How do you feel about this quote?
CHENNO
those who believe that Surrealism has evolved and suddenly become a new
movement again, must first show that it has democratic appeal–appeal to those
generally unschooled or not professionally interested in it. Then it must
suffer a period of aristocratic rejection–by those schooled in an accepted and
thereby 'traditional' movement, those with a vested interest in the status quo,
and concerned with protecting it at all cost. So far the mention of any
Surrealist movement after the 1940's does not include either of these
necessities.
- Donald Kuspit
CHENNO ô¿ô
Painting is silent poetry, and poetry painting that speaks. - Simonides
Leo Sgouros
CHENNO wrote in message <19990201111551...@ng93.aol.com>...
sounds like groucho marxist denial
maybe supermarket chekista{!}
Perceptor
>
> sounds like groucho marxist denial
> maybe supermarket chekista{!}
Leo ,
I think you are missing the Latin flavor
of humor expressed here.
Try and think of it as a Gaucho Marxist's
rendition of Tommy Chong's imortal song
about his years with Cheech Marin titled
"Cheech and mea in Chechnya"
perfommed at the last suppermarket
of the red stars.
donaldo ribaldo
Leo Sgouros
Perceptor wrote in message <36B61B49...@optonline.net>...
ye t'anks for de correkshun.
Why is the quality of toilet paper so bad in Rus'?
Lenin wanted to make sure every commie ass was red.
leonobitch grousin
P Kinsler
>
> Given that Surrealism was pronounced dead by its own creators in the 1940's,
> those who believe that Surrealism has evolved and suddenly become a new
> movement again, must first show that it has democratic appeal–appeal to those
> generally unschooled or not professionally interested in it. Then it must
> suffer a period of aristocratic rejection–by those schooled in an accepted and
> thereby 'traditional' movement, those with a vested interest in the status quo,
> and concerned with protecting it at all cost. So far the mention of any
> Surrealist movement after the 1940's does not include either of these
> necessities.
>
> - Donald Kuspit
The creators of surrealism may have pronounced it dead, but that
isn't really proof it was dead. A new surrealism might exist
without having any democratic appeal -- any number of terrorist
and criminal organisations manage this every day. A new
surrealism might exist without being rejected by the status-quo,
as any number of new charities exist without being rejected.
Frankly, anyone can make up a number of conditions, claim
without proof they are necessary for some purpose, then make
more equally unfounded claims in order to act as an illusiory
proof of the non-existence of something or other. Who the hell is
this DK anyway? Does he have his own newsgroup? I suspect he
might not exist, in fact I think his mother said he died, and
seeing as he hasn't evolved into a new Donald with democratic appeal
(let's take a vote guys!), oh, who cares, he was probably just
some commie anyway. Cows. Moo!
#Paul.
barrett john erickson
[unfortunately, my searches have not been able to locate this text. doesn't
anyone have the source for this?]
i did a first draft of what i was going to propose as a collective tract,
but don't think it should be distributed without a better understanding of
the context of Kuspit's comments.
but since that isn't available, i post that draft as my reaction to those
specific few sentences...
>>>>
The "Death of Surrealism" as pronounced by Kuspit
"Given that Surrealism was pronounced dead by its own creators in the
1940's,
those who believe that Surrealism has evolved and suddenly become a new
movement again, must first show that it has democratic appeal–appeal to
those
generally unschooled or not professionally interested in it. Then it must
suffer a period of aristocratic rejection–by those schooled in an accepted
and
thereby 'traditional' movement, those with a vested interest in the status
quo,
and concerned with protecting it at all cost. So far the mention of any
Surrealist movement after the 1940's does not include either of these
necessities."
- Donald Kuspit
It is true that Mr. Kuspit has been diagnosed as an "art critic". And while
this disability might ordinarily entitle him to certain allowances, we find
the magnitude of his violence against reality overrides any such allowances
and cannot be ignored.
[However, we will still defend him against any accusations of being an "art
historian".]
We strongly suspect that anyone who could say that "Surrealism was
pronounced dead by its own creators in the 1940's" has no idea who "created"
surrealism and even less idea what kind of entity surrealism actually is.
Perhaps he mistakes surrealism for the kind of thing that an individual or
group of individuals might plant in clay pots, tend for a while, and then
discard. Like a houseplant. But even the worst indoor gardener wouldn't
proclaim an entire species dead simply because he or she has failed
miserably at cultivating its seeds. And even the most reckless of
horticulturists wouldn't accept such declaration as true.
But rather than expend any more energy in attempting to correct a display of
such profound ignorance, we'll move on.
Mr. Kuspit asserts that "those who believe that Surrealism has evolved and
suddenly become a new movement again, must first show that it has democratic
appeal..." We answer that the continuing evolution of surrealism in no way
requires it to become a "new movement" but simply that it continue to place
the highest priority on its exploration of the imagination's place in our
daily living.
And since when is the validity of actions or concepts to be judged according
to their popular appeal or their rejection by an aristocracy? Even an "art
critic" must realize that value is not something bestowed by crowds.
The reason "the mention of any Surrealist movement after the 1940's does not
include either of these necessities" is because surrealists reject the
"necessity" of hopeless myopia.
we end with a quote from an earlier text:
"to refer to 'new' surrealism is like referring to 'new' weather. it can
only seem 'new' if you stand too still and small, too stuck in place to see
the larger context. it's only 'new' if you mistake the perpetual change and
development of a single complex life form, as it passes by, for a series of
deaths and rebirths of something much simpler."
<<<<
-- barrett
bar...@MagneticFields.org
http://www.MagneticFields.org/
"Everything tends to make us believe that there exists a certain point of
the mind at which life and death, the real and the imagined, past and
future, the communicable and the incommunicable, high and low, cease to be
perceived as contradictions."
...André Breton
Perceptor
And the ansir ess
the reason pravda is placed in all restrooms is so
that it "MAY" be
red
Leo Sgouros
Perceptor wrote in message <36B8A4CE...@optonline.net>...
curiously, pravda was dissected as thouroughly as the discussion on this ng
about what the f*^% surrealism is.
Before they wiped, of course.
leoss