What's Your Surrealism?
Parry
“surrealists.” I’m sure of only Barrett and Dale. I’ve never called
myself a “surrealist” although I have the strongest of affinities with
surrealism. This is because I’ve never experienced the group dynamic,
which I see as necessary -- an opinion arrived at after reading some
embarrassing material written under the aegis of surrealism by
grandstanding lone wolves. I’m somewhat a lone wolf myself, though no
grandstander, so I feel more like a “fellow traveler.” Who on this
newsgroup calls themselves surrealists, fellow travelers, or passers-by?
-----= 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! =-----
Dale Houstman
"Fascinan" <fasc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000305224517...@ng-fy1.aol.com...
>
> Well, according to the surrealistic "attractor" theory, you either are a
> surrealist or you are not. Personally, I think that theory is brummagem,
but
> what do I know?
I don't think this is precisely what was said at any point.
But I rather like your self description.
>
> I would call myself a traveler, but since I am not going in any particular
> direction -- except, of course, towards death -- I would say that I am a
> meanderer. I am a societal misfit, horribly alienated by my own choices.
I
> spur the consensual, the collective assumptions we all fall into, and it
is a
> daily struggle trying to tred above the wash of consumerist diarrhea, peer
> pressure pumus, and rising urine flow of information.
> Daily, I try to fight off the flow of negative thoughts in my mind: I
can't get a >decent job, I have to conform, I am not economically viable, I
can't, I don't, I >won't, I hate, I want to die, etc, etc.
I don't see these as negative thoughts: in fact, I see your need to describe
them as negative to be the only negative here; the ultimate conformity
nowadays appears to be the idea that a certain class of observations is
harmful. Your first three thoughts appear to be accurate observations of a
sort. It isn't pessimistic to notice your left foot is on fire if indeed it
is.
>
> I would like to say that I am full of passion and desire, but can not, at
this
> particular time. I haven't read a book in about a year or so, nor have I
> written any new songs on guitar. Pounded by basic economic worries,
> loneliness, wanting to please my family and friends, and trying to find my
own
> path through life, I have hit a huge creative plateau of sorts. I wish
that I
> was imbued with all sorts of talent, but the older I get the more I
realize
> that I am painfully plain.
This I can identify with on most levels. But I have come to the conclusion
(possibly forced upon me by circumstances) that a plateau is as good a place
as any to lie down and fall asleep. Consider it a vacation of sorts.
>
> I like to see things with a skewed lens -- I have an odd, quirky sense of
> humor. If you met me, you would think me polite, passive -- almost
meek --,
> and quiet.
I can't say that I can pull this off exactly, but I have been informed that
I am more "personable" face to face.
>
> I am not a surrealist, at least I don't think that I am. I am just an
> uncomfortable young man.
And I am an uncomfortable old man.
_______________________________________________
I don't go about describing myself as "surrealist" although I could I
suppose. Truth is I have operated in relative "isolation" (artistically and
philosophically) for a long time now, and it is the advent of new
acquaintances that compel me toward the description. It is only in a group
that the nomenclature takes on any significant relevance for me. Otherwise
it is mainly a sort of philosophical "asymptote" which my sensations appear
to drift toward.
DMH
diva...@my-deja.com
Right now I am questioning everything about myself. Am I the only one not
wearing a mask? Or am I wearing more than anyone here? Did I just retreat so
many years ago to a more user friendly place? No,I don't think that is the
case. Sometimes, today all day, the world distorts in an almost scary slowed
down tilted way.What my eyes see is the world in its purest unfilterered not
for human consumption state. Maybe this is my mental retreat.Maybe I am not a
surrealist, or a non-sequitor as Dale said, or one of Nik's puppies, although
I have nipped Nik a time or two. I like Dale, he makes me reflect inward.I
adore Nik,his innocence makes me smile, but I hurt for his quest of approval.
I like Brandon, he makes me laugh aloud, I love to stroke his gentle mind.
John is so damn smart and sweet.Barret so full of self-importance,the
resounding Judge Judy.I love their interplay. I ask for nothing, I don't give
a damn if they like or approve of me. It's all fine, because I like them.
Parry, odd you mention the word 'traveler', I have met with travelers in
dreams, in grocery stores, it can happen most anywhere. You look at a person,
and you get that familiar..wanna hug that person feeling......you make eye
contact, you connect....then its over....you both recognize each other..the
feelings are so warm..then ultimatley the contact is broken.... just the
customary momentarily sadness..which too quickly dissipates until you meet
another traveler.. then the new ecstasy you feel upon meeting, it's
heartbreaking in it's purity. Now am I a surrealist? Or did my mind take the
easy route to escape? I see different, I analyze different. I speak
different. If I am not a surrealist then I am really scared Parry. Parry,
what a pretty name. brenda
In article <38C2FE...@zxOMITmail.com>,
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Fascinan
>I wonder how many people on this group identify themselves as
>“surrealists.” I’m sure of only Barrett and Dale. I’ve never called
>myself a “surrealist” although I have the strongest of affinities with
>surrealism.
Well, according to the surrealistic "attractor" theory, you either are a
surrealist or you are not. Personally, I think that theory is brummagem, but
what do I know?
I would call myself a traveler, but since I am not going in any particular
direction -- except, of course, towards death -- I would say that I am a
meanderer. I am a societal misfit, horribly alienated by my own choices. I
spur the consensual, the collective assumptions we all fall into, and it is a
daily struggle trying to tred above the wash of consumerist diarrhea, peer
pressure pumus, and rising urine flow of information. Daily, I try to fight
off the flow of negative thoughts in my mind: I can't get a decent job, I have
to conform, I am not economically viable, I can't, I don't, I won't, I hate, I
want to die, etc, etc.
I would like to say that I am full of passion and desire, but can not, at this
particular time. I haven't read a book in about a year or so, nor have I
written any new songs on guitar. Pounded by basic economic worries,
loneliness, wanting to please my family and friends, and trying to find my own
path through life, I have hit a huge creative plateau of sorts. I wish that I
was imbued with all sorts of talent, but the older I get the more I realize
that I am painfully plain.
I like to see things with a skewed lens -- I have an odd, quirky sense of
humor. If you met me, you would think me polite, passive -- almost meek --,
and quiet.
I am not a surrealist, at least I don't think that I am. I am just an
uncomfortable young man.
Fas
Leo Sgouros
"Parry" <pa...@zxOMITmail.com> wrote in message
news:38C2FE...@zxOMITmail.com...
> I wonder how many people on this group identify themselves as
> "surrealists." I'm sure of only Barrett and Dale. I've never called
> myself a "surrealist" although I have the strongest of affinities with
> which I see as necessary -- an opinion arrived at after reading some
> embarrassing material written under the aegis of surrealism by
> grandstanding lone wolves. I'm somewhat a lone wolf myself, though no
> grandstander, so I feel more like a "fellow traveler." Who on this
> newsgroup calls themselves surrealists, fellow travelers, or passers-by?
>
>
>
>
> -----= 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! =-----
I would guess traveler also.
If I only wrote works on this group like "vent bones intact" (and other I
have written here) I guess I would be more inclined to call myself a
surrealist in that those would be my only ties to this group and would
therefore be what my "identity" is here-I am definitely tying this idea to
this newsgroup in particular, because I dont get a chance to present my
written works anywhwere else.
If my writing became popular somehow and I did it all the time I think that
I would call myself a surrealist, or if I had a group like Barrett.
Dale Houstman
"Leo Sgouros" <lsgo...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:CxHw4.9663$9q2....@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> If my writing became popular somehow and I did it all the time I think
that
> I would call myself a surrealist, or if I had a group like Barrett.
The first scenario ("becoming popular") does not strike me as a valid reason
for you to designate yourself as surrealist. What are you precisely saying
here: is it akin to the notion that one cannot call oneself a poet until
they are published? Is it something else?
The second scenario is understandable: the group affiliation of surrealists
is an important factor. One can certainly live as a surrealist prior to
naming oneself surrealist, and the need to name oneself may not arise until
that second surrealists arrives.
DMH
>
Leo Sgouros
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message
news:YGJw4.581$F7.1...@ptah.visi.com...
>
> "Leo Sgouros" <lsgo...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:CxHw4.9663$9q2....@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>
> > If my writing became popular somehow and I did it all the time I think
> that
> > I would call myself a surrealist, or if I had a group like Barrett.
>
> The first scenario ("becoming popular") does not strike me as a valid
reason
> for you to designate yourself as surrealist. What are you precisely saying
> here: is it akin to the notion that one cannot call oneself a poet until
> they are published? Is it something else?
>
No, just a place to put the label.If people were interested in what I wrote,
it would probably cause me to write more, full-time, and thus would probably
be able to label myself a surrealist.
Again this is just for the convenience in the real world or what I would use
for a label, where here it is really not a necessary thing.
The *desire* to write well and the act is separate from what may come of it.
Aeon
>“surrealists.” I’m sure of only Barrett and Dale. I’ve never called
>myself a “surrealist” although I have the strongest of affinities with
>surrealism. This is because I’ve never experienced the group dynamic,
>which I see as necessary -- an opinion arrived at after reading some
>embarrassing material written under the aegis of surrealism by
>grandstanding lone wolves. I’m somewhat a lone wolf myself, though no
>grandstander, so I feel more like a “fellow traveler.” Who on this
>newsgroup calls themselves surrealists, fellow travelers, or passers-by?
I'm not a surrealist.
I'm an artist.
I feel that my brain is a sponge, and I'm here to feed. I find that
surrealism and dada are particularly interesting and deserve some close
study.
I guess if I had to pigeonhole myself I'd attempt to say I'm a fellow
traveller, but most of the time, I travel alone.
orlan
--
- What if the hokey pokey IS what it's all about? -
- remove EATME to email, and I have 20-eyes, not 40 -
Andreas Christian Schou
"Parry" <pa...@zxOMITmail.com> wrote in message
news:38C2FE...@zxOMITmail.com...
> "surrealists." I'm sure of only Barrett and Dale. I've never called
> myself a "surrealist" although I have the strongest of affinities with
> surrealism. This is because I've never experienced the group dynamic,
> which I see as necessary -- an opinion arrived at after reading some
> embarrassing material written under the aegis of surrealism by
> grandstanding lone wolves. I'm somewhat a lone wolf myself, though no
> grandstander, so I feel more like a "fellow traveler."
>Who on this newsgroup calls themselves surrealists, fellow travelers, or
passers-by?
I am not a surrealist.
Just as I've abandoned ther term 'Christian' to the Paulines, I've abandoned
the term 'Surrealist' to those who believe they can trace an unbroken
lineage back to Breton, no matter how tortuous that linage may seem. I may
hold certain Surrealist beliefs, but that no more makes me a Surrealist than
my willingness to concede certain points of Christian doctrine makes me a
Catholic priest.
I'm about mid-height and spidery and nervous. I stutter when I'm thinking.
My father spent most of his life in Britain. I have a mild addiction to
opiates. I respond both submissively and nervously to authority, so long as
that authority is not acting irrationally. The idea of living in a society
that can be controlled is absolutely abhorrent to me.
I would call myself a 'fellow traveller' to Surrealists.
Surrealists would claim no such thing.
I believe in the usefulness of God as a metaphor. I think Marx is
simplistic. Breton's pretentions irk me. I find Nik to be more than mildly
amusing. I suffer extreme bouts of taste-lapses. I'm a psychological
exhibitionist. I find myself interesting. I would like some toast right now.
Aeon
>the whole process of creating art, be that images or otherwise, it is a very
>personal experience. It's a totally selfish excercise for me. completely
>indulgent, and naturally one that drives me mad on the occassion too, but I
>LOVE that tension. I don't find it in anything else in such a complete
>sense and I DO need it. So it is perhaps my greatest addication, and one
>I've had as far back as I can remember...
Yes... art is a path that I just cannot share with someone. I have doubts
that I'd ever be the kind to do a collaboration of any sort. For me, it
is just as you said, completely indulgent.
As far as art school, the most important thing it has done for me is teach
me to let go, to forget about trying to do it the way someone else does,
and to recognize my own style. I feel I lost my inhibitions due to the
use of critiques over and over and over until I was no longer afraid to
present my art, and indeed, it was MINE.
I certainly didn't open up completely in art school, but in the year since
taking most of my classes, I have opened more than I never knew that I
could. I've finally found my own "art", created with my own impulses,
my own needs, my own wants, my own imagination, freed from the bonds of
what one is "supposed" to do, or how one's art "should" look.
Screw the pretty pictures.. this stuff is mine :)
>One of my great influences in life (regarding a person) was a graphics
>teacher I had... he so deliciously enjoyed the process of creation, his
>classes were like a violently sublime sexual experience, where I was turned
>on beyond belief, and turned on in pretty much ways I had never thought
>others would be, but always ached to find in another human being. This to
>me was the first experience in a very outward fashion of "surrealism"
>(regarding creating). In the sense of it being externalised, and not just
>an internal thing, as it was with me and still remains.
Wow... I wish. The prof that I most identified with was my photography
professor. I immediately recognized her as one of my kind... she was
funny, a little weird, and somewhat of a social outcast. She was great,
and her art was phenomenal. She really encouraged me simply by letting
me be myself.
>Anyway, we studied the whole art history thing, and with the exception of
>Tanguy, I didn't much care for the surrealist art work. It was all too
>ordered and lacked a certain passion for me. So contrived and planned. I
>love Duchamp, De Chirico, and Frida Kahlo with a passion... but admittedly,
>the work I tend to find surreal would not be called surreal as such by the
>text book critics (assholes as they generally are -- with the exception of
>Robert Hughes, who I just want to fuck madly... ha ha ha).
In my art history classes, surrealism was perused rather quickly... sort of
skimmed... and left with great gaping holes over the whole transformation
between Dada to Surrealism and beyond. Duchamp I immediately liked, and
Kahlo had elements that moved me...
but it was kind of like "here's the Fountain, here's the fur cup and the
head with a pussy, the woman with one huge eyebrow, and on we go!!!"
>One of my favourite artists would have to be Mark Rothko... I've always
>loved that quiet in his work, a certain shifting and beauty in the "lack
>of". Looking at his work takes me places that are different upon each time,
>and his surfaces captivate me, quiet me, an endearing and at times
>frigtening sort of connection... this to me is incredibly beautiful. they
>have the capacity to lull me to sleep, and bring out a violent and maddening
>inner isolation. Exquisite. Perhaps it is because there is so much in my
>head already, and this certain (as mentioned) "lack of" in necessary to me.
>Anyway... my rant for the morning.
>
>Kristina.
I enjoyed your rant. I'd be hard pressed to name one of my favorite
artists. I have come across a few that really have inspired me, but I never
remember their names. shame really.
Aeon
>
>I believe in the usefulness of God as a metaphor. I think Marx is
>simplistic. Breton's pretentions irk me. I find Nik to be more than mildly
>amusing. I suffer extreme bouts of taste-lapses. I'm a psychological
>exhibitionist. I find myself interesting. I would like some toast right now.
wow :) this amuses me.
kin...@hfwork1.tn.tudelft.nl
>>Who on this newsgroup calls themselves surrealists, fellow travelers, or
>> passers-by?
> I am not a surrealist.
And I Am Not A Goth.
#Paul
kristina
"Aeon" <ae...@bullet.40-eyes.com> wrote in message
news:slrn8c868...@bullet.20-eyes.com...
> >I wonder how many people on this group identify themselves as
> >"surrealists." I'm sure of only Barrett and Dale. I've never called
> >myself a "surrealist" although I have the strongest of affinities with
> >surrealism. This is because I've never experienced the group dynamic,
> >which I see as necessary -- an opinion arrived at after reading some
> >embarrassing material written under the aegis of surrealism by
> >grandstanding lone wolves. I'm somewhat a lone wolf myself, though no
> >newsgroup calls themselves surrealists, fellow travelers, or passers-by?
>
>
> I'm an artist.
>
> I feel that my brain is a sponge, and I'm here to feed. I find that
> surrealism and dada are particularly interesting and deserve some close
> study.
>
> I guess if I had to pigeonhole myself I'd attempt to say I'm a fellow
> traveller, but most of the time, I travel alone.
I feel this way too, regarding travelling alone... If we are to talk about
the whole process of creating art, be that images or otherwise, it is a very
personal experience. It's a totally selfish excercise for me. completely
indulgent, and naturally one that drives me mad on the occassion too, but I
LOVE that tension. I don't find it in anything else in such a complete
sense and I DO need it. So it is perhaps my greatest addication, and one
I've had as far back as I can remember...
I did the art school thing -- it was useful in one sense -- it was
increddibly useful in questioning and provoking and challenging the past,
and seeing where I fit into all of that. On a practical note, regarding
techniques and so on, it helped alot, but one does not need to go to art
school to learn this. I liked the tension in communication with my
leacturers as well -- some of the time they were charmed by me, other times
infuriated in my lack of accptance over outmoded thinking and some such.
One of my great influences in life (regarding a person) was a graphics
teacher I had... he so deliciously enjoyed the process of creation, his
classes were like a violently sublime sexual experience, where I was turned
on beyond belief, and turned on in pretty much ways I had never thought
others would be, but always ached to find in another human being. This to
me was the first experience in a very outward fashion of "surrealism"
(regarding creating). In the sense of it being externalised, and not just
an internal thing, as it was with me and still remains.
Anyway, we studied the whole art history thing, and with the exception of
Tanguy, I didn't much care for the surrealist art work. It was all too
ordered and lacked a certain passion for me. So contrived and planned. I
love Duchamp, De Chirico, and Frida Kahlo with a passion... but admittedly,
the work I tend to find surreal would not be called surreal as such by the
text book critics (assholes as they generally are -- with the exception of
Robert Hughes, who I just want to fuck madly... ha ha ha).
One of my favourite artists would have to be Mark Rothko... I've always
loved that quiet in his work, a certain shifting and beauty in the "lack
of". Looking at his work takes me places that are different upon each time,
and his surfaces captivate me, quiet me, an endearing and at times
frigtening sort of connection... this to me is incredibly beautiful. they
have the capacity to lull me to sleep, and bring out a violent and maddening
inner isolation. Exquisite. Perhaps it is because there is so much in my
head already, and this certain (as mentioned) "lack of" in necessary to me.
Anyway... my rant for the morning.
Kristina.
>
kristina
"Aeon" <ae...@bullet.40-eyes.com> wrote in message
news:slrn8c868...@bullet.20-eyes.com...
> >I wonder how many people on this group identify themselves as
> >"surrealists." I'm sure of only Barrett and Dale. I've never called
> >myself a "surrealist" although I have the strongest of affinities with
> >surrealism. This is because I've never experienced the group dynamic,
> >which I see as necessary -- an opinion arrived at after reading some
> >embarrassing material written under the aegis of surrealism by
> >grandstanding lone wolves. I'm somewhat a lone wolf myself, though no
> >grandstander, so I feel more like a "fellow traveler." Who on this
> >newsgroup calls themselves surrealists, fellow travelers, or passers-by?
>
> I'm not a surrealist.
As mentioned, I do not walk around introducing myself as a surrealist -- but
it is pertinent to my life, and a primary way of approach and movement.
Whether or not I choose to refer to myself as "surrealist" as such is of no
importance to me. I do see myself as a surrealist, but have no need to talk
about this aspect of it... anyway, nost of the people I know, tend to think
of surrealism as some old text book artshow... and I don't have the energy
to educate or desire on WHAT a surrealist is, and WHY I identify with that.
Not generally.
Kristina.
kristina
> >I feel this way too, regarding travelling alone... If we are to talk
about
> >the whole process of creating art, be that images or otherwise, it is a
very
> >personal experience. It's a totally selfish excercise for me.
completely
> >indulgent, and naturally one that drives me mad on the occassion too, but
I
> >LOVE that tension. I don't find it in anything else in such a complete
> >sense and I DO need it. So it is perhaps my greatest addication, and one
> >I've had as far back as I can remember...
>
>
> that I'd ever be the kind to do a collaboration of any sort. For me, it
> is just as you said, completely indulgent.
We've got Mudhoney's "superfuzz/bigmuff" CD blaring here in the background,
but I will try and respond to this with some level of sense.
As far as collaboration, i actually LOVE working with others. It is part of
that process for me, and although I genuinely need time to do my own thing,
I need that connection with others just as much perhaps... yes, it is all
completely indulgent, we agree on that there... : )
>
> As far as art school, the most important thing it has done for me is teach
> me to let go, to forget about trying to do it the way someone else does,
> and to recognize my own style. I feel I lost my inhibitions due to the
> use of critiques over and over and over until I was no longer afraid to
> present my art, and indeed, it was MINE.
My best teachers in school and life have been (and continue to be) those who
inspire and recognise me as a person with my own vision and imagination...
these influences are so profound and putting a finger on what it is, is
impossible... as each influence is (to use a beautiful word) "magnetic" is
sublime ways which travel way past boundaries previously explored. The
best thing is to recognise as you say, that it IS indeed YOURS. This is
something I found alot of art students lacking... most of what wascreated
was regurgitation upon regurgitation. The vomit pile was massive!
but some jewels are always to be found in the most well treaded paths --
even there.
>
> I certainly didn't open up completely in art school, but in the year since
> taking most of my classes, I have opened more than I never knew that I
> could. I've finally found my own "art", created with my own impulses,
> my own needs, my own wants, my own imagination, freed from the bonds of
> what one is "supposed" to do, or how one's art "should" look.
Nice! I've always felt very connected, I don't know why -- even at a very
early age, I felt it was very much my thing, and it was special. My
imagination and lust and voracious need for more of everything in life, led
me to constantly looking, searching, needing another "something". It still
does. It's that goddam attraction to tension again... suspension, contrast,
opposition. My imagination is my best feature, although some think it's my
tits -- the best thing is when you meet people who think both are equally as
appetising! ha ha ha.
>
> Screw the pretty pictures.. this stuff is mine :)
Exactly -- this is what I believe. something can in essence BE pretty, but
whether it has another depth and joy is another thing. Prettiness for the
sake of mass capitalisation and sell out, it abominable. I find it crass
beyond repair and explanation.
>
> >One of my great influences in life (regarding a person) was a graphics
> >teacher I had... he so deliciously enjoyed the process of creation, his
> >classes were like a violently sublime sexual experience, where I was
turned
> >on beyond belief, and turned on in pretty much ways I had never thought
> >others would be, but always ached to find in another human being. This
to
> >me was the first experience in a very outward fashion of "surrealism"
> >(regarding creating). In the sense of it being externalised, and not
just
> >an internal thing, as it was with me and still remains.
>
> Wow... I wish. The prof that I most identified with was my photography
> professor. I immediately recognized her as one of my kind... she was
> funny, a little weird, and somewhat of a social outcast. She was great,
> and her art was phenomenal. She really encouraged me simply by letting
> me be myself.
This is the best anyone of us can do in terms of other people in our
lives... simply letting be! It sounds like such a basic thing, but it is
amazing how many try and impose THEIR views... boring.
>
> >Anyway, we studied the whole art history thing, and with the exception of
> >Tanguy, I didn't much care for the surrealist art work. It was all too
> >ordered and lacked a certain passion for me. So contrived and planned.
I
> >love Duchamp, De Chirico, and Frida Kahlo with a passion... but
admittedly,
> >the work I tend to find surreal would not be called surreal as such by
the
> >text book critics (assholes as they generally are -- with the exception
of
> >Robert Hughes, who I just want to fuck madly... ha ha ha).
>
> In my art history classes, surrealism was perused rather quickly... sort
of
> skimmed... and left with great gaping holes over the whole transformation
> between Dada to Surrealism and beyond. Duchamp I immediately liked, and
> Kahlo had elements that moved me...
>
> but it was kind of like "here's the Fountain, here's the fur cup and the
> head with a pussy, the woman with one huge eyebrow, and on we go!!!"
Yes, it was somewhat superficially discussed in my experience as well. I
suppose it damaged my perceptions of surrealism more than anything, becuase
it led me to believe that all it was was about "art"...etc. However, it's
all a starting point (or was more to the point) to further roads of
exploration. I marvelled at Duchamp and he was such an invigorating
discovery.
>
> >One of my favourite artists would have to be Mark Rothko... I've always
> >loved that quiet in his work, a certain shifting and beauty in the "lack
> >of". Looking at his work takes me places that are different upon each
time,
> >and his surfaces captivate me, quiet me, an endearing and at times
> >frigtening sort of connection... this to me is incredibly beautiful.
they
> >have the capacity to lull me to sleep, and bring out a violent and
maddening
> >inner isolation. Exquisite. Perhaps it is because there is so much in
my
> >head already, and this certain (as mentioned) "lack of" in necessary to
me.
> >Anyway... my rant for the morning.
> >
> >Kristina.
>
> I enjoyed your rant. I'd be hard pressed to name one of my favorite
> artists. I have come across a few that really have inspired me, but I
never
> remember their names. shame really.
Thanks Orlan, I enjoyed your too!
Most of my inspiration and joy these days comes from book covers and
anything tacky, with that bitter twist of lemonade. Buildings arouse my
senses, and pretty much most of what is considered "NOT" fine art turns me
on. Anyway, it comes from everywhere... too much too much to tell... and no
need to. : )
elag
> I wonder how many people on this group identify themselves as
Ceci n'est pas Un Surrealiste.
This is not a Surrealist.
Red: I've studied Surrealism.
Orange: I've posted ca. 1000 times to alt.surrealism.
Yellow: I am an artist.
Green: I dislike labels (isms).
Blue: Surrealism is about attaining freedom, a goal which is the only
one that I consider to be worth pursuing.
Violet: Surrealism is the philosophical system which is most nearly
aligned with my own views.
mike...
elag wrote:
> Ceci n'est pas Un Surrealiste.
> This is not a Surrealist.
>
> Red: I've studied Surrealism.
>
> Orange: I've posted ca. 1000 times to alt.surrealism.
>
> Yellow: I am an artist.
>
> Green: I dislike labels (isms).
>
> Blue: Surrealism is about attaining freedom, a goal which is the only
> one that I consider to be worth pursuing.
>
> Violet: Surrealism is the philosophical system which is most nearly
> aligned with my own views.
i think i'm a little blue, a little violet. i'm blolet. add a dash of the
phantom indigo for flavor. something else i can't quite put my finger on.
why /are/ you here, mike?
fas's first response to parry's question could have been my autobiography
if i possessed the writing ability that he does.
mike
Brandon J. Freels
> And I Am Not A Goth.
And by "goth" you mean?
1. One of an ancient Teutonic race, who dwelt between the Elbe and the
Vistula in the early part of the Christian era, and who overran and took an
important part in subverting the Roman empire. Under the reign of Valens,
they took possession of Dacia (the modern Transylvania and the adjoining
regions), and came to be known as Ostrogoths and Visigoths, or East and West
Goths; the former inhabiting countries on the Black Sea up to the Danube,
and the latter on this river generally. Some of them took possession of the
province of Moesia, and hence were called Moesogoths. Others, who made their
way to Scandinavia, at a time unknown to history, are sometimes styled
Suiogoths.
2. One who is rude or uncivilized; a barbarian; a rude, ignorant person.
3. A sudden bursting of coal from the face, owing to tension caused by
unequal pressure. The term "airblast" is sometimes used in metal mines, esp.
in South Africa.
diva...@my-deja.com
el...@concentric.net wrote:
> Parry wrote:
> > I wonder how many people on this group identify themselves as
> > “surrealists.”
>
> This is not a Surrealist.
>
> Red: I've studied Surrealism.
>
> Orange: I've posted ca. 1000 times to alt.surrealism.
>
> Yellow: I am an artist.
>
> Green: I dislike labels (isms).
>
> Blue: Surrealism is about attaining freedom, a goal which is the only
> one that I consider to be worth pursuing.
>
> Violet: Surrealism is the philosophical system which is most nearly
> aligned with my own views.
>
This is strange, I have always seen words in color, names immediately, I
indentify the name with the color. Maybe it started as game when I was a
child,but now it is natural.Words take a second longer to process than a
persons name.I hardly ever mentin it ,as it turns into a party game..everyone
wants to kow what color their name is.I don't think it is an aura.Just
colors. Even typing this I realize how weird this must sound.I think there is
a Scientific name for it. If anyone knows anything about this please let me
know. Thanks, brenda
el...@concentric.net
diva...@my-deja.com
Leo Sgouros
<diva...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8a3ueo$bgs$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
It is an interesting link up there.Notice that some people can "sense" when
a band is playing and somone is out of tune, and others literally hear
it(and some do not notice at all)-the sense part is from the dissonant
frequencies and some people hear them as such-I guess we could look at text
and the subscribers to boards as instruments playing a grand musical piece
and how easy it is to sense when people are out of tune but maybe they are
playing or hearing other music/
It could be just that they are currently stranded on a lower rung of an
evolutionary tone scale, where A is always 440 but it isnt the root of the
tune being played.
Do you play music perhaps?
diva...@my-deja.com
Hi Leo, No I have never had the talent or any real motivation to play any
musical instruments. Just see words in color, it makes it hard to
concentrate when I read, but it helps in remembering names. I enjoyed the
synethesia website. It was funny when I was a child, I would hear a name,
"Leo' =slate grey. I would refer to that person as 'the grey man'. It made my
communication difficult. Your theory about music is interesting. brenda
diva...@my-deja.com
<MVjx4.10006$VM.5...@typhoon.tampab
el...@concentric.net
> I have never had the talent or any real motivation to
play any
> musical instruments. Just see words in color, it makes it hard to
> concentrate when I read, but it helps in remembering names. I enjoyed
the
> synethesia website. It was funny when I was a child, I would hear a
name,
> "Leo' =slate grey. I would refer to that person as 'the grey man'. It
made my
> communication difficult. Your theory about music is interesting.
brenda
What color is this word: elag
?
diva...@my-deja.com
elag
>
> In article <8a66t5$vaq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> el...@concentric.net wrote:
> > diva...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > I have never had the talent or any real motivation to
> > play any
> > > musical instruments. Just see words in color, it makes it hard to
> > > concentrate when I read, but it helps in remembering names. I enjoyed
> > the
> > > synethesia website. It was funny when I was a child, I would hear a
> > name,
> > > "Leo' =slate grey. I would refer to that person as 'the grey man'. It
> > made my
> > > communication difficult. Your theory about music is interesting.
> > brenda
> >
> > What color is this word: elag?
> >
> >
>
> > elag = sapphire blue
> brenda
Interesting. Blue is a good color for me.
Parry
4. Truncation of “gothic,” referring to one who partakes of the
“gothic” sub-culture of black clothes, candles, etc.
5. The word “gosh” as pronounced by someone with a lisp.
-- Parry
kin...@hfwork1.tn.tudelft.nl
> Brandon J. Freels wrote:
>> kinsler wrote
>> > And I Am Not A Goth.
>> And by "goth" you mean?
>>
>> 1. One of an ancient Teutonic race, who dwelt between the Elbe and the
>> 2. One who is rude or uncivilized; a barbarian; a rude, ignorant person.
>> 3. A sudden bursting of coal from the face, owing to tension caused by
>> unequal pressure. The term "airblast" is sometimes used in metal mines, esp.
>> in South Africa.
> gothic subculture of black clothes, candles, etc.
> 5. The word gosh as pronounced by someone with a lisp.
6. G.O.T.H, standing for Got Obvious Tentacles and Horns
#Paul