Ottawa Surrealists Unite
Nikolaus Maack
Well, being utterly sick to death of merely talking, I have begun to
organize some activity here in Ottawa. Not that long ago I posted a
message asking people if they'd be interested in doing some surreal
activity. I got a number of replies -- far more than I expected. I know
that at least a few of these people will be interested in doing something.
So today I made an official announcement, which reads as follows:
*******
WHAT? First ever gathering of Ottawa Surrealists
WHERE? Cafe Wim, a coffee house on Sussex, near the Rideau Centre
WHEN? Sunday the 25th, at 6pm
And most importantly, WHY? Well, listen...
Consider a man driving his car down the highway. He's not thinking about
driving -- it's all instinct. The radio is on, and he can't hear it. A
cigarette is in his mouth and he can't taste it. His mind is elsewhere,
contemplating a day at work. None of the scenery around him is
registering.
Suddenly a deer leaps out in front of his car. The man slams on the
breaks, skids, and comes to a stop. For a moment he is confonted with
this massive stag before him. It looks at him through the windshield,
then rushes off into the woods.
The man starts up his car once more. Now he is aware of every tiny
gesture it takes to drive. Every word on the radio is audible. The
scenery around him is very real. For the moment, he is much more alive.
Surrealism is about making people stop, gasp, and go away a little more
aware of themselves and their surroundings. This does NOT mean I want to
push deer in front of cars on the Queensway! I want to bring about this
state in people without causing them any real harm.
Ottawa is a city ripe for such activity. In many ways, we Ottawans are
the most boring people on earth. We sleepwalk through our dreary days,
and we doze through our hot summer nights. We need stirring up.
Imagine five or six people walking through the downtown core, each dressed
in a uniform, each playing (or trying to play) a musical instrument. A
sort of mini un-musical parade late at night. People see this and wonder
what they're seeing. It causes startlement. These are the sorts of acts
I'm contemplating.
But there are also smaller surreal acts that can be done. Leaving onions
in as many downtown phonebooths as we can could also be a surreal act.
The idea is to create that state of wonder.
After my previous post on the topic, many of you have written me email,
voicing an interest in doing surreal things. Nifty. I now call you to
action. Meet me at Cafe Wim this Sunday evening, and we will discuss
things we can do.
One plan already in the works: handing out free toast on parliament hill,
while holding signs that say "FREE (the) TOAST!" An enormous tub of
margarine and plastic knives will be on hand. Anyone asking why we're
doing this will be confronted with blank stares and confusion.
"What do you mean? Isn't it obvious?"
If any of this interests you at all -- if you're interested in joining in
on our projects or suggesting projects of your own -- join us Sunday at
Cafe Wim.
FINDING THE WIM: If you're standing on Rideau Street, just outside the
Rideau Centre, turn towards Parliament hill. Walk a ways. Turn right on
Sussex. On your immediate right is CHAPTERS. Keep walking. On your left
will be the new American Embassy they're working on. Boy is it ugly.
Keep walking down Sussex. On your right will be a darkened window with
the words CAFE WIM written on it. Step inside. Look for a stuffed animal
on a table. If you can't see one, ask the waiting staff where the
Surrealists are. They'll tell you.
(Wim has excellent waffles.)
WHO WILL BE THERE? I don't know. For certain there will be three of us.
Please send me email letting me know if you'll show up.
You need not have any artistic talent to join. Some imagination would be
of help. Also, keep in mind that we're not just about stirring up
trouble, but about stirring up a specific kind of trouble. Politics
really don't enter into it at all.
Let us play. See you Sunday.
******
I posted a copy of it to ott.general. I emailed copies of it to people
who earlier voiced an interest. I sent it to friends of mine who might be
crazy enough to want to take part. I forwarded it to my little brothers,
who are both weird, but perhaps a little too chicken-shit to join in.
Tristan is a pro at crank phone calls, and Fred is an online
shit-disturber of excellent caliber.
Will anything come of this meeting? Who knows? But it seems like a
worthwhile risk. If you want something to happen, you have to take a
chance.
I'll keep you all updated on what eventually takes place.
Nik
--
"Everybody lives in fear. We all think we're incredibly weird and
depraved and bonkers, and if people knew the real us they'd squirt acid in
our faces and make us live in a Canadian mental institution."
-- Cynthia Heimel, essayist
Leo Sgouros
Sounds like fun, will be waiting for a report.
_L_
Nikolaus Maack <ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:7n7f6n$8...@freenet-news.carleton.ca...
Dale Houstman
Nikolaus Maack wrote:
>
> Surrealism is about making people stop, gasp, and go away a little more
> aware of themselves and their surroundings.
No; surrealism is NOT a tool. If it were merely this, you would be
better off going about Ottawa ramming sticks up strangers' asses. They
would stop, gasp, scream, and (if they were able) "go away a little
more" aware of themselves..." etc. But what is that state exactly? What
is the substance of it? What have you "awoken" to?
There was an artist (I forget the particulars at the moment, but it is a
well-known "case") who decided to print his own money; he managed to get
local merchants to accept it as exchange, and attracted the baleful
attentions of the government, who took him to court. The point here is
that (1) His act was a creative and well-considered
critical action, in that it laid bare the entire imaginary character of
money, (2) His act was a collaborative effort in that it bonded people
knowingly in a movement that was anti-power, (3) His act was beautiful
in that the "bills" were gracefully rendered, (4) His act was a personal
risk-taking; something of value (his liberty and/or economic well-being)
was put at risk.
You speak so much of "waking" others, but never wonder how far you are
from a personal dawning: you usually place yourself in the position of
"dispensing" awareness (though awareness of what escapes me), rather
than being a receiver. Honestly, that man driving to work in what you
term oblivion may be experiencing (for all you could know) a more
"surreal" state than you could imagine; his very distraction from the
workaday at that moment may be precious in and of itself.
Again, for you it seems to be too much a matter of POWER, of bringing
fire to the people, without checking to see if you have any matches at
all. You ask "what have you done for surrealism lately?" as if
surrealism were some sort of central high command. What has surrealism
done for you? What is is precisely you wish to wake the others up to? An
awareness of their innate "Ottawaness"? How do you know they are not
more aware of that than you?
Surrealism is NOT about oddity, but about an extension and amplification
of what is or should be (for lack of a better term) the "norm." It need
not be about public actions, though it might avail itself of them. But
really, you should be most aware of your own need to be "awoken" and not
worry so much about those who sleepwalk about you.
Your projects are (for the most part) acts of the Absurd, of random
pointlessness and despair in the face of overwhelming banality.
Personally, I comprehend this tendency. But the projects appear to have
no "there" in "there" and will never "awaken" anyone to a fuller
instrumentation of their desires. Seventeen onions labelled
"Radioactive Menstrual Lumps" placed in a Chanel Hatbox may be pretty,
and may get you mention in some circles of Ottawa; BUT it couldn't
awaken an insomniac. What does a wage-slave desire? What do these onions
either say about or say to that desire?
It's a frustrating time, in that actions and art seem destined to be
co-opted even before they are conceived; people do not appear to see
beyond their next paycheck or empty electoral choice. But the really
marvelous thing is that - despite this overarching apathy - most people
I observe know quite well what they want, and have a healthy body of
desires; I don't condemn them for drifting in the car on the way to
work, because I do the same on the way to my job. People "know" that
deer are beautiful, and there is a reason most people vacation (if they
can afford to) in areas of great physical beauty (even if, as in Hawaii,
that beauty continues to be corrupted by corporate "ideas"); what they
might desire is some sense of empowerment, or at least some
collaboration with like-minded individuals. Or not. They don't really
need you to mock their day to day confusion with your (all too
self-consciously contrived) acts of confusion; they want to release the
desires they feel they must hide in their drive toward the "competitive
edge," "the brass ring," that receding rainbow of success.
The office I work in has an amazing array if personalities, several of
which I cannot abide easily, YET they have (for the most part)
discovered methods by which they limit the amount of "aid" they will
give to the bosses; they mostly know their worth, and they already know
that this is just a job that connects in only the most superficial way
with their desires. Only a few are those "saps" who think that the
function of their lives is to give all they can give to some faceless
executive, who would cut them off at the knees for a penny whistle.
These are people to be watched....
But the rest? Doing what they can to minimalize the centrality of the
job. They are aware, although they may not reveal as much to a stranger
with an onion - even one that cynically mimics the "Save An Orphan"
campaigns one sees endlessly on late-night TV. I don't see that this is
either helpful or (really) even clever.
But your question is always to be: then what are you doing? I am living
my life, collaborating with friends, using what humor I can muster to
prick the powers-that-be, writing, drawing, and attempting to form
bounds of love. I am not a particularly political creature, though I
tend to consider the "issues" that make their ragged way through the
"ether" of mass media. Others will do other things no doubt. I lay no
great claim to having exhausted the resources of surrealism, or any ism.
But I don't see that I am in the position of power (and egoism) that it
would require to begin "awakening" the masses. I continue to work on
myself, and to seek collaboration where it presents itself.
DMH
Andrea Chen
I think this is a fantastic idea and I find your description of
surrealism to be direct and to capture something, I would claim it's
only one of the possible shifts of awareness, but the immidiecy makes it
real. The car breaking before the deer. The altered awareness.
Good luck.
elag
I hope you manage to liven things up, up there in Ottawa.
I gather that you won't be writing any manifestos...
emi
>Sounds like fun, will be waiting for a report.
same here, if only it was near me.
let us know how it goes. =)
-emi
beatl...@aol.com
Nikolaus Maack
I must quote this lengthy bit.
Dale Houstman (dale.h...@gte.net) writes:
> There was an artist (I forget the particulars at the moment, but it is a
> well-known "case") who decided to print his own money; he managed to get
> local merchants to accept it as exchange, and attracted the baleful
> attentions of the government, who took him to court. The point here is
> that (1) His act was a creative and well-considered
> critical action, in that it laid bare the entire imaginary character of
> money, (2) His act was a collaborative effort in that it bonded people
> knowingly in a movement that was anti-power, (3) His act was beautiful
> in that the "bills" were gracefully rendered, (4) His act was a personal
> risk-taking; something of value (his liberty and/or economic well-being)
> was put at risk.
Quite a nice act. A nice concrete example of what you feel surrealism can
and should do. I quote the entire thing again because it has worth.
Thanks for sharing it.
> You speak so much of "waking" others, but never wonder how far you are
> from a personal dawning: you usually place yourself in the position of
> "dispensing" awareness (though awareness of what escapes me), rather
> than being a receiver.
You raise a lot of interesting points.
As I see it, committing acts that attempt to awaken the world also awaken
me. That I get off my fat ass and distribute oddity causes oddity for the
people who witness it, and oddity for me. By spreading a bit of
*potential* awareness to the world, I bring a *definite* awareness to
myself.
I am not a god giving fire to the masses. I am one human standing up and
saying, "Boo!" hoping to startle others, but also hoping to startle
myself by the particular way "boo" comes rolling off my tongue. That I
can act, that I can make something happen, even something as small as an
onion in a phonebooth, is a great feeling.
In a recent email to Barrett, I tried to explain myself once again.
Explaining myself is a useful exercise -- quite often I find out I believe
things I never realized I believe. During my lengthy rant it dawned on me
that the surrealism I want to shape could be called "zen surrealism".
The surreal act, in my stance, is an attempt to bring a small satori -- a
moment of sudden awareness, understanding, and clarity that borders on the
mystical -- in the people who witness the act. At the same time,
performing the act brings about the same sort of clarity in the actor, in
me.
It is definitely not a one-sided event. "Teachers" learn more from
teaching than any student does.
Also, the sorts of acts I want to perform are specifically the kind of
acts I'd like to run into if I were just walking down the street. An
example that I'm certain I mentioned before...
One night, walking home late one night, I came across a plaster mould of
an enormous cock. The two halves were sitting on a bridge. When put
together they'd form an ENORMOUS phallus. It looked like someone had used
the mold to make a chocolate dick.
I was delighted when I saw this object. It thrilled me. This weirdness
made my day. It pleases me even now to think about. I wish it had been
me who'd left it there.
So when I come up with a plan, a plot, an attempt at oddity, the person I
am acting for is really me. I think to myself, "What is it I'd like to
run into, what sort of message, what kind of clue?"
Maybe no one else on earth would feel delight in running into a pile of
onions labelled "Radioactive Menstrual Lumps", but by God, I would! So it
seems something worth doing, because if it were me that accidentally ran
into it, I would be overjoyed.
Hence the dollhead project I did so very long ago. Remember? If I found
a dollhead painted to look satanic, I'd be thrilled. If I found a secret
message stuffed inside of it, my joy would trebble! Which might make me
crazy. Oh well. So be it.
> Honestly, that man driving to work in what you
> term oblivion may be experiencing (for all you could know) a more
> "surreal" state than you could imagine; his very distraction from the
> workaday at that moment may be precious in and of itself.
Possibly. But I think most people live *perpetually* inside their heads,
inside their dreams, inside a state of zombification. While this state
can be precious, I think to live there all the time, forgetting the
outside world, is a very dangerous state to be in. The driver in
the example would be quite prone to running other people over.
The "deer" in my plans isn't intended to steal the man's potentially
surreal zoning out, but a reminder that the outside world exists.
The deer says, "Hello! Remember the outside world? Remember us? We're
making contact with you again. I hope our contact is pleasurable. We
missed you while you were gone."
This sort of contact with the outside world is especially useful if it is
1) pleasurable, 2) unusual, and 3) mysterious.
"Wow! Who left this cock mould here? What the hell did they use it for?
I've never seen anything like it. What's the story behind it? What does
it mean?"
This is what I want to do for people, because it is a state that I love so
very much when I get to experience it.
> What is is precisely you wish to wake the others up to?
Perhaps "waking" is not the proper word. It's true, as you say, many
people may be much more "aware" than I am. What I want my surreal acts to
do is say, "Remember the mystery of being alive."
> Surrealism is NOT about oddity, but about an extension and amplification
> of what is or should be (for lack of a better term) the "norm." It need
> not be about public actions, though it might avail itself of them.
I'm not sure I understand you. Barrett said, in his email, that
surrealism is a reaction to something in the environment. Or at least,
that's what I got out of his words. Surrealism, in this sense, strikes me
as a sort of satirical take on something that exists. Using your own
painted money, instead of real money. An amplification of a "norm"?
What I want to do is, in a sense, exactly that. What I want to amplify
are the coincidences in people's lives, the wonder they have for being
alive, the awareness that life is a complicated tangle of unusual things.
In the city, it is very easy to forget how very GRAND life can be. By
inserting the bizarre into an otherwise ordinary world, I hope to
exaggerate that sense that there is "something more" than ordinary life.
Does that make sense?
More in a bit. Damn the way life drags me away from contemplating things.
Nikolaus Maack
Thanks for the offers of luck, from you and everyone else. I appreciate
it. Especially since one of my co-founders has just announced to me that
he has a business trip, and must leave Sunday. Which means I will be
facing the masses alone, save for my girlfriend Michelle, who promises to
cling adoringly to my arm.
barrett john erickson
>
> I must quote this lengthy bit.
>
> Dale Houstman (dale.h...@gte.net) writes:
> > There was an artist (I forget the particulars at the moment, but it is a
J.S.G. Boggs. some background info at:
http://www.lcl.cmu.edu/CAAE/Home/Multimedia/BOGGS/dana/arttrial.html
interestingly, when i try to connect to his own site
http://www.jsgboggs.com/
i get a message saying i'm "not authorized to view this page".
anyone else able to get through?
> [...]
> As I see it, committing acts that attempt to awaken the world also awaken
> me.
that's certainly true, but its all in the focus of the action.
the "purpose" of surrealist exploration (if one can speak of a "purpose" in
the spontaneous pursuit of desire) is to enhance the reality of ones daily
living. social action is a consequence of recognizing that it is the
existing social order which is the largest obstacle to this.
> [...]
> > Surrealism is NOT about oddity, but about an extension and amplification
> > of what is or should be (for lack of a better term) the "norm." It need
> > not be about public actions, though it might avail itself of them.
>
> I'm not sure I understand you. Barrett said, in his email, that
> surrealism is a reaction to something in the environment. Or at least,
> that's what I got out of his words. Surrealism, in this sense, strikes me
> as a sort of satirical take on something that exists. Using your own
> painted money, instead of real money. An amplification of a "norm"?
actually, i began a reply which attempted to address this misunderstanding,
but it became too unwieldy (and more than a bit dull), getting bogged down
in trying to "define" various "subjects" and "terms" which are inherently
fluid and difficult to define _processes_. so i set it aside for reworking
later.
but i'll paste some of it here with that caveat >>>
for instance, when i said that "in my experience, _all_ surrealist action
begins with a group examination and exploration of some event or situation"
you reflected that as "all surrealism originates as a reaction..." and asked
"if so, what determines which situation or event merits a reaction?"
this is a very good illustration of where we are misconnecting, so let me
try to examine this a bit (although the actual practice is certainly not as
"formal" as this may sound):
[and also forgive the "teachy" tone i hadn't yet corrected]
"surrealist action" should not be considered the same as "surrealism" in
this statement.
"surrealist action" (or "surrealist intervention") is simply action
taken by surrealists in furtherance of the surrealist project [which is,
again, to seek a reality _enhanced_ by the integration of the liberated
imagination into every day living -- the quest for (sur)reality].
this project can't be defined any other way (although it _could_ be
defined in very different words) -- this is the basic core of consensus
among surrealists from which all else derives.
"surrealist" in my statement isn't a characteristic of the action but a
description of those acting in accordance with this core project.
one might describe a "surrealist" as someone who has discovered the
surrealist project (as described above) and thought it through in terms
of his/her own life history, recognized that project as intrinsic to that
history and vital to the way he/she wants to live. which is to say,
someone who recognizes the surrealist project as one's own.
[i can't think of any reason why this process might not be totally
intuitive, involving no prior reading or knowledge of the movement. in
fact, i might argue that it is always a matter of recognizing what is
already there in the way one is living or desires to live. but i can't
imagine a surrealist having reached this point of awareness/affinity who
wouldn't trip over or seek out the theoretical source materials for added
insight.]
again, it is important to understand that it is this project, as described
above, which is the "ONE notion" at the "core of surrealism". all else
derives from a basic consensus around the nature of this project (if not
specific wording of a definition of that project).
perceived threats and obstacles to the surrealist project become the natural
objects of discussion among surrealists. it's what we care about, after
all,
and we consider such matters inseparable from our daily living.
there may be wide disagreement at first as to whether or not the object
of discussion does indeed represent something worthy of action, and if so,
what kind of action. such disagreements may prompt arguments over the
significance or relevance of existing theoretical texts, historical
examples, and more current exploratory activities and interests among those
involved in the discussion.
it is also important to understand that _this_ is where "surrealism" is
constantly being defined and redefined (as the _aggregate_ of all such
discussions and meetings and actions of surrealists on a global scale).
again, "surrealism" is defined by these discussions and arguments over
the nature of, obstacles and threats to, and actions necessary to further
the surrealist project..
as those involved come to a consensus on (a surrealist perspective of) the
topic, they also seek agreement on what action best addresses that consensus
view.
it's a self-organizing process. _both_ the "surrealist perspective" on the
topic and the "surrealist action" to be taken _evolve_ from the discussions
as consensus is reached. that "surrealist perspective" is as broad or
narrow as the scope of the discussion and the number of people
participating. various groups may arrive at particular perspectives on any
given topic which are then agreed to or contested by other groups.
let's also look at a classic example of an individual "surrealist action":
Benjamin Peret once confronted and spit on a priest he saw on the street.
this wasn't a simple act of disturbance. he didn't do this to startle the
priest, or anyone else.
and this wasn't a "surrealist action" because it is somehow "surrealist" to
spit on a priest.
spitting on a priest doesn't make a person a surrealist. all surrealists
haven't spit on a priest. Peret didn't spit on every priest he encountered
on the street.
i would argue that the act of spitting on a priest, and any reaction it may
have provoked, is unconnected in any way to "surrealism".
but this _was_ a "surrealist action" because Peret _was a surrealist_
spontaneously manifesting an intuitive (personal) reaction to a
representative of one of the great oppressors of the imagination -- the
church, _and_ his action was well grounded in the theoretical, historical,
and contemporary context of surrealist discussions ("surrealism" as defined
by the aggregate activity of the surrealists of his time).
<<< end of that.
all Dale and i have been trying to get across is that you are starting from
a place which is not quite "surrealism" yet ("startling is good"). then you
propose to follow paths which are tangential, mostly compatible, but still
lacking, in a very fundamental way, focal aspects which would allow those
paths to be considered part of the surrealist project (as opposed to merely
allied with it).
as Dale said:
> > What is it precisely you wish to wake the others up to?
it is not just increasing awareness, but the quest to enhance daily reality
in a particular way that defines the surrealist project.
from one view, your concept is more abstract, not quite capturing the
specific perspective of "surrealism", and thereby remaining open to actions
which are just dada and nothing more.
from another view, your concept is too narrow, not quite capturing the full
scope or proper focal point of surrealist interest, and thereby remaining
closed to many of the less "startling" ways in which a surrealist
perspective can engage even the most banal of circumstances.
-- barrett
bar...@MagneticFields.org
http://www.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
==============================================
Nikolaus Maack
"barrett john erickson" (bar...@magneticfields.org) writes:
> "surrealist action" (or "surrealist intervention") is simply action
> taken by surrealists in furtherance of the surrealist project [which is,
> again, to seek a reality _enhanced_ by the integration of the liberated
> imagination into every day living -- the quest for (sur)reality].
So what in your view is the "liberated imagination"? How would you define
it? Imagination not locked down by social forces -- such as church,
state, etcetera?
How does my description of what I wish to do, my "zen surrealism"
stance, not coincide exactly with what you're describing? By using
"oddity", I attempt to enhance reality. I want to give people moments of
enlightenment and joy through actions that are unusual.
If I'm reading you correctly, you seem to be saying I engage in surrealist
behavior that isn't appropriately grounded in surrealist theory. It's
almost as if you're saying -- pardon the joking tone:
"That's a nice nuclear reactor you've built, son. Unfortunately, you
didn't go through proper channels, and you're going to have to take it
apart."
Or, to put it more honestly, "That's a nice surrealist action you've got
there. Too bad it has little to do with surrealism."
Action without theory? I'm not sure that's a bad thing.
> one might describe a "surrealist" as someone who has discovered the
> surrealist project (as described above) and thought it through in terms
> of his/her own life history, recognized that project as intrinsic to that
> history and vital to the way he/she wants to live. which is to say,
> someone who recognizes the surrealist project as one's own.
Right. I think I'm doing that. So what I don't understand is the feeling
I get from you that, "Hey, it's nice that you're in on this thing, kid,
and we love to have you with us, but before you go out and paint lampposts
purple, you'd better read these big dusty old books."
We've had this argument before, but the idea still bugs me... If you rely
too much on the surrealists that came before us, aren't you effectively
constraining your own imagination? They had their way, and there are
useful tricks and games they used, but if you focus too much on the way it
once was done, maybe you'll miss out on your own particular flavour.
After all, whose imagination am I striving to liberate here? Mine. So
shouldn't I be seeking my own particular path? The surrealists of old
make good signposts, but maybe putting too much faith in their works
becomes yet another stumbling block to liberation. Mustn't we, at some
point, push aside our teachers and do our own work?
Yes, not studying the past might make us doomed to repeat it. Then again,
ignoring the past might also mean finding an entire new branch of thinking
to leap on to. We don't exactly live in the same world that the early
surrealists did.
Perhaps you have very specific events you are reacting to, and don't like
mine. My goals are vague because I'm striving to create only an emotion,
a sensation in people. Satori. POW!
"What's that? Where am I? How odd. I feel different."
Because the emotional state is the goal for me, it's difficult to pin down
what specific acts would bring it about. I don't want to necessarily make
people question the concept of money, or the church, or the role played by
their parents. I strive only to bring about an interesting mental state.
As far as I can tell, all surrealism strives to bring about this emotional
state. However, as you've said, they further ground the action in either
a political stance or a particular issue. Money, parents, the church,
whatever.
Maybe the problem is not that my goal isn't specific enough, but that
regular surrealists goals are TOO precise. Instead of striving for that
feeling, that small satori -- isn't that the key? -- they get caught up in
specific political issues.
Dale, for example, seems obsessed with class differences. If that's the
particular target for his surrealist projects, cool! Wonderful for him.
But becoming stuck on one single item like this, one target, could be
preventing him from doing more.
(Of course, I don't really know that he *is* stuck on this one thing. He
just seems to be, from where I'm sitting.)
Maybe the working class doesn't want to be saved. Should our politics
enter into this? Dale accused me of being an elitist -- that I see myself
as the God giving fire to the caveman. But isn't that what Dale is
striving to do by defining his surrealist actions through the lense of
"class struggle"? Did the workers ASK him for help?
If I do something that doesn't have an obvious political agenda, that
strives only to bring about "satori", it leaves room for the
people experiencing it to interpret it in their own way.
Hmm.. I'm now questioning myself, to see if I can figure out where you're
coming from...
There's a certain kind of fiction that I loathe. I call it HE-SHE
fiction. The characters aren't named or described. Instead you get a
sort of streaming "he said, she said" where the dialogue is okay, but all
details are left out.
I hate this stuff, and have critiqued stories like it in workshops. When I
bitch about the lack of details, the writer usually says something like:
"But I want to leave that up to the reader! They fill in the details in
their own way, and that makes it more realistic. If they think the people
are black, or chinese, or young or old, or whatever, they get the story
they want."
Except that's not how it works. The lack of detail doesn't bring about
realism at all. Instead the reader has nothing to hang on to. Yes, if
the writer says the characters are young, white, middle-class kids growing
up in Kansas, it might alienate some people, but it is these very details
that give writing life. The details make the story real.
So are you saying that by being vague in my goals, in my politics, that
the overall achievement of my surrealist projects are left in doubt?
I wonder.
There's something appealing in leaving it vague. In art, as opposed to
writing, it's much easier to work without detail. A painting can have a
lot of details, and still be vague. A thousand tiny brush strokes that
add up to an abstraction. Can writing do that? Sort of. But it's a
tougher game, not as accessable. Anyone can look at an abstract painting,
witness it in its entirety, vaguess and all. Most people become
frustrated with experimental writing and toss it to one side.
Okay, I'm sort of rambling, at the moment. It's late, and there's yet
another heat-wave torturing Ottawa.
> all Dale and i have been trying to get across is that you are starting from
> a place which is not quite "surrealism" yet ("startling is good"). then you
> propose to follow paths which are tangential, mostly compatible, but still
> lacking, in a very fundamental way, focal aspects which would allow those
> paths to be considered part of the surrealist project (as opposed to merely
> allied with it).
Is my description, as above, a valid interpretation of your critique? "He
said, she said" art as opposed to something more, nailed down?
When I paint, I like to do portraits. I don't care whose face it is, so
much as what the face looks like. Older people, wrinkles, deep-set eyes.
I wonder if my art isn't accessable because I don't care who I paint.
For example, I did a portrait of Dr. Death, the assisted suicide guy. I
forget his name. I saw his face in the paper, it struck me, so I painted
it. I gave the portrait to my brother for Xmas. He said he didn't like
it.
"Why would I want a painting of Dr. Death on my wall?"
I found this kind of weird. Who cares who the guy is, so long as he's
painted in an interesting way?
Yet another example of my vagueness getting in the way of my art? I
sometimes wonder if I stuck to a particular breed of people -- jazz
musicians, painters, or priests or whoever -- that my work would attract
more of an audience, more respect. Hmmm...
Do you think that aiming to bring about an emotional state in the viewer
of the surrealist action is an adequate goal? Is "satori" enough? Or
must the goal, in your view, always be grounded in a more specific way, a
reaction to a specific issue or a specific concept?
Like I said, I don't care whose face I paint, so long as its a face I
like. August Sander, a great photographer, took pictures of Germans from
all walks of life. Josef Karsh only took photographs of the famous and
powerful. (Or at least, those are the photographs he has a reputation
for.) I like both photographers equally, but I couldn't care less who they
took pictures of. It's the style that appeals to me, not the substance.
Like I said earlier, but in different words, I wonder if shedding the
baggage of specific political issues, and aiming only for the emotion,
might be a more productive road. For me, it's the emotional state that's
the most interesting, and not so much whatever politics happen to bring
that emotion about.
But I'll have to think about this some more.
> from another view, your concept is too narrow, not quite capturing the full
> scope or proper focal point of surrealist interest, and thereby remaining
> closed to many of the less "startling" ways in which a surrealist
> perspective can engage even the most banal of circumstances.
Hmm. Tell me more about how you see me as too narrow. I'm curious.
Andrea Chen
>
> If I'm reading you correctly, you seem to be saying I engage in surrealist
> behavior that isn't appropriately grounded in surrealist theory. It's
> almost as if you're saying -- pardon the joking tone:
>
> "That's a nice nuclear reactor you've built, son. Unfortunately, you
> didn't go through proper channels, and you're going to have to take it
> apart."
No Nik. What he is saying is that surrealists are those who do the
surrealist project and the surrealist project is what surrealists do.
In more complex formulations we are told that someone is part of the
surrealist project because other surrealists recognize this person as a
surrealist.
How do we know the surrealists who recognize someone is in the
project? Think who defines the project.
You're not in the club, clique, errr project, therefore you are not a
surrealist and nothing you do can be surrealistic.
This is a definition based on "feeling."
Now contrast it with your own which I read (roughly) as surrealism (zen
surrealism?) as an act which flips the mind to another awareness.
This allows one to judge whether or not a project might be surrealist.
Ironically it is one of action, as opposed to being (in Barrett's
project whatever a surrealist does is surrealistic.)
Dale Houstman
Nikolaus Maack
STRAWBERRY ALARM CLOCK OR SURREALISTIC PILLOW?
An alarm clock startles efficiently and annoyingly.
--
Could you - should you - compete in the arena of sensationalism against
Mad Ave., as the drizzle of sound and image (of desexualized sex and
violent dislocations of desire) falls upon the tired roofs of the world?
Isn't surrealism that substance secreted behind this self-conscious
manipulation of degraded desire?
Though we might never defeat pandering to and corruption of human
desire, we may (individually and collaboratively) side-step the
sensual-debris and pornography of purchase.
And yet a definition of surrealism as one more self-conscious display of
oddity is merely (in impotent miniature) an extenuation of this barrage,
and in no way a barricade.
Corporations - exploiting the frail "talents" of artists too afraid of
financial insignificance to rise to liberty - front daily campaigns of
startling oddity; if we were to ever view as just another system of
disassociative "weirdness" then we might (as some have claimed we
SHOULD) declare ourselves the victors in this empty air war.
Yet surrealism is not to be found there, and certainly will neither
begin nor end in issues of "private amusement," egoism disguised as
concern, or in personalist postures.
In chasing (to exhaustion) self-conscious distractions these minimal
spasms of willed sensation, one can only become jaded by the obsessive
stimulations, and the drug of hollow sensation can never provide
satisfaction, since it is so reminiscent of advertisement, and the limp
offerings of capitalism.
Nonetheless, I applaud any attempt to begin a surrealist group, and only
hope opportunities are taken for self-education about the greater field
of surrealist thought and actions.
………
Nikolaus Maack wrote:
>As I see it, committing acts that attempt to awaken the world also awaken me.
There are times when it is best to be asleep. But the tone of your
previous posts on projects is such that I don't quite buy this new
stance. You never speak of awakening yourself (assuming you were ever
asleep?), and only in the most proprietary way of "the others" as if you
were not entirely a part of that "mass." Anyway, if you do need to be
awoken, maybe these projects meant to awaken others are only dreams, in
which case you may never wake up in time to find out that nobody (except
you) was asleep in the first place. A "rude awakening" indeed.
> I am not a god giving fire to the masses. I am one human standing up and saying, "Boo!" hoping to startle >others, but also hoping to startle myself by the particular way "boo" comes rolling off my tongue.
Pick out a doddering old woman and toss her down an escalator. Would the
"startling" quality of this "oddity" satisfy this urge in you to wake
people up to realizations they must have had two thousand times plus
already?
> In a recent email to Barrett, I tried to explain myself once again.
I saw that post, and find you at odds with yourself throughout: you seem
frustrated by the "other's" need to be awakened to - ? - but haven't
begun to investigate the nature of their desires. WHY is that man
driving every day to a job which compels him to drift away from it even
as he approaches it? Is it because he cannot appreciate the beauty of a
deer? Of course not! So this disconnect between the need to startle and
the methods used reduces your projects to mere self-promoting antics.
They have no grounding in critical thought, so they can never mean more
than japery which you can "feel good" about over a coffee, later when
you are safely distant from your "target market." You are frustrated by
the dullness of Ottawa, but want to wake people up to - what? - the
dullness of Ottawa plus an onion? Admittedly Paris is a more intriguing
town than either of the ones you or I live in, but the surrealists made
rather a habit of walking about looking for chance to open up a glimpse
of the marvelous for them. The fact that they found it so often and in
the most banal instances (pawn shop windows and park statues) should be
encouraging. One becomes "attuned" to this sort of observation, one can
slowly awaken to the fact that "the marvelous" (which is both the source
and the object of surrealism) exists in such banalities: Rimbaud speaks
of finding poetry in a common shop sign, Baudelaire walked the streets.
I don't know that you couldn't do this. Personally, I abhor walking.
> During my lengthy rant it dawned on me that the surrealism I want to shape could be called "zen surrealism".
Crike!
> The surreal act, in my stance, is an attempt to bring a small satori -- a moment of sudden awareness, >understanding, and clarity that borders on the mystical…
Screw the mystical!
> Also, the sorts of acts I want to perform are specifically the kind of acts I'd like to run into if I were just >walking down the street.
The marvelous is precisely NOT this.
>One night, walking home late one night, I came across a plaster mould of an enormous cock. The two halves >were sitting on a bridge. When put together they'd form an ENORMOUS phallus. It looked like someone had >used the mold to make a chocolate dick. I was delighted when I saw this object. It thrilled me. This weirdness >made my day. It pleases me even now to think about. I wish it had been me who'd left it there.
But again a totally self-conscious act. I would only find it mildly
amusing, others might find it salacious, or just another example of a
decadent culture. Its value - even as a shock - is massively overvalued
by you. And it leads nowhere but back to its own oddity. How much more
"productive" (and screw utility too!) if you had come across three rocks
shaped only by chance into the semblance of a woman's naked body
surrounded by anenomes and aerators, or upon a mannequin in a shop
window that had taken on the aspect of a aged Pandora, redolent of a
thousand unspoken marvels yet to come? One self-conscious (and terribly
frustrated) Ottawan coming across the refuse of another self-conscious
(and frustrated) Ottawan doesn't strike me as anything in particular,
although I don't deny you your pleasure in it. It's just that I don't
find your pleasure in it very convincing as an aspect of surrealism.
> Maybe no one else on earth would feel delight in running into a pile
of onions labelled "Radioactive >Menstrual Lumps", but by God, I would!
So it seems something worth doing, because if it were me that
>accidentally ran into it, I would be overjoyed.
This is where the label "personalist" first came in; you are overly
thrilled and convinced by your own standard of exultation (which merely
seems to be mild bemusement) into believing that if it works for you it
must be surrealism. Surrealism doesn't "belong" to your conception of
it, anymore than it does to my conception of it. It is always being
searched for. You seem to want to manufacture it. Soon the startle will
go out of your onions, you will gravitate to sponges in a coke bottle,
infected bandages in a child's rattle, and on and on. This is a program
for chasing the unattainable, that long spiral (upward or downward) into
"raising the ante" that so afflicts our sensation-driven age. There will
never be enough. Nothing will ever come of it.
>Hence the dollhead project I did so very long ago. Remember? If I found a dollhead painted to look satanic, >I'd be thrilled.
Such a dull doll.
> If I found a secret message stuffed inside of it, my joy would trebble!
You sound desperate.
>But I think most people live *perpetually* inside their heads,> inside their dreams, inside a state of >zombification.
Zombies don't have dreams, since they are perpetually kept drifting
between sleep and wakefulness. Dreams have nothing to do with
zombification; they are the explosion of the unconscious into the "real
world."
>While this sta tecan be precious, I think to live there all the time, forgetting the outside world, is a very >dangerous state to be in. The driver in the example would be quite prone to running other people over. But >isn't that startling? The "deer" in my plans isn't intended to steal the man's potentially surreal zoning out, but >a reminder that the outside world exists. The deer says, "Hello! Remember the outside world? Remember us? >We're making contact with you again. I hope our contact is pleasurable. We> missed you while you were >gone."
Crike! Bambi the surrealist spirit guide... This is sentimental
naturalism. Of course the man "remembers" the outside world; that
"outside world" is calling him to work, and he is answering.
> Perhaps "waking" is not the proper word. It's true, as you say, many people may be much more "aware" >than I am. What I want my surreal acts to do is say, "Remember the mystery of being alive."
Screw mystery!
> An amplification of a "norm"?
I place "norm" in marks because I don't actually buy the idea of the
normal; BUT surrealism,if one allows it to be defined as a "warehouse of
oddity" will always be as marginal as a freakshow. In a very real sense
surrealism is NOT what is most strange about life but what is most
intrinsic. It is (always potentially) the emphatic invocation of the
ordinary, and a call for reunification of oppositions rather than willed
disassociations meant to bolster one's "bemusement factor."
DMH
barrett john erickson
>
> "barrett john erickson" (bar...@magneticfields.org) writes:
> > "surrealist action" (or "surrealist intervention") is simply action
> > taken by surrealists in furtherance of the surrealist project [which is,
> > again, to seek a reality _enhanced_ by the integration of the liberated
> > imagination into every day living -- the quest for (sur)reality].
>
> So what in your view is the "liberated imagination"? How would you define
> it? Imagination not locked down by social forces -- such as church,
> state, etcetera?
i suppose most would just say it is the imagination unteathered by personal
or social judgments. but i've been pondering the imagination for the last
five years or so in the light of a new (to me) cognitive model. and as i
said before, there is great fluidity of _description_ for this core
consensus (even though the fundamental understanding is consistent). so
bear in mind that everything i say from this point is a result of my very
specific meditations on the subject.
and being lazy, i'll paste in an existing text (previously posted).
[this is all derived from explorations of the enactive model of cognition
(ref. Francisco Varela).]
>>> paste >>>
Sense of the Imagination
(preliminary thoughts)
reality is our lover - the imagination
is an organ of copulation.
***
As a conceptual exercise:
If we think of cognition as the transformation of latent reality into
reality-as-experienced (enaction), then consider the task of plotting that
transformation on a graph, we might say that:
Each of our "senses" could be said to determine the location of any given
moment of experience along its particular axis of "measurement".
The potential richness of our experienced reality would be determined by the
number of dimensions (axes of "measurement") our "senses" enacted and the
intensity with which they were engaged.
But, of course, our "senses" are complex processes which could themselves be
"plotted" in multi-dimensional graphs. "Vision" for instance consists of
many subprocesses bundled and enhanced by our "mind".
Bio-complexity increases with and through the emergence of higher level
cognitive processes and structural changes which bundle and enhance lower
level cognitive processes into (for example) perceptions. Think: evolution.
The "mind" emerges from the structure and activity of the brain as a
similarly complex process, giving us our sense of continuity and structural
integrity -- our sense of "self" -- by bundling and enhancing brain
activity.
The "imagination" appears to have emerged from the process we call "mind" as
a sense of the poetic dimensions of latent reality -- that is, a sense of
the marvelous. A sense of the process itself and the potential for
revelation which lurks in the relationships between the apparently
unrelated.
(1999)
<<< end paste <<<
from this perspective, to liberate the imagination is to recognize it as the
most evolved sense we have and allow it to explore the poetic dimensions of
reality (desire, the marvelous, metaphor, etc.) free of _interference_ from
the more primitive processes of the "mind".
a liberated imagination would act in symbiotic collaboration with the other
senses.
it follows of course, that because this is an embodied sense, it also
requires a social context free of restraint in which this can take place.
also, i would argue, that if we consider the imagination as the most evolved
(embodied) sense or our species, and recognize its contribution to our
reality-as-experienced (rather than discounting it as something unreal), and
also understand that our shared reality is essentially a social
collaboration, we should also recognize that our living potential is
intricately interwoven with the imaginative potential of all other humans.
[none of the above is _necessary_ to the "core" of the surrealist project,
just my exploration of it. i should also note that none of the things i've
been talking about exist independently, but are all interacting subprocesses
of even more complex processes.]
> [...]
> If I'm reading you correctly, you seem to be saying I engage in surrealist
> behavior that isn't appropriately grounded in surrealist theory. It's
> almost as if you're saying -- pardon the joking tone:
no. i'm trying to say that your behavior (as self-regulating system) may be
in close proximity, but appears to be (at least for now) under the pull of a
different "strange attractor" than the "self-regulating system" called
"surrealism".
[and again, "surrealism's" "strange attractor" isn't the theoretical texts,
but an intuitive worldview (to use an inadequate shorthand description).]
> Action without theory? I'm not sure that's a bad thing.
not at all bad. i'd say essential.
"We do before we are, and what we do first is pursue intuitive desire."
theory is _always_ derived from experience (the act), not the other way
around.
but remember that we're talking about "surrealist action." we are assuming
the project (pattern) our experience reveals to us has already been
discovered (from actions already performed, and perhaps without reading a
single text).
if you already know you have a life project that _you are trying to
further_, then any considered action (as opposed to a spontaneous action)
needs to be fully consistent with the further development of that project.
[you might correctly surmise that i differentiate between "considered" acts
and "spontaneous" acts.
"considered" acts are intended as experiments relative to one's current
(identified) project. whereas "spontaneous" acts are what reveal our
desires and eventually define our project (as the pursuit of those intuitive
desires).
i'll stop here for now.]
Nikolaus Maack
Dale Houstman (dale.h...@gte.net) writes:
> Could you - should you - compete in the arena of sensationalism against
> Mad Ave., as the drizzle of sound and image (of desexualized sex and
> violent dislocations of desire) falls upon the tired roofs of the world?
All art is advertising, Dale. Shall we all drop our brushes now, instead
of daring to add our voice to the world?
> Anyway, if you do need to be
> awoken, maybe these projects meant to awaken others are only dreams, in
> which case you may never wake up in time to find out that nobody (except
> you) was asleep in the first place. A "rude awakening" indeed.
That's a possibility. When they say, "Seek and ye shall find," they leave
out the part about how what you find might not be what you were seeking.
Who knows what new thoughts I'll have, if I act out my desires?
> Pick out a doddering old woman and toss her down an escalator. Would the
> "startling" quality of this "oddity" satisfy this urge in you to wake
> people up to realizations they must have had two thousand times plus
> already?
As I said earlier, I am aiming to create pleasant startlement in others.
It seems unlikely that an old woman will enjoy being throw down the
stairs, unless she's extremely kinky.
You talk about perceiving messages in the ordinary. Found poems in pawn
shop windows, etcetera. I do this all the time. When I am struggling
with a concept, or if I am just bored, I go out into the world, walk
about, and look for "messages". A message can be as little as finding an
interesting stick that has personal significance to me, or it can be a bit
of ice falling off a tree and hitting me on the top of the head.
I find living life in such a way that anything I encounter can be
considered a "message" quite useful.
Part of what I want to do is leave messages for people so that they begin
to see the more mundane messages. In other words, this time they see a
painted doll head or an onion. It's a blatant message. Perhaps next time
they'll be able to perceive the less obvious messages, like pawn shops
notices and statues.
Despite your distate for anything mystical -- zen is mundane, actually,
and not mystical -- I don't think our thinking is that far apart.
> Screw the mystical!
> Screw mystery!
How odd that you speak of finding messages in the mundane, in the ordinary
things aroung you, and don't see this as mystical or a mystery. Most sane
people would see it that way.
scot...@earthlink.net
Maack) wrote:
>...
The following is a link to a washington post article on "Maki"
"an enemy of the state and instigator of civil unrest". Maki
is a Serb.
http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-07/17/147l-071799-idx.html
scot...@earthlink.net
Maack) wrote:
>The surreal act, in my stance, is an attempt to bring a small satori -- a
>moment of sudden awareness, understanding, and clarity that borders on the
>mystical -- in the people who witness the act. At the same time,
>performing the act brings about the same sort of clarity in the actor, in
>me.
>
>It is definitely not a one-sided event. "Teachers" learn more from
>teaching than any student does.
And the "students" did not know they needed a "teacher"...
A game, play... that involves choosing to touch some one in some
kind of way (even for benevolent purposes)...
touching some one in some kind of way, to bring about some kind of
state or experience in the person doing the touching...
raises serious and very complicated moral issues... particularly when
there has been no permission given by the person being touched....
This is simply an observation about what appears to me to be
the central element of your project. What you are calling "surreal
acts" are really interesting props for experiments in power and
submission. This is not a criticism of your project. It may be a
criticism of your stated understanding of what your project is about.
A surreal act is not a prop machined for some kind of other purpose.
In my personalized view of things it is act that within the total
ecology of a situation acknowledges what it means to be an individual
human being at that instant.
Your project(s) raise interesting moral questions in regards to the
planned behavior of the participants. I think your project will be
incomplete if these questions are not explored by you and your
collaborators.
Dale Houstman
Nikolaus Maack wrote:
>
>
> All art is advertising, Dale. Shall we all drop our brushes now, instead
> of daring to add our voice to the world?
This is irrelevant to what I actually said: I was asking if you could
compete in sensationalism, which is the
stimulation of people's desires with a SUBSTITUTION of objects: sexual
imagery at the end of which is a candy bar. That's sensationalism. "All
art is advertising" I won't argue with, because we would have to
determine what advertising really is. But I will say I don't believe
this aphorism is true. Advertising is ALL bait and switch, and art at
least attempts to sell (for free mainly) the groceries it billboards.
> > Pick out a doddering old woman and toss her down an escalator. Would the
> > "startling" quality of this "oddity" satisfy this urge in you to wake
> > people up to realizations they must have had two thousand times plus
> > already?
>
> As I said earlier, I am aiming to create pleasant startlement in others.
There is nothing wrong with this - although you yourself went on at some
length about some befuddled lady telephoner, and I even found it
excruciating to read. And I won't go into the "pleasant startlement" of
the hamburger flipper who has to put up with a frustrated manager AND
errant nonsense, PLUS cleaning up your damn onion.
> It seems unlikely that an old woman will enjoy being throw down the
> stairs, unless she's extremely kinky.
But that opens up a question: where do pleasure and pain begin and end,
and how can you determine it so that your "projects" are effective in
the way you imagine them to be? Again I decalre that they are all about
your need for diversion from Ottawa, and not your desire to bring
"pleasure" into the world. An admission of this fact (which is growing
more obvious by the day) would go a long way toward freeing you from the
delusion that it is necessarily "surreal" simply because you say it is.
> Part of what I want to do is leave messages for people so that they begin
> to see the more mundane messages. In other words, this time they see a
> painted doll head or an onion. It's a blatant message. Perhaps next time
> they'll be able to perceive the less obvious messages, like pawn shops
> notices and statues.
Your projects seem to me to NOT address this transference of sensation.
Your projects lack critical considerations of POWER.
Your projects don't startle as much as they annoy, cloyingly.
>
> Despite your distate for anything mystical -- zen is mundane, actually,
> and not mystical -- I don't think our thinking is that far apart.
I didn't equate zen with the mystical - although there's an argument in
that also - I mentioned mystical because you did. I also don't have a
"distaste" for the mystical (I am quite the Blake nut), but only desire
to have the human desire for transcendence redirected away from the
divine and back to its source in the imagination. In actuality, I rather
respect a true mystical turn, because it is imaginative, and
un-self-conscious. Surrealism, in part, exists to manifest this
"mystical" in human terms, and re-name it the marvelous.
>
> How odd that you speak of finding messages in the mundane, in the ordinary
> things aroung you, and don't see this as mystical or a mystery.
I explain above. Mystery comes from the word "to teach" and is applied
to divine guidance, messages from the other. This is precisely what
surrealism is NOT about. Even James Joyce gets onto this and secualrizes
the word "epiphany" so that it means a revelatory shining forth of human
awareness; it is when the human becomes aware of the human and is
awoken.
> Most sane
> people would see it that way.
I don't care what this imaginary "Most people" see or say. That mating
ball is a delusion.
AND
if you feel that "most people" are asleep to the world, why do you
assume they know what they're talking about in this regard?
DMH
Brandon J. Freels
the mystical and pious, and will not cease to bring that pearl into the
forefront of the material world.
[I'm paraphrasing Breton in Communicating Vessels]
Andrea Chen
>
> How odd that you speak of finding messages in the mundane, in the ordinary
> people would see it that way.
It is a bit curious that even the conception of finding things of value
in the ideas posted is alien to Dale (if the ideals posted are by the
wrong person.) I personally find many amazing bits posted even if by
the dispised (such as Mr. Flute or the flonkers.)
Incidently Nik your discussion has been amazingly good and in your
various projects I'm finding the glimmering of patterns (don't how an
onion in any phone booth or meat flavored soda connect, but somehow like
any things laid side by side they start to.)
I will quite frankly admit that your various proposals have aroused
some intuitive reluctance in me, but overcoming that I can see something
rather interesting as more pieces emerge.