Surrealism FAQ Version 1.1
Brandon Freels
Version 1.1 (January 2001)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents
Introduction
What is Surrealism?
1.1 Pure Psychic Automatism
1.2 A Short Introduction to the Surrealist Movement
The Surrealist Revolution
2.1 Politics
2.2 Art and Literature
Surrealist Explorations: Play and Creativity
3.1 Automatism
3.2 Forced Inspiration
3.3 The Surrealist Collage
3.4 The Surrealist Object
3.5 Games
Some Surrealist Concepts
4.1 Black Humor
4.2 The Marvelous
4.3 Mad Love
4.4 Miserablism
The Periphery: Precursors, Fellow Travelers, et al.
5.1 George Bataille
5.2 Dada
5.3 Salvador Dali (Avida Dollars)
5.4 The Occult
5.5 Oulipo
5.6 Pataphysics
5.7 Psychoanalysis
5.8 Situationist International
Appendix
6.1 Further Reading in English
6.2 Online Documents
6.3 Online Surrealist Groups
6.4 Online Surrealist Resources
6.5 FAQ Acknowledgements
INTRODUCTION
Thanks to the common misrepresentations spread throughout the Internet and
academia by individuals hoping to reorient its focus Surrealism is often
misunderstood as an artistic style, a literary movement, a form of mystical
escapism into a world of illusions, convenient weirdness, and a variety of
other banalities. This Frequently Asked Questions was produced to combat the
onslaught of such disinformation. It will be regularly posted to
alt.surrealism, an open forum for discussion and a dumping ground for
anything that falls within the scope of Surrealist interest.
"Perhaps the greatest danger threatening Surrealism today is the fact that
because of its spread throughout the world, which was very sudden and rapid,
the word found favor much faster than the idea." ---André Breton, Surrealist
Situation of the Object
"Surrealism has declared, in every authentic manifestation, its commitment
to revolution; the displacement of the real import of the word by
inhibitions in the writings of college teachers does not alter that
commitment in the slightest. It merely means that there is promulgated the
illusion that critics have something to add." ---The Chicago Surrealist
Group, reply to The New York Review of Books
WHAT IS SURREALISM?
1.1 Pure Psychic Automatism
Pure Psychic Automatism is the primary and natural condition of the mind and
all its faculties free from the interference of external constraints such as
rationalism, aestheticism, utilitarianism, and religious superstition. This
autonomy is achieved only when the socially constructed apparatuses of
repression are dismantled and those ostracized characteristics of the mind
(innovative imagination, uncompromised desire, and so on) are reintegrated
into everyday life, delivering the mind to a state of free development and
spontaneity. It is in this state, where the individual has regained the
primeval senses, that the mind can move forward to an untainted awareness of
existence, which is the most complete experience of reality---a surreality.
Pure Psychic Automatism is synonymous with Surrealism.
"SURREALISM, n. Psychic automatism in its pure state, by which one proposes
to express---verbally, by means of the written word, or in any other
manner---the actual functioning of thought. Dictated by thought, in the
absence of any control exercised by reason, exempt from any aesthetic or
moral concern." ---André Breton, Manifesto of Surrealism
"Surrealism is not a new means of expression, or an easier one, nor even a
metaphysics of poetry. It is a means of total liberation of the mind and of
all that resembles it ... Surrealism is not a poetic form. It is a cry of
the mind turning back on itself, and it is determined to break apart its
fetters, even if it must be by material hammers!" ---Declaration of January
27, 1925
"Surrealism, a unitary project of total revolution, is above all a method of
knowledge and a way of life; it is lived far more than it is written, or
written about, or drawn. Surrealism is the most exhilarating adventure of
the mind, an unparalleled means of pursuing the fervent quest for freedom
and true life beyond the veil of ideological appearances." ---Franklin
Rosemont, Andre Breton and the First Principles of Surrealism
1.2 A Short Introduction to the Surrealist Movement
The Surrealist Movement was founded in Paris in 1924 for the sole purpose of
changing reality through the dissolving of orthodoxy, the liberation of the
mind, and the reintegration of the inner necessities with the exterior life.
Opening the Bureau of Surrealist Research and eventually publishing two
journals (The Surrealist Revolution and Surrealism in the Service of the
Revolution) the original group's initial focus was on uncovering and
exploring the techniques that capture the real functioning of thought. In
their program these investigations (from sleeping trances to automatic
writing) were adjoined to scalding critiques of both the repressive art and
literature of the time and the culture of rationalism in general.
Through the 1930s the movement continued to grow in infamy and influence
with groups appearing in the United Kingdom, Japan, Yugoslavia,
Czechoslovakia, Romania, Belgium, Portugal, Egypt, and a variety of other
countries. This fecund period ended with the Second World War, when the
Paris surrealists were dispersed or detained. Following the war the movement
found itself fragmented. André Breton could only partially reconstitute the
Paris group, as its former members were no longer on a common course.
Opposition to Breton's increasing interest in esotericism led to splinter
groups and competitors, such as Isadore Isou's Lettrist Movement and CoBrA.
In 1966, with the approval of Breton, the first indigenous surrealist group
in the United States was formed in Chicago by Paul Garon and Franklin and
Penelope Rosemont, which has remained the most visible group writing in
English, printing a variety of publications such as their journal Arsenal:
Surrealist Subversion. In September of 1966 Breton died and in March of 1969
the Paris group officially disbanded. However, the majority of the group
reemerged in 1970 with the Bulletin de Liaison Surrealiste.
Today the movement is a decentralized and international constellation of
groups and individuals committed to Surrealism's resilient principles. It
remains a work in progress, and along with the older collectives (in Paris,
Chicago, and Prague), smaller groups of surrealists continue to form around
the globe to work in the margins. Among recent groups are those in
Stockholm, Leeds, Madrid, Argentina, Wisconsin and Minnesota. Whether these
groups will only change the individuals involved or if they can have a
broader impact is a question of little importance. Rather, they are certain
that the drive for liberty is unstoppable, and that a revolution that
redresses the human condition will necessarily be surrealist.
THE SURREALIST REVOLUTION
The two principle expressions of the movement's thrust for complete freedom
are its political nature and its creative output: the first of which
criticizes culture for repressing the internal necessities, and the second
of which seeks to release them.
2.1 Politics
The movement's political stance, which developed out of Dada's spirit of
revolt and vague anarchism, hardened in 1925 as a response to the resurgence
in French patriotism and militarism when France sent an army to put down an
independence movement in Morocco. Resolving that a revolution in
consciousness cannot transpire independent of a revolution in man's material
condition the Paris surrealists began an association with the Communist
Party. During their brief alliance with associates of the hard line Clarté
periodical, who were uniquely sympathetic to surrealist stands and who
shared a common goal in working to subvert bourgeois culture, efforts by the
surrealists to demonstrate their Party loyalty were repaid with belittlement
and interrogations. To the Communist Party their synthesis of Marx and Freud
was an obstacle to total commitment to the Party.
In addition, there was a conflict over the direction of revolutionary art.
The Communist International had developed the concept of "proletarian
literature," which reduced art to the role of propaganda, and later the
Soviet Writers Congress officially adopted the doctrine of "socialist
realism," which the surrealists denounced as an attempt to enclose art's
revolutionary message in the conservative forms of 19th century bourgeois
aesthetics, entirely antithetical to creativity. The surrealists argued that
art's revolutionary value cannot be reduced to its obvious manifest message.
The artist requires absolute freedom to create new means of expression and
deal with such fundamental matters as psychology and sexual freedom,
concerns the Communist Party considered decadent. Through the 1930s the
surrealists grew more distant from the French Left and from Moscow, and in
1935 they broke away from the Communist Party altogether.
By the late 1930s, fascism had risen in Germany, Italy and Spain with the
complicity of the western democracies, themselves having become increasingly
oppressive. The surrealists continued to issue statements denouncing French
policy on the Spanish Civil War, the Moscow trials of the Stalinist purge,
and the Munich talks. In 1938, Breton and Leon Trotsky proposed the creation
of F.I.A.R.I. (Fédération internationale de l'art révolutionnaire
indépendant), an international association of Marxists and anarchists to
pursue a revolutionary art opposed to the decree of fascist dictatorship,
bourgeois democracy, capitalism (art for art's sake), and Stalinism (social
realism). Though hopelessness was setting in among anti-war activists,
F.I.A.R.I. groups were organized in France, Mexico, Argentina, England and
the U.S. The Paris group started a review, Clé, which lasted but two issues,
just long enough to record the deteriorating political climate.
Since the 1940s surrealism has remained non-aligned, often affiliating with
and supporting a variety of revolutionary movements that oppose the existing
conditions of the social, political, and cultural order, and issuing
opinions on contemporary political matters (such as advocating for world
disarmament, denouncing French colonialism in Indochina and Algeria,
protesting the Soviet intervention in Hungary, applauding the outset of the
Cuban Revolution before it was aligned with Russia, and, more recently,
siding with those responsible for the Los Angeles Rebellion of 1992). In its
modern development the political position of Surrealism can be summed up by
the finale of the Chicago Group's Declaration of War (1971):
"Let us speak plainly. Until the last convict is out of prison and the last
'madman' out of the asylum; until the last army has been disbanded and the
last government overthrown; until the last church has been burned and the
last bank pulverized; until the last capitalist and the last cop have been
hanged to death with the guts of the last politician and the last priest;
that is, until men and women are truly free, surrealism will continue
relentlessly to provide miraculous weapons with which to struggle for this
freedom."
2.2 Art and Literature
For the surrealist the use of art and literature is unconditionally directed
at the unleashing and exploring of the imagination, free from such retarding
devices as premeditation and aesthetics, so that the work can be ruled by
desire alone and cover, as Breton stated in Surrealism and Painting, "the
whole psychophysical field (in which consciousness constitutes only a very
small segment)." The surrealist use of art and literature stands opposed to
the notion of talent and the domination of so-called specialists. Following
in the footsteps of Lautréamont's famous maxim that "poetry must be made by
all," surrealists appreciate art and literature for their ability to
manifest the individual's internal and emotional order, and believe that
everyone has the capacity and necessity to create.
"... surrealist painters, who are poets, always think of something else. The
unprecedented is familiar to them, premeditation unknown. They are aware
that the relationships between things fade as soon as they are established,
to give place to other relationships just as fugitive. They know that no
description is adequate, that nothing can be reproduced literally. They are
all animated by the same striving to liberate the vision, to unite
imagination and nature, to consider all possibilities a reality, to prove to
us that no dualism exists between the imagination and reality, that
everything the human spirit can conceive and create springs from the same
vein, is made of the same matter as his flesh and blood, and the world
around him." ---Paul Éluard, Poetic Evidence
"The art of painting, as I conceive of it, consists in representing through
pictorial technique the unforeseen images that might appear to me at certain
moments, whether my eyes are open or shut." ---Rene Magritte, from a letter
to Mr. and Mrs. Barnet Hodes
"Centuries from now, any art that takes new paths toward a greater
emancipation of the mind will be Surrealist." ---Andre Breton, from an
interview with Jose M. Valverde
SURREALIST EXPLORATIONS
3.1 Automatism
Automatism is a behavior of the body whereby subverting the restraint of
consciousness an individual is compelled to perform involuntary motor or
verbal activities. It can be achieved through a variety of techniques, the
best known being the practice of automatic writing which Freud advocated as
a way of getting around self-censorship. This technique originated with the
Spiritualists who were the source of the trance sessions and other devices
employed by the surrealists. The surrealist use of these devices, it is
worth remembering, is not one of Freudian therapy or absurdities like
communicating with the dead, but for liberating the imagination. The results
of automatism can be found in the paintings of Joan Miro and André Masson,
in André Breton and Philippe Soupault's The Magnetic Fields, and in the
sleeping trances of Robert Desnos. It is a common misconception that
surrealists object to any revision of a text that has been written
automatically. In fact, after the initial experiment of The Magnetic Fields
automatic texts have been habitually edited.
"The whole point, for Surrealism, was to convince ourselves that we had got
our hands on the 'prime matter' (in the alchemical sense) of language. After
that, we knew where to get it, and it goes without saying that we had no
interest in reproducing it to the point of satiety; this is said for the
benefit of those who are surprised that among us the practice of automatic
writing was abandoned so quickly." ---André Breton, On Surrealism and Its
Living Works
"I resolved to obtain from myself ... a monologue spoken as rapidly as
possible without any intervention on the part of the critical faculties, a
monologue unencumbered by the slightest inhibition and which was, as closely
as possible, akin to spoken thought." ---André Breton, Manifesto of
Surrealism
3.2 Forced Inspiration
Forced Inspiration is the liberation of imaginative associations through the
suggestive quality of a particular perception that gives way to the
dictation of the internal and emotional order, revealing the veiled-erotic.
This method of creative interpretation, which has been utilized in the
teachings of Leonardo da Vinci, in the everyday activity of cloud watching,
and in psychoanalysis through the Rorschach Ink-Blot Test, was first used
within the realm of Surrealism by Max Ernst who theorized in his Beyond
Painting a technique called Frottage, whereby crayon or graphite is rubbed
on paper which as been placed over an object or texture with the hopes of
revealing or inspiring an image. Since then a number of similar techniques
all focused on revealing or inspiring previously unforeseen images out of
ambiguity have developed, such as: Decalcomania (pressing paper on a
non-absorbent surface of which gouache, ink, or oil paints have been spread,
originated by Oscar Dominquez), Fumage (passing paper over a smoking candle,
originated by Wolfgang Paalen), and Grottage (scrapping paint from the
surface of a painting, originated by Ernst). Salvador Dali's
Paranoiac-Critical Method is also an example of Forced Inspiration, but its
imaginative associations do not come from an ambiguous source, instead they
come from a more defined perception, creating a double image or even a chain
of images. Forced Inspiration is synonymous with Interpretive Delirium.
3.3 The Surrealist Collage
The Surrealist Collage is a method of gluing together the displaced bits and
pieces of originally unrelated images onto a flat surface to create a new
unforeseen image, most notably seen in the works of Max Ernst. This
principle of displacement can also be used with language and other forms of
creativity, such as with Lautréamont's famous line from Maldoror: "As
beautiful as the chance encounter of a sewing machine and an umbrella on a
dissecting table."
"The value of the image depends upon the beauty of the spark obtained ...
the two terms of the image are not deduced from the other by the mind for
the specific purpose of producing the spark, [but rather] they are the
simultaneous products of the activity I call Surrealist, reason's role being
limited to taking note of, and appreciating, the luminous
phenomenon." ---André Breton, Manifesto of Surrealism
3.4 The Surrealist Object
The Surrealist Object is an object, real or imaginary, that has been removed
from its original utilitarian role within the confinement of everyday life
by the dictation of the internal and emotional order. The earliest known
collector of these objects was the German writer Georg Christoph Lichtenberg
who, in 1798, completed a list of imaginary instruments, the most popular
being "a bladeless knife with the handle missing." Since the first group
exhibition of Surrealist Objects in 1936 numerous types of objects have been
invented or theorized, such as: the Found Object, the Natural Object (such
as stones or shells), and the Perturbed Object (deformations), all of which
rely on how the object interacts with the finder's interior necessities.
Other objects include the Interpretive Object (an object physically or
interpretively transformed by the finder) and the Poem-Object (a poem in
which several of the words are replaced with physical objects).
3.5 Games
The surrealist use of games, like that of art and literature, is primarily
focused on the subversion of premeditation and rational constraints, but in
addition it is also a subversion of the artist's ego with the potential for
revealing the Marvelous heavily relying on the release of collective
creativity. The most famous of these games is the Exquisite Corpse, a game
of paper folding whereby each player creates an incomplete image or phrase
that is unseen by the other players who will then complete the image or
phrase. Specific rules are required for the linguistic version of the game:
player one writes a definite or indefinite article and an adjective, player
two writes a noun, player three writes a verb, player four writes another
definite or indefinite article and an adjective, and player five writes
another noun. The first sentence obtained from this method was "The
exquisite corpse shall drink the new wine." Another game is the game of
Question and Answer (also known as the Game of Definitions), whereby a
question or word is provided by one player, and an answer or definition is
provided by another player who has no knowledge of the question or word
provided by the first player. The question and answer (or word and
definition) are put together to reveal the results, such as:
What is the desert? A dove alighting on a flame.
What is evolution? A calligraphic box of anatomical forms.
SOME SURREALIST CONCEPTS
4.1 Black Humor
Black Humor is a type of humor, often ironic and macabre, where the drive
for pleasure surmounts the trauma of the exterior world. An example taken
from Freud would be that of a man sentenced to be executed on a Monday who
exclaims, "What a wonderful way to start the week!" Exemplary in the works
of Jacques Vaché, Jonathan Swift, and the Marquis de Sade.
4.2 The Marvelous
In its central characterization the Marvelous is a revolt against and an
overturning of common sensibility that is guided by desire and governed by
pleasure. In Mad Love Breton recognized three distinct manifestations of the
Marvelous: fixed-explosive (the juxtaposition or unification of two distant
features), magic-circumstantial (a coincidence manipulated by desire;
synonymous with Objective Chance), and veiled-erotic (the alternating
between two or more coherent perceptions). All of these manifestations rely
heavily on the freeing of the individuals own subjectivity and imagination,
and a reorientation to the inner necessities. The Marvelous is synonymous
with Convulsive Beauty.
4.3 Mad Love
Mad Love is an overwhelming and excessive pursuit of love driven by an
irrational momentum that is often compulsive and spontaneous, and has little
to do with choice and more to do with internal necessity.
"Only love in the sense that I understand it---mysterious, improbable,
unique, bewildering, and certain love that can only be foolproof, might have
permitted the fulfillment of a miracle." ---André Breton, Nadja
"The act of love, just as with a painting or a poem, is discredited if he
who surrenders to it does not do so in a trance." ---André Breton, Apertures
4.4 Miserablism
Miserablism is an inurement to misery, occurring when the deficiencies of
existence are accepted as normal or unavoidable. Defined by Breton as "the
depreciation of reality in place of its exaltation" and further elaborated
by the Chicago Surrealist Group as "the rationalization of the unlivable,"
Miserablism is one of the main enemies of Surrealism, cultivated by economic
rationalism and religion.
THE PERIPHERY: Precursors, Fellow Travelers, et al.
This is not an exhaustive list of the periphery, but rather a short list of
groups and individuals from the periphery who have, at times, been relative
to the discussions at alt.surrealism. Further suggestions and participation
within this section is encouraged.
5.1 Georges Bataille
Under construction
5.2 Dada
Under construction
5.3 Salvador Dali (Avida Dollars)
Under construction
5.4 The Occult
Under construction
5.5 Oulipo
Under construction
5.6 Pataphysics
Under construction
5.7 Psychoanalysis
Under construction
5.8 Situationist International
In 1956 two para-surrealist groups, the International Movement for an
Imaginist Bauhaus and the Lettrist International, met at the First World
Congress of Liberated Artists and soon after unified (along with the
fictional London Psychogeographical Association) to form the Situationist
International.
Instead of passively accepting what the commodity system has made of living
(a boring mess of alienation and separation) the Situationist International
chose as their basic premise the construction of a new way of life. Their
social critique of capitalism, as theorized in Guy Debord's Society of the
Spectacle, began with their identification of the spectacle, a web of images
and representations (such as advertisements, television, sports events,
newscasts) that develops from the perspective of those in power. The
spectacle is collectively viewed and constantly renewed, turning the
individual into a passive receptor by replacing leisure (what do I want to
do today?) with entertainment (what do I want to see today?). The individual
is no longer active, but exists in a petrified state of buying and selling
experiences.
For the Situationist International the spectacle could be subverted and a
new way of life could be discovered by the individual's management and
construction of situations, those temporary settings of life that are
characterized by a superior emotional quality. The construction of
situations would be based on the theory of Unitary Urbanism, defined as the
use of an ensemble of arts and techniques that would contribute to an
integral composition of the urban space or environment, recovering that
space from the manipulation of the spectacle. Unitary Urbanism would rely on
the method of detournment, whereby a preexisting artistic element is reused
in a new ensemble, and the field study of Psychogeography, defined as the
gathering of information on how the environment influences the psychology of
the individuals. This information can be discovered through the method of
the dérive, a transient passage through a variety of ambiances, and once the
proper information is obtained it would be applied to the construction of
situations.
The Situationist International remained somewhat obscure until 1966 when
they published Mustapha Khayati's On the Poverty of Student Life at the
request of and funded by the student union of the University of Strasbourg.
The pamphlet, which lambasted universities for institutionalizing ignorance
and ridiculed modern culture and its officials, was denounced as a
misappropriation of public funds. The result was a public scandal and the
closure of the student union. Khayati's highly distributed pamphlet
eventually found its way to the University of Paris at Nanterre in early
1968, and inspired a group known as the Enragés to graffiti the walls of the
campus with Situationist slogans and to sabotage lectures. A general protest
followed in May where students engaged in political discourse and even
questioned the idea of the university itself, which eventually lead to the
closure of the college on May 2nd. Action committees set up by the
Situationist International and the Enragés were struck to spread the protest
to schools and factories throughout France, and by May 21st Paris was
paralyzed by a general strike. For this brief period France appeared to be
on the brink of revolution, but de Gaulle regained power with the assistance
of the military and dissolved the situation.
Despite the growth of interest in their ideas following this period the
Situationist International disbanded in 1972.
APPENDIX
6.1 Further Reading in English
Surrealist Authors: Louis Aragon ("Paris Peasant," "Treatise on Style");
André Breton ("What is Surrealism? Selected Writings [ed. Franklin
Rosemont]," "Manifestoes of Surrealism," "Surrealism and Painting," "Nadja,"
"The Communicating Vessels," "Mad Love," "Arcanum 17," "The Lost Steps,"
"Break of Day," "Free Rein," "Anthology of Black Humor," "Conversations: The
Autobiography of Surrealism," "The Magnetic Fields [with Philippe
Soupault]," "The Immaculate Conception [with Paul Eluard]"); Leonora
Carrington ("Down Below," "The Hearing Trumpet"); Robert Desnos ("Liberty or
Love," "Mourning for Mourning," "Selected Poems"); Max Ernst ("The Hundred
Headless Woman," "A Little Girl Dreams of Taking the Veil"); Michel Leiris
("Aurora," "Brisees: Broken Branches"); Pierre Mabille ("Mirror of the
Marvelous"); Benjamin Péret ("Death to the Pigs," "A Marvelous World").
Anthologies: "The Poetry of Surrealism" (ed. Michael Benedikt), "A Book of
Surrealist Games" (ed. Mel Gooding), "The Shadow and Its Shadow: Surrealist
Writing on the Cinema" (ed. Paul Hammond), "The Autobiography of Surrealism"
(ed. Marcel Jean), "The Custom-House of Desire" (ed. JH Matthews),
"Investigating Sex: Surrealist Discussions 1928-32" (ed. Jose Pierre),
"Surrealism" (ed. Herbert Read), "Refusal of the Shadow: Surrealism and the
Caribbean" (ed. Michael Richardson), "Arsenal: Surrealist Subversion 4" (ed.
Franklin Rosemont), "The Forecast is Hot!" (ed. Franklin Rosemont),
"Surrealism and Its Popular Accomplices" (ed. Franklin Rosemont),
"Surrealist Women" (ed. Penelope Rosemont).
While the best critical overviews of and introductions to Surrealism are
Franklin Rosemont's introduction to "What is Surrealism? Selected Writings
of André Breton," Penelope Rosemont's "Surrealist Women," and the many books
of JH Matthews, the following books merit attention as they were used as
sources for this FAQ: Sarane Alexanderian, "Surrealist Art"; Jacqueline
Chénieux-Gendron, "Surrealism"; David Gascoyne, "A Short Survey of
Surrealism"; Helena Lewis, "The Politics of Surrealism"; Maurice Nadeau,
"The History of Surrealism"; Rene Passeron, "The Concise Encyclopedia of
Surrealism"; Jose Pierre, "An Illustrated Dictionary of Surrealism."
6.2 Online Documents
What is Surrealism? by Andre Breton:
http://pers-www.wlv.ac.uk/~fa1871/whatsurr.html
What is Surrealism? by Andre Breton (alternative link):
http://www-e815.fnal.gov/~romosan/surrealism.html
Declaration of January 27, 1925:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1925surrealism.html
Murderous Humanitarianism:
http://www.postfun.com/racetraitor/features/murderous.html
6.3 Online Surrealist Groups
The Chicago Group: http://www.surrealism-usa.org/
The Czech & Slovak Group: http://home.ti.cz/~surreal/surrealindex.html
The Netherlands Group: http://www.geocities.com/surrealisme_in_nederland/
The Paris Group: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jjmeric/
The Portugal Group: http://members.tripod.co.uk/surrealismo/
The Stockholm Group: http://www.users.wineasy.se/vertsurr/
Surrealists in Minnesota: http://www.magneticfields.org/
The Wisconsin Group: http://www.execpc.com/~bogartte/Counterclockwise.html
6.4 Online Surrealist Resources
The Library: http://www.kalin.lm.com/author.html
No More Words:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~rmutt/dictionary/NoMoreWords.html
Surrealist Writers: http://www.creative.net/~alang/lit/surreal/writers.sht
6.5 FAQ Acknowledgements
Brandon Freels (brandon...@netzero.net): principal author, editor.
Parry Harnden (ame...@norlink.net): contributing author.
February 10, 2001
Nikolaus Maack
It's February. Other than that, good show and well done. Of course I
disagree with a lot of it -- clinging to the automatic and all that -- but
despite my quibbles, congratulations just the same.
Nik
--
Licking clouds while my toes
touch the centre of the earth.
LauryB
Brandon Freels kindly posted:
| Surrealism FAQ
| Version 1.1 (January 2001)
| WHAT IS SURREALISM?
| 1.1 Pure Psychic Automatism
| "SURREALISM, n. ... by which one proposes to express...the
actual functioning of thought....André Breton, Manifesto of
Surrealism
...
| THE PERIPHERY: Precursors, Fellow Travelers, et al.
|
| to the discussions at alt.surrealism. Further suggestions and
participation
| within this section is encouraged.
| 5.3 Salvador Dali (Avida Dollars)
| Under construction
Like many others, I came to surrealism via Dali. This, in
itself may, or may not be a bad thing.
By putting him in the periphery, this implies that Dali is not a
true surrealist. I agree that he was a showman, that he (or his
woman) was quite avid for the dollars. Few would dispute that
his technical skill was very good. The pictures he made were
atonishing to me. The question is, was he a surrealist? If
not, what makes him not so?
I have no axe to grind here folks. I'm just a bit ignorant and
curious.
Yours in uncertainty,
laury
Brandon Freels
"Nikolaus Maack" <ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:963kkh$g00$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
Brandon Freels
> By putting him in the periphery, this implies that Dali is not a
> not, what makes him not so?
We'll, get to it when we get to it. Another individual I showed the FAQ to
this last week in person had the same sort of question. The reason I thought
it was important to put Dali in the periphery was because for a long period
of his life he wasn't a surrealist, and many of his paintings and ideas from
that post-1936 (?) period shouldn't be confused with surrealism. I'm going
to try and have that section up in Version 1.2 (which should be released
sometime before june).
The Lemming
the political leanings of the surrealists; after the civil war, he even
praised Franco to some extent, and also worked on catholic-inspired works
when he went bak to the church later in life; these were anathema to
surrealism.
Nick the Lemming
--
Happy VHEMT Volunteer
May we live long and die out
In Your Face, Space Coyote!
LauryB <gnik...@moc.tenretnibt> wrote in message
news:964759$8rk$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
Nikolaus Maack
> Dali wasn't part of the Breton group of surrealists, and didn't subscribe to
> the political leanings of the surrealists; after the civil war, he even
> praised Franco to some extent, and also worked on catholic-inspired works
> when he went bak to the church later in life; these were anathema to
> surrealism.
As much as I am loathe to open this can of worms again, I like Dali.
While he might have been a showman, a lunatic, and a fascist, the show he
put on was often an interesting one. That he ignored politics (and then
backed the "wrong" politics) and occasionally embraced religious symbolism
doesn't bother me. I don't see either as "anathema to surrealism" at all.
Surrealists supposedly believe in having a free and open mind. It amuses
me to see some surrealists getting angry when free and open minds choose
the "wrong" ideas. It makes me wonder just how "free" surrealist minds
actually are.
Yes, yes -- be as free as you'd like, just so long as you hate capitalism,
are an atheist, and an objectivist. Stray outside these defined areas and
you're out of the fold. After all, these are the "correct" beliefs of
"free thinkers".
Once this kind of dogma is carved in stone, how much freedom is there,
really? Not a heck of a lot. Any mention of freedom becomes surrealist
propaganda. Having genuine freedom of mind means the liberty to stray
into subjects that others might disagree with -- be it God, gays in the
military, or mass produced melting watches.
Do you want real freedom of thought or do you want the personal opinions
you happen to hold to be declared "true and free"?
I am reminded of a piece of music I heard many years ago. Voices chant,
as though making demands at some sort of rally: "Bigger cages! Longer
chains!"
Nik
PS.
Nick the Lemming, I read over the vhemt webpages recently and completely
agree with them. I was a member before I knew the group existed -- thanks
to my vasectomy, I will be producing no offspring. Solidarity, brother.
Parry
> Once this kind of dogma is carved in stone, how much freedom is there,
> really? Not a heck of a lot. Any mention of freedom becomes surrealist
> propaganda. Having genuine freedom of mind means the liberty to stray
> into subjects that others might disagree with -- be it God, gays in the
> military, or mass produced melting watches.
You are free to be a nazi, a racist, a god-dunce, or to wear manacles,
kiss cops and wave the flag -- but surrealists would consider it slander
to be associated with you. Alt.surrealism, it appears, is not allowed to
be free of inanity.
-- Parry
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Parry
>
> Dali wasn't part of the Breton group of surrealists, and didn't subscribe to
> the political leanings of the surrealists; after the civil war, he even
> praised Franco to some extent, and also worked on catholic-inspired works
> when he went bak to the church later in life; these were anathema to
> surrealism.
You might add the problems of Dali’s careerism and his shady
exploitation of surrealism for his own self-promotion. From the 40’s
onward he was out of surrealism, yet thanks to hard-working art dealers
became the face of surrealism for many casual observers. Dali’s
disproportional fame needs to be addressed in the FAQ, though it is
something of a side issue -- on the periphery, in other words.
-- Parry
The Lemming
> As much as I am loathe to open this can of worms again, I like Dali.
Don't get me wrong, I like Dali too - I have several repros on my wall, and
visited the museum at St Petersburg when I was over in Orlando recently.
> While he might have been a showman, a lunatic, and a fascist, the show he
> put on was often an interesting one. That he ignored politics (and then
> backed the "wrong" politics) and occasionally embraced religious symbolism
> doesn't bother me. I don't see either as "anathema to surrealism" at all.
>
He certainly painted in a surrealistic style for part of his career, but to
my mind that was exactly the problem - it was a career, rather than a
calling, or for the sake of surrealism.
> Yes, yes -- be as free as you'd like, just so long as you hate capitalism,
> are an atheist, and an objectivist.
Well, I hate capitalism, am a buddhist and wouldn't know where to begin
describing my outlook. Maybe a solipsist pessimist with existentialist
wanderings coupled with an objectivist etic bystander.
Stray outside these defined areas and
> you're out of the fold. After all, these are the "correct" beliefs of
> "free thinkers".
>
You only think that. ;-)
> Do you want real freedom of thought or do you want the personal opinions
> you happen to hold to be declared "true and free"?
>
emic / etic realities. We all have different reality tunnels.
> I am reminded of a piece of music I heard many years ago. Voices chant,
> as though making demands at some sort of rally: "Bigger cages! Longer
> chains!"
>
sounds like Swans. :-)
> Nik
>
> PS.
>
> Nick the Lemming, I read over the vhemt webpages recently and completely
> agree with them. I was a member before I knew the group existed -- thanks
> to my vasectomy, I will be producing no offspring. Solidarity, brother.
>
:-) Peace be with you. If it is peace you search for, that is.
The Lemming
Parry <pa...@perfectOMITmail.com> wrote in message
news:3A865B...@perfectOMITmail.com...
> The Lemming wrote:
> >
> > Dali wasn't part of the Breton group of surrealists, and didn't
subscribe to
> > the political leanings of the surrealists; after the civil war, he even
> > praised Franco to some extent, and also worked on catholic-inspired
works
> > when he went bak to the church later in life; these were anathema to
> > surrealism.
>
> You might add the problems of Dali's careerism and his shady
> exploitation of surrealism for his own self-promotion. From the 40's
> onward he was out of surrealism, yet thanks to hard-working art dealers
> became the face of surrealism for many casual observers. Dali's
> disproportional fame needs to be addressed in the FAQ, though it is
> something of a side issue -- on the periphery, in other words.
>
> -- Parry
>
>
I would have done, but didn't wan to turn this into an essay. :-)
The last time I attempted to do so was by writing a very long post on
Antonin Artaud. When I hit Send, my computer decided that it no longer
wished to comply with my dictatorial thrustings, refused to accept the
injustice of my post and promptly disestablished itself. It now sits in a
corner of the room, casting jealous glances at this new servant and
whimpering to itself whenever I
mention Artaud's name.
Nikolaus Maack
> You are free to be a nazi, a racist, a god-dunce, or to wear manacles,
> kiss cops and wave the flag -- but surrealists would consider it slander
> to be associated with you. Alt.surrealism, it appears, is not allowed to
> be free of inanity.
I somehow doubt you're referring to your own inanity.
The above two sentences you wrote aren't really an argument. It's the
surrealist equivalent of saying, "Love it or leave it, pal!" You've
totally ignored the issues I have raised to post the equivalent of, "That's
just stupid." Of course, this is what most people do, so don't feel bad.
I'm sure I probably do it myself, on ocassion.
But I'm afraid that that kind of a response really doesn't chop the gray
poupon. While it might be a proud, public declaration of your belief in
surrealism, making you "fit in" with the other "good surrealists", it's
not really much else.
I'm pointing this out so you'll understand why I ignore this kind of
stuff. Parry, you post this kind of thing quite a bit, by the way.
My friend Andrew describes conversations he has with atheists on IRC.
Many of them profess to be completely "rational". They aren't. Instead,
whatever they happen to believe in is declared "rational". For example,
most of them believe in having jobs and working hard, using science (their
idea of "science" being pretty vague), molesting children is wrong, large
breasts are attractive, welfare is evil, etc, etc.
When it's pointed out to them that these aren't rational, objective,
scientific things, but culturally-based standards and political opinions,
they tell you you're wrong.
"No, it's objectively true that we all have to work jobs and be productive
members of society. Science is solving all our problems, and that's a
verifiable fact. Anyone who touches a kid is a sick motherfucker -- I
don't care what you say about ancient Greece, you goddamn pervert. And
who cares if large tits don't make people in other cultures horny? It's
clear that evolution and procreation have determined that large breasts
are an important part of finding a woman attractive."
Certain surrealists in this group do the same thing. Their particular
point of view becomes THE surrealist point of view. Anyone who holds a
differing opinion?
"That's not surrealism! What the hell is wrong with you? My surrealism
is THE surrealism, and is objectively, scientifically, and historically
true. So there."
(But I've said all this before, to no avail. And hey, look! I'm saying
it again. Whee.)
How do you argue with people who irrationally hoot that whatever they
happen to believe in is objective, rational, and completely true? Every
single prejudice they carry is labelled "objective, scientific fact." If
you try to talk about different cultures, different perspective, the
complex tapestry of subjective mind states -- they call you a goddamn
"pomo" and insist that there's no talking to pomos.
Why? Well, isn't it obvious? Post-modernists aren't "rational".
This behavior is doubly depressing when seen in surrealists, who
supposedly understand the value of embracing irrationality.
Nik
PS.
I'm sorry. I said that all wrong. What I meant to say is, you're stupid,
biased, and have no comprehension of TRUE surrealism. Not like me. I
have the real truth, because I am completely objective.
PPS.
That last PS. was a joke, and that is objectively verifiable and
scientifically true.
Parry
don’t believe you are actually interested in discussion. Everything in
your post -- the “arguments” which consists of the sarcastic mimicry of
another’s voice, tales of your friend’s daring encounters with atheists,
the half-baked psychology, the embarrassing sophistry that surrealism
frees you to drain the word of meaning -- I feel I’ve read word-for-word
before. You dispense this stuff with the uniformity of a ticket machine,
regardless of the topic at hand. It appears you are interested only in
focusing every discussion on yourself so you can go to Deja and count
how many times your name has been mentioned. Well this is the second
post I’ve dropped in your tin cup this weekend, so don’t expect more.
-- Parry
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
Brandon Freels
> My friend Andrew describes conversations he has with atheists on IRC.
> When it's pointed out to them that these aren't rational, objective,
> scientific things, but culturally-based standards and political opinions,
> they tell you you're wrong.
This is a horrible generalization of athiests. I am well aware that my
dis-belief in gods is a product of *faith* ... in other words,
philosophically I'm an agnostic, but deep down in my mushy heart I *know*
there are no gods.
It's my reality Nik, why fight it?
> "That's not surrealism! What the hell is wrong with you? My surrealism
> is THE surrealism, and is objectively, scientifically, and historically
> true. So there."
Have you ever gone to the athiest newsgroup and tried to tell them that an
*athiest* can be whatever you want it to be? Try it.
> Why? Well, isn't it obvious? Post-modernists aren't "rational".
They're also a boring read. Ever read any? Besides, surrealism doesn't
attempt to *destroy* rationalism, but rather refashion it. The point is to
kick rationalism out of the driver's seat and stick 'um in the passanger's
seat, or maybe in the trunk.
Brandon Freels
contribute to the FAQ e-mail me and let me know what's up.
---Brandon
Andrea Chen
>
> He certainly painted in a surrealistic style for part of his career, but to
> my mind that was exactly the problem - it was a career, rather than a
> calling, or for the sake of surrealism.
>
I think you miss the crucial issue of Dali's role. In "What Is
Surrealism?" Breton wrote:
>
>
> Owing particularly to influences brought to bear by new elements, surrealist experimenting. which had for too long been erratic, has been
> unreservedly resumed; its perspectives and its aims have been made perfectly clear; I may say that it has not ceased to be carried on in a continuous and enthusiastic
> manner. This experimenting has regained momentum under the master-impulse given to it by Salvador Dali, whose exceptional interior ``boiling'' has been for
> surrealism, during the whole of this period, an invaluable ferment. As Guy Mangeot has very rightly pointed out in his History of Surrealism . . . Dali has endowed
> surrealism with an instrument of primary importance, in particular the paranoiac-critical method, which has immediately shown itself capable of being applied with
> equal success to painting, poetry, the cinema, to the construction of typical surrealist objects, to fashions, to sculpture and even, if necessary, to all manner of
> exegesis.
Read this statement. It might be considered the definer of Second Wave
Surrealism. Dali is crucial in leading this, his paranoic critical
method (do you know what this is?) has become a leading approach
applicable to a broadrange of activities, including, but also exceeding
the domains of painting or art.
Dali has created this. It is a crucial component of surrealism at this
stage. Like autoism it's never rejected though new components are added
and the early methods evolve. Playing with these early technique is one
means of establishing if an artist is indeed surrealistic or not. Not
all surrealists do, but anyone who employs them is at least in part
surrealistic, just as anyone who uses perspective is at least in part a
practitioner of western art. Anyone who claims to be surrealistist
without obvious connections to the defined historical movement must be
able to show ways in which their work is a development of a historical
reality.
Dali is a key part of that reality.
What's happened to many in this group (thankfully Brandon seems to have
moved beyond it) is that they can't think in terms outside of
either/or. It's binary yes or no, good or bad thinking. In later years
Dali became estranged from the surrealist movement and his practices
came in conflict with it. Because of Breton's absolutism and jealousy
this became the major theme associated with him.
It's as though Newton's occultism was to estrange him from the
scientists of that time and they were to declare that he didn't practice
physics yet continued to praise and practice work based on his laws and
calculus. If such an event occured, then a latter generation might
decide that the latter work wasn't science, but earlier work would
remain among the most important and formative.
If Dali is declared (as is the desire of some) completely
nonsurrealistic then much of the key work of the early and mid thirties
must be rejected since it's based on his techniques and some earlier
(post dada) acts must also be rejected. The roots of surrealism itself
are cutoff to mantain ideological purity.
Like it or not Dali was an influence of major importance. In "What is
Surrelism" Breton basically states that it's Dali not him who is
reinvigorating the movement. This can't be changed, just as despite
Stalin's efforts, the role of Trotsky in the Russian revolution can't be
denied. One reason I have been and remain appaled by this group is it's
tendency for totaltarian ideology. Dali must be completely wrong and
forever evil. He can't be the giant and hero of surrealism who faltered
and was corrupted. History must be rewritten.
But it can't be: It speaks forever in "What Is Surrelism?"
I would advise the people in this group to read it.
The Lemming
Brandon Freels <b.j.f...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:j4Eh6.4505$X61.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> They're also a boring read. Ever read any? Besides, surrealism doesn't
> attempt to *destroy* rationalism, but rather refashion it. The point is to
> kick rationalism out of the driver's seat and stick 'um in the passanger's
> seat, or maybe in the trunk.
>
>
To keep the worms in the can marked Dali happy with the sunlight streaking
in, this was another of the major points of contention between him and
Breton; whereas Breton and the surrealists wanted to dally with reason and
unreason, bringing the two close together so that they were one and the
same, Dali wanted to increase the gap between them, favouring unreason.
Nik, you are the group's Dali, and I claim my `0 Euros.
Nikolaus Maack
> This is a horrible generalization of athiests.
That's the risk I run when I talk about a group as though it only has one
head. But in this specific example, I was referring to a specific channel
on a specific branch of that communication system known as IRC. Even with
this tiny sample of atheists, not all of them are irrationally rational --
some recognize that things like intuition have a valid place in our heads.
But for the most part, they claim that their personal biases are
objectively true.
> I am well aware that my
> dis-belief in gods is a product of *faith* ... in other words,
> philosophically I'm an agnostic, but deep down in my mushy heart I *know*
> there are no gods.
Was that sarcasm or not? I can't tell if you genuinely mean the above as
an expression of your beliefs. I'll assume you're being straight-forward.
My particular stance is agnostic as well. If there aren't any actual gods
in the universe floating around on white clouds, there are at least
symbolic gods in all our heads. For the most part (I'm a Freudian) they
are idealized versions of our parents. Whether we believe in God or not,
each of us has such an idealized parental archetype inside our heads.
> It's my reality Nik, why fight it?
I won't fight your reality, so long as you ackowledge that it's just that
-- yours. It's when people insist their reality is THE reality that I get
all cranky.
> Have you ever gone to the athiest newsgroup and tried to tell them that an
> *athiest* can be whatever you want it to be? Try it.
I believe I'd more or less get what I get here. My friend Andrew calls
himself an atheist, but he likes the bible, quotes Jesus, and dabbles in
Buddhism. Most of the people in the IRC channel insisted that he is not
an atheist. After a while, as people got to know him, he got a reputation
as "an atheist for Jesus". Most still wouldn't call him a "real" atheist
-- whatever that is.
Many atheists -- people who openly declare themselves as such -- believe
that the word "atheist" comes with a collection of beliefs. Such as,
libertarian, science loving, objectivist, materialist, etctera. There is,
of course, no reason for this to be the case.
[Post-modernists]
> They're also a boring read. Ever read any?
Yes. Some of them are so encrusted with jargon its a wonder they don't
like sea urchins.
> Besides, surrealism doesn't
> attempt to *destroy* rationalism, but rather refashion it. The point is to
> kick rationalism out of the driver's seat and stick 'um in the passanger's
> seat, or maybe in the trunk.
That's a stance I agree with entirely, by the way. I just get the feeling
not everyone in this newsgroup agrees with us. Which is fine, of course.
I just find the worship of Spock-like rationality to be extremely
depressing, and I've met many, many men who grew up wanting to be Spock,
and meet more of them every day.
Nik
The Lemming
Andrea Chen <fallin...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3A8775...@earthlink.net...
> I think you miss the crucial issue of Dali's role. In "What Is
> Surrealism?" Breton wrote:
<statement snipped>
>
> Read this statement. It might be considered the definer of Second Wave
> Surrealism.
Rather than a second wave of surrealism, I'd approach Dali's work as
something other than surrealism; rather than following on from surrealism,
what Dali did was create something different to surrealism.
Dali is crucial in leading this, his paranoic critical
> method (do you know what this is?)
Of course I do; Dali himself described it as "irrational knowledge based on
a delirium of interpretation" and further that it was a way of finding
different images within a single work. It wasn't entirely original either -
see Ernst's frottage work for a similar idea.
has become a leading approach
> applicable to a broadrange of activities, including, but also exceeding
> the domains of painting or art.
>
> Dali has created this. It is a crucial component of surrealism at this
> stage. Like autoism it's never rejected though new components are added
> and the early methods evolve. Playing with these early technique is one
> means of establishing if an artist is indeed surrealistic or not. Not
> all surrealists do, but anyone who employs them is at least in part
> surrealistic, just as anyone who uses perspective is at least in part a
> practitioner of western art. Anyone who claims to be surrealistist
> without obvious connections to the defined historical movement must be
> able to show ways in which their work is a development of a historical
> reality.
>
> Dali is a key part of that reality.
IMHO, Dali is a key part of one reality.
>
> What's happened to many in this group (thankfully Brandon seems to have
> moved beyond it) is that they can't think in terms outside of
> either/or. It's binary yes or no, good or bad thinking.
Have you read any Robert Anton Wilson, by any chance? If not, please do, I
think you'll enjoy it.
In later years
> Dali became estranged from the surrealist movement and his practices
> came in conflict with it. Because of Breton's absolutism and jealousy
> this became the major theme associated with him.
>
Part (at least) of the disagreement between the surrealists and Dali was
based on the way that Dali did not act within the definition of surrealism -
look at Breton's manifestoes and see how many of the definitions he offers
that were broken by Dali. You also have to consider the political aspect of
surrealism; Dali went against this, to the other extreme in some cases;
since Surrealism was based at least in part on a political view, and since
Dali actively turned against this political view, it is clear that he cannot
be considered a surrealist from that point.
> It's as though Newton's occultism was to estrange him from the
> scientists of that time and they were to declare that he didn't practice
> physics yet continued to praise and practice work based on his laws and
> calculus. If such an event occured, then a latter generation might
> decide that the latter work wasn't science, but earlier work would
> remain among the most important and formative.
>
I do not believe that Dali's later work was any lesser for his not being
part of surrealism; it was a different form, in the same way that Picasso
had a surrealist phase but wasn't entirely a surrealist, or that Artaud was
a firm upholder of surrealism during the early years, but was decidedly not
a surrealist later on. Breton's firm hand on what constiuted surrealism had
some part to play in this, but the manifestoes of surrealism had been
written before, and the artists I mention above actively chose to move away
from the values of surrealism defined within these manifestoes.
> If Dali is declared (as is the desire of some) completely
> nonsurrealistic then much of the key work of the early and mid thirties
> must be rejected since it's based on his techniques and some earlier
> (post dada) acts must also be rejected. The roots of surrealism itself
> are cutoff to mantain ideological purity.
I disagree that Dali, like others who were part of the surrealist movement
for a time, was completely nonsurrealistic; I thought I'd made that point
before, but I'm happy to state it again.
>
> Like it or not Dali was an influence of major importance.
I agree completely.
In "What is
> Surrelism" Breton basically states that it's Dali not him who is
> reinvigorating the movement.
And in the "second manifesto", "political position of surrealism" and "on
surrealism and its living works", Breton gives much the same claim to (among
others) Jarry, Chirico, Eluard, Péret, Aragon, Ernst, and even Picasso. It
shows that Breton liked to mention other artists. ;-)
This can't be changed, just as despite
> Stalin's efforts, the role of Trotsky in the Russian revolution can't be
> denied. One reason I have been and remain appaled by this group is it's
> tendency for totaltarian ideology. Dali must be completely wrong and
> forever evil.
I disagree with that position. Dali, in his own right, can be considered a
great artist. I enjoy his work. I do not believe that in his later work,
that he was a surrealist.
He can't be the giant and hero of surrealism who faltered
> and was corrupted. History must be rewritten.
>
Faltered? Corrupted? Dali chose the path he wandered down.
> But it can't be: It speaks forever in "What Is Surrelism?"
>
> I would advise the people in this group to read it.
>
I have, and enjoyed it immensely.
Andrea Chen
>
> Brandon Freels <b.j.f...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:j4Eh6.4505$X61.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > They're also a boring read. Ever read any? Besides, surrealism doesn't
> > attempt to *destroy* rationalism, but rather refashion it. The point is to
> > kick rationalism out of the driver's seat and stick 'um in the passanger's
> > seat, or maybe in the trunk.
> >
> >
I think this is a valid approach. Surrealism often strived to release
the uncontrolled flows, then looked at the result, putting together
ideas to dirct the next roll of dice.
>
> To keep the worms in the can marked Dali happy with the sunlight streaking
> in, this was another of the major points of contention between him and
> Breton; whereas Breton and the surrealists wanted to dally with reason and
> unreason, bringing the two close together so that they were one and the
> same, Dali wanted to increase the gap between them, favouring unreason.
>
An interesting analysis. I wonder however if it wasn't so much a
favoring of unreason. In many cases the dichotomy is false and a result
of accepting social norms. Most people don't use much reason, they
follow conventions and use the icon of reason to justify themselves.
Rebels who buy into this socially driven example of the paranoic
critical method thus find themselves rejecting "reason" though at least
in part their rejection is based on analysis of the situation, at a
minimum "this is supposed to be good, but it feels lousy to me."
Dali delghted in uncoinventional forms, but like conventional forms
practice makes these "safe."
Andrea Chen
>
> Rather than a second wave of surrealism, I'd approach Dali's work as
> something other than surrealism; rather than following on from surrealism,
> what Dali did was create something different to surrealism.
>
At this point you will differ from Breton who is claiming that Dali's
approach was crucial to the development of Surrealism from the early to
mid thirties. At a personal level you may reject this period or parts
of it, but to claim that they are "different" from surrealism becomes
overly exclusive. I would argue that an individual working from Dali's
theory could legitimately pusue a development of surrealism.
> Of course I do; Dali himself described it as "irrational knowledge based on
> a delirium of interpretation" and further that it was a way of finding
> different images within a single work. It wasn't entirely original either -
> see Ernst's frottage work for a similar idea.
>
In many respects none of it is original. There are always strands and
pieces that others do. What Dali provided was a way of stating what
people were doing. Burroughs (who I am willing to accept as a
surrealist) extends the concept with language as virus.
A key component, obvious on one level, but often pushed aside unless
noted was the aspect of paranoic critical method which involved taking
these inner visions and bringing them to the surface, making them
socially conscious, memes in todays buzztalk. So much seems obvious in
retrospect, but I believe that Dali's expounding acted as a unifying
factor that helped direct the surrealist approach of that time. At a
minimum it provided an idea which allowed the varying experiments to be
grouped.
> And in the "second manifesto", "political position of surrealism" and "on
> surrealism and its living works", Breton gives much the same claim to (among
> others) Jarry, Chirico, Eluard, Péret, Aragon, Ernst, and even Picasso. It
> shows that Breton liked to mention other artists. ;-)
>
However he does not give them the role in definining the theoretical
structure of that period he gives to Dali. He essentially says Dali has
reinvigorated the movement and that his method can be applied to all
things. At least by my reading. However if you disagree then all it
means is that we have a number of general concepts (startegies) crucial
to surrealism, each remains crucial to surrealism.
> I do not believe that in his later work,
> that he was a surrealist.
>
I agreed with this. But I argued that for a period his work was crucial
in defining and developing surrealism. Humans don't necessarily remain
i categories. From roughly 1930 to (dates differ) Dali *was* a
surrealist. The work and ideas are surrealistic and remain so.
> Faltered? Corrupted? Dali chose the path he wandered down.
>
Now we need to put the argument in the social context of this group. A
number of people (some still here) have ferventkly argued that Dali
*never was* a surrealist, they dislike him and reject *all* that he
did. I argue that while at certain periods Dali was not a surrealist
during a certain period he was and that those ideas and works remain
part of the "canon."
I also argue that if one rejects this (as has been done in this group)
then the surrealism of others (including Breton) who claimed to be
influenced also becomes questionable.
I believe that one can develop ideas and methods of Dali from lets say
1934 and legitimately claim to be a surrealist. I do not claim that one
*has* to do so, one can even reject these on a personal level, but my
argument was in part not directed towards you, but towards old debates.
Another one is whether or not Taoist ideas are allowable in surrealism.
We do know that in the early years of surrealism (pre party) that many
became obsessed with occult themes. We also know that in the late
forties Breton became increasingly entranced by the Lao Tzu, regarded it
as central and quoted it and other Taoist works. According to the logic
that some have pursued here this is irrelevant and that any connecting
of Taoism to surrealism ceases to be surrealist. I will also note (and
I take this personally) that some rejections of Taoism (especially
cythera, but to an extent Dale) have showed complete contempt for
Chinese culture. arguing that it has *nothing* of value. There has also
been a complete rejection of the claim that Taoist modes of thinking
(the bamboo bending before the wind or Mao's when the enemy advance we
retreat, when the enemy stops we harass, when the enemy retreats we
advance) has any non superstitious or religious use. These statements
have been made as absolutes.
My position on them remains the same. One does *not* have to accept
Dali's concepts or use any ideas of Taoism, but that *some* of these can
legitimately fit within the framework of surrealism.
Beyond this I would argue that developments of dali (during a certain
period) do give validity to the claim of surrealism far more legfitimate
than Barrett's claim that to be a surrealist one must be a member of the
surrealist project and one knows ones a member of the project because
other surrealists recognize one as such. I dislike such subjective
methods because there are no criteria. A year ago Barret, dale and
Cythera claimed Brandon was a surrealist, now they say he's not. Dale
gas gone so far to justify this (echoing the thought virus Nik) by
claiming that Brandon has too much devotion to Breton.
I am willing to allow anyone to be a surrealist as long s they can make
plausible claims that their work is connected to *some* not necessarily
all of the trends in documented surrealist history. Even if I dislike
or reject some of these approaches if one can make a reasonable argument
that they are consistent developments of elements of some importance.
For this position I have been savagely attacked and I must admit that on
some occassions I responded to the baiting.
My position on Dali and Surrealism is that *some* of his work is
surrealist and that *some* developments based on this work can also be
surrealist. That Dali was other things is also true and that cetain
develpments of his work are non surrealist is also true.
Brandon Freels
> Of course I do; Dali himself described it as "irrational knowledge based
on
> a delirium of interpretation" and further that it was a way of finding
> different images within a single work. It wasn't entirely original
either -
> see Ernst's frottage work for a similar idea.
I wrote about this in section 3.2 of the FAQ. (yahoo! First time I've been
able to say that!)
> Have you read any Robert Anton Wilson, by any chance? If not, please do, I
> think you'll enjoy it.
I know the question wasn't directed towards me but I've been thinking about
reading some of his work. Can you (or anyone) explain some of what he's
about.
Nikolaus Maack
> And in the "second manifesto", "political position of surrealism" and "on
> surrealism and its living works", Breton gives much the same claim to (among
> others) Jarry, Chirico, Eluard, Péret, Aragon, Ernst, and even Picasso. It
> shows that Breton liked to mention other artists. ;-)
Some biographers of Breton have suggested that he liked to grab artists,
and incorporate them into the surrealist movement in order to give the
movement more power.
For example -- is it not odd that Dali more or less showed zero interest
in politics and some interest in religion when he was an active surrealist
member? Of course he was an interesting and exciting painter, which might
be why Breton was willing to overlook Dali's other "flaws". While being
indulgent of Dali, Breton was kicking others out of the movement for not
being "communist" enough.
Anyone who says Dali isn't a surrealist because he was 1) religious and 2)
had the wrong politics is rewriting history. Dali was that way even when
he was a member in good standing.
The reason Dali was booted out of the movement was because he committed
the ultimate sin -- he was getting more popular and acquiring more
influence and power than Breton. Questioning Breton's authority was why
most surrealists got booted out of the movement. When Dali got too
powerful, Breton said, "Hey, wait a minute! You're religious!" Like this
was a big surprise. Bye bye, Dali.
It amuses me greatly that this backfired on Breton. Dali went off, took
the surrealism name with him, and changed the art world. Dali effectively
"stole" the movement, turning it into a farcical sideshow.
Dali was an awesome painter and a self-promoting egomaniac. Breton was a
good poet and a totalitarian prick preaching freedom of the mind.
And as for Picasso being a surrealist -- that's just laughable. Breton,
as usual, saw an artist getting some influence and power, and tried to
hitch his little red wagon to Picasso's gravy train.
"That Picasso guy you all like so much? He's on our team!"
I agree with Andrea's interpretation of Dali being the "second wave" of
surrealism. Dali's path leads away from automatism, towards creating
planned art meant to startle the viewer into a dream-state. Looking at a
Dali work is looking into a dream that has become real. This, to me,
seems like a perfectly reasonable path, and one I much prefer to all the
automatism foolishness.
This is why we should probably talk of Bretonian surrealism and Dalian
surrealism. The former is all about automatism. The latter is about
carefully constructed work meant to startle the rational mind.
Nik
The Lemming
Andrea Chen <fallin...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3A8841...@earthlink.net...
> At this point you will differ from Breton
well, I *am* a different person to Breton... ;-)
who is claiming that Dali's
> approach was crucial to the development of Surrealism from the early to
> mid thirties.
He later revised this opinion - was this due to hindsight, or due to
petulance or righteous anger at the direction that Dali had taken?
At a personal level you may reject this period or parts
> of it, but to claim that they are "different" from surrealism becomes
> overly exclusive. I would argue that an individual working from Dali's
> theory could legitimately pusue a development of surrealism.
>
>
I would say that while Dali accepted and followed the precepts of the
surrealist manifesto, he was a surrealist, or did a very good impersonation
of one. ;-) When he later broke with the surrealist manifesto, and in some
cases took a diametrically opposed stance, he was no longer a surrealist; if
one followed Dali's surrealist phase and took from that, then I would agree
that one could legitimately consider oneself a surrealist, though with the
proviso that it would be a very strange surrealist that took only from one
source when the surrealists as a group had so many strands. If, however, one
followed Dali's later work and took from that, I do not see how one could
call oneself a surrealist with any legitimacy; it is the surrealist nature
of the work that lends itself to influence rather than the person.
>
> In many respects none of it is original. There are always strands and
> pieces that others do. What Dali provided was a way of stating what
> people were doing.
But Dali, in his way, attempted to claim all credit for such. ;-)
> A key component, obvious on one level, but often pushed aside unless
> noted was the aspect of paranoic critical method which involved taking
> these inner visions and bringing them to the surface, making them
> socially conscious, memes in todays buzztalk. So much seems obvious in
> retrospect, but I believe that Dali's expounding acted as a unifying
> factor that helped direct the surrealist approach of that time. At a
> minimum it provided an idea which allowed the varying experiments to be
> grouped.
>
>
I'd agree withthe last sentence here; I don't believe that it had such a
profound influence that it caused the surrealists to define themselves in
Dali's image, but some surrealists certainly took Dali's ideas and
experimented in a similar vein.
>
> However he does not give them the role in definining the theoretical
> structure of that period he gives to Dali. He essentially says Dali has
> reinvigorated the movement and that his method can be applied to all
> things.
My point was that he laid similar claims in later writings concerning other
artists oinvolved with surrealism. Chirico is a good example, since Breton
lauded him later in the 50's as the best that surrealism had to offer at
that time.
At least by my reading. However if you disagree then all it
> means is that we have a number of general concepts (startegies) crucial
> to surrealism, each remains crucial to surrealism.
>
>
Yup, no complaint about that; surealist thought considered many points, and
Dali certainly contributed to some, but avoided others.
> > I do not believe that in his later work,
> > that he was a surrealist.
> >
>
> I agreed with this. But I argued that for a period his work was crucial
> in defining and developing surrealism.
I don't know that I'd consider him crucial; a major part, certainly, but I
believe that surrealism would have continued if Dali had knuckled down at
college and followed the advice of his tutors rather than describing them as
useless and following his own path.
> > Faltered? Corrupted? Dali chose the path he wandered down.
> >
>
> Now we need to put the argument in the social context of this group. A
> number of people (some still here) have ferventkly argued that Dali
> *never was* a surrealist, they dislike him and reject *all* that he
> did. I argue that while at certain periods Dali was not a surrealist
> during a certain period he was and that those ideas and works remain
> part of the "canon."
Because of the greater role that Dali played in the history of art, I would,
like Picasso, put him at the periphery of surrealism. I believe, like you
do, that he played a major part, but because he broke with surrealism, and
because of the great body of work he did that was not considered surrealist,
like Picasso, I would not describe him as a surrealist. Picasso and Dali
both had surrealist phases, but a considerable part of their work, and
certainly work that they were justly famous for, was not surrealist, and so
to include them would be a disservice to both surrealism and to themselves.
Surrealism was a part of what Dali did, but certainly not all; to describe
him as a surrealist would be to deny the effect of the other bodies of work
he created.
>
> I also argue that if one rejects this (as has been done in this group)
> then the surrealism of others (including Breton) who claimed to be
> influenced also becomes questionable.
>
I'm not sure about this point - after all, the surrealists wree influenced
by "primitive" art, Baudelaire, de Sade et al, but I wouldn't say that these
other practioners were surrealist, merely that they influenced surrealism.
> I believe that one can develop ideas and methods of Dali from lets say
> 1934 and legitimately claim to be a surrealist. I do not claim that one
> *has* to do so, one can even reject these on a personal level, but my
> argument was in part not directed towards you, but towards old debates.
>
Anyone can call themselves a surrealist (even Nik ;-)) but it doesn't make
them so, in the same way that anyone could call themselves a Lemming, and
remain a nonLemming.
> Another one is whether or not Taoist ideas are allowable in surrealism.
> We do know that in the early years of surrealism (pre party) that many
> became obsessed with occult themes.
ditto "primitive" art.
We also know that in the late
> forties Breton became increasingly entranced by the Lao Tzu, regarded it
> as central and quoted it and other Taoist works.
Also buddhist works and orientalist works in general.
According to the logic
> that some have pursued here this is irrelevant and that any connecting
> of Taoism to surrealism ceases to be surrealist. I will also note (and
> I take this personally) that some rejections of Taoism (especially
> cythera, but to an extent Dale) have showed complete contempt for
> Chinese culture. arguing that it has *nothing* of value.
Nothing of value in the context of surrealism, or as a whole outside of
surrealism? I must admit to having a soft spot for Cythera, since when I
first delurked here (under the email address of Antonin Artaud ;-)) she
welcomed me and made me feel at home.
There has also
> been a complete rejection of the claim that Taoist modes of thinking
> (the bamboo bending before the wind or Mao's when the enemy advance we
> retreat, when the enemy stops we harass, when the enemy retreats we
> advance) has any non superstitious or religious use. These statements
> have been made as absolutes.
>
any mode of thinking can be used to describe any use if one has the words
and can construct a meaningful argument with them.
> My position on them remains the same. One does *not* have to accept
> Dali's concepts or use any ideas of Taoism, but that *some* of these can
> legitimately fit within the framework of surrealism.
>
I agree.
> Beyond this I would argue that developments of dali (during a certain
> period) do give validity to the claim of surrealism far more legfitimate
> than Barrett's claim that to be a surrealist one must be a member of the
> surrealist project and one knows ones a member of the project because
> other surrealists recognize one as such. I dislike such subjective
> methods because there are no criteria.
hmmm....here I would remain unconvinced; to be described as a surrealist by
others who are acknowledged as surrealists, would, I suggest, hold more
water than someone outside of the group claiming membership when the group
is disdainful of such a claim.
A year ago Barret, dale and
> Cythera claimed Brandon was a surrealist, now they say he's not.
People change. Just this morning I changed my socks, for instance. ;-)
> I am willing to allow anyone to be a surrealist as long s they can make
> plausible claims that their work is connected to *some* not necessarily
> all of the trends in documented surrealist history. Even if I dislike
> or reject some of these approaches if one can make a reasonable argument
> that they are consistent developments of elements of some importance.
>
Agreed.
> For this position I have been savagely attacked and I must admit that on
> some occassions I responded to the baiting.
>
I hope you don't consider myself to haev been savagely attacking you here so
far.
> My position on Dali and Surrealism is that *some* of his work is
> surrealist and that *some* developments based on this work can also be
> surrealist. That Dali was other things is also true and that cetain
> develpments of his work are non surrealist is also true.
>
agreed.
The Lemming
> I wrote about this in section 3.2 of the FAQ. (yahoo! First time I've
been
> able to say that!)
>
hihihi..Yay! Now, about Picasso, and whether he was surrealist enough to be
canon.... ;-)
> > Have you read any Robert Anton Wilson, by any chance? If not, please do,
I
> > think you'll enjoy it.
>
> I know the question wasn't directed towards me but I've been thinking
about
> reading some of his work. Can you (or anyone) explain some of what he's
> about.
>
>
Whether I can explain what he writes about is for others to judge, not me.
;-)
He's written a large body of work, some fiction, some factual, some blurring
the boundaries. HE was a close friend of Tim Leary, and shared some similar
views - he echoes what Leary says about the SMI2LE project (Space Migration,
Intelligence Increase, Life Extension), writes about guerilla ontology in
certain books, talks of psychology and censorship in others. His fiction is
wildly funny, if you like the stuff he writes about (Vagueness is my middle
name). Some of what he writes about concerns the notion of reality, the emic
and etic realities wherein each individual has their own reality tunnels by
which they see the world, defined by their bias. I've detected certain parts
of his work in conjunction with ideas from buddhism and sufism about losing
the ego and considering that one's opinions are just that, one's opinions,
rather than an absolute law that governs the world. If you'd like to read
his work, then I'd suggest reading the Illuminatus trilogy , his major work
of fiction, to see whether his writing style suits or not, and if so, try
some of his more factually based work such as The New Inquisition, which
concerns censorship and mass psychology in a similar way to Wilhelm Reich,
Quantum Psychology, Prometheus Rising and his slightly more autobiographical
works in the Cosmic Trigger series. His next book is on one of his (and my)
favourite authors, James Joyce.
Brandon Freels
> This is why we should probably talk of Bretonian surrealism and Dalian
> surrealism. The former is all about automatism. The latter is about
> carefully constructed work meant to startle the rational mind.
Again, which automatism? Dali's technique of Paranoic-Crit, just like
automatic writing and drawing, relies on the the mind in its "pure psychic"
automatic state. How can the technique function otherwise?
I'm not even sure if your statement that the young Dali wanted to "shock"
his audience is historically correct. From my knowledge it isn't. Can you
provide any info to support your claim?
Andrea Chen
>
> > Have you read any Robert Anton Wilson, by any chance? If not, please do, I
> > think you'll enjoy it.
>
> I know the question wasn't directed towards me but I've been thinking about
> reading some of his work. Can you (or anyone) explain some of what he's
> about.
His triology is about spinning all sorts of conspiracy theories together
into a wacky world view, he worked at Playboy in the sixties and
collected letters from the kooks. One of the goals of neu neutopia was
the same thing, an integrated mythology, in a Usenet context a logical
evelopment of the plutonium atom within which when combined with the
forces of Serdar cann lead to the amazing flame giant where we struggle
to understand the teachings of John Wisdom so that Jack Sarfatti can
build star gates through which the space cadets can enter other branes
(parallel universes.) Of course it's a bit more complicated that, some
see it entirely differently. For example some say the center is the
taoist between dance and yogi the telepathic dog (who has is own
newsgroup.) This of course depends on whether or not you believe in
Happy net.
I've channeled your question to the alleged followers of RAW, the cult
known as discordians along with a religious group which will help
further confuse things as a public service. This is what makes America
great!
Hopefully this will help in the post post Surrealism FAQ. Just be
careful if someone says meow, it means trouble and is completely off
topic.
The Lemming
>
> Some biographers of Breton have suggested that he liked to grab artists,
> and incorporate them into the surrealist movement in order to give the
> movement more power.
>
Without the tacit agreement of those artists though? "Hey, Rothko, you're
one of us" "Fuck off". In order for those artists to be seen as part of
surrealism, then surely they would have had to agree to such.
> For example -- is it not odd that Dali more or less showed zero interest
> in politics and some interest in religion when he was an active surrealist
> member? Of course he was an interesting and exciting painter, which might
> be why Breton was willing to overlook Dali's other "flaws". While being
> indulgent of Dali, Breton was kicking others out of the movement for not
> being "communist" enough.
At the time, Dali was involved with Edward James, and attempted to get him
to buy fighter planes for the Republicans during the civil war; that says he
wasn't political? I would also disagree that he was overly catholic at the
time - certainly he made little or no mention of it in his works, and in the
talks he gave at that time.
>
> Anyone who says Dali isn't a surrealist because he was 1) religious and 2)
> had the wrong politics is rewriting history. Dali was that way even when
> he was a member in good standing.
>
He may have been, but if so, he kept it to himself. He certainly didn't
announce the fact as he did later.
> The reason Dali was booted out of the movement was because he committed
> the ultimate sin -- he was getting more popular and acquiring more
> influence and power than Breton. Questioning Breton's authority was why
> most surrealists got booted out of the movement.
This theory certainly has some merit, however, and suggest at least some
truth.
When Dali got too
> powerful, Breton said, "Hey, wait a minute! You're religious!" Like this
> was a big surprise. Bye bye, Dali.
>
> It amuses me greatly that this backfired on Breton. Dali went off, took
> the surrealism name with him, and changed the art world. Dali effectively
> "stole" the movement, turning it into a farcical sideshow.
>
hmm...in the eyes of some, perhaps. In others, they saw Dali as something
other than surrealist, especially when his later works didn't display the
surrealist tendencies that his earlier works did.
> Dali was an awesome painter and a self-promoting egomaniac. Breton was a
> good poet and a totalitarian prick preaching freedom of the mind.
>
> And as for Picasso being a surrealist -- that's just laughable. Breton,
> as usual, saw an artist getting some influence and power, and tried to
> hitch his little red wagon to Picasso's gravy train.
>
> "That Picasso guy you all like so much? He's on our team!"
>
And Picasso protested this? Bearing in mind the work that Picasso did with
Miro on primitivism, he certainly didn't mind working with the surrealists
and having his works hung at surrealist exhibitions.
> I agree with Andrea's interpretation of Dali being the "second wave" of
> surrealism. Dali's path leads away from automatism, towards creating
> planned art meant to startle the viewer into a dream-state.
The two paths of surrealism had existed before Dali though; Tanguy and
Magritte especially worked in a similar veristic style, as opposed to the
automatists like Miro and Masson, and this dichotomy had existed since
Breton first called the group to order.
Looking at a
> Dali work is looking into a dream that has become real. This, to me,
> seems like a perfectly reasonable path, and one I much prefer to all the
> automatism foolishness.
>
Hey, if you don't understand automatism, just say so... ;-)
> This is why we should probably talk of Bretonian surrealism and Dalian
> surrealism. The former is all about automatism.
Not all. Or were Yves Tanguy paintings influenced by Dali before Tanguy had
ever seen Dali's work, or heard him? He painted in a similar "realist" style
to Dali's work and yet was included in the early surrealist days, and indeed
to the later days of the movement under Breton.
The latter is about
> carefully constructed work meant to startle the rational mind.
Some of of the latter, I'd say...
>
> Nik
Hexar
Andrea Chen wrote in message <3A885F...@earthlink.net>...
>
>I've channeled your question to the alleged followers of RAW, the
cult
>known as discordians along with a religious group which will help
>further confuse things as a public service. This is what makes
America
>great!
>
Reverend Doctor Pope Swami Hell-yeah Heretic Hexar le Saipe
Velvet Earth Machine Cult
hexar(at)minister(dot)com
Machzin Sero
Orthodox..discordian.
Unorthodox discordian is even worse.
--
The Zero Machine - Machzin Sero
Primest Buckateer of Discord
Cosmic Rythmizer
[a]T.o.E.
Andrea Chen
>
> He later revised this opinion - was this due to hindsight, or due to
> petulance or righteous anger at the direction that Dali had taken?
>
I would suspect the latter played a role, but it's indifferent to my
perspective. Surrealism went through a number of stages each with a
different focus. Freudianism did the same, for a while Jung was a
member, then no longer, but some of his work within the contexts of
Freuds development were important. Historically one has to ask which
Fredianism, which surrealism? I personally believe the initial ideas
remain of value even if others shifted into place.
If one says that Breton evolved the only true path and that each stage
was an evolution of the other, then we are left with the last stage of
his history. An individual quoting Lao Tzu who renders much of the
power and insight of the twenties and thirties irrelevant.
>if
> one followed Dali's surrealist phase and took from that, then I would agree
> that one could legitimately consider oneself a surrealist, though with the
> proviso that it would be a very strange surrealist that took only from one
> source when the surrealists as a group had so many strands.
Agreed. I never claimed that it could or should be the only source,
only that it remains *a* legitimate.
If, however, one
> followed Dali's later work and took from that, I do not see how one could
> call oneself a surrealist with any legitimacy;
Unless one can make a compelling argument that surrealism split into
competing strands, one led by Dali. I won't, so agreed.
> But Dali, in his way, attempted to claim all credit for such. ;-)
>
Which is nonsense. I will not attempt to defend everything. I would do
that for nobody. All individuals have peculiarities. And these lead to
emotional disputes which lose reality. Dali says "I did everything."
Someone answers "you did nothing." Neither true. One can list a long
line of flaws in Breton.
> I don't know that I'd consider him crucial; a major part, certainly, but I
> believe that surrealism would have continued if Dali had knuckled down at
> college and followed the advice of his tutors rather than describing them as
> useless and following his own path.
The question is whether or not surrealism would have followed the same
path. Actually I think it might have. I think Dali articulated things
that surrealism was alreadyt doing, I think they are a logical
development from the early movement. But the fact is that he
articulated them and gave examples. Personally I think that this is a
crucial step, one which is now common place, obvious. Dali said I will
take my dreams and shove them in your face, make them a part of
reality. Breton wanted the "we" and I think he was correct, but with
Dali it conmes down to "I." This doesn't mean that he didn't help
develop the idea of how the "we" could do so.
I personally think from there you have a variety of pieces been built,
people like Burroughs and language as virus within a surrealist
concept. McLuhan and many others with relevant thoughts.
are no criteria.
>
> hmmm....here I would remain unconvinced; to be described as a surrealist by
> others who are acknowledged as surrealists, would, I suggest, hold more
> water than someone outside of the group claiming membership when the group
> is disdainful of such a claim.
>
Ah, but here is the gist. There is no evidence that Dale or barrett are
acknowledged as surrealist by many others. Indeed the Chicago School
doesn't think so. It becomes fighting factions. I would prefer
individuals to establish lineage by drawing from the historical
surrealism and explaining how their work develops it. I would tend to
be liberal in approach, defining subcategories which don't include the
shifting of society as technical (as artistic) surrealism.
I disagree with Brandon on a number of things, severely on some. His
notions of surrealism differ in fundamental ways from mine, but he
values the idea of surrealism, he has taken various stances in it's
history, shifted out of some (such as strong Marxism) and attempts to
develop his thought in that "paradigm(s)." It is unlikely that he and I
would ever be in a movement together, but he has a right to call himself
a surrealist. Unlike Nik he does attempt to develop himself in it's
context.
Breton is dead, during his life he became the center around which the
rough definition of surrealism clustered. At this time many artists use
the term surrealist to define themselves, many critics use the word to
define certain works. They work from differing definitions. I find
some credible, some questionable. For good or bad there is *no one*
authority, though some are more legitimate than others.
The "surrealist project" consists of a few people. On this group it
considered itself the final authority on who or what is surrealist. If
you want to accept this authority, that's fine.
If however you (like Brandon) are tossed out, I will (based on your
obvious knowledge of the subject) consider you surrealist if you so
chose to be termed.
I have tried to show (through guerilla theatre or performance art if you
will) that the battle to own the "meme" called "surrealist" is futile.
In the popular mind it's already escaped control, running wild, both
subversive longing and tool of control. In more rigorous terms (which I
support) there are a wide varity of interesting approaches some in
fundamental conflict. I will accept any of them as surrealist so long
as they can plausibly show connections to key ideas of Breton in some
period.
> I hope you don't consider myself to haev been savagely attacking you here so
> far.
>
Of course not. You haven't attacked me at all. We have somewhat
differing views about surrealism and may feel that in certain aspects
the other is incorrect. However you disagree with me by showing
examples and explaining your reading. You may feel that my
understanding of surrealism is incorrect. You may be right. Since you
attempt to justify your position there is IMO more validity to your
position than if there were a hundred of you chanting. As such you may
persuade me.
Crgre Jvyyneq
GMT]
>> > Have you read any Robert Anton Wilson, by any chance? If
>> > not, please do, I think you'll enjoy it.
>> I know the question wasn't directed towards me but I've
>> been thinking about reading some of his work. Can you (or
>> anyone) explain some of what he's about.
>His triology
I too wonder if Robert Anton Wilson is some kind of
cryptotribologist and what is he stopping now??????
--
Crgre http://www.drizzle.com/~petew
"Does your imaginary friend make you invisible too? Who
notices?" -- Ric Carter
little toad
"Hexar" <hexar...@minister.com> wrote in message
news:969psm$a4d$1...@news.datasync.com...
:
: Andrea Chen wrote in message <3A885F...@earthlink.net>...
: >
: >I've channeled your question to the alleged followers of RAW, the
: cult
: >known as discordians along with a religious group which will help
: >further confuse things as a public service. This is what makes
: America
: >great!
: >
: Only Orthodox Discordians follow RAW. And I despise them.
raw is war!
devon -- get the tables!!!1!
little toad
Mikal 606
"Crgre Jvyyneq" <crgre+...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:Xns90469BA28F...@209.155.56.93...
> [Andrea Chen, alt.religion.kibology, Mon, 12 Feb 2001 22:17:21
> GMT]
> >Brandon Freels wrote:
> >> > Have you read any Robert Anton Wilson, by any chance? If
> >> > not, please do, I think you'll enjoy it.
> >> I know the question wasn't directed towards me but I've
> >> been thinking about reading some of his work. Can you (or
> >> anyone) explain some of what he's about.
> >His triology
>
> I too wonder if Robert Anton Wilson is some kind of
> cryptotribologist and what is he stopping now??????
>
The other way of stopping, orbviously!
You see cregreh, when scraps wants to ``run through the wilde universe" then
He imagines that all the planets in our solar sytem are just earths after
the outcome of particularly bad nights of Einstein gambling.
Every possibility gets represented!
Dont perihelion your bones.
Hexar
Machzin Sero wrote in message ...
>Those two words should be shot from a cannon into a flaming pool of
shit.
>Orthodox..discordian.
>Unorthodox discordian is even worse.
>
guys aren't being Discordian right! It says in the Illuminatus Trilogy
blah blah blah blah blah fucking blah."
Reverend Doctor Hexar le Saipe
Velvet Earth Machine Cult
hexar(at)minister(dot)com
"Nixon was crucified as a Criminal Spendthrift with the ethics of a
snake.
Some people will tell you that Bill Clinton fits that description far
better than Bush or Nixon -- and they are not entirely wrong. Nixon
stabbed his Enemies in the back, but Clinton did it to his Friends.
His lust to inflict Punishment surpassed even Nixon's, and he put more
people in prison than Caligula. He had his own brother locked up & he
refused to pardon his old friend Webb Hubbell. Richard Nixon was a
criminally insane Monster -- Bill Clinton is a black-hearted Swine of
a friend."
(Dr. Hunter S. Thompson: ESPN Page 2)
satchi
Hexar wrote:
>
> Machzin Sero wrote in message ...
> >Those two words should be shot from a cannon into a flaming pool of
> shit.
> >Orthodox..discordian.
> >Unorthodox discordian is even worse.
> >
> You've obviously never encountered an orthodox discordian,
Sure I have, it was right outsider the synagogue.
He was making a terrible noise and instead of a monkey
he had Myopic Brenda sittin' on his shoulder.
Satchi
I'm sure I saw some raw liver in his pocket, as well
http://www.bombhumor.com
meow
Beable van Polasm
> Brandon Freels wrote:
> > > Have you read any Robert Anton Wilson, by any chance? If not, please do, I
> > > think you'll enjoy it.
> >
> > I know the question wasn't directed towards me but I've been thinking about
> > reading some of his work. Can you (or anyone) explain some of what he's
> > about.
>
> His triology is about spinning all sorts of conspiracy theories together
> into a wacky world view,
I think you're all mistaken here. First of all, his last name is spelled
HEINLIEN, not what you put. And Robert Anton HEINLEIN writes books about
spaceships and suchlike, not conspiracy theories.
> he worked at Playboy in the sixties and collected letters from the
> kooks.
No he didn't. He was in the Royal Navy during World War 2, single handedly
sinking dozens of Italian battleships using his submarine, the USS Tarpon.
The submarine's crew said he was the best captain they ever had.
Also, he wrote lots of books about Librarianism, which Ayn Rand later
stole all the material from to invent Objectivistism.
I hope this sets the record straight!
cheers
Beable van Polasm
--
"I hate leonardo dacapprio I thin he is a little bitch and a whiner.
I would pay my life savinge to beable to kick his
ass!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" -- Mark Sharpe
http://members.nbci.com/_______/index.html IQC 78189333
The Lemming
> > He later revised this opinion - was this due to hindsight, or due to
> > petulance or righteous anger at the direction that Dali had taken?
> >
>
> I would suspect the latter played a role, but it's indifferent to my
> perspective. Surrealism went through a number of stages each with a
> different focus. Freudianism did the same, for a while Jung was a
> member, then no longer, but some of his work within the contexts of
> Freuds development were important. Historically one has to ask which
> Fredianism, which surrealism? I personally believe the initial ideas
> remain of value even if others shifted into place.
>
Those initial values would be the ones set out in the manifestoes, I'd say;
the people who moved considerably from those ideals moved out of surrealism
and into something other.
> If one says that Breton evolved the only true path and that each stage
> was an evolution of the other, then we are left with the last stage of
> his history. An individual quoting Lao Tzu who renders much of the
> power and insight of the twenties and thirties irrelevant.
>
To be honest, I would add Breton to the list of non-surrealists when his
later work moved away from the values of surrealism. It wouldn't make him a
non-surrealist, just a surrealist that did some non-surrealist work.
> >if
> > one followed Dali's surrealist phase and took from that, then I would
agree
> > that one could legitimately consider oneself a surrealist, though with
the
> > proviso that it would be a very strange surrealist that took only from
one
> > source when the surrealists as a group had so many strands.
>
> Agreed. I never claimed that it could or should be the only source,
> only that it remains *a* legitimate.
:-)
>
> > I don't know that I'd consider him crucial; a major part, certainly, but
I
> > believe that surrealism would have continued if Dali had knuckled down
at
> > college and followed the advice of his tutors rather than describing
them as
> > useless and following his own path.
>
> The question is whether or not surrealism would have followed the same
> path. Actually I think it might have. I think Dali articulated things
> that surrealism was alreadyt doing, I think they are a logical
> development from the early movement. But the fact is that he
> articulated them and gave examples.
True, and agreed.
Personally I think that this is a
> crucial step, one which is now common place, obvious. Dali said I will
> take my dreams and shove them in your face, make them a part of
> reality. Breton wanted the "we" and I think he was correct, but with
> Dali it conmes down to "I." This doesn't mean that he didn't help
> develop the idea of how the "we" could do so.
>
I would still consider that Dali and the surrealists were diverging, with
Dali wanting to widen the gap between reason and unreason, whereas the
surrealists wanted to bring the two closer together until they were
indivisible.
> I personally think from there you have a variety of pieces been built,
> people like Burroughs and language as virus within a surrealist
> concept. McLuhan and many others with relevant thoughts.
>
I haevn't read enough McLuhan to come to any conclusion about him, but I
wouldn't really consider Burroughs a surrealist either - someone who was
profoundly influenced by surrealism, yes, but I think his work was
sufficiently different from that of the surrealists that to label his work
as surrealist would again be insulting both to the surrealists and to
Burroughs.
> > hmmm....here I would remain unconvinced; to be described as a surrealist
by
> > others who are acknowledged as surrealists, would, I suggest, hold more
> > water than someone outside of the group claiming membership when the
group
> > is disdainful of such a claim.
> >
>
> Ah, but here is the gist. There is no evidence that Dale or barrett are
> acknowledged as surrealist by many others.
There is no evidence that a large part of the surrealists out there have
heard of Dale or Barrett. ;-)
Indeed the Chicago School
> doesn't think so. It becomes fighting factions.
Sadly, as many organisations on the left do, the surrealists, with no common
agenda as when Breton was alive, split in recrimination, and countless
off-shoots claiming the one true faith sprang up. Whether this is a bad
thing, since there is now no authoratative group, or whether it is a good
thing, since the conflict can inspire groups to perfom to claim the crown of
surrealism, is another debate.
I would prefer
> individuals to establish lineage by drawing from the historical
> surrealism and explaining how their work develops it.
Sounds like Theraveda buddhism to me. ;-)
I would tend to
> be liberal in approach, defining subcategories which don't include the
> shifting of society as technical (as artistic) surrealism.
>
I think I agree with you here; I'd include them as peripheral surrealists
rather than canonical surrealists though.
> I disagree with Brandon on a number of things, severely on some. His
> notions of surrealism differ in fundamental ways from mine, but he
> values the idea of surrealism, he has taken various stances in it's
> history, shifted out of some (such as strong Marxism) and attempts to
> develop his thought in that "paradigm(s)." It is unlikely that he and I
> would ever be in a movement together, but he has a right to call himself
> a surrealist. Unlike Nik he does attempt to develop himself in it's
> context.
>
> Breton is dead, during his life he became the center around which the
> rough definition of surrealism clustered. At this time many artists use
> the term surrealist to define themselves, many critics use the word to
> define certain works. They work from differing definitions. I find
> some credible, some questionable. For good or bad there is *no one*
> authority, though some are more legitimate than others.
>
Agreed. I cringe at a lot of the use of the word surrealist to describe
various works, especailly when it appears painfully obvious that the person
saying it has never understood, studied or considered surrealism. They've
heard the word used to (inaccurately) descrcibe something else, and choose
to use the word ignorantly of its meaning.
> The "surrealist project" consists of a few people. On this group it
> considered itself the final authority on who or what is surrealist. If
> you want to accept this authority, that's fine.
>
I reject all authorities. :-)
I would consider quite a few of the regular posters here as surrealists;
whether they'd accept me as one is a different matter entirely. No-one here
has attacked me with the venom they reserve for each other yet though, so I
feel that I can't truly be a surrealist. ;-)
> If however you (like Brandon) are tossed out, I will (based on your
> obvious knowledge of the subject) consider you surrealist if you so
> chose to be termed.
>
Would a knowledge of the subject show evidence of being a surrealist, or
just show evidence of having studied surrealism? I could easily study the
Cathars and Albigensians, as I have, but it doesn't make me one. Since the
body of my work is very small, I would probably describe myself more as a
surrealist in training, and since my work is based entirely the written or
oral form, without any plastic or physical form, I would place myself more
in the traditions of Aragon, Eluard or Péret, even Artaud, rather than those
of the painters.
> I have tried to show (through guerilla theatre or performance art if you
> will) that the battle to own the "meme" called "surrealist" is futile.
I wouldn't consider it futile; as I said above, the conflict between
different groups laying claim to surrealism can encourage those groups
striving to claim the crown by increasing their output, and working to
surrealist definitions in order that their audience(s) applaud and confer
the title upon them.
> In the popular mind it's already escaped control, running wild, both
> subversive longing and tool of control.
The popular mind is not always one to be feted though. Think how ignorant
the average persn is, then consider that half of the people are MORE
ignorant than that.
In more rigorous terms (which I
> support) there are a wide varity of interesting approaches some in
> fundamental conflict. I will accept any of them as surrealist so long
> as they can plausibly show connections to key ideas of Breton in some
> period.
>
Agreed.
>
> > I hope you don't consider myself to haev been savagely attacking you
here so
> > far.
> >
>
>
> Of course not. You haven't attacked me at all. We have somewhat
> differing views about surrealism and may feel that in certain aspects
> the other is incorrect.
I think perhaps we disagree on the relevance of certain parts, or the amount
of influence they confer, but I wouldn't say that, following my opinions,
yours were incorrect, merely that definitions we use are of a different
standard. The major points we appear to agree on, and the other points could
be explained by my, and perhaps your, inability to effectively describe
those opinions.
However you disagree with me by showing
> examples and explaining your reading. You may feel that my
> understanding of surrealism is incorrect.
Nope, I would consider your understanding of surrealism to be your
understanding of surrealism. I would understand mine as mine; whether either
of us is correct or incorrect is another matter entirely. ;-)
You may be right. Since you
> attempt to justify your position there is IMO more validity to your
> position than if there were a hundred of you chanting. As such you may
> persuade me.
>
You man you didn't see the other 99 Lemmings behind me? Look, over here...
*drone of a hundred Lemmings chanting softly*
Nikolaus Maack
> Without the tacit agreement of those artists though? "Hey, Rothko, you're
> one of us" "Fuck off". In order for those artists to be seen as part of
> surrealism, then surely they would have had to agree to such.
Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that Breton grabbed artists off the street
and forced them to be surrealists. I meant to suggest he wooed them into
his camp, and used their fame to make his movement (the movement really
did "belong" to him) have more power.
> At the time, Dali was involved with Edward James, and attempted to get him
> to buy fighter planes for the Republicans during the civil war; that says he
> wasn't political? I would also disagree that he was overly catholic at the
> time - certainly he made little or no mention of it in his works, and in the
> talks he gave at that time.
Perhaps the texts I read didn't do Dali justice. In any case, whether he
was apolitical or incorrectly political in his salad days doesn't make
much difference. He had the "wrong" politics and the "wrong" religious
beliefs, but he wasn't booted out. Why? Because he could paint.
> He may have been, but if so, he kept it to himself. He certainly didn't
> announce the fact as he did later.
Could be that he got tired of keeping this stuff under wraps in order to
appease Breton's tyrannical judgement. He starts speaking out, Breton
starts freaking out. I do recall Dali saying something about seeing
Breton as a father figure worthy of worship -- until he eventually got
over that. Then Dali worshipped himself.
> The two paths of surrealism had existed before Dali though; Tanguy and
> Magritte especially worked in a similar veristic style, as opposed to the
> automatists like Miro and Masson, and this dichotomy had existed since
> Breton first called the group to order.
I'm delighted to hear you say this. Most of the surrealists in this
newsgroup seem to refuse to ackowledge the "two branches" -- one realist,
one automatic -- insisting that the only "true surrealism" is automatism.
And I agree, there were realists around before Dali. It's just Dali's
name is up in lights, so it's easier to refer to Dalian surrealism, than,
say, Magrittian or Tangian surrealism.
Machzin Sero
any discordian who titles himself for the sake of definition, at that point
ceases to be a discordian.
names, and titles limit by definition, some of us, think this idea is
shit..and spit on it. :spits on some idea:
some would say this is why we choose sacred holy names..and magickal titles
resounding absolute and utter nonsense. if one proclaims some grand thing in
name and title..he is no more a follower of eris and discord, than hitler
was a follower of matza balls and low dresses.
Andrea Chen
>
> Would a knowledge of the subject show evidence of being a surrealist, or
> just show evidence of having studied surrealism? I could easily study the
> Cathars and Albigensians, as I have, but it doesn't make me one.
I did specify if you chose to call yourself one. This is based on a
sense of your integrity. If you are aware and respectful of the history
and try to continue it. There are a lot of variables involved.
Since the
> body of my work is very small, I would probably describe myself more as a
> surrealist in training, and since my work is based entirely the written or
> oral form, without any plastic or physical form, I would place myself more
> in the traditions of Aragon, Eluard or Péret, even Artaud, rather than those
> of the painters.
>
This pretty much establishes what you're trying to do. If you chose to
class your work as surrealist, then I would respect the effort. I might
question the work, but there is enough sincerity and understanding there
for me to try and accept your self definition (if it's indeed
surrealist,) rather than undermine identity. And it's not because I'm
particularly nice, I have qustioned the surrealist identity of some in
this group (including Brandon at times) because I didn't see connection
between their actual work and actual surrealism. I've revised my
opinion of Brandon not because of any "artistic work, but because he is
making some attempt to understand the movement and produce documents for
it's propagation. This effort at a FAQ decided me.
>
> > In the popular mind it's already escaped control, running wild, both
> > subversive longing and tool of control.
>
> The popular mind is not always one to be feted though. Think how ignorant
> the average persn is, then consider that half of the people are MORE
> ignorant than that.
>
The statement was an observation not a celebration, I touched on
potentially positive as well as negative (a set of superficial or
formulistic rebellions that actually strengthen the existing view.)
Now one of my favorite definitions (I have several) definitions of
surrealism focuses on the idea of shifting the views of society through
making conscious realities which were unconscious. To do this
successfully, one must study the audience in which one acts, one must
also act within the realities, finding what works, building techniques
which challenge the advertisors etc. One may dislike what is (eg.
popular conceptions of surrealism,) but this debate rapidly becomes
academic, the issue is how the things that are important are going to be
propagated, how does the social mind behave, how to shift it? As such
surrealism as a word is a minimal importance, new names and movements
(in theory) can be sprouted as necessary. I wouldn't regard
"surrealism" as commonly understood as "correct" (which is important in
debates like this,) but noting how once released the ideas, techniques
etc. developed is important. Using them (even if imperfect) to twist
things in other diections is also a possibility.
> You man you didn't see the other 99 Lemmings behind me? Look, over here...
>
> *drone of a hundred Lemmings chanting softly*
>
Sorry. I brought the lemmings. Note I crossposted to a couple of other
groups. It becomes a form of collaborative writing. Some of the people
in these groups are quite good, results are mixed, but if things go
right you can get threads which are brilliant. There are whle
subcultures on the net which share features with the dadaist. Many
include highly educated people who like a touch of absurdity. You might
want to play with them. The results are often more lively that
"artistic" attempts at group prose and more mind boggling.
barrett john erickson
news:96b08r$h7$4...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> [...]
> Those initial values would be the ones set out in the manifestoes, I'd
say;
> the people who moved considerably from those ideals moved out of
surrealism
> and into something other.
but there is a problem with this line of thinking...
"surrealism", as the aggregate activity of all surrealists, is a process --
a _movement toward_ "that certain point of the mind" -- a living and
evolving entity. as such, its tracts and manifestoes are specific moments
of that movement.
at its core, what we find constant in surrealists from the beginning (even
before the first manifesto) is the continuing and total, intuitive
commitment to waging the "revolution of the mind" that will enable the full
integration of the liberated imagination into the reality of everyday
living.
and this is the "initial value" of which you speak.
the problem some have with understanding the "politics of surrealism" is
that they fail to understand that they grow organically (within the context
of their time) from this deep "initial value" that is actually more of a
"strange attractor" than a specific point.
so when the subject of Dali and Aragon come up, some will never understand
that what divorced them from "surrealism" wasn't a purge by the
authoritarian Breton, but their own actions that revealed their growing
distance from this "initial value" toward something that compromised that
surrealist revolution.
their separation from the surrealist strange attractor, if you will.
>
> > If one says that Breton evolved the only true path and that each stage
> > was an evolution of the other, then we are left with the last stage of
> > his history. An individual quoting Lao Tzu who renders much of the
> > power and insight of the twenties and thirties irrelevant.
> >
>
> To be honest, I would add Breton to the list of non-surrealists when his
> later work moved away from the values of surrealism. It wouldn't make him
a
> non-surrealist, just a surrealist that did some non-surrealist work.
i think words lead us astray when we speak of the "values of surrealism" as
if this was a bundle of specific attitudes (attributes) held by someone
(presumably some held tighter than others), rather than an innate life
imperative, intuitively recognized when _discovered_ in spontaneous action.
while i agree, Breton in the 50's took a path that led him away from where
_i_ think the greatest potential for surrealist investigation was to be
found (the implications of quantum mechanics and cognitive research),
Breton's understanding of, and commitment to the surrealist revolution never
changed. he just failed, in my opinion, to remain at its "point".
> [...]
> > Ah, but here is the gist. There is no evidence that Dale or barrett are
> > acknowledged as surrealist by many others.
>
> There is no evidence that a large part of the surrealists out there have
> heard of Dale or Barrett. ;-)
>
> Indeed the Chicago School
> > doesn't think so. It becomes fighting factions.
> [...]
> > The "surrealist project" consists of a few people. On this group it
> > considered itself the final authority on who or what is surrealist. If
> > you want to accept this authority, that's fine.
> >
>
> I reject all authorities. :-)
andrea (like nik) is not only nuance-challenged, but also likes to play
little troll games. although i have created and posted (and reposted on
several occasions) very specific definitions that clarify my usage of
various terms, she seems obsessed with attributing attitudes and positions
to me that are in no way consistent with anything i've actually said.
we've talked about the problem with chicago enough already. but as
previously explained, it is chicago that claims to be the voice of
surrealist movement in the united states, not us. beyond that, chicago is
not the center of the surrealist universe. there are many active groups
around the world, and we have had amicable contacts with many of them for
many years now. and in fact, we have amicable contacts with some who are
usually associated with the chicago group.
still, we have never claimed any "authority", here or anywhere.
the basic problem is:
some people in alt.surrealism think they should be able to make even the
most blatantly false statements about "surrealism" without challenge from
surrealists.
others challenge their falsifications.
if Dale or i convey a sense of "authority" on the subject of "surrealism",
it is only relative to their ignorance.
-- barrett
BLUE FEATHERS #3 is now available
http://www.MagneticFields.org/blue/
bar...@MagneticFields.org
http://www.MagneticFields.org/
surrealists in minnesota
Sur...@MagneticFields.org
==============================================
"Everything tends to make us believe that there exists a
certain point of the mind at which life and death, the real and
the imagined, past and future, the communicable and the
incommunicable, high and low, cease to be perceived as
contradictions."
...André Breton
==============================================
The Lemming
Nikolaus Maack <ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:96bbsu$f98$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that Breton grabbed artists off the street
> and forced them to be surrealists. I meant to suggest he wooed them into
> his camp, and used their fame to make his movement (the movement really
> did "belong" to him) have more power.
>
I'm sure that some of those artists saw the chance to get themselves a leg
up by joining the surrealists too; it cuts both ways.
> > At the time, Dali was involved with Edward James, and attempted to get
him
> > to buy fighter planes for the Republicans during the civil war; that
says he
> > wasn't political? I would also disagree that he was overly catholic at
the
> > time - certainly he made little or no mention of it in his works, and in
the
> > talks he gave at that time.
>
> Perhaps the texts I read didn't do Dali justice. In any case, whether he
> was apolitical or incorrectly political in his salad days doesn't make
> much difference. He had the "wrong" politics and the "wrong" religious
> beliefs, but he wasn't booted out. Why? Because he could paint.
>
But as I said, if he didn't believe in the politics, he did a very good
impression. It's possible that Breton was taken in by this, and only when
Dali showed his true colours did Breton throw him out.
> > He may have been, but if so, he kept it to himself. He certainly didn't
> > announce the fact as he did later.
>
> Could be that he got tired of keeping this stuff under wraps in order to
> appease Breton's tyrannical judgement. He starts speaking out, Breton
> starts freaking out. I do recall Dali saying something about seeing
> Breton as a father figure worthy of worship -- until he eventually got
> over that. Then Dali worshipped himself.
>
> > The two paths of surrealism had existed before Dali though; Tanguy and
> > Magritte especially worked in a similar veristic style, as opposed to
the
> > automatists like Miro and Masson, and this dichotomy had existed since
> > Breton first called the group to order.
>
> I'm delighted to hear you say this. Most of the surrealists in this
> newsgroup seem to refuse to ackowledge the "two branches" -- one realist,
> one automatic -- insisting that the only "true surrealism" is automatism.
>
Both were, and are, IMHO, surrealist. I'd perhaps agree that the automatist
painters were the more fundamental though.
The Lemming
> >
> >
> > Would a knowledge of the subject show evidence of being a surrealist, or
> > just show evidence of having studied surrealism? I could easily study
the
> > Cathars and Albigensians, as I have, but it doesn't make me one.
>
> I did specify if you chose to call yourself one.
Ah, yes, my mistake. I was replying out of context.
This is based on a
> sense of your integrity. If you are aware and respectful of the history
> and try to continue it. There are a lot of variables involved.
>
>
True. It also depends on my ability, and my sense of what constitutes
surrealism.
>
> Since the
> > body of my work is very small, I would probably describe myself more as
a
> > surrealist in training, and since my work is based entirely the written
or
> > oral form, without any plastic or physical form, I would place myself
more
> > in the traditions of Aragon, Eluard or Péret, even Artaud, rather than
those
> > of the painters.
> >
>
> This pretty much establishes what you're trying to do. If you chose to
> class your work as surrealist, then I would respect the effort. I might
> question the work, but there is enough sincerity and understanding there
> for me to try and accept your self definition (if it's indeed
> surrealist,) rather than undermine identity.
Hmm..perhaps I should post more stuff and let you denounce me. ;-)
And it's not because I'm
> particularly nice, I have qustioned the surrealist identity of some in
> this group (including Brandon at times) because I didn't see connection
> between their actual work and actual surrealism. I've revised my
> opinion of Brandon not because of any "artistic work, but because he is
> making some attempt to understand the movement and produce documents for
> it's propagation. This effort at a FAQ decided me.
>
>
I would agree that Brandon, if not a surrealist***, is doing a fine job with
the FAQ. If nothing else, it has drawn me back into posting here on a lot
more regular basis than I did before. Of course, it helps that I have more
time on my hands since not having someone special to me in my life anymore.
Other people may mope, others may get out and pick up someone new, me, I
write posts about Dali to alt.surrealism. ;-)
*** Iwouldn't comment about Brandon's status as a surrealist without looking
at a lot more of his work The collaborations that he's worked on were
enjoyable though.
> >
> > > In the popular mind it's already escaped control, running wild, both
> > > subversive longing and tool of control.
> >
> > The popular mind is not always one to be feted though. Think how
ignorant
> > the average persn is, then consider that half of the people are MORE
> > ignorant than that.
> >
>
> The statement was an observation not a celebration, I touched on
> potentially positive as well as negative (a set of superficial or
> formulistic rebellions that actually strengthen the existing view.)
>
It may just be me, but could you expound on this for my benefit?
> Now one of my favorite definitions (I have several) definitions of
> surrealism focuses on the idea of shifting the views of society through
> making conscious realities which were unconscious. To do this
> successfully, one must study the audience in which one acts, one must
> also act within the realities, finding what works, building techniques
> which challenge the advertisors etc.
Sounds interesting. Could you tell me more? If you'd prefer, email me at
nick at justonelife dot freeserve dot co dot uk.
One may dislike what is (eg.
> popular conceptions of surrealism,) but this debate rapidly becomes
> academic, the issue is how the things that are important are going to be
> propagated, how does the social mind behave, how to shift it? As such
> surrealism as a word is a minimal importance, new names and movements
> (in theory) can be sprouted as necessary.
True enough; the term is a good one for reference. It would be interesting
to formulate a surrealist group without consciously referring to surrealism,
and seeing how it becomes to be defined by others.
I wouldn't regard
> "surrealism" as commonly understood as "correct" (which is important in
> debates like this,) but noting how once released the ideas, techniques
> etc. developed is important. Using them (even if imperfect) to twist
> things in other diections is also a possibility.
>
>
>
> > You man you didn't see the other 99 Lemmings behind me? Look, over
here...
> >
> > *drone of a hundred Lemmings chanting softly*
> >
>
>
> Sorry. I brought the lemmings. Note I crossposted to a couple of other
> groups.
Another good one would be alt.fan.rawilson. It's slightly more drier and
academic in places than the ones you brought in, but has the advantage that
RA Wilson posts there himself sometimes.
It becomes a form of collaborative writing. Some of the people
> in these groups are quite good, results are mixed, but if things go
> right you can get threads which are brilliant. There are whle
> subcultures on the net which share features with the dadaist. Many
> include highly educated people who like a touch of absurdity.
Some of us fairly educated types do too... ;-)
You might
> want to play with them. The results are often more lively that
> "artistic" attempts at group prose and more mind boggling.
>
I frequently do. I've posted to a couple of other NGs in the past under
various nom de plumes, as well as this name in order to bring about a
collaboration of sorts, soemtuims with the tacit acceptance of my fellow
collaborators, sometimes without.
The Lemming
barrett john erickson <bar...@magneticfields.org> wrote in message
news:3a8973e3$0$23093$53a6...@news.tcinternet.net...
> "The Lemming" <Ni...@justonelife.freeserve.nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:96b08r$h7$4...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> > [...]
>
> > Those initial values would be the ones set out in the manifestoes, I'd
> say;
> > the people who moved considerably from those ideals moved out of
> surrealism
> > and into something other.
>
> but there is a problem with this line of thinking...
>
> "surrealism", as the aggregate activity of all surrealists, is a
process --
> a _movement toward_ "that certain point of the mind" -- a living and
> evolving entity. as such, its tracts and manifestoes are specific moments
> of that movement.
>
True; my point was that surrealism had a collection of items in common that
were (and to me, still are) seen as canonical for surrealist activity.
> at its core, what we find constant in surrealists from the beginning (even
> before the first manifesto) is the continuing and total, intuitive
> commitment to waging the "revolution of the mind" that will enable the
full
> integration of the liberated imagination into the reality of everyday
> living.
>
See, you mention yourself that there's a core of constants. ;-)
> and this is the "initial value" of which you speak.
>
> the problem some have with understanding the "politics of surrealism" is
> that they fail to understand that they grow organically (within the
context
> of their time) from this deep "initial value" that is actually more of a
> "strange attractor" than a specific point.
>
I would also suggest that there are certain points which have remainde
constant since those times, and are likely to for a while yet, and so some
of these initial values are still contextual and relevant.
> so when the subject of Dali and Aragon come up, some will never understand
> that what divorced them from "surrealism" wasn't a purge by the
> authoritarian Breton, but their own actions that revealed their growing
> distance from this "initial value" toward something that compromised that
> surrealist revolution.
>
I hope that this was one of my points. It was what I intended to convey in
reply to (I think) Nik.
> their separation from the surrealist strange attractor, if you will.
>
>
> >
> > To be honest, I would add Breton to the list of non-surrealists when his
> > later work moved away from the values of surrealism. It wouldn't make
him
> a
> > non-surrealist, just a surrealist that did some non-surrealist work.
>
> i think words lead us astray when we speak of the "values of surrealism"
as
> if this was a bundle of specific attitudes (attributes) held by someone
> (presumably some held tighter than others), rather than an innate life
> imperative, intuitively recognized when _discovered_ in spontaneous
action.
>
What if this innate life imperative masqueraded as an attitude to propagate
it's own memetic dharma?
> while i agree, Breton in the 50's took a path that led him away from where
> _i_ think the greatest potential for surrealist investigation was to be
> found (the implications of quantum mechanics and cognitive research),
> Breton's understanding of, and commitment to the surrealist revolution
never
> changed. he just failed, in my opinion, to remain at its "point".
>
>
I think I agree with this.
> > [...]
>
> > > Ah, but here is the gist. There is no evidence that Dale or barrett
are
> > > acknowledged as surrealist by many others.
> >
> > There is no evidence that a large part of the surrealists out there have
> > heard of Dale or Barrett. ;-)
> >
> > Indeed the Chicago School
> > > doesn't think so. It becomes fighting factions.
>
> > [...]
>
> > > The "surrealist project" consists of a few people. On this group it
> > > considered itself the final authority on who or what is surrealist.
If
> > > you want to accept this authority, that's fine.
> > >
> >
> > I reject all authorities. :-)
>
> andrea (like nik) is not only nuance-challenged, but also likes to play
> little troll games.
They can be fun at times, and can have innate value - I've noticed several
troll posts that have encouraged people to discuss their reactions to the
post, leading to stimulation of certain topics and a collective discussion
as to core values of these things.
although i have created and posted (and reposted on
> several occasions) very specific definitions that clarify my usage of
> various terms, she seems obsessed with attributing attitudes and positions
> to me that are in no way consistent with anything i've actually said.
>
> we've talked about the problem with chicago enough already. but as
> previously explained, it is chicago that claims to be the voice of
> surrealist movement in the united states, not us.
As a non-USAian, Chicago and its movement don't have as much of an effect on
me, being at a remove. To claim to be the voice of surrealism in the US
seems to be to be slightly parochial at best, ignorant of the greater
surrealist nature of the world at worst.
beyond that, chicago is
> not the center of the surrealist universe. there are many active groups
> around the world, and we have had amicable contacts with many of them for
> many years now. and in fact, we have amicable contacts with some who are
> usually associated with the chicago group.
>
> still, we have never claimed any "authority", here or anywhere.
But others have implied or have stated otherwise? Most surrealist groups, or
groups that take their nature from surrealism, seem to claim authority for
themselves; alt.surrealism doesn't appear to do so as overwhelmingly as
others, and appears (at least to me) more of a meeting place for those
interested in surrealism, interested in collaborating with others of a
surrealistic bent, and for insulting Nik at every opportunity. ;-)
There dosn't seem to be much of a sense of any particular grouping here
though in the way of the Chicago group or Breton's group; no strong sense of
community, more a freer base for people to move in and out of as the mood
takes them.
>
> the basic problem is:
>
> some people in alt.surrealism think they should be able to make even the
> most blatantly false statements about "surrealism" without challenge from
> surrealists.
>
But when people call themselves surrealists without understanding, or with
malice, wouldn't those "surrealists" also challenge the work of the real
surrealists here?
> others challenge their falsifications.
>
> if Dale or i convey a sense of "authority" on the subject of "surrealism",
> it is only relative to their ignorance.
>
>
or, as we can see from other discusions going on here, from differing views,
opinions and definitions of what constitutes surrealism?
> -- barrett
Dale Houstman
"barrett john erickson" <bar...@magneticfields.org> wrote in message
news:3a8973e3$0$23093$53a6...@news.tcinternet.net...
> news:96b08r$h7$4...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
>
> it is only relative to their ignorance.
>
state of not knowing - is a relatively honorable posture, as it implies
nothing about the potential for learning of some sort. What we are dealing
with here - in the persons of Andrea and her "second-best tool" - are rather
more willful entities. It isn't ignorance but manipulation and - more
pathetically - manipulation even lacking the "raison d'etre" of having a
point other than the usual self-congratulatory stance of the troll: any
response equaling a triumph, disruption for the sake of disruption, etc. All
well and good: they cannot or will not see that most of what occurs to
people does NOT occur here on Usenet, that such a venue is not - in the
least - epic or heroic. So the little victories are little indeed. But it is
not ignorance, but maybe fear of being what they really are - next to
nothing. This is supposition on my part of course, freely admitted: for all
I know they are immensely accomplished people in their own bourgeois
fashion. But their actions here are willful and small. Ignorance would be a
virtue in comparison.
dmh
barrett john erickson
> [..]
> > I'm delighted to hear you say this. Most of the surrealists in this
> > newsgroup seem to refuse to ackowledge the "two branches" -- one
realist,
> > one automatic -- insisting that the only "true surrealism" is
automatism.
> >
>
> Both were, and are, IMHO, surrealist. I'd perhaps agree that the
automatist
> painters were the more fundamental though.
as usual, nik has misrepresented the position he objects to.
what some of us argued was that, contrary to nik's assertion, there are not
"two branches" of "surrealism" that somehow exist independently and in
opposition.
it is only natural for surrealists to explore in many different directions,
but it is only by understanding what these diverse explorations over its
entire history have in common that one can understand "surrealism".
"surrealism" is the aggregate manifestation of all surrealists, past and
present, and therefore cannot be subdivided without making it something
smaller than it is.
barrett john erickson
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message
news:3a8987fa$0$23098$65a9...@news.citilink.com...
point taken. what we are really talking about is "arrogant ignorance".
[ by the way, are you as amused as i am by what i assume is andrea's new
troll game of imperfectly mirroring the challenges you and i made... what
was it, last year or the year before?... to nik's "personalist" stance
("surrealism is anything i say it is") -- a stance that she so ardently
defended at the time?
i say "imperfectly" but it's actually more like she's using funhouse
mirrors -- brutalizing the points we made almost beyond recognition even as
she postures as she's the original.
it's like a neu neutopian remake of "The Invasion of the Body Snatchers". ]
Dale Houstman
>
>
>
> point taken. what we are really talking about is "arrogant ignorance".
That will do.
>
>
> [ by the way, are you as amused as i am by what i assume is andrea's new
> troll game of imperfectly mirroring the challenges you and i made... what
> was it, last year or the year before?... to nik's "personalist" stance
> ("surrealism is anything i say it is") -- a stance that she so ardently
> defended at the time?
I would be amused if I didn't find andrea (and her second-best tool) so
boring by now.
>
> i say "imperfectly" but it's actually more like she's using funhouse
> mirrors -- brutalizing the points we made almost beyond recognition even
as
> she postures as she's the original.
This is in the nature of those who have no selves. As I said on another
group, anonymous disruptions are not new, being at least as old as the
telephone prnaks of my youth, and going back to the ancient practice of
graffiti. The only difference I can notice is that usenet allows the
disruptor to affect an air of intellectual depth. So the antics of andrea
and her second-best tool, which would have easily been dismissed as stupid
face-to-face, are now able to cloak themselves in half-digested ideas they
can pick up (and misuse) anywhere on the net between sessions of pointless
chatter. And they are only concerned with "winning" (something the
second-best tool laughably accuses others of while being unable to sustain a
conversation beyond a post or two. And then he's back a day or so later,
having either misunderstood what he had read, or willfully distorting what
he took in. It used to be mildly aggravating, then it was amusing, but now
it's just boring.
>
> it's like a neu neutopian remake of "The Invasion of the Body Snatchers".
"Attack Of The 2 Cm Andrea & Her Second-Best Tool" by Roger Corman.
Go get some popcorn!
dmh
Lord [INH], God of the 'Any' Key
>
> I was on..alot of very neat drugs when I read that. Every time.
>
> any discordian who titles himself for the sake of definition, at that point
> ceases to be a discordian.
>
> names, and titles limit by definition, some of us, think this idea is
> shit..and spit on it. :spits on some idea:
I usually call myself an Orthodox Discordian. Mainly because it's an
oxymoron.
> some would say this is why we choose sacred holy names..and magickal titles
> resounding absolute and utter nonsense. if one proclaims some grand thing in
> name and title..he is no more a follower of eris and discord, than hitler
> was a follower of matza balls and low dresses.
Hey! There's nothing wrong with a few holynames.
--
Lord [INSERT NAME HERE], Dr of erIscoRda, Hal Phillips (in the
metaphysical sense), Overlord of the Fifth House on the Rite, Member of
the Psychotic Friends Network, Grand Knight of the Zen Potato, Deputy
Assistant Director of the Erisian Confusion Bureau, Cloisterite of the
Monestary of Happenstance Hodge Podge Lodge, Perpetual Pope Converter of
Random POEE Titles, Pickler of Saucy Ink Cartridges, Wielder of the Holy
carrot, Slayer of All Who Support Him, Lunatic Without a Cause, Evil
Genius, Aspiring World-Dominator, Anointed Saviour of Mankind, Licensed
Distributor of Sacred Mao Buttons to the Region of Thud,
Commander-in-Chief Discordian Farces, Bard-in-Residence at
alt.discordia, the Man With the Golden Pun, Owner of The World's Most
Bandwidth-Consuming Signature (barring Kibo), Proud Owner of
http://www.ubergeek.co.uk, Tae-Kwon-Do Black belt . . . Well, Almost,
Leader of the International Militant Pacifist Front, CEO of Invisible
Inc., Soul Eater of the Million Jelly-Babies of the Sainted Bag, Owner
of Tufty the Explosive Clockwork Weasel, Radical Militant Centerist,
Made in Taiwan, Ruler of the Unpronouncable Kingdom of
Arghfghfghalsefvnf, Unborn Evangelist of the Church of Rebirth, Consumer
of the Five Thousand, Evil spawn of Santa, In-Fading Alien, the
Ubergeek: Sent to Save the Souls of All Other Geeks, Chief Nerfherder,
Papal Knight of the Living Dead, Patron Saint of Patron Saints, Lonely
Hermit of the Crowded Cave, Discordian Pope, Head of Illumination at
Bavarian Illuminati HQ (I change the lightbulbs), Grand Master of the
Ancient Martial Art of Kung-Lung-Bung-Fung-Chung-Mung-Itsu-Do, Founder
of the Astoundingly Annoying Alliteration Cabal (3AC), Member of the
RSPCA (Royal Society for the Promotion of Cruelty to Animals), Owner of
the Sacred Bottle of Te-qui-la, Epesky Episkipos, Anar-Kissed, Leader of
the People's Unpopular Back, Dragoon Slayer, Ruthless Assassassassain,
Messy-iah, Marduk, The Ancient Sumerian God, Protector of the Luscious
and Sexy Polymother St Alicia Erisdaughter Discordia, Slippery Freudian,
Purveyor of Fine Megalomaniac Supplies, KSC, CID, MI5, LSD, PPG, SAM,
CFC, RPM, BPS, YHVH, King of All Invertebrates, The obiK Who Is Not
Allowed, The Emerald Emir of Embolotic Emancipation, Symbiotic
Synergistic Shaman, Highly Inflammable, 23Skidoo's Homey, Allegedly the
Same Person as Loopi, Superzero, Official Nonentity, Definitely NOT a
Fucking SubGenius, Vanquisher of Nibblepibblies, Naked Tunisian Sock
Merchant, Honourary Member of the Cabal of the Red Herring ( Knights of
the Order of Kaos: KOOK), Finder of Things Worth Finding, Official
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Field Researcher (it's true! check out
http://www.h2g2.com ), Very Polite, The Choice of 9/10 Cats, Eater of
The Red Pill, Quite Delightful, Caffeine Addict, 'Ziner, Programmer,
Deep Thinker, Hamlet for the 21st Century, Prolific Writer, Intermitent
Fighter, Fire Lighter, More Stuff Ending in -ighter, Matchmaker to the
Stars (of the 'Zine), Just Some Dude (by appointment to Hexar),
Alligator as far as my Spell-Checker is Concerned, the Artist Formerly
known as Mr Niceguy, Indescribably Indelible Undesirable, Not What You
Think, Not You, Not Me, Commodore in the Salvation Navy, Gwen Addict,
Sideways Thinker, 1/4 Candian, 1/4 Channel Islander, 3/4 Scot, Turned
On, Tuned In, Dropped Out, Brother to Colon the Super-Dense Proto-Hippy,
Nominal Head of the Church of the Latter-Day Deities, Overclocked Mind,
and Keeper of the Holy titles.
"Sodom today, Gomorrah the world!"- The Star Fraction (Ken McLeod)
"I hate war. It spoils armies."- The Grand duke Constantine of Russia
"Ender's anger was cold, and he could use it. Bonzo's anger was hot, and
so it used him."- Ender's Game (Orson Scott Card)
"But don't forget the Joker."- Motorhead, Ace of Spades
"Man- 'We're all at risk.' Shirley- 'No, not all. I've got a tray full
of black pudding out there, but I can't say I care for it.' Man- 'You
mean, you mean you don't eat the special stuff?' Shirely- 'Somebody's
got to stay in control.'"- The League of Gentlemen
"If they are our brothers, how come we can't eat them?"- the Principa
Discordia
"Life, Aughbewbwuah"- Pope 23Skidoo
"Why don't they leave me alone, so I don't have to hurt them?"- Ender's
Game (Orson Scott Card)
"I'm going to attempt to drown myself / You can try this at home / you
can be just like me"- Eminem, Role Model
"Aeryn: 'You want to go back to this Earth, this place that has so much
disease and suffering?' John- 'Yeah, well you guys don't have
chocolate.'"- Farscape
"If I was a rolling stone, I'd roll until I flew / And if I was a garden
I would bloom in black for you"- Ozzy Osbourne, Nowhere to Run
"Vote for insanity, you know it makes sense."- Screamin' Lord Sutch,
Official UK Monster Raving Loony Party founder and Spritual Leader
"Starsky and Hutch reruns, dubbed into diverse languages, may turn out,
in the long run, to be a greater force for human rights than the
Declaration of Independence." - Neal Stephenson
"Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most."- Ozzy Osbourne
"Mr Anchor assure me / That Baghdad is burning / Your voice is so
soothing / That cunning mantra of killing"- Rage Against The Machine,
Testify
"You may give a toad a wart, but a toad does not give you warts"- The
League of Gentlemen
"I have no opinion on Radio 1's playlist"- Comedy Dave (sidekick to R1
DJ Chris Moyles), being a bit sarky
"Play me online, well you know that I'll beat you / If I ever meet you,
I'll control-alt-delete you"- 'Weird Al' Yankovich, All About the
Pentiums
"Just because you're paranoid / Don't mean they're not after you"-
Nirvana, Territorial Pissings
"That it [Human Rights] will remain a struggle well into the millenium
is clear from the behaviour of the United States, the one true
superpower, in voting (with Libya and China) against the creation of an
International Criminal Court, out of an arrogant concern that it may one
day take juridstiction to try an American alleged to be a war criminal"-
Crimes Against humanity (Geoffrey Robertson QC)
"I could be wrong here / I could be right / I could be the son of God /
Selling you a little light / But you wouldn't see me / You wouldn't hear
me / Why you are not me / Tell me holy man / Is there meant to be
something? / Am I meant to feel something? / Am I to believe that you
hold the key? / My way wrong and yours right?"- One Minute Silence, Holy
Man
"Confusion is a definite direction."- Splendid, Charge
"Let him who has not sinned cast the first stone."- Jezuz
"Unlike Bill Clinton, I did inhale and from time to time still do."-
David McReynolds, Socialist Party USA presidential candidate
"Read a book about the self / Said I should get expensive help / Go fix
my head / Create some wealth / Put my neuroses on the shelf / But I
don't care for myself / I don't care for myself / I don't care."--
Placebo, Blue American
"Well I'm not afraid of a God that doesn't exist / And I'm not a slave
to a world that doesn't give a shit."-- Marilyn Manson, the Fight Song
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s++:-- a--- C++>$ U> P L>
E? W++ N++ o? K+ w--- O- M- V-
PS+++ PE- Y+> PGP- t+ 5+ X++ R+++
tv+@ b+++ DI+++ D+ G> e- h! r- y>
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
*** **
* * **
** **
**
***** *****
** * ***
* *
* *
* *
* KALLISTI *
* *
* *
* *
** **
** **
********
(Rediddled by Sara Wallen)
__
__(__)__
(________)
/\
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ ______ \
/ < () > \
/ """""" \
/ \
/ \
------------------
Title Count: 113
Quote Count: 26
Size of Signature: 8.49KB
Last Altered: 13th Feburuary 01
Hari Krishna Fnord Tally: III
Homepage: http://www.ubergeek.co.uk
Email: lordy...@mad.scientist.com
alistair...@europe.com
ICQ: 85708322
Confucius say: "Man who get confused between free beer and free software
get wet hard-drive."
"Early bird catch worm, but second mouse get cheese."
"Why is cheese?"
I accept submissions to this .sig. Post or email them, and consign
yourself to history. Or something.
Please do not use this email/post for digital toilet paper.
*Disclaimer*
Any resemblance between the author of this post and any person, living
or dead, is entirely coincidental.
(K) All Rights Reversed
Reprint What You Like
This has been an emergent property of the System. Goodnight.
Glenn Knickerbocker
> Andrea Chen <fallin...@earthlink.net> writes:
> > His triology is about spinning all sorts of conspiracy theories together
> > into a wacky world view,
> spaceships and suchlike, not conspiracy theories.
You forgot to mention that his trilogy is about the Tin Staafls, who go
around taking away people's lunches on the moon.
ŹR
David DeLaney
>I was on..alot of very neat drugs when I read that. Every time.
>
>any discordian who titles himself for the sake of definition, at that point
>ceases to be a discordian.
And that's a rule, is it? Okay.
>some would say this is why we choose sacred holy names..and magickal titles
>resounding absolute and utter nonsense. if one proclaims some grand thing in
>name and title..he is no more a follower of eris and discord, than hitler
>was a follower of matza balls and low dresses.
So you're Not Allowed to proclaim grand things? Okay.
Dave "not quite following" DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://panacea.phys.utk.edu/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ/ I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
scot...@uswest.net
<b.j.f...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>By the way, if anyone has any suggestions, complaints, or wants to
>contribute to the FAQ e-mail me and let me know what's up.
>
>---Brandon
>
I see problems in the FAQs' lack of mention of WWI or the Russian
Revolution. These were real and significant events that impacted the
times, the individuals of Breton's group, and surrealism.
I do not think the seriousness of surrealism's original commitment to
revolution can be fully appreciated if these events are not
acknowledged and adequately dealt with.
I think the issue is difficult and important and there should be some
discussion about it.
Beable van Polasm
> Machzin Sero <mac...@io.com> wrote:
> >any discordian who titles himself for the sake of definition, at that point
> >ceases to be a discordian.
>
> And that's a rule, is it? Okay.
It's confusing, isn't it? You're NOT ALLOWED to call yourself a
discordian, or else you're not a discordian. BUT! If you go around
saying "any discordian who titles himself for the sake of definition,
at that point ceases to be a discordian.", that's the VERY PINNACLE
of DISCORDIANISM! I guess what Mazchin is trying to say is:
"I'M A DISCORDIAN AND YOU'RE NOT! SO NERRRRRR!".
> Dave "not quite following" DeLaney
You're not Robinson Crusoe Chip from Transmeta.
cheers
Beable van Polasm
--
THAT'S RIDICULOUS!!! -- WCW Nitro Commentator
IQC 78189333
http://members.nbci.com/_______/index.html
Brandon Freels
> I see problems in the FAQs' lack of mention of WWI or the Russian
> Revolution. These were real and significant events that impacted the
> times, the individuals of Breton's group, and surrealism.
>
> I do not think the seriousness of surrealism's original commitment to
> revolution can be fully appreciated if these events are not
> acknowledged and adequately dealt with.
>
> I think the issue is difficult and important and there should be some
> discussion about it.
Good point. Possibly this info is most appropriate in the Dada section where
it can be dealt with on a more direct historical level. Whatever happens,
thanks for pointing it out.
LPPCQ Snarky
Kallisti Discordia spoke to me through Beable van Polasm:
>Andrea Chen writes:
>> Brandon Freels wrote:
>> > > Have you read any Robert Anton Wilson, by any chance? If not, please do, I
>> > > think you'll enjoy it.
>> >
>> > I know the question wasn't directed towards me but I've been thinking about
>> > reading some of his work. Can you (or anyone) explain some of what he's
>> > about.
>>
>> His triology is about spinning all sorts of conspiracy theories together
>> into a wacky world view,
>
>I think you're all mistaken here. First of all, his last name is spelled
>HEINLIEN, not what you put. And Robert Anton HEINLEIN writes books about
>spaceships and suchlike, not conspiracy theories.
>
>> he worked at Playboy in the sixties and collected letters from the
>> kooks.
>
>No he didn't. He was in the Royal Navy during World War 2, single handedly
>sinking dozens of Italian battleships using his submarine, the USS Tarpon.
>The submarine's crew said he was the best captain they ever had.
>
>Also, he wrote lots of books about Librarianism, which Ayn Rand later
>stole all the material from to invent Objectivistism.
>
>I hope this sets the record straight!
No, but it's attractively crooked. Robert *Anson* Heinlein and Robert
*Anton* Wilson are not at all the same person, but they're both very good
flonkers, in their own venus flytrap ways, and I like them both very much
in a nice curry sauce.
--
===============================================================
Hail Eris! All hail Discordia!! We must stick apart!!!
Lola, called Snarky, the Chocolate Snark, Queen of the Snarks
of Ærisia; sometimes mistaken for Someone Who Cares; CEM;
Bonnie Langford, in the metaphorical sense; Queen of Rice;
TransWench; loud and flaming queer Demon of Mockery and Silliness, Demon
Lord of Confusion, Demon Prince of Absurdity; Pope Snarky Goodfella of
the undulating cable, JM, CK, POEE, KOTHASK; the Very Long,
Multi-Coloured Scarf of Tom Baker; The Black Goat With A
Thousand Young; the Goat In Black; Cardinal of the Fannish
Inquisition; Just Another Anti-Christ Extraordinaire;
Dreamer-Minstrel of Discord; Ravenclaw; Eater Of The Strange
Fruitcake And The Suspicious Meatloaf; the Discordian People's Most
Powerful and Revered Being Without Portfolio; God of Odd Statements;
member of The Church of The Quasi-Heretic, St. Marc the Perpetually
Amused, Patron; Scourge of the Zarbi Empire; Ship's Chaos Demon, Bad
Ship BetNoirian; a UFO; one of the independent originators of the
"So what?" Theory of Everything; Slayer of Bandwidth
*feetofclay* *at* *home* *dot* *com* to email
The Principia Discordia: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~tilt/principia/body.html
SPONGE: http://www.s-p-o-n-g-e.com/
For Action! Adventure! Excitement! with the Callahanian Army o'
Light, go to: http://silver-gateway.com/caol/
Help Co-op Radio move!
Vancouver Co-operative Radio: http://vcn.bc.ca/cfro/welcome.html
Co-op Radio: Listener-powered!
Tune in and queer out to Fruit Salad and The Lesbian Show!
Any of the original material in this post may only vaguely represent
my _own_ views, or not even that -- it certainly doesn't represent
any *official* viewpoint
No safety or surprise
"Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are
smarter than one man. How's that again? I missed something."
-- Robert A. Heinlein
"Red meat won't hurt you. Fuzzy, blue-green meat will."
-- Zog the etc., in alt.discordia
"The policeman isn't there to create disorder, the policeman is
there to preserve disorder" -- Mayor Richard Daley of Czechago,
September 23, 1968
"may you live to whatever age you'd like to." -- Dave Hillstrom,
in alt.discordia
"We are all absolutely free."
"Outlaw amateur assassins!" -- Chiun
"Property is theft."
-- P. J. Proudhon
"Property is liberty."
-- P. J. Proudhon
"Property is impossible."
-- P. J. Proudhon
My mother taught me THE CIRCLE OF LIFE -
"I brought you into this world, and I can take you out."
My mother taught me about BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION -
"Stop acting like your father!"
My mother taught me about HYPOCRISY -
"If I've told you once, I've told you a million times - Don't
Exaggerate!!!"
My mother taught me RELIGION -
"You better pray that will come out of the carpet."
My mother taught me IRONY -
"Keep crying and I'll *give* you something to cry about."
My mother taught me about the science of OSMOSIS -
"Shut your mouth and eat your supper!"
My mother taught me about CONTORTIONISM -
"Will you *look* at the dirt on the back of your neck!"
My mother taught me LOGIC -
"Because I said so, that's why."
-- Jai Rose, in alt.callahans
Just a stray political thought here: Bush of all people should quit
talking about ending social promotion. The man is the most prominent
example of social promotion in the entire country. -- Molly Ivins
"Three rings for the Elven kings under the sky;
Seven for the Dwarf lords in their halls of stone;
Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die;
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Mordor where the shadows lie.
One Ring to rule them all, one Ring to find them
One Ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them
In the land of Mordor, where the Shadows lie."
-- Tolkien
"If I can't live as I please, let me die when I choose."
Beable van Polasm
Look, maybe I didn't use enough CAPITAL LETTERS. His name was
ROBERT ANTON HEINLIEN, not ROBERT ANTON WILLIAMS! I dinnae
ken how you can get WILLIAMS confused with HEINLIEN! It's
only got TWO LETTERS the same. I'm NOT saying that HEINLEIN
is the SAME as WILLIAMS, I'm saying that the author being
discussed in this WEBCHATROOM is ROBERT ANTON HEINLEIN, and
that further, he COULDN'T have written about a bunch of
CONSPIRACY THEORIES because that movie DIDN'T EVEN COME OUT
until 1997, and by then HEINLEIN (NOT ROBBIE WILLIAMS LIKE YOU
PUT, HIENLIEN!!) had ALREADY WRITTEN all of his books. AND
HERE'S PROOF:
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0118883
You SEE? The only way that ROBERT HEINLEN could have written
about Conspiracy Theory in 1962 would have been if he had
a TIME MACHINE, and he only wrote BOOKS about HOW TO BUILD
a TIME MACHINE, he DIDN'T actually HAVE ONE.
Also, I have noticed that almost everybody who writes down
how much they like HEINLIEN is some sort of Objectivist LIBRARIAN
who reads lots of books by Ayn Rand and says things like
"I shouldn't have to pay tax because I did this all by myself",
totally ignoring that they COULDN'T have done ANYTHING without
a SOCIETY to do it in, and furthermore, MONEY ITSELF is a
SOCIETAL CONCEPT and is ABSOLUTELY USELESS to a "Rugged Individualist"
such as these HEINLEIN/RANDROID/LIBRARIAN/OBJECTIVIST/DUKESTuDENTS
like to think they are.
Finally, I think that CANNIBALISM is WRONG, and Kibo's got a bigger
.sig than you, so NERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!11!!1!
cheers
Beable van Polasm
--
Orange cones, OTOH, can be extremely erotic. -- Paula Tobler
<-o-> --< IQC 78189333 >-- |-<>-|
http://members.nbci.com/_______/index.html
Nikolaus Maack
> what some of us argued was that, contrary to nik's assertion, there are not
> "two branches" of "surrealism" that somehow exist independently and in
> opposition.
It's clear that many surrealists focussed on realistic depicitions of
dream-like material. This material is made non-automatically. Magritte,
Tanguy, Dali. Not automatic. Correct? Other surrealists were more
insistent on making strictly automatic material. They held that if you
pre-plan your work, you're doomed.
For the sake of convenience, I refer to the "realist surrealists" as
Dalian, and the automatics as Bretonian.
> "surrealism" is the aggregate manifestation of all surrealists, past and
> present, and therefore cannot be subdivided without making it something
> smaller than it is.
Alas and alack, the split has already happened. The "split" is only a
description of two approaches, really, but unfortunately many people (in
this newsgroup) insist that automatism is necessary for TRUE surrealism.
In other words, the existence of the other branch is denied.
By the way, I don't even see the two positions as opposing. They're two
approaches towards the same goal -- giving power to the irrational, the
unconscious, the dream. One seeks to "realistically" describe the dream.
The other attempts to swim in it. Both are, in my opinion, equally valid
approaches. I just happen to lean towards the Dalian approach, in my
writing, art, and other works.
Machzin Sero
Nothings a rule, we change rules as we go along.
As we see fit, or not, or purely for the sport of it.
I just simply stated one reason for proclaiming titles.
My point is that we don't do it, to set ourself above.
This is not a Race to see who is a better discordian.
We are nonsensical to better point out the total nonese we see in every day
life. That which we have been taught is right. The point of that post is
not to fight about discordianism. The point is..to point..out why we are
discordians, and why we are like we are this week. And no like we are, last
week. We make no sense, because sense makes no sense. And that makes no
sense. Eris is more than a reason to hide behind.
So yes..if you title yourself so you can appear better than BOB, the
Non-Titled. You have stopped becoming a discordian. You are a rat in a race
to the cheese..
Machzin Sero
<discordian, or else you're not a discordian. BUT! If you <go around
<saying "any discordian who titles himself for the sake of <definition,
<at that point ceases to be a discordian.", that's the <VERY PINNACLE
<of DISCORDIANISM! I guess what Mazchin is trying <to say is:
<"I'M A DISCORDIAN AND YOU'RE NOT! SO <NERRRRRR!".
Oh yes well you deserve your own reply now don't you.
Dearest Beable, SpeedReader;
I offer this title instead of instituting the only other obvious one;
Incompetenent Mule.
Nowhere will you find me saying we shouldnt call discordians, discordains.
That is infact the perfect thing to call ourselves. That and 'General Colin
Powell.'
You are obviously a giant floating eye-spy, sent here to taint a small bit
of discordian opinion on why we are discordians. I faught the public
education systems of ths country personally. You..with your filthy
caps-lock trick. Just because you make the letters bigger. Dont make them
true. Well, unless your a high ranking general
-General Colin Powell
Machzin Sero
>Hey! There's nothing wrong with a few holynames.
I..agree. It wasn't holy names I was speaking of. Especially not anything
as orthodox discordianlike as such well-crafted signature files. But the
expert use of such wonderful appendages in order to distinguish oneself for
fear of persecution, and or to recieve a nice stiffy in front of ones mom.
Machzin Sero
Oh My. With the caps trick.
Wilson, Newsgroup, 1960's, Irish/Catholic-born, german = no, playboy = yes,
and finally. Cannibalism makes you a Cainite. Thats right a Cainite.
Its the vitamin-a, you see. Carnivores have a build up of vitamin-a in their
organs, most importantly the liver. This is because..of well..eating other
living things. Cainites reportedly ate each other, usually the liver and
the brain. (Only soccer teams lost in snow covered moutaints eat ass.) This
over time, a thousand years or so. The estimated average life-span of
neanderthals, (Thats Neander Valley kids. Its german, much like Wilson is
not.) was about 900 years. Eating in one day more vitamin-a than humans now
consume in their respective entire lives. And for 10 times as long results
in severe arthritis, and osteoperosis, (its not just for breakfast anymore).
These are both..severe skeletal degeneration problems for humans of only
limited life span. imagine 10 times that life..with those afflictions.
So, finally got one down. (annibalizm my not be right..or wrong. But it will
make you a degenerative cainite.
Hail Eris, Hail Hail, Hail Yes.
Brandon Freels
> It's clear that many surrealists focussed on realistic depicitions of
> dream-like material. This material is made non-automatically. Magritte,
> Tanguy, Dali. Not automatic. Correct?
Nope. Magritte, Tanguy, Dali, all still relied on "pure psychic automatism".
They all still relied on spontaneous inspiration. Just look at Dali's
Paranoiac-critical technique. That's got "pure psychic automatism" written
all over it. Magritte was a "collage-painter". He was looking for those
images (created threw spontaneous juxtapositions and, at times, inspiration)
that sparked HIS internal drives!
And now your saying Tanguy is a realist? I don't recall him every painting
anything that looked 'real'. From what I remember everything he painted was
formless.
David DeLaney
>Heh, man thats a rough crowd who reads to fast.
>Nothings a rule, we change rules as we go along.
>As we see fit, or not, or purely for the sport of it.
>I just simply stated one reason for proclaiming titles.
>My point is that we don't do it, to set ourself above.
>This is not a Race to see who is a better discordian.
Yes; yes, it is! Go!
>So yes..if you title yourself so you can appear better than BOB, the
>Non-Titled. You have stopped becoming a discordian. You are a rat in a race
>to the cheese..
Dave "but wait, cheese is Not Allowed!" DeLaney
Nikolaus Maack
it isn't automatic, it has nothing to do with surrealism -- should read
the following paragraph. It's from the introduction to Dali's
autobiography, titled "The Secret Life of Salvador Dali". This
introduction was written by Robert Melville in June of 1968.
"The original surrealist emphasis was on automatic procedures, but Dali
dismissed them as evasions of Surrealism's declared intention to change
the world, and he introduced a more active and deliberated procedure for
transforming reality he called the "paranoiac-critical method." It was a
method which involved the calculated use of delusion and hallucination in
order to turn the objects of the real world into an iconography of sexual
fears and desires."
Hopefully this will put to rest comments such as this one:
"Brandon Freels" (b.j.f...@worldnet.att.net) writes:
> Nope. Magritte, Tanguy, Dali, all still relied on "pure psychic automatism".
> They all still relied on spontaneous inspiration. Just look at Dali's
> Paranoiac-critical technique. That's got "pure psychic automatism" written
> all over it.
Hopefully the above words also lend some legitimacy to the notion that you
don't have to be completely spontaneous and automatic in order to engage
in the surrealist process.
I have just begun to read Dali's autobiography. It's fascinating,
complicated, and very funny. For example, here are the opening lines of
chapter one:
"Fortunately I am not one of those beings who when they smile are apt to
expose remnants, however small, of horrible and degrading spinach clinging
to their teeth. This is not because I brush my teeth better than others;
it is due to the much more categorical fact that I do not eat spinach."
Dale Houstman
"Brandon Freels" <b.j.f...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:4iBi6.7127$Pg3.5...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"polymorphic." But Tanguy was said to have painted his works upside down, so
as to avoid any "rush to judgement" on their composition. This surely
qualifies as one more way to avoid pre-planning?
As for the Magritte argument: I remember formulating this collage idea way
back when, in answer to an earlier Nik statement not that different from
this one. It only goes to show that he either is too dense to retain
knowledge, or too contrary in nature to get off the dime. In effect, Nik ran
out of salient points a long while ago now, and just keeps rehashing the
same dis-information. Responding to him - aside from insulting him for the
sheer fun of it - is a matter of redundancy: he simply does not care to
engage in conversation. To him it probably represents a philosophy of some
limp sort, but it certainly looks like brain damage. But - he can manage his
public relations any way he wishes.
dmh
The Lemming
> Those who would cling to the automatic processes -- and who insist that if
> it isn't automatic, it has nothing to do with surrealism -- should read
> the following paragraph. It's from the introduction to Dali's
> autobiography, titled "The Secret Life of Salvador Dali". This
> introduction was written by Robert Melville in June of 1968.
>
> "The original surrealist emphasis was on automatic procedures, but Dali
> dismissed them as evasions of Surrealism's declared intention to change
> the world, and he introduced a more active and deliberated procedure for
> transforming reality he called the "paranoiac-critical method." It was a
> method which involved the calculated use of delusion and hallucination in
> order to turn the objects of the real world into an iconography of sexual
> fears and desires."
How does one have a controlled hallucination? Surely a hallucination, by its
very nature, is wild and chaotic and eschews control? If so, then anything
relying on hallucination is de facto automatism in action.
Further, Dali himself states that automatic procedures were essential to
surrealism. By talking about how he changed that, he moves away from
surrealism to his own paranoic-critical method. Words such as "Dali
dismissed them" show that he's moving away from a fundamental "original
surrealist emphasis".
Nikolaus Maack
> As for the Magritte argument: I remember formulating this collage idea way
> back when, in answer to an earlier Nik statement not that different from
> this one. It only goes to show that he either is too dense to retain
> knowledge, or too contrary in nature to get off the dime.
Here's the argument from my perspective.
Someone says, "Surrealism is strictly about automatic processes."
I respond, "No, it's not. It seems to me there are two schools. One is
based on automatism, one is not. For example, Dali is clearly not an
automatist."
"Dali isn't a surrealist."
"Uh, what? Sure he is."
"Okay, he once was, for a while. But Dali wasn't automatic. Surrealism
is about automatism. That (among other things) is why Dali doesn't
belong."
"I don't get it. Look. These other artists (Magritte, Tanguy) don't use
automatic processes. Their art is planned, and technically executed."
"Ah, but what you don't understand is that these images were retrieved
using automatic processes. THEN they were executed in a planned,
technical fashion, so it's still automatism."
"Didn't Dali do that?"
"No, no. His images were obtained through Freudian theory. Except maybe
the giraffes. But the other artists in question definitely used automatic
processes, even if the art itself was not spontaneously created."
"That sounds suspiciously like a loophole that allows you to say they're
still automatic even though they're not."
"Geeze, Nik, you never learn anything when we explain The Truth to you."
"Well, look -- here's a definition of surrealism taken from the
Encyclopedia Britannica. They divide surrealism into two schools --
automatics, and non-automatics. What do you think?"
"You expect us to listen to the people behind the encyclopedia? They
aren't even surrealists! What do they know?"
"Okay, here's some text quoted from the introduction to Dali's
autobiography, stating flat out that Dali rejected automatism while he was
a surrealist, and moved towards planned and calculated acts of oddity.
What make you of this?"
"What's your point? We already said he wasn't a surrealist! Well he was,
but not really."
Remind me again which one of us is willfully ignorant?
Barrett says we can't divide surrealism in two, otherwise it will weaken
the cause, ignoring the fact that the split has been there since the very
beginning. You and Brandon argue that it's all about automatism, growling
and spitting whenever anyone indicates otherwise.
It's quite clear there are two surrealist approaches and always have been.
I don't know why you have so much invested in the automatic process that
you're unwilling to ackowledge other, equally valid stances. I wonder if
it's because the idea of NOT being automatic fills you with fear. After
all, letting go, being "spontaneous", ignoring all "social convention"
means not having to think or do anything in a planned way.
In other words, with no one at the controls, you're free to coast
aimlessly.
As I quoted earlier today (from the Dali autobio intro):
"The original surrealist emphasis was on automatic procedures, but Dali
dismissed them as evasions of Surrealism's declared intention to change
the world".
> In effect, Nik ran
> out of salient points a long while ago now, and just keeps rehashing the
> same dis-information.
The Encyclopedia Britannica is dis-information? The introduction to
Dali's autobiography is disinformation? Dale, do you sense some kind of
world-wide conspiracy to take surrealism out of the hands of the
automatists? We'd better start getting a militia together for when the
anti-automatist New World Order takes over, and we're all forced to wear
melting watches.
Nikolaus Maack
>> "The original surrealist emphasis was on automatic procedures, but Dali
>> dismissed them as evasions of Surrealism's declared intention to change
>> the world, and he introduced a more active and deliberated procedure for
>> transforming reality he called the "paranoiac-critical method." It was a
>> method which involved the calculated use of delusion and hallucination in
>> order to turn the objects of the real world into an iconography of sexual
>> fears and desires."
"The Lemming" (Ni...@justonelife.freeserve.nospam.co.uk) writes:
> How does one have a controlled hallucination? Surely a hallucination, by its
> very nature, is wild and chaotic and eschews control? If so, then anything
> relying on hallucination is de facto automatism in action.
Part of the problem with this conversation is the word "automatism".
Sometimes people use it to mean how the artwork itself is created. If I
pick up a paintbrush, with absolutely no plan whatsoever, and start
painting, letting my hand go where it will, that's "automatism".
Some also seem to suggest a different kind of automatism -- let's call it
"automatism once removed". In this method, ideas are retrieved through
some kind of "automatic" process. These ideas are then "collaged" into a
planned work.
I don't especially see this as "automatic". For one thing, without the
artist to tell you how the ideas were found, how do you determine that the
imagery was discovered in some sort of automatic way?
If I come up with an image -- a mouse that milks itself and makes cheese
from its own milk, then eats it -- how do we determine:
1) How I found this image?
2) Whether the image is automatic or not?
You could take my word for it, I suppose. I could tell you, "This image
was created automatically." Is there any reason to believe me? Not
really. Maybe I saw it in some cartoon and just don't remember it. Maybe
I'm lying.
I'm afraid the answer is, we can't determine how the image was discovered.
This makes "automatism once removed" a fairy story.
The process that seems to take place, when determining whether a work is
"automatic" or not, is we look at an image and attempt to deduce whether
or not the artist or writer has created a bizarre enough, surreal enough,
distorted enough image. If it meets these standards, then we feel
relatively safe in assuming it was found using "automatic" means. If we
find it lacking, we state it probably wasn't automatic.
This is fairly ridiculous. Consider how it's quite possible to sit down
and logically and rationally deduce what would make an interesting image
in a surrealist painting. In other words, Dali can find the image of the
melting watches in an automatic, unplanned way, or he can sit down and
logically deduce that a melting watch would be an excellent image.
My point is, "automatism once removed" is an extremely silly notion. It
is much easier to say that automatism is not a necessary component of
surrealism. Because frankly, it ain't. Surrealism, to me, is about the
irrational, the dream, and the subconscious, and glorifying these things,
giving them the value they deserve. Automatism is not the only way to
gain access to such material.
All of this gets us into another big area of debate. For some, it's the
process of discovery that's important, not the creating of the artwork.
You will be told (by Dale, Brandon, and Barrett) that the art is nothing
more than an artifact, a side-effect of the surrealist process. It's not
important, the process is.
So one can assume that, if Breton sat down and calculatedly wrote an
unusual poem, it would be "bad surrealism". If he sat down and
automatically wrote the exact same unusual poem, it would be "good
surrealism".
In either case, all we are left with is the poem. Unless we have specific
commentary from Breton (or some contempoary of his who happened to be
present) there's no telling whether the poem was made automatically or
not. It might embrace dream, the irrational, and the illogical -- but did
he create it automatically? Who knows? Does it really matter?
I find the artifacts left behind far more important that wondering about
the processes that made them. Obsessing over the process is the
equivalent of studying the shadow cast by a sculpture, never once looking
at the marble itself. It's the scultpure that expresses the dream, the
irrational, the illogical -- that expresses surrealism. Why are you
studying the dirt where its shadow lies?
Brandon Freels
psychic automatism." In fact, all surrealist techniques, including these
automatic ones and Dali's are "calculated" uses of delusion and
hallucination to "force" inspiration and creation at the hands of the
internal drives, they are calculated catalysts that push the mind into a
state of "pure psychic automatism."
"Nikolaus Maack" wrote
[snip]
Brandon Freels
> Barrett says we can't divide surrealism in two, otherwise it will weaken
> the cause, ignoring the fact that the split has been there since the very
> beginning. You and Brandon argue that it's all about automatism, growling
> and spitting whenever anyone indicates otherwise.
Please, when speaking of my position be less vague. I hold, and so did
Breton, that "pure psychic automatism" is surrealism guiding principle, not
"automatism" (as in automatic techniques).
Again, do you know the difference?
jsday
>
> I find the artifacts left behind far more important that wondering about
> the processes that made them. Obsessing over the process is the
> equivalent of studying the shadow cast by a sculpture, never once looking
> at the marble itself. It's the scultpure that expresses the dream, the
> irrational, the illogical -- that expresses surrealism. Why are you
> studying the dirt where its shadow lies?
I think you've got your metaphor on backwards. The shadow is a near
approximation of the shape of the sculpture, just as the sculpture is a
shadow, a side effect, of the process of mind and hand which formed it.
And if we assume that the creator is dead, or has forgotten about his
long-finished work, then what value has the result of his labor except
as part of some other process of creativity?
What good are all the beautiful artifacts that money can buy, if
they are created by machines and sold to morons? The process of
creation, and the process of perception are the important parts;
the object that is the result of one and the start of the other
is what's made of dirt, dust, and decaying shadows.
It's all very nice if you can create (through tedious mechanics,
rules of logic, rolls of dice and readings of newt droppings) a
piece of canvas with some paint on it. You think that the paint
molecules themselves somehow start "expressing surrealism"? They
join together into a new form of self-organizing life and declare
themselves to be a surrealist painting?
Again, I quote:
> I find the artifacts left behind far more important than wondering about
> the processes that made them.
There is no artifact. There is no end result. The lump of clay
is just one participant in the process, and not the most interesting
one.
_
Nikolaus Maack
> Please, when speaking of my position be less vague. I hold, and so did
> Breton, that "pure psychic automatism" is surrealism guiding principle, not
> "automatism" (as in automatic techniques).
> Again, do you know the difference?
Automatism is masturbation. "Pure Psychic Automatism" is masturbation
without touching your genitalia.
LPPCQ Snarky
Kallisti Discordia spoke to me through Beable van Polasm:
I never mentioned any British singers, only two different US sf writers
with distinctly similar middle names -- the past Grandmaster of sf is
*Anson*, the former Playboy editor is *Anton*, they're both Bobs, and their
initials sound the same when you say them as a word, unless you make a
point of not doing so. I've read most of one, a good bit of the other, and
the Trilogy was only begun in the _late_ '60's, around '67 or so. How do
_you_ know he didn't have a time machine? Either of them?
>Also, I have noticed that almost everybody who writes down
>how much they like HEINLIEN is some sort of Objectivist LIBRARIAN
>who reads lots of books by Ayn Rand and says things like
>"I shouldn't have to pay tax because I did this all by myself",
>totally ignoring that they COULDN'T have done ANYTHING without
>a SOCIETY to do it in, and furthermore, MONEY ITSELF is a
>SOCIETAL CONCEPT and is ABSOLUTELY USELESS to a "Rugged Individualist"
>such as these HEINLEIN/RANDROID/LIBRARIAN/OBJECTIVIST/DUKESTuDENTS
>like to think they are.
I have yet to decide _what_ kind of anarchist, or crypto-anarchist, RAH
was. RAW is clearer, natch. I'm not though.
>Finally, I think that CANNIBALISM is WRONG, and Kibo's got a bigger
>.sig than you, so NERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!11!!1!
Not being a Catholic, I have no opinion on cannibalism -- though I've heard
it's unhealthy. Kibo has become a myth, AFAICT. Anyway, Lordy has a bigger
sig, too.
--
===============================================================
Hail Eris! All hail Discordia!! We must stick apart!!!
Lola, called Snarky, the Chocolate Snark, Queen of the Snarks
of Ærisia; sometimes mistaken for Someone Who Cares; CEM;
Bonnie Langford, in the metaphorical sense; Queen of Rice;
TransWench; loud and flaming queer Demon of Mockery and Silliness, Demon
Lord of Confusion, Demon Prince of Absurdity; Pope Snarky Goodfella of
the undulating cable, JM, CK, POEE, KOTHASK; the Very Long,
Multi-Coloured Scarf of Tom Baker; The Black Goat With A
Thousand Young; the Goat In Black; Cardinal of the Fannish
Inquisition; Just Another Anti-Christ Extraordinaire;
Dreamer-Minstrel of Discord; Ravenclaw; Eater Of The Strange
Fruitcake And The Suspicious Meatloaf; the Discordian People's Most
Powerful and Revered Being Without Portfolio; God of Odd Statements;
member of The Church of The Quasi-Heretic, St. Marc the Perpetually
Amused, Patron; Scourge of the Zarbi Empire; Ship's Chaos Demon, Bad
Ship BetNoirian; a UFO; one of the independent originators of the
"So what?" Theory of Everything; Slayer of Bandwidth
*feetofclay* *at* *home* *dot* *com* to email
The Principia Discordia: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~tilt/principia/body.html
SPONGE: http://www.s-p-o-n-g-e.com/
For Action! Adventure! Excitement! with the Callahanian Army o'
Light, go to: http://silver-gateway.com/caol/ (typos included!)
Nikolaus Maack
> The process of
> creation, and the process of perception are the important parts;
I would argue that it's mostly perception, and that far too many people
obsess over the "creation". For example: authors, artists, and creative
people complain that they hear the question "Where do you get your ideas?"
more than any other. For some reason, non-creative people seem to think
there's a trick to it that they can be taught.
I think if we're completely honest with ourselves, we have no idea where
these ideas come from. Automatic, calculated, whatever -- the ideas may
as well come from aliens from outer space. Maybe they do.
Obsessing over the creative process is silly. Trusting your own
perception and trusting your own mysterious, unknowable creativity makes
more sense to me. It's the object, the art, the artifact that can only be
trusted to speak the truth.
Sure the artist can say, "I used nails, then I painted the wood blue, and
then I glued a cat to it," but usually they can't tell you 1) why they did
it and 2) what it means. That, in my opinion, is not the same thing as
"psychic automatism". It sure sounds like someone is looking for words to
label an intangible.
Maybe the above is what Brandon means when he says "pure psychic
automatism" -- just trusting in your brain to bubble up interesting toys
to play with. If only Brandon could speak his ideas so clearly.
Personally, I'd like to see a return to the days when surrealists were on
Freud's side, and could freely acknowledge the existence of the
unconscious, instead of coming up with new, ridiculous, psychic-fair
terminology. Pure psychic automatism. Bleh. Sounds to me like listening
to the unconscious (subconscious), and trusting it to deliver interesting
goods.
And yet, somehow, the word "unconscious" has come to be taboo in certain
surrealist circles.
> It's all very nice if you can create (through tedious mechanics,
> rules of logic, rolls of dice and readings of newt droppings) a
> piece of canvas with some paint on it. You think that the paint
> molecules themselves somehow start "expressing surrealism"?
Clearly they don't. How a person perceives the work determines whether
the object is "surreal" or not. It's my argument that we should trust our
own perceptions when looking at an artwork and make a call on it. How the
artist created the work shouldn't matter. Far too many of us, upon
finding a work we'd call "a good example of surrealism," immediately make
assumptions about the process that created it.
"Oh, it's good surrealism. The painter must have been spontaneously
tapping into his subconscious using meditative trances and automatic
writing. After all, how else does one come up with good surrealist work?"
Maybe the artists did no such thing. Should it matter, if the work
creates the "feeling" of surrealism?
> There is no artifact. There is no end result. The lump of clay
> is just one participant in the process, and not the most interesting
> one.
It's the only one that tells you all it can tell you.
I love the human mind. I love psychology. I spend a lot of my free time
reading huge, wordy books that attempt to map the human mind. The one
thing I learn, over and over again, is that each of us has access to about
40% of our mental reality.
Why did you do what you did? Why do you feel what you feel? Who are you?
People seem to behave as though such questions are easilly answered. I
did it because I wanted to. I felt that way because I was happy. I am
me. These are the typically inadequate answers we get to these questions.
What I'm driving at is that I don't trust a person to know their real
creative process, their true identity, or the source of their feelings.
This goes for me as much as anyone else. So when someone says to me, "I
use the pure psychic automatic process," I doubt their word.
Sure, I will grant that their perspective is "true" to a certain extent
(40%) but after that, I'll assume that they're making it up, just like the
rest of us. We all make it up. That's not necessarily a bad thing.
I don't know how much sense any of this will make to you, or anyone else
in this newsgroup. It's a culmination of a lot of reading about how
people deceive themselves, how we repress painful material, how we try not
to think about unpleasant things, and how we can always provide a reason
for our actions -- even when there is no reason.
Michael Voytinsky
> obsess over the "creation". For example: authors, artists, and creative
> people complain that they hear the question "Where do you get your ideas?"
> more than any other. For some reason, non-creative people seem to think
> there's a trick to it that they can be taught.
It is a question that puzzles me. There is nothing easier then coming up
with interesting ideas. It is putting them into a form that is coherent
and aesthetically pleasing to others that is the difficult part.
Cheers,
Michael
--
Michael Voytinsky
Ottawa Ontario Canada
http://voytinsky.freeservers.com
"When entering a health club, make sure there are people leaving.
Otherwise it could be an alien meat processing plant in disguise."
pete
> Kibo has become a myth, AFAICT.
It's "Mythter Kibo," to you!
--
pete
scot...@uswest.net
This very morning somewhere there are young guys and girls humping
there snowboards up the sides of mountains. Humping them to places in
the backcountry where they've never been or maybe just heard some
whispers about.
They ought to change their equipment. They really should go to tele
skis.
The marks in the snow left behind by tele skis are always more awesome
than those left behind by snow boards.
It's the awesome look of the marks left behind in the snow that's
important.
Oh yah, I forgot. They also need to think more about where they are
headed. This lonely backcountry stuff does not cut it. It's
important that other people see the marks in the snow. Otherwise
who's to know if the marks are really awesome.
barrett john erickson
> [...]
> The Encyclopedia Britannica is dis-information? The introduction to
> Dali's autobiography is disinformation?
typical. you take the encyclopedia britannica and an introduction to a book
by a former surrealist as reliable sources while maintaining that 80+ years
of surrealist documentation and hundreds of living surrealists are
irrelevant.
once again, nik, your predisposition toward accepting mainstream
"credentials" while refusing the only _reliable_ source material available
(i.e. the _original_ source) is stunningly obvious. but that's to be
expected from a credentialed post-modern psychological detective trained to
approach human reality as a bundle of symptoms for you to diagnose.
lest anyone has forgotten, this is how the encyclopedia britannica skews the
subject:
<<<
Surrealism
movement in visual art and literature, flourishing in Europe between World
Wars I and II.
[etc.]
>>>
-- barrett
BLUE FEATHERS #3 is now available
http://www.MagneticFields.org/blue/
bar...@MagneticFields.org
http://www.MagneticFields.org/
surrealists in minnesota
Sur...@MagneticFields.org
==============================================
"Everything tends to make us believe that there exists a
certain point of the mind at which life and death, the real and
the imagined, past and future, the communicable and the
incommunicable, high and low, cease to be perceived as
contradictions."
...André Breton
==============================================
barrett john erickson
> [...]
> Personally, I'd like to see a return to the days when surrealists were on
> Freud's side, and could freely acknowledge the existence of the
> unconscious, instead of coming up with new, ridiculous, psychic-fair
> terminology. Pure psychic automatism. Bleh. Sounds to me like listening
> to the unconscious (subconscious), and trusting it to deliver interesting
> goods.
is there anyone out there (besides nik) who needs an explanation as to why a
surrealist would find this paragraph to be the most hilarious admission of
absolute and willful ignorance on the subject of "surrealism" that they'd
ever encountered?
barrett john erickson
> The quote:
> >> "The original surrealist emphasis was on automatic procedures, but Dali
> >> dismissed them as evasions of Surrealism's declared intention to change
> >> the world, and he introduced a more active and deliberated procedure
for
> >> transforming reality he called the "paranoiac-critical method." It was
a
> >> method which involved the calculated use of delusion and hallucination
in
> >> order to turn the objects of the real world into an iconography of
sexual
> >> fears and desires."
>
> "The Lemming" (Ni...@justonelife.freeserve.nospam.co.uk) writes:
> > How does one have a controlled hallucination? Surely a hallucination, by
its
> > very nature, is wild and chaotic and eschews control? If so, then
anything
> > relying on hallucination is de facto automatism in action.
>
> Part of the problem with this conversation is the word "automatism".
> Sometimes people use it to mean how the artwork itself is created. If I
> pick up a paintbrush, with absolutely no plan whatsoever, and start
> painting, letting my hand go where it will, that's "automatism".
the problem is that the conversation isn't about what "people sometimes"
mean when they use the word "automatism", it's about what _surrealists_mean_
when they use it.
and you've shown you obviously don't know and don't care to know.
once again, you can't understand the topic in its full complexity so you
chop it up into bits small enough to fit into your cognitive holes and then
claim there are multiple definitions. it's like claiming to understand a
human being by studying amputated appendages.
and as with "surrealism" itself, you confuse your crutches for legs.
Nikolaus Maack
"Yes, you are."
"Look, Ted, I'm skiing!"
"I'm skiing too. I'm right next to you, Bill."
"I'm involved in the process of skiing. I'm swishing my arms, and my legs
are moving, and the skis are gliding across the snow. You know, the
proper way to ski is to just ski. Just ski and ski and ski. Without
thinking about anything else but skiing. Just, you know, ski free."
"Uh huh. I get your point, Bill."
"Ted, I'm thoroughly involved in the process of skiing. I am skiing
properly, by focussing on the skiing experience alone. I'm 100% skiing
and that's the only way to ski. Anybody who skis differently is a
motherfucker."
"Look, I'm skiing too, and it's fine and it's wonderful, and I'm having a
grand old time, but talking about skiing while you're skiing gets a little
annoying after awhile. Can we not talk, or at least talk about something
else?"
"Uh, I'm breathing! Breathing in oxygen! It feels cold inside my lungs
and... I'm sweating! The proper way to sweat, Ted, is to let the beads
run down your face. Take pride in your sweating! Otherwise you're a..."
At this point Ted clobbers Bill over the head with a ski-pole and leaves
him in the woods for the wolves and rabbits to gnaw on.
Brandon Freels
> Personally, I'd like to see a return to the days when surrealists were on
> Freud's side, and could freely acknowledge the existence of the
> unconscious, instead of coming up with new, ridiculous, psychic-fair
> terminology. Pure psychic automatism. Bleh. Sounds to me like listening
> to the unconscious (subconscious), and trusting it to deliver interesting
> goods.
The term "pure psychic automatism" was introduced in the first manifesto. To
insisted that it stands opposed to Freud is just more evidence of your
segragated thinking.
> And yet, somehow, the word "unconscious" has come to be taboo in certain
> surrealist circles.
I would much rather use "interior necessities" because the phrase
"unconscious" is often loaded, especially when dealing with newcomers.
john adams
Michael Voytinsky wrote in message ...
>Nikolaus Maack <ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
>news:96j7cp$k6j$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>
>> obsess over the "creation". For example: authors, artists, and creative
>> people complain that they hear the question "Where do you get your
ideas?"
>> more than any other. For some reason, non-creative people seem to think
>> there's a trick to it that they can be taught.
>
>It is a question that puzzles me. There is nothing easier then coming up
>with interesting ideas. It is putting them into a form that is coherent
>and aesthetically pleasing to others that is the difficult part.
>
It's the very latter that usually ends up defeating its own purpose.
jsday
>
> I don't know how much sense any of this will make to you, or anyone else
> in this newsgroup. It's a culmination of a lot of reading about how
> people deceive themselves, how we repress painful material, how we try not
> to think about unpleasant things, and how we can always provide a reason
> for our actions -- even when there is no reason.
Assume for a moment that it is possible to see past all the kinds of
self-deception that you list there (which it is), and all their
pathological kin. Given someone who at least momentarily has no
repressed thoughts or emotions, no baseless self-serving rationalizations,
no reaction-formations pressing down, and no hesitation due to fear of
self-knowledge or anything else... what have you got? Are we up to 53%
access yet? What remains? It's only to the extent that you can get
beyond all that self-deception that surrealism becomes possible (not
necessary, just possible).
That's not to say that those psychological forces you're talking
about aren't important, or that they don't get in the way of even
the most hard-core acid-heads. They have about as much relevance
to surrealism as the price of a lift ticket does to skiing (it's
hard to find, but that much better when it's zero).
_
john adams
barrett john erickson wrote in message
<3a8d4d21$0$62906$53a6...@news.tcinternet.net>...
>
>"Nikolaus Maack" <ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
>news:96j7cp$k6j$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca.
>
>> [...]
>
>> Personally, I'd like to see a return to the days when surrealists were
on
>> Freud's side, and could freely acknowledge the existence of the
>> unconscious, instead of coming up with new, ridiculous, psychic-fair
>> terminology. Pure psychic automatism. Bleh. Sounds to me like
listening
>> to the unconscious (subconscious), and trusting it to deliver
interesting
>> goods.
>
>is there anyone out there (besides nik) who needs an explanation as to why
a
>surrealist would find this paragraph to be the most hilarious admission of
>absolute and willful ignorance on the subject of "surrealism" that they'd
>ever encountered?
I don't know, but I think more and more that it should be entirely ignored
as the foolish prank-pulling it is, atleast to the extent that any
discourse
actually between said person is useless indeed. It's of course what
drives him, as most, pointless net-antagonists. Or shall I say the only
point being to get a reaction, however trivial such an endeavor may
appear to most individuals.
Dale Houstman
"john adams" <johnqa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:96kpsq$3r2$1...@news.bewellnet.com...
Even these little asides feed that pointless furnace. There's no getting
around a very fat head.
dmh
Brandon Freels
Nik. But at least he provides us with an opportunity to actually discuss
"surrealism." I'm quite sure that if Nik didn't come alone blabbing his
misunderstandings we'd almost never hear a word about what Surrealism is at
alt.surrealism, and the newsgroup would/could eventually be overcome by
pseudo-surrealism, and oddball pranksters.
"john adams" wrote
Dale Houstman
> We've been over this before, and I think its kind of obvious what drives
> Nik. But at least he provides us with an opportunity to actually discuss
> "surrealism." I'm quite sure that if Nik didn't come alone blabbing his
> misunderstandings we'd almost never hear a word about what Surrealism is
at
> alt.surrealism, and the newsgroup would/could eventually be overcome by
> pseudo-surrealism, and oddball pranksters.
>
it perhaps. It would be better - I assuem - if more of the world's active
surrealist groups - or even one member of each group - took the time to post
to this damn group once in a blue cheese. Just as a matter of information
promulgation it seems to me it would be worth the effort. Surrealists are
always debating their "presence" in the world, and writing endless articles
to please and provoke one another in various publications, but it does have
the air of an office newsletter at this point. The original group took the
effort to involve themselves in wider public debates, using general media. I
think that it is more difficult to do nowadays, and certainly - with the
dilution of message brought on by the "metastization" of publications -
every single communication seems less important. But I don't really see much
of a presence in this regard. I have suggested to Barrett that we begin
writing simple letters to the editors on specific issues that pop up, signed
by the group, so as to give a surrealist viewpoint on those areas. Nothing's
been done yet - so I'm lazy! - but it strikes me as a small but worthy plan.
And there are other venues the surrealists might engage in, so as to show
that they are - indeed - still extant and are able to offer a viewpoint
outside the usual dichotomy of "liberal/conservative" that poisons the air
daily. So, while Nik's presence does have the effect you mention, I do
rather get tired of playing the part of the repetitive fixer of
dis-information, especially when it is always the same dis-information.
And - honestly - as "opponents" go, I only wish our bete noire were a trifle
more intelligent and imaginative. I've had good conversations with people
who misunderstand or dislike the radical ideals of surrealism, but they are
usuallu lacking the dense agenda, and so they do approach the ideal of
converse. Nik is like meeting the same thug in the same alley at the same
time every week, and having the same fitful talk before he robs you of the
same amount of small change. As an opponent Nik isn't worthy, to be frank.
And there can be littlte doubt that it is he who gets the most pleasure out
of the exchanges, and since most things I do are done out of desire, I must
say that I rarely desire a hob-nob with this particular dim-bulb.
dmh
LPPCQ Snarky
>LPPCQ Snarky wrote:
>
>> Kibo has become a myth, AFAICT.
>
>It's "Mythter Kibo," to you!
Ohhhhh, sweet mythtery of life, at last I've found yooooouuuuuuuu
Nikolaus Maack
> Assume for a moment that it is possible to see past all the kinds of
> self-deception that you list there (which it is), and all their
> pathological kin.
Actually, it isn't. It's not possible to see past all your own
self-deceptions. After all, how do you know when you're finally "clear"?
How do you avoid deceiving yourself in the future?
And for that matter, self-deception is "normal" behavior. Sane people do
it all the time. It's part of our every day waking world. Each of us
lives under the delusion that we are good, that we are just, that we are
sane, that all sane people think like us, that we are luckier than others,
that we are slightly above average in almost all areas. These are the
delusions that come with living behind one set of eyes, day after day.
I met a man a while back who, to put it politely, was not the sanest man
I'd ever met. He said, quite proudly, that he was finished with all that
"introspection nonsense". He did it all when he was a teenager. Now he's
fine and good and normal and knows himself quite well.
This was so obviously far from the truth that everyone who heard him speak
these words burst into laughter.
> Given someone who at least momentarily has no
> repressed thoughts or emotions, no baseless self-serving rationalizations,
> no reaction-formations pressing down, and no hesitation due to fear of
> self-knowledge or anything else... what have you got?
An englightened buddhist master riding a tiny pink cloud. I have yet to
meet any person that meets your description.
I find it bizarre that a surrealist would suggest that such a person is
even remotely possible. Surrealism is about ackowledging the irrational,
about embracing it. One sound reason for doing so is the fact that human
beings are incredibly irrational, self-serving, self-obsessed creatures.
All of us. Me, you, Dale, Brandon, Andrea Chen -- we are all irrational.
This is the origin of surrealism. Remember Dadaism? It was a reveling in
the notion that humans are utterly, completely irrational. Go nuts!
Dance naked on top of pianos on fire while yodelling gibberish, because
it's all more or less the same thing.
Surrealism agrees -- humans are utterly irrational -- but argues that
there is a pattern and a logic and a sense to all of the irrationality.
Even the insanity serves some kind of purpose. It has a dream-logic to
it.
So embrace your insanity. Revel in it. Delight in it. Explore it. What
other choice have you got? It's only when you ackowledge your own
irrationality that you can become a complete human being.
> That's not to say that those psychological forces you're talking
> about aren't important, or that they don't get in the way of even
> the most hard-core acid-heads. They have about as much relevance
> to surrealism as the price of a lift ticket does to skiing (it's
> hard to find, but that much better when it's zero).
I find what you're saying entirely baffling. What I am talking about is
the entirety of surrealism. We are irrational beings. We are beings who
live more than half our lives in our unconscious minds. We repress
material, we deceive ourselves, we use our unconscious minds as a sort of
dumping ground for all things unplesant.
"I want to kill my father and fuck my mother... No, no, no! I don't. I
want no such thing. I'm not in competition with my father. I'm not. And
I'm not sexually attracted to my mom. I just happen to like women who
look like her and act like her. It's a complete coincidence!"
This isn't abnormal behavior. This is normal behavior. Sane, normal
people repress this material. To suggest that anyone is exempt from doing
this -- from deceiving themselves -- strikes me as the biggest
self-deception of them all.
The other day my girlfriend was flipping channels. She came across that
wedding show on the Learning Channel. What a valuable lesson I learned
from that five minutes of watching.
The bride was talking about her father in that typical airhead kind of
way. Dad, she said, is a wonderful, wonderful guy. She has a special
relationship with him. They get along together so well. And that's why
she loves her husband to be, Brian. He's so much like her dad, and that's
why she respects, and loves him, and will fuck him on their wedding night.
Fuck Brian on the wedding night, that is. Not dad. No, no, she won't
fuck dad. She doesn't want to fuck dad. That would be sick. She'll fuck
Brian because he reminds her of her dad. That's normal.
What a telling moment that was. I wonder how many other Freudians ears
pricked up at those words of hers.
One final thought... One of the most important lessons I learned in
psychology is that there is no such thing as sanity. This is an important
lesson to know, because consider -- if you ever met someone who was
perfectly normal in absolutely every single conceivable way... My god,
you'd know there was something terribly wrong with that person. How could
they stand it, being so pefectly normal? They'd be sick beyond all
belief. What a twisted, horrific display of human psychosis they would
be!
The only people I like or respect are those who are broken in some way.
Lord [INH], God of the 'Any' Key
>
> Dave "but wait, cheese is Not Allowed!" DeLaney
Oh, crap!
::spits out his sandwich::
--
Lord [INSERT NAME HERE], Dr of erIscoRda, Hal Phillips (in the
metaphysical sense), Overlord of the Fifth House on the Rite, Member of
the Psychotic Friends Network, Grand Knight of the Zen Potato, Deputy
Assistant Director of the Erisian Confusion Bureau, Cloisterite of the
Monestary of Happenstance Hodge Podge Lodge, Perpetual Pope Converter of
Random POEE Titles, Pickler of Saucy Ink Cartridges, Wielder of the Holy
carrot, Slayer of All Who Support Him, Lunatic Without a Cause, Evil
Genius, Aspiring World-Dominator, Anointed Saviour of Mankind, Licensed
Distributor of Sacred Mao Buttons to the Region of Thud,
Commander-in-Chief Discordian Farces, Bard-in-Residence at
alt.discordia, the Man With the Golden Pun, Owner of The World's Most
Bandwidth-Consuming Signature (barring Kibo), Proud Owner of
http://www.ubergeek.co.uk, Tae-Kwon-Do Black belt . . . Well, Almost,
Leader of the International Militant Pacifist Front, CEO of Invisible
Inc., Soul Eater of the Million Jelly-Babies of the Sainted Bag, Owner
of Tufty the Explosive Clockwork Weasel, Radical Militant Centerist,
Made in Taiwan, Ruler of the Unpronouncable Kingdom of
Arghfghfghalsefvnf, Unborn Evangelist of the Church of Rebirth, Consumer
of the Five Thousand, Evil spawn of Santa, In-Fading Alien, the
Ubergeek: Sent to Save the Souls of All Other Geeks, Chief Nerfherder,
Papal Knight of the Living Dead, Patron Saint of Patron Saints, Lonely
Hermit of the Crowded Cave, Discordian Pope, Head of Illumination at
Bavarian Illuminati HQ (I change the lightbulbs), Grand Master of the
Ancient Martial Art of Kung-Lung-Bung-Fung-Chung-Mung-Itsu-Do, Founder
of the Astoundingly Annoying Alliteration Cabal (3AC), Member of the
RSPCA (Royal Society for the Promotion of Cruelty to Animals), Owner of
the Sacred Bottle of Te-qui-la, Epesky Episkipos, Anar-Kissed, Leader of
the People's Unpopular Back, Dragoon Slayer, Ruthless Assassassassain,
Messy-iah, Marduk, The Ancient Sumerian God, Protector of the Luscious
and Sexy Polymother St Alicia Erisdaughter Discordia, Slippery Freudian,
Purveyor of Fine Megalomaniac Supplies, KSC, CID, MI5, LSD, PPG, SAM,
CFC, RPM, BPS, YHVH, King of All Invertebrates, The obiK Who Is Not
Allowed, The Emerald Emir of Embolotic Emancipation, Symbiotic
Synergistic Shaman, Highly Inflammable, 23Skidoo's Homey, Allegedly the
Same Person as Loopi, Superzero, Official Nonentity, Definitely NOT a
Fucking SubGenius, Vanquisher of Nibblepibblies, Naked Tunisian Sock
Merchant, Honourary Member of the Cabal of the Red Herring ( Knights of
the Order of Kaos: KOOK), Finder of Things Worth Finding, Official
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Field Researcher (it's true! check out
http://www.h2g2.com ), Very Polite, The Choice of 9/10 Cats, Eater of
The Red Pill, Quite Delightful, Caffeine Addict, 'Ziner, Programmer,
Deep Thinker, Hamlet for the 21st Century, Prolific Writer, Intermitent
Fighter, Fire Lighter, More Stuff Ending in -ighter, Matchmaker to the
Stars (of the 'Zine), Just Some Dude (by appointment to Hexar),
Alligator as far as my Spell-Checker is Concerned, the Artist Formerly
known as Mr Niceguy, Indescribably Indelible Undesirable, Not What You
Think, Not You, Not Me, Commodore in the Salvation Navy, Gwen Addict,
Sideways Thinker, 1/4 Candian, 1/4 Channel Islander, 3/4 Scot, Turned
On, Tuned In, Dropped Out, Brother to Colon the Super-Dense Proto-Hippy,
Nominal Head of the Church of the Latter-Day Deities, Overclocked Mind,
and Keeper of the Holy titles.
"Sodom today, Gomorrah the world!"- The Star Fraction (Ken McLeod)
"I hate war. It spoils armies."- The Grand duke Constantine of Russia
"Ender's anger was cold, and he could use it. Bonzo's anger was hot, and
so it used him."- Ender's Game (Orson Scott Card)
"But don't forget the Joker."- Motorhead, Ace of Spades
"Man- 'We're all at risk.' Shirley- 'No, not all. I've got a tray full
of black pudding out there, but I can't say I care for it.' Man- 'You
mean, you mean you don't eat the special stuff?' Shirely- 'Somebody's
got to stay in control.'"- The League of Gentlemen
"If they are our brothers, how come we can't eat them?"- the Principa
Discordia
"Life, Aughbewbwuah"- Pope 23Skidoo
"Why don't they leave me alone, so I don't have to hurt them?"- Ender's
Game (Orson Scott Card)
"I'm going to attempt to drown myself / You can try this at home / you
can be just like me"- Eminem, Role Model
"Aeryn: 'You want to go back to this Earth, this place that has so much
disease and suffering?' John- 'Yeah, well you guys don't have
chocolate.'"- Farscape
"If I was a rolling stone, I'd roll until I flew / And if I was a garden
I would bloom in black for you"- Ozzy Osbourne, Nowhere to Run
"Vote for insanity, you know it makes sense."- Screamin' Lord Sutch,
Official UK Monster Raving Loony Party founder and Spritual Leader
"Starsky and Hutch reruns, dubbed into diverse languages, may turn out,
in the long run, to be a greater force for human rights than the
Declaration of Independence." - Neal Stephenson
"Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most."- Ozzy Osbourne
"Mr Anchor assure me / That Baghdad is burning / Your voice is so
soothing / That cunning mantra of killing"- Rage Against The Machine,
Testify
"You may give a toad a wart, but a toad does not give you warts"- The
League of Gentlemen
"I have no opinion on Radio 1's playlist"- Comedy Dave (sidekick to R1
DJ Chris Moyles), being a bit sarky
"Play me online, well you know that I'll beat you / If I ever meet you,
I'll control-alt-delete you"- 'Weird Al' Yankovich, All About the
Pentiums
"Just because you're paranoid / Don't mean they're not after you"-
Nirvana, Territorial Pissings
"That it [Human Rights] will remain a struggle well into the millenium
is clear from the behaviour of the United States, the one true
superpower, in voting (with Libya and China) against the creation of an
International Criminal Court, out of an arrogant concern that it may one
day take juridstiction to try an American alleged to be a war criminal"-
Crimes Against humanity (Geoffrey Robertson QC)
"I could be wrong here / I could be right / I could be the son of God /
Selling you a little light / But you wouldn't see me / You wouldn't hear
me / Why you are not me / Tell me holy man / Is there meant to be
something? / Am I meant to feel something? / Am I to believe that you
hold the key? / My way wrong and yours right?"- One Minute Silence, Holy
Man
"Confusion is a definite direction."- Splendid, Charge
"Let him who has not sinned cast the first stone."- Jezuz
"Unlike Bill Clinton, I did inhale and from time to time still do."-
David McReynolds, Socialist Party USA presidential candidate
"Read a book about the self / Said I should get expensive help / Go fix
my head / Create some wealth / Put my neuroses on the shelf / But I
don't care for myself / I don't care for myself / I don't care."--
Placebo, Blue American
"Well I'm not a slave to a God that doesn't exist / And I'm not a slave
to a world that doesn't give a shit."-- Marilyn Manson, the Fight Song
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s++:-- a--- C++>$ U> P L>
E? W++ N++ o? K+ w--- O- M- V-
PS+++ PE- Y+> PGP- t+ 5+ X++ R+++
tv+@ b+++ DI+++ D+ G> e- h! r- y>
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
*** **
* * **
** **
**
***** *****
** * ***
* *
* *
* *
* KALLISTI *
* *
* *
* *
** **
** **
********
(Rediddled by Sara Wallen)
__
__(__)__
(________)
/\
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ ______ \
/ < () > \
/ """""" \
/ \
/ \
------------------
Title Count: 113
Quote Count: 26
Size of Signature: 8.49KB
Last Altered: 13th Feburuary 01
Hari Krishna Fnord Tally: III
Homepage: http://www.ubergeek.co.uk
Email: lordy...@mad.scientist.com
alistair...@europe.com
ICQ: 85708322
Confucius say: "Man who get confused between free beer and free software
get wet hard-drive."
"Early bird catch worm, but second mouse get cheese."
"Why is cheese?"
I accept submissions to this .sig. Post or email them, and consign
yourself to history. Or something.
Please do not use this email/post for digital toilet paper.
*Disclaimer*
Any resemblance between the author of this post and any person, living
or dead, is entirely coincidental.
(K) All Rights Reversed
Reprint What You Like
This has been an emergent property of the System. Goodnight.
Parry
>
> "Brandon Freels" <b.j.f...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:fZnj6.2303$TD1.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > We've been over this before, and I think its kind of obvious what drives
> > Nik. But at least he provides us with an opportunity to actually discuss
> > "surrealism." I'm quite sure that if Nik didn't come alone blabbing his
> > misunderstandings we'd almost never hear a word about what Surrealism is
> at
> > alt.surrealism, and the newsgroup would/could eventually be overcome by
> > pseudo-surrealism, and oddball pranksters.
> >
> There's some truth to this, but not enough to make the repeated effort worth
> it perhaps. It would be better - I assuem - if more of the world's active
> surrealist groups - or even one member of each group - took the time to post
> to this damn group once in a blue cheese. Just as a matter of information
> promulgation it seems to me it would be worth the effort.
I've wondered about the scarcity of active surrealists here. Certainly
other newsgroups or listservs enjoy the occasional participation of the
most interested parties. Comic book people can converse with Silver Age
artists, Ann Rule clocks in at alt.true-crime every couple of years, and
so on. Perhaps the surrealist groups believe a presence on the internet
is sufficient, not understanding that usenet is something entirely
different. This may change, depending on the future of usenet. To me,
the relevance of the FAQ lay not so much in the stimulation of
discussion here but in its potential for “information promulgation” to
other users of usenet.
-- Parry
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
barrett john erickson
"Parry" <pa...@perfectOMITmail.com> wrote in message
news:3A91D1...@perfectOMITmail.com...
>
> I've wondered about the scarcity of active surrealists here. Certainly
> other newsgroups or listservs enjoy the occasional participation of the
> most interested parties. Comic book people can converse with Silver Age
> artists, Ann Rule clocks in at alt.true-crime every couple of years, and
> so on. Perhaps the surrealist groups believe a presence on the internet
> is sufficient, not understanding that usenet is something entirely
> different. This may change, depending on the future of usenet. To me,
> the relevance of the FAQ lay not so much in the stimulation of
> discussion here but in its potential for "information promulgation" to
> other users of usenet.
>
back in the old days (1995), there was a moment when things might have been
different.
[just for the historical record: i think it was Lynn Bry -- creator of the
first web site on the subject in '94(?): "The Surrealism Server" -- who
registered alt.surrealism as a usenet newsgroup a bit earlier.]
at the time, with the internet blossoming like a thunderhead, USENET was
still near its center (there were _very_ few WWW sites and Mosaic/Netscape
was still in the v1.x or less stage if i remember right) and there were only
about 3000 newsgroups. so as you might expect, many surrealists found
alt.surrealism during their initial explorations of the new medium (as i'm
sure many do today as well -- even though most new-comers these days think
e-mail and e-commerce is all there is to the net).
but in 1995 there was still some hope that the internet would avoid becoming
a combination Microsoft/Time-Warner/Disney themepark and FBI entrapment
zone.
the most significant entrance came in the first month or two of that year.
it was an invitation to participate in an object game, posted by J.J. Meric
on behalf of the Groupe de Paris du Movement Surrealiste. there may have
been others unknown to me before this, but i know (based on their knowledge
of and collaborations with the Groupe de Paris) that several surrealists
from the UK, The Netherlands, Portugal, the USA and a few other places i'm
probably forgetting, came through here in those first 6 months or so of '95.
this happens with far less frequency today, but occasionally.
there were also several of my ARTlab (now in suspension) collaborators
actively posting in this group at the time. a couple of us sent (via
standard postal service) a letter of introduction and a few samples of our
current efforts and then participated in the game (the results of which were
presented at an exhibition in Holland later that year). in response, we got
a very nice package of publications and a video tape back from Paris, and
our links to the global movement were formed.
by way of contrast, many alt.surrealism people responded to the game
invitation with lame attempts at what they mistook for surrealist humor (the
ever popular "fish" posts for instance), others ridiculed what they decided
was the orthodox pomposity of a claim (never made, of course) to be the
"official" surrealist group in paris in a time when "surrealism" was so
obviously de-centralized and open to personal interpretation (sound
familiar? but no, he wasn't around here then).
over the next few months, there were many informed and patient responses
(from many people) to the uninformed assertions and misrepresentations that
could be pasted seamlessly into today's active threads.
by the end of the year 1995 all the european surrealists were gone (moved to
e-mail lists) and i was the only one of my ARTlab friends still posting.
the consensus was that it just wasn't worth the effort to inform the hoards
of Dali-centric americans who'd rather fight than learn, and that it was
impossible to carry on any productive discussion among ourselves in such a
noisy place.
it seemed then, as it often does now, that every discussion in
alt.surrealism that is of any real relevance to the newsgroup's subject is
quickly reduced to the "beginner level" of trying to explain the difference
between the popular misconceptions about "surrealism" and its reality among
living surrealists.
and so it came to pass that a newsgroup that once seemed likely to become a
public attractor and staging area for surrealist collaboration has today
gained the reputation of being a conceptual ghetto.
[unfortunately, as they grew, the e-mail lists dissipated as well.]
in summary, the difference between this and the other forums you mention can
probably be found in their greater ratio of participants with a higher level
of respect for the subject's original source material.
Parry
Thanks, this explains a great deal. They came, they saw, they vacated
the contents of their stomachs. From my corner of the room (literally),
it appears as though the internet medium is in stagnation, having become
so dominated by commercial concerns. It’s like having a virtual vending
machine in your own home. Usenet and listservs, though, still have
potential for dynamic growth. Amid the noise, there is an international
sharing of information among people of like interests, and at their best
these media have facilitated large-scale organization of radical
political activity. Being an optimist (but only when others are
pessimistic) I would hope that these media would continue to expand and
be met by an increasingly desire and capability for cooperation.
Usenet is a particularly odd media, being situated somewhere between the
personal letter and the anonymous crank phone call. There are an
astounding number of newsgroups -- my server takes in 60 thousand+. The
groups I’ve looked at -- things like alt.obituaries -- generally have a
lot of noise, usually lame-ass political arguments springing from a
disturbed obsession with Bill Clinton. Moderated groups escape the
plague, though safety may be seen as undesirable in a discussion forum.
The “alt” hierarchy has an especially poor reputation.
I would argue that these sorry circumstances don’t necessarily have to
be. The object-game you describe sounds like a worthy experiment, but
may have the drawback of trying to replicate real-group activity in an
ethereal forum. I expect different sorts of activities should thrive on
usenet, once it’s been determined what usenet is good at. For me, the
trouble with alt.surrealism is that its users are few are in number (but
fortunately they’re persistent). With the involvement of more people, we
may see a change in the odds of the potential being a thing past.
Marsha
wrote:
Brilliant. Is Parry yoer real name? Are you a boy or a girl. I am a
girl.
barrett john erickson
"Parry" <pa...@perfectOMITmail.com> wrote in message
>
> Thanks, this explains a great deal. They came, they saw, they vacated
> the contents of their stomachs. From my corner of the room (literally),
> it appears as though the internet medium is in stagnation, having become
> so dominated by commercial concerns. It's like having a virtual vending
> machine in your own home. Usenet and listservs, though, still have
> potential for dynamic growth. Amid the noise, there is an international
> sharing of information among people of like interests, and at their best
> these media have facilitated large-scale organization of radical
> political activity. Being an optimist (but only when others are
> pessimistic) I would hope that these media would continue to expand and
> be met by an increasingly desire and capability for cooperation.
>
> Usenet is a particularly odd media, being situated somewhere between the
> personal letter and the anonymous crank phone call. There are an
> astounding number of newsgroups -- my server takes in 60 thousand+. The
> groups I've looked at -- things like alt.obituaries -- generally have a
> lot of noise, usually lame-ass political arguments springing from a
> disturbed obsession with Bill Clinton. Moderated groups escape the
> plague, though safety may be seen as undesirable in a discussion forum.
> The "alt" hierarchy has an especially poor reputation.
>
> I would argue that these sorry circumstances don't necessarily have to
> be. The object-game you describe sounds like a worthy experiment, but
> may have the drawback of trying to replicate real-group activity in an
> ethereal forum. I expect different sorts of activities should thrive on
actually the game was conducted entirely at the Paris meetings. they
extended it by inviting wider participation at a final stage, requesting a
drawing based on one or more of the poetic descriptions (made by members of
the Paris group) of an object we'd never seen. so the usenet post was
simply a conveyance of the Paris descriptions and an invitation to send them
a drawing.
in retrospect, i think it was a very good way to go about discovering
potential new collaborators without risking disruption of their group
dynamic.
> usenet, once it's been determined what usenet is good at. For me, the
> trouble with alt.surrealism is that its users are few are in number (but
> fortunately they're persistent). With the involvement of more people, we
> may see a change in the odds of the potential being a thing past.
i wouldn't disagree with any of what you've said.
obviously _i_ haven't given up on the potential for usenet and e-mail lists
to facilitate an expanding surrealist movement. it was here i discovered
and continue to discover people i now consider friends and collaborators
(including Dale living only 7 miles away).
an open forum is certainly the best way to attract and inform like minded
people. N30/Seattle and the independent media center is/was the best
indication of this medium's potential in this regard.
the problem _here_ has always been how to discourage the drive-by poster and
the presumptuous poseur.
and this is an especially troublesome task for a surrealist forum, since
there is no subject that can be said to be "off-topic", only approaches to
subjects that reveal distinctly counter-surrealist perspectives. and, as we
see here regularly, if someone refuses to join even the most basic level of
what should be group consensus, they become very disruptive to the group
dynamic. one or two people can force _any_ contested point down to the
"what is surrealism?" level -- or even lower (remember those idiotic
exchanges where some denied that any distinction between "surrealism" and
"not surrealism" was possible because all definitions are personal?).
i've often thought the optimum scenario might be to exchange views and
explore issues in a lively _moderated_ forum, or controlled subscriber
listserv, and then post summaries to the public forum, while refusing to
engage anyone in the open forum who doesn't actually further the inquiry.
in this way the open forum might actually become a facilitator of a growing
movement rather than its embarrassing caricature.
[ if this is of any interest i know a couple of dead lists we can use that
probably still have most of the '95 alumni (see below) subscribed. ]
the problem with listservs, in my experience, is 1) that they're either too
open (eventually developing the same problems as alt.surrealism) or too
closed (inbreeding can yield very strange offspring), and 2) a focus
evolves too sharply within specific discussions, to the effect that you wind
up with three or four distinct threads with only four or five people reading
any of them -- which becomes another version of the noise problem for those
not interested in participating in that discussion. eventually these
threads recede into private e-mail between two or maybe three, and the list
is left quiet.
i did have one mostly positive experience with a listserv in that fall of
'95 when we all gathered on one list and had some interesting exchanges
(most of the active groups had at least one representative on-line and
participating). we even got fairly deep into planning what we were going to
bill as the "first international surrealist intervention on the world wide
web" (with participation of all active groups and invited
individuals --estimates ranging to maybe 200 surrealists).
but even this list faded as everyone became tired of not being able to move
past a certain point in the planning (breaking down into off-list exchanges
over the concerns of some that the project would require significant
expense, so budget limitations needed to be resolved before we put any
significant effort into the planning; versus those of us who wanted to get a
handle on who wanted to participate and how to make that happen first,
knowing that the real problem was going to be accumulating the scans and
texts from those without computers or internet connections and that from the
point that was solved the project could be accomplished easily and cheaply).
eventually some became increasingly intolerant and critical of others and
participation died.
an e-mail list has a distinctly short life-span, and makes a very poor
substitute for gathering at a bar to share a few beers, where such
discussions wander more spontaneously and inclusively. those who have the
option are quickly frustrated by trying to accomplish anything via e-mail.
The Lemming
barrett john erickson <bar...@magneticfields.org> wrote in message
news:3a94057e$0$62903$53a6...@news.tcinternet.net...
> > usenet, once it's been determined what usenet is good at. For me, the
> > trouble with alt.surrealism is that its users are few are in number (but
> > fortunately they're persistent). With the involvement of more people, we
> > may see a change in the odds of the potential being a thing past.
lists
> to facilitate an expanding surrealist movement. it was here i discovered
> and continue to discover people i now consider friends and collaborators
> (including Dale living only 7 miles away).
>
> explore issues in a lively _moderated_ forum, or controlled subscriber
> listserv, and then post summaries to the public forum, while refusing to
> engage anyone in the open forum who doesn't actually further the inquiry.
> in this way the open forum might actually become a facilitator of a
growing
> movement rather than its embarrassing caricature.
>
> [ if this is of any interest i know a couple of dead lists we can use that
> probably still have most of the '95 alumni (see below) subscribed. ]
>
This sounds very interesting; I've found the collaborations so far useful
and enjoyed them immensely, but sometimes find the NG lacking - I mentioned
the apparent sense of non-community here in the main before. Increasing
connections with other surrealist groups would be useful and rewarding, I
believe.
Nick the Lemming
--
Happy VHEMT Volunteer
May we live long and die out
In Your Face, Space Coyote!
Parry
I don’t know if a listserv is an adequate solution to the usenet
problem, but it is a good idea nevertheless. Far-flung surrealists
should definitely be availing themselves of this means of communication.
The technical problems that inhibited participants of ‘95 may now be
resolved -- 6 years is a long time. The problems inherent to listservs
which you mention may be alleviated if the listserv was
objective-oriented; forged with the purpose of, for instance, producing
an electronic bulletin every two or three months to provide news and
opinions. Such a bulletin could be posted to a variety of newsgroups. It
would be a way of foregrounding surrealist concerns in appropriate
forums, while distant surrealist groups would benefit from each other’s
feedback.
A listserv wouldn’t help alt.surrealism much, though. It would lose the
pluses of usenet: its public and open character, the storage of messages
on a news server, the advantages of newsreader programs, the archives.
It might even serve as a brain-drain, leaving a.s. to be the misshapen
clod of a representative for surrealism on usenet. This is a drawback of
moderated groups, as well; the unmoderated group remains, with the
greater visibility, as an embarrassment. There’s also the aura of
restriction a moderated group can present -- though in practice
moderation actually frees the group’s users from the distraction of
trolls -- and I believe some people avoid them on principle. Other than
that, a moderated group probably is the best way to create a
user-friendly environment.
Another strategy is to disseminate coherent information about
surrealism, as we’re trying with the faq project, through usenet to
hopefully expand the base of this group’s users, and increase its levels
of discourse and activity.
> i did have one mostly positive experience with a listserv in that fall of
> '95 when we all gathered on one list and had some interesting exchanges
> (most of the active groups had at least one representative on-line and
> participating). we even got fairly deep into planning what we were going to
> bill as the "first international surrealist intervention on the world wide
> web" (with participation of all active groups and invited
> individuals --estimates ranging to maybe 200 surrealists).
>
> but even this list faded as everyone became tired of not being able to move
> past a certain point in the planning (breaking down into off-list exchanges
> over the concerns of some that the project would require significant
> expense, so budget limitations needed to be resolved before we put any
> significant effort into the planning; versus those of us who wanted to get a
> handle on who wanted to participate and how to make that happen first,
> knowing that the real problem was going to be accumulating the scans and
> texts from those without computers or internet connections and that from the
> point that was solved the project could be accomplished easily and cheaply).
> eventually some became increasingly intolerant and critical of others and
> participation died.
>
> an e-mail list has a distinctly short life-span, and makes a very poor
> substitute for gathering at a bar to share a few beers, where such
> discussions wander more spontaneously and inclusively. those who have the
> option are quickly frustrated by trying to accomplish anything via e-mail.
The impersonality of e-mail, the lack of face-to-face contact, might
ultimately monkeywrench any grand ambitions one envisions for usenet.
But there are still plenty of possibilities to explore and the medium
may yet produce something unique.
-- Parry
> -- barrett
>
> BLUE FEATHERS #3 is now available
> http://www.MagneticFields.org/blue/
>
> bar...@MagneticFields.org
> http://www.MagneticFields.org/
>
> surrealists in minnesota
> Sur...@MagneticFields.org
>
> ==============================================
>
> "Everything tends to make us believe that there exists a
> certain point of the mind at which life and death, the real and
> the imagined, past and future, the communicable and the
> incommunicable, high and low, cease to be perceived as
> contradictions."
>
> ...André Breton
>
> ==============================================
elag
> Brilliant. Is Parry yoer real name? Are you a boy or a girl. I am a
> girl.
A rose by any other name...