luscious pseudo-SurRealism discussion?

[Edward]

I peeped into this discussion thread just on occasion and yet it
surprised me a little bit.

Naturally one would expect to see here some serious arguments about more
subtle subjects that surrealism and its progeny managed to create and
deal with.

Definitely this picture has nothing to do with surrealism in any aspect
of it, except some formal symbolage rendering.

And it is NOT what artist feels and thinks and what stands behind his
creation, but WHAT he produces after all. Author can imagine himself to
be a great surrealist, but if his pictures are simply realistic and
plain, nobody cares what he claims, everybody observes results...

Surrealism (with all its manifests and claims) ceased to be a slogan or
motto for disquiet Bohemian crowd. It has no social or psychological
ground any more, and it hardly reflects an author's attitude (if it goes
against his own tangible output)...

For those who tend to disregard obvious things: I dare remind to look
into meaning of word "surrealism", because lately this genre has
returned to its primary priority & essence; which we might interpret
shortly (but down to the point) what does not fit the very idea and
purport of the genre - does not belong to it, even if it looks
otherwise.... at the first glance.

Edward
- cupitor imposibilium -

P.S. Dale Houstman (see first response in this thread) is quite right.