you to shriek "Breton! Breton!" in lieu
of thinking critically or otherwise. It certainly must compensate for
having no imagination.
--
{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{} \|/
{} RogerW rog...@newsguy.com {} 0< -- parrot.net!
{} http://www.parrot.net ad...@parrot.net {} ^^^^(*)^^^^
{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{} ^^ / \ ^^
Dale Houstman
Roger Williams wrote:
>
>
> How convenient it must be for you to shriek "Breton! Breton!" in lieu
> of thinking critically or otherwise. It certainly must compensate for
> having no imagination.
And how convenient is must be for you to shriek "down with Breton! down
with Breton!" in lieu of thinking critically or otherwise.
If one is speaking of (say) celestial mechanics it is neither
unimaginative nor irrelevant to both quote and emulate Galileo, keeping
in mind the hundreds of years since his existence. If one is speaking of
surrealism it is neither unimaginative nor irrelevant to quote and
emulate Breton, keeping in mind his own strictures against the
fossilization of such systems.
And there is the notion of "Imagination" versus "Fancy" to be
considered: to be imaginative is not to say anything damn thing in
response to any damn thing, chuck it all into the air, and scream
"Everything is nothing!" While this may feel liberating, it is no more
liberating than a concentration camp prisoner saying that the walls of
his prison are mere primroses. That is Fancy. Imagination is grounded in
relevant substance while roaming about its environment. Fancy turns away
from the actual world: it is escapism in a pure form, and draws its
symbols increasingly from the common horde because it is not
self-nourishing, it has no field to call upon. Imagination faces the
world, and its terms and flights are matters of engagement not
disenfranchisement.
To speak of surrealism and NOT to at least attempt to comprehend Breton
(if only to reject various fragments of that body of thought) is to
condemn yourself to a blind investigation of a lame un-idea; for better
or worse, ALL surrealist thought derives from Breton's dreams and
investigations. Surrealism is not like Impressionism, a loose knit group
of slightly similar (and often not similar at all) artists named by a
antagonistic critic. Surrealism is a body of psychological /
philosophical / social ideals and actions created and named by ONE
person. You can disagree with him (I certainly do), but you can't take
him out of surrealism, despite all your efforts. The true imagination
will face this fact and derive new thought and dream from it. Fancy will
turn away screaming "Bloodworms in a Dixie Cup!" and be (temporarily)
satisfied that it has triumphed.
Fancy is mercurial, Imagination plutonian.
DMH
PK
> Also spracht Brandon J. Freels <fre...@teleport.com>: [...]
> How convenient it must be for you to shriek "Breton! Breton!"
> in lieu of thinking critically or otherwise. It certainly must
> compensate for having no imagination.
While BJF might be described as relying too often on the original
definitions of surrealism, I think it a little unreasonable
criticise him for citing them -- however convenient if might be
for you to do so.
But be that as it may -- where are your new innovative
surrealist manifestoes? I'm interested to read them.
#Paul
Brandon J. Freels
> How convenient it must be for you to shriek "Breton! Breton!" in lieu
> of thinking critically or otherwise. It certainly must compensate for
> having no imagination.
Possibly you need to read these sites. Especially the "Declaration of
January 27, 1925," which, although it was signatured by Breton---among
others, was written by Artuad. Why did you not accuse me of conveniently
shrieking "Artaud! Artuad!" ?
I feel that this "Declaration of January 27, 1925" holds true with its
statements even today.
Nikolaus Maack
<fre...@teleport.com> wrote:
>Why did you not accuse me of conveniently
>shrieking "Artaud! Artuad!" ?
The answer, of course, is obvious. The reason he didn't accuse you of
shouting "Artaud! Artaud!" is because you're always shouting "Breton!
Breton!"
Hope this helps you in your question for enlightenment.
Roger Williams
> Roger Williams wrote:
>>
>>
>> How convenient it must be for you to shriek "Breton! Breton!" in lieu
>> of thinking critically or otherwise. It certainly must compensate for
>> having no imagination.
> And how convenient is must be for you to shriek "down with Breton! down
> with Breton!" in lieu of thinking critically or otherwise.
I have never done that, groupie boy. Any examples to the contrary are,
of course, welcome. You come rushing to defend the name of Breton as if a
cattle prod had been spiked into your ass.
> If one is speaking of (say) celestial mechanics it is neither
> unimaginative nor irrelevant to both quote and emulate Galileo, keeping
> in mind the hundreds of years since his existence. If one is speaking of
> surrealism it is neither unimaginative nor irrelevant to quote and
> emulate Breton, keeping in mind his own strictures against the
> fossilization of such systems.
You offer no ideas. You have nothing to say of your own. You chant
Breton's name like some sort of holy mantra, and repost URL's as if it
will magically put ideas or insights of your own into your head.
I hasn't worked to date, and the prognosis for the future is bleak as
well.
> Imagination faces the world, and its terms and flights are matters of
> engagement not disenfranchisement.
What utter horseshit.
g.v.w. iv
> > Imagination faces the world, and its terms and flights are matters of
> > engagement not disenfranchisement.
>
> What utter horseshit.
Tell me about it. i blame our public schools.
> --
> {}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{} \|/
> {} RogerW rog...@newsguy.com {} 0< -- parrot.net!
> {} http://www.parrot.net ad...@parrot.net {} ^^^^(*)^^^^
> {}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{} ^^ / \ ^^
--
gilbert vanburen wilkes iv
http://eserver.org/home/wilkes
<a href="http://www.2600.com/mindex.html">Free Kevin</a>
nothing follows
Throck Throckey Throck
>Also spracht Dale Houstman <dale.h...@gte.net>:
>
>> Roger Williams wrote:
>>>
>>> How convenient it must be for you to shriek "Breton! Breton!" in
lieu
>>> of thinking critically or otherwise. It certainly must compensate for
>>> having no imagination.
>
>> And how convenient is must be for you to shriek "down with Breton! down
>> with Breton!" in lieu of thinking critically or otherwise.
>
> I have never done that, groupie boy. Any examples to the contrary are,
>of course, welcome. You come rushing to defend the name of Breton as if a
>cattle prod had been spiked into your ass.
>
That's a lie, Roger, a dirty, defamatory sort of lie.
Dale comes rushing to defend the name of Breton as if a cattleprod had
melted into pools of anthracite and was lovingly scooped up by phone
booth potatos umblically attached to the Inner Rectum of The Surrealist
Project.
In the future, please try to avoid confusing Dale's actions with what he
means.
-EL
seredide
>
>Roger Williams wrote:
>
>> > Imagination faces the world, and its terms and flights are matters of
>> > engagement not disenfranchisement.
>>
>> What utter horseshit.
>
>Tell me about it. i blame our public schools.
>
>> --
I want your Gilbert . . . really, truly. You are denying me your body.
Please deliver yourself to me for my decadent pleasures posthaste.
enialle
enialle
Roger Williams
> Roger Williams <rog...@shell1.tiac.net> felt an irresitible urge to write:
>> I have never done that, groupie boy. Any examples to the contrary are,
>>of course, welcome. You come rushing to defend the name of Breton as if a
>>cattle prod had been spiked into your ass.
> That's a lie, Roger, a dirty, defamatory sort of lie.
Blow me, dumbfuck!
> Dale comes rushing to defend the name of Breton as if a cattleprod had
> melted into pools of anthracite and was lovingly scooped up by phone
> booth potatos umblically attached to the Inner Rectum of The Surrealist
> Project.
> In the future, please try to avoid confusing Dale's actions with what he
> means.
I am so very sorry. I will offer a retraction and restitution immediately.
qagi
<dale.h...@gte.net> defies the black insipid skies by issuing forth
this innocent blasphemy...
>
>Fancy is mercury, Imagination plutonium.
Breton is Lithium Nitrite
--
qagi
http://members.xoom.com/ -for anarchist propaganda, automatist noise, and an
alternative Belfast