A Text Of (No) Interest?
Dale Houstman
surrealsit group, and partly from my own considerations on "surrealist
backbiting." It may (or may not) be of interest now.
________________________________________________________________________
AN INDIVIDUAL RESPONSE TO STATEMENTS FROM STOCKHOLM
I
Up front, I emphasize that, although I am affiliated with the Minneapolis
"BLUE FEATHERS" group (a group that essentially consists of two people in
terms of physical attendance), my comments have not been filtered through
any organ, or produced in a series of collaborative sessions, but merely
represent a very tentative SOLO FLIGHT through the RARE ATMOSPHERE of your
statement.
II
I have had a difficult time crafting a cogent response, and NOT because I
disagree with any specific point with any of my usual vehemence, but
precisely because I find myself TOO EASILY in accord with much of what is
put forth. This sort of ease makes me uneasy, and I am left to wonder if
this is due to the self-evident character of the eloquently presented points
and principles. I also detect the usual division between bold statement and
potential ACTION. Overall - and once and again - there tends to remain that
tempting GLEN / GAP between (1) gallantly expressed queries and call for
"re-emergence" and (2) the specific actions that we might undertake to
prompt these enticing suggestions into FULL LIGHT; it is as though we were
once more left to bask in our own DIM GREEN LIGHT. Also, - although one
cannot consider this as critical - there also tends to remain that FURTHER
GLEN / GAP (still to cross once we broach the former) between any considered
actions and the wandering, SENSATION-BESOTTED attentions of those whom (most
likely) we would like to ELECTRIFY, or at least to STEAM. If
handsomely-produced GENOCIDE and the frilly drizzle of SEX CRIMES cannot
raise a hackle on the millions of TV CARNIVORES, what can we hope to
project, and how sensational are we willing to let ourselves become to draw
that flickering notice? Do we have to compete, and if - luckily - not, do we
resign ourselves to a smaller and smaller group of "FELLOW TRAVELERS" who
carry their WOMAN-SHAPED TORCHES up (but mostly down) crumbling social
ladders, lighting all those "dreary little publications" for bemused MYOPIAN
THINKERS?
III
On UTOPIA: although I fully understand the rejection of Utopia as "a
political instrument" I find it difficult to reject nonetheless the role of
THE UTOPIAN IMPULSE in maintaining hope in the face of capitalist advances
upon the BATTERED VIRGIN of desire. Is it merely a coincidence that Utopian
plans (all flawed by undue optimism and a misunderstanding of many
"sociological" tendencies, and some ultimately fascistic) sprout most
gloriously in the BLOOD FED SOIL of public discord, and in infantile motions
away from known tyranny toward shores of unknown potential? For what I can
see, the prevalence of Utopian schemes, despite any specific shortcomings,
indicates a PERMEABILITY OF MASS COINSCIOUSNESS, and are (at the least)
signs of an OPPORTUNITY. Whether or not this constitutes an "instrument" I
cannot say, but it surely qualifies as a poetic sign, and is closer (in this
sentimental regard) to the SPRING'S FIRST ROBIN than it is to the COAL
MINE'S
CANARY. Is Hope to be denigrated, especially in its role as antidote to
that cynicism which paralyzes social energies at the moment?
As for being a "literary genre among others" I can only note that most
Utopian schemata are rather badly composed, and this appears to be because
the ENTHUSIASM in the desire for change has outraced the rational control of
the writer. I am not at all certain that this aspect alone is not to be
celebrated.
And - just personally - I find Utopian "literature" charming.
IV
On the SURREALIST IMAGE: this entire portion of the statement recalls to me
a PROJECT (quite embryonic) that I have imagined for myself and others: an
ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SURREALIST CLICHES (certain solid objects melting, flowers
sprouting from the mouth or eyes, stars with the heads of animals, etc.) :
Obviously I have not traveled far with this, and - at any rate - it is often
difficult to raise such issues of CRITICISM when many Surrealists cite
LIBERATED IMAGINATION as a pre-emptive defense against all commentary, even
as I have always understood this phrase to mean (initially) the liberation
OF the imagination FROM a series of bourgeois and sentimental and academic
constrictions. This might include (all too easily I fear) a liberation from
long-standing Surrealist habits. I discover what I mean in the application
of MAO'S PERMANENT REVOLUTION to the question of the poetic. Too many texts
fall back upon a relatively small set of distinctive DISJUNCTIONS. It is
easy to swallow this gambit, and so reduce Surrealism to a QUAINT BOX OF
NON-SEQUITORS. So I believe that some form (permanent or on-going) of my
critical listing could be a good beginning on ameliorating this problem, and
possibly without too much rancor. In other words, it could serve as a
relatively benign REMINDER, A PRIMER of the too-easily-obtained.
In other words : what is SURREALIST CRITICISM, and how can the statement
"all criticism shall be love" be found to be useful rather than merely
evocative ?
V
On the DENOUNCEMENT OF CAPITALISM: what do we do when we realize (as we
must) that Capitalism does not care if anyone (or even everyone) DENOUNCES
it, as long as they don't bother to RENOUNCE it? You may write graceful or
brutal documents endlessly as long as you don't forget to purchase the ink
and paper from the local chain store. In this instance (as in so many) a
denunciation is as nothing compared to a renunciation. But the question
remains: knowing this, how do we raise such an issue in a way that might be
heard above the CASH REGISTERS and the (admittedly clever pornography of)
commercial appeals? Capitalism sheds manifestos like a duck sheds water. Who
is to
shoot that duck? And where do we buy the ammunition?
I - also - denounce Capitalism. And Celine Dion. And English sausages.
There - I feel better.
VI
I believe that most people do reject "all that restrains the full
realization of human life." The problem, as always, lies in the definition
of "FULL REALIZATION." Many believe (certain Catholic reptiles, many Baptist
baboons, political strumpets of all stripes) that this sleeps waiting in the
application of what is (after all) PROPER RESTRAINT. Of course, I gag, but
what can we do but restrain them? And you contradict yourself in regard to
Utopian thought when you claim to discover "inspiration to action" in the
Utopian - is this not a POLITICAL INSTRUMENTATION - for what (once you strip
the GRAFT away) is politics but endless inspirations to action, even though
those actions are often ignoble and (for most "leaders") facile and easily
discarded?
VII
"The Surrealist community wants to constitute an embryo of a society."
Applause. but if the history of Surrealism reveals anything about the nature
of this potential New World, it is that it will be as contentious and
amorphous, and open to corruption and ego as any other. Also - although in
the 1960s I and others pursued (strenuously or meanderingly) the SUBJUGATION
OF THE EGO within the EMBRACE OF THE COLLECTIVE, eventually I think this
proved to be a deadly HIGH SPEED PURSUIT - and those egos were (with luck
and love) rebuilt posterior to the Grand Experiment.
And, isn't the CORPORATE MODEL also an example of the reduction of the ego
in bias to a "larger good." One can argue the relative merits of the systems
and get no disagreement from this quarter, yet this vision of the world as
some BRAND OF ANTHILL, whether of dutiful workers or collaborative drones
doesn't strike me as "encouraging." This entire argument might be styled as
"THE CRISIS OF THE EGO" and demands a documentation and open forum of its
own. And - finally - I find the trouble lies not in the ego (because I find
most welcome community action naturally), but in the capitalist exploitation
of the isolation the ego assumes.
IIX
For myself, I continue to view AUTOMATISM and DRIFTING as solutions to
ritual and virtue and duty, and think that not to view such essential
elements as solutions is to allow our work to be branded as pure escapism,
and I cannot allow that to occur; if only for my own peace of mind on the
subject. If you were to say that they appear not to be the PANDEMIC
ANTIDOTES once envisioned by the original pioneers, I couldn't work up the
spit to disagree, but I am afraid that I believe in "REVOLUTION ONE PERSON
AT A TIME" and do not have the patience to attend upon any other sort, in a
world of overwhelming distraction and corrupted desire for sale on every
street corner.
IX
AND YET I AGREE: we must reaffirm the idea that the marvelous is to be
uncovered at every turn of the head and the street and the ever-present
"screw."
However, modern cityscapes seem almost perversely designed to minimize such
possibilities.
When the same dreary buildings and clothes (OFTEN BLEEDING TINY
ADVERTISEMENTS) present themselves in all directions; When the
homogenization of cultures and architecture, media, etc. continues at an
alarming pace, all wired for purchase and sale; When those psychologically
evocative vistas one can still find in some fading cities are quickly being
stripped naked down to a NEW NON-EROTIC NAKEDNESS OF PURPOSE: What is left
to our human-sized senses? At what VANISHING POINT down our CARTESIAN
STREETS will we look to discover OUR MOST POETIC X? And Y?
X
Yet all this is SWEET CHITTERING, and I love birds, most especially the
crow. BUT one would also hope for the Surrealists themselves to more openly
state their most petty disagreements and trivial resentments with one
another -
whether over the dearth of nutrient seed or the lack of proper flying space.
I hope (without praying!) for a program of "considered gossip" and
"imaginative
backbiting" brought to light in as many printed outlets as possible! This
strikes me as healthful, or at least as THINNING.
One might begin famously by tossing me out CEREMONIOUSLY.
____________________________________________
Dale M Houstman, Minneapolis MN / October 23, 1999.
john adams
they may be in response to, as with 'surrealist back biting' and the remarks
toward the idea of utopia and inaction. What was the statement about?
john
Dale Houstman wrote in message
<39ce589d$0$28244$65a9...@news.citilink.com>...
>I wrote this months ago - partly in response to a text from the Stockhom
>surrealsit group, and partly from my own considerations on "surrealist
>backbiting." It may (or may not) be of interest now.
>________________________________________________________________________
>
>AN INDIVIDUAL RESPONSE TO STATEMENTS FROM STOCKHOLM
>
[clipped]
Dale Houstman
"john adams" <johnqa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:SyDz5.207345$6y5.11...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com...
> I am having trouble correlating, fully, your comments with what
> they may be in response to, as with 'surrealist back biting' and the
remarks
> toward the idea of utopia and inaction. What was the statement about?
>
the sections on intra-surrealist bickering struck me as timely. The main
body of the text was addressed to comments issued by the Stockhom surrealist
group vis a vis an upcoming (at the time) international project with which a
certain degree of hesitation was being expressed. Frankly, I was just
mattering about in my files yesterday and came across this, and rather
(immodestly) enjoyed it. Just sharing (so as to promote a warm fuzzy feeling
in others perhaps?), and not particularly targeting a discussion, which
attitude is expressed in the subject header I think. A trifle. A passing
interlude.
dmh
john adams
Dale Houstman wrote in message
Ok, thanks. Although I may have phrased it better as 'what were the
stockholm comments about', as really i was trying to imagine that secluded
half of the details that the response was to (and not so much why you posted
it here). But i think that should suffice for me, as warm fuzzies strongly
aglow will attest.
john