Freud and Surrealism
DKennedy
You know, it seems that much of surrealism is based on Freud's
theories on psychoanalysis. Dream interpretation, the id, etc.
Especially Bunuel's movies, particularly La Chein Andlou.
This movie, as i see it, is a man's struggle with his id ego and
superego to express love in a sexual manner with the girl, yet
he is held back by morality, education, the girl's repulsion at
his animalistic desires, etc; until he learns to use his ego and
love her in a non-threatening, yet carefree manner. So it is
basically a struggle between one's id and superego.
I haven't finished L'AgeD'Or yet, but from what i've watched so
far it seems rather to be an attack on government and religion
more than a freudian study.
The very nature of surrealism is the exploration of the subconscious,
to expose repressed feelings and conquer the superego. To me,
that is surrealism. A way of saying 'fuck off' to the falsehoods of
society. Does anyone else share this view?
dk
Art for Art's Sake!
http://www.geocities.com/~dkennedy/mondo/
RandmAxess
seriously anymore than the Communists did. Freud did comment on Dali once when
he said "Its not the subconscious that I seek in your work but rather the
conscious. In your work the subconscious is manifest outright."
The more the data banks record about each one of us, the less we exist.
-Marshall McLuhan
Brandon J. Freels
---BJF
C. Francis
<Fre...@ethergate.com> wrote:
>Psychoanalysis is a joke!
>---BJF
>
>
I did not even think it was still taken seriously.
dale.h...@gte.net
parents; when I was 10 and when I was 18. Both were humiliating
and pointless experiences. I also ended up in a group when I
was in my 30s, and that went on longer and was even worthless.
The moderators were angry when I had the temerity to say that
I felt the entire experience was empty of content, after all
the others had weighed in with "yes, I feel it really helped"
and such. Outside the office, several of the participants
admitted they felt the same way as I, and had been too cowardly
to say so. That's really getting to the heart of things!
The main reason Freud is interesting still is literary: he
wrote well. His organization of the tri-partite mind is seductive
and somewhat useful, although I don't think it's "actual."
It seems to me (and before Chen chimes in, let me say that I
am not boasting of my accomplishments here; I have merely an
amateur's idea of psychoanalysis, although I have been a
participant) that the mind (or the brain) is best thought
of as either multi-plex (when one considers its web of
neurons) or as unitary, as a manifestation of its underlying
complexity. Everything in between is a sort of compromise
for the sake of utility.
Dale
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Andrea Chen
>
> Psychoanalysis is a joke!
This may be; but given how you treat Breton and others as a source of
dogma; there is some contradiction. The unconscious they were
supposedly freeing was based on the ideas of Freud. It is exceedingly
odd that you can declaim with ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY what is and it isn't
surrealism based on early sources, yet you reject these sources when it
suits you.
Whatever the validity of Freud he was exceedingly important to the
development of thought in the post WWI period and served as a basis for
other "liberation" through freeing the psyche later.
Logically your rejection of Freud means that you don't take the
fundamental idea of Breton seriously; yet based on these twenties
statements you lecture Takysman, Nik and others for bringing in
religious connections. Your inability to see the obvious is indication
that there is indeed an unconscious which is actively editing your
reality; making it absurd; but not in the surrealist sense but in all
too familiar style of the hypocrite (who has perhaps latched onto
surrealism because it allows you to pretend the aspects you lack.)
Brandon J. Freels
Andrea Chen wrote
>It is exceedingly odd that you can declaim with ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY what is
and >it isn't surrealism based on early sources, yet you reject these
sources when it suits >you.
Brandon:
I feel Surrealism needs to exceed the Freudian thought and move on to more
clinical views of the mind. Breton and company were only held back by what
was known in "there time."
I reject Freud because I see no proof in his claims. There are too
metaphysical. I need something more materialistic.
I take Breton seriously when he speaks of the marvelous, convulsive beauty,
love, objective chance, etc. I only recall Breton mentioning the
"unconcious" on a few occasions, and of course these are his most quoted
statements, but if we focus on the unconcious we are missing the point of
unity of opposites.
As for religion. I attacked Talysman for his usage of the word "god" and
nothing else. I attacked Nik for his pious attitude towards Taoism and
Buddhism. I always believed pious behavior needed a diety? Taoism has many.
Buddhism has some. Surrealism has none.
Dale Houstman
I think what needs to be emphasized here is that surrealism at it best
is a struggle ongoing with the present, so advances in the study of the
nervous system and the brain would always be of exceeding interest
to surrealists. At the time of Breton, Freud was new and the operating
principle the for investigation of the mind, so he was central. There
is no contradiction in embracing surrealism and rejecting some of its
tenets, since (as Breton makes clear in Arcane 17) surrealism hopes
for the day when all thought is subjected to re-evaluation before
blind acceptance. This is a literary reiteration of the scientific principle
and insists on a "continuous revolution". This is why it is incorrect to
think of surrealism as an "art movement of the past" when it is more
akin to philosophies of action, communist ideals (as disinct from
particular manifestations), science, and imagination theory. It is a armature
of investigation and experiment. It will look and consider alliances,
but these alliances must be subordinant to the central tenets, which
are not rigid laws, but tools of exploration. As such they must
periodically be adjusted, while remaining surrealist tools, useful
for the surrealist construction.
Dale "Belgian Waffle" Houstman
Talysman
write in alt.surrealism:
:)As for religion. I attacked Talysman for his usage of the word "god" and
:)nothing else.
this is an odd definition of "nothing else". since you also
mention attacking Nik's taoist and buddhist comments, you
should add your angry tiff when I said "lao tzu" is not lao
tzu's real name and he is probably just a legendary figure.
you also attacked my common-sense assumption that the concept
of "god" has to have a materialistic origin. you *also*
attacked my statements about the growth of religion out of
the deification of metaphor (a pretty damned uncontroversial
statement, if you've read georges dumezil, mircea eliade,
or any number of anthropology or comparative religion texts.)
perhaps you meant to say: I attacked Talysman every time he
used the word "god". that would be more accurate.
--
pestilent cows cry to our deaf ancestors.
His Most Feathered Eminence, the Ur-Beatle
Brandon J. Freels
>perhaps you meant to say: I attacked Talysman every time he
>used the word "god". that would be more accurate.
Brandon:
I attacked Talysman every time he used the word "god."
It is an automatic reflex.