Who cares what you think?
Nikolaus Maack
how we corporations drain the soul from humanity. You're just a bug on
the grand piano, my friend. A slip of a pedal, a hammer, a finger, a
single key, and you die. Why should we possibly care what you have to
say?
But sure, yes, speak your mind. You're free to do so. Say anything you'd
like. No one is listening, of course, because no one cares. You can't
compete with our advertisements and our superstars and our flash and
sparkle. We have tits, we have ass, we have hairy chests, we have cock,
we have fireworks, we have explosions.
What have you got? Reason? Hope? A battered copy of WALDEN in your back
pocket? We sold you that book. $4.95. Mass produced on cheap paper.
Not a very good seller, I'm afraid. But it's hot among the college kids,
so you know, we gotta keep some on the market. Makes a little bit every
year. Wouldn't Thoreau have been pleased?
But speak your mind. Feel free. Why not write us a letter? We pay a
rube slightly more than minimum wage to process such letters.
"Dear disgruntled consumer, sorry to hear you are unhappy with the way
things are. That's life. Fuck you. Signed, the Coca-Cola Corporation."
Why not tell all your friends how mad you are? Why not tell strangers on
the internet. Spend hours pouring over your hate.
"Corporations are bad. They hurt us. I don't like them. You shouldn't
like them either."
Surprise! We don't give a shit if you like us. Just get a job with us,
earn some money, and then spend it on our goods. Why should we give a
shit if you like it? What does it matter, if our stock goes up and up?
Why should we care about something as intangible as your feelings?
(Besides, isn't this all really about your parents? You don't hate us, you
hate your mother and your father. Authority -- that's what pisses you
off. We just happen to have some power, and that fills you with envy.
Isn't that what this is all about?)
So talk, and talk, and talk if it makes you feel better. Squirt out a
little steam, a little rage, and you'll feel more in control, even though,
really, you haven't changed anything. Go on, do it! Speak your mind!
What are you waiting for?
"Those nasty corporations! They're destroying the world! They're killing
us all! They're destroying all creativity and life and passion!"
Hey, maybe you've got something there. It's a good thing I accidentally
listened to you on my lunchbreak. I see a movie about it. A triumph of
the human spirit against a faceless sea of oppression. The enemy will be
called GlobalMegaCorp. Consumers eat that shit up. I see Julia Roberts
and Bruce Willis. They'll fight and they'll win against some kind of
business conspiracy.
Yeah, man. This is a multi-million dollar idea. Thanks, kid. Thanks for
earning me some more cash.
Nik
--
Face The Art of Faces Being Faced
The Nik Maack Art Gallery
http://members.xoom.com/gotnik/
Mags
We all love you here (even Dale probably although he'd never admit it).
And I like being a bug, because nobody cares what I say but also nobody
cares what I do, so THAT's total freedom.
Mags
ps. if it sounded pretentious it's because I've been editing submissions
for my magazine for 3 hours today (again) and I'm cranky and can't think
straight and I have plenty of other excuses. Although, why the heck not,
BE pretentious! Do not fear to be pretentious. Talk about Vampires and
how your pain is exquisite. Yeah!
Elephants are not camels.
fluffy...@prodigy.net
line in the movie SLC Punk where someone says "I didn't sell out, I
bought in." Yeah, we're fighting an uphill battle. I am typing this
as I work (temp--so I can take the summer off) at a large bank chain.
But the fact that we won't "win", won't take down the corporations
doesn't negate our personal sense of disgust over living in a society
that functions very much like the tone of your email. If no one cares
what we think, why would it piss you off? What need do you have to run
around stomping on bugs that someone else will stomp anyway? If you
don't care what we think, ignore us. Bill Gates does.
Anything that encourages conformity of action, of belief, etc. is the
enemy of creativity. And most of us have to work jobs that are the
enemy of creativity. And many of us return to homes in neighborhoods
that are conformist and deny creativity. Will American Beauty make one
single suburbanite quite their corporate jobs, move out of the burbs
and take an apartment in the city to become a Beatnik? Doubtful. But
what's the alternative to not saying it? What would you have us do?
Fluffy Singler
"He had won the victory over himself. He learned to love Big Brother."
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Nikolaus Maack
> What would you have us do?
(I really liked American Beauty a lot. It moved me deeply.)
An artist doesn't talk about art endlessly -- an artist makes art. Too
many people spend their days saying how they wish they were more creative,
without ever actually being creative. What would I have you do?
Make more art. Talk less politics. Make art about politics too, if
that's your bag.
American Beauty is beautiful because it tells you a story about a man who
said no. It preaches, a little, but not too much. It makes you love
dancing plastic bags.
Show me what you feel in song. Write a poem. Write a story. Dance for
me. Dance for yourself. Griping isn't an art form. (Well, it can be,
but it usually isn't.)
It depresses me to see so many people complaining and attacking, and so
few people writing something poetic, dangerous, silly, fun, whatever.
That's all, I guess.
> "He had won the victory over himself. He learned to love Big Brother."
I hope he used a condom.
dale houstman
Mags <mk...@is9.nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.21.00020...@is9.nyu.edu...
> It seems like you feel underappreciated Nik.
> We all love you here (even Dale probably although he'd never admit it).
I think he's a pig's intestinal parasite, though lacking the requisite
ethos.
DMH
dale houstman
Nikolaus Maack <ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:877ih1$mou$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...This makes sense: American Beauty teaches that you can fuck up all you want
to, and lust after high school cheerleaders, and be surrounded by totally
undelineated characters like his wife, live next door to a badly scripted
voyeur/sensitive artist, and STILL (as long as you stare at a picture of
your family just before you die) be a sentimentalist.
You would like it...
DMH
Bacc...@webtv.net
finally know that they are taking the same shaft from corporate America
that you are. "I'm getting screwed, but so are you, and you have been
taking it up the can for alot longer".
I cant wait for the movie with Julia Roberts to come out. I will go
to the huge cinema chain to see it, paying my $10/ticket. Maybe even buy
the t-shirt from Hanes. And on my way, i will see the giant billboards
along the highway. And I will stop at Mcdonalds on the way in for a bite
to eat. "Get your Globalmega Corp collectibles here with the purchase of
any sandwich!". And on my plastic container filled with Coca-Cola: a
picture of Julia Roberts and Bruce Willis in the movie. Yeah, now were
finally getting somewhere.........................
jsday
>
> It seems like you feel underappreciated Nik.
Oh, is Nik feeling unappreciated? Oh, well....
I liked that post Nik, it was my favourite of yours so far, I think.
Nicely ambiguous. No visible obsession with genitalia or feces (the
creative literary potentials of which you have over-taxed). Highly
rhetorical. Utterly unreasonable, and yet somewhat to the point.
Not bad. Not necessarily useful in the long run, little actual
substance to it, but very impressive ranting. Almost clever enough
to make me want to start arguing with it, making it a damn fine troll.
>> What have you got? Reason? Hope? A battered copy of WALDEN in your back
>> pocket? We sold you that book. $4.95. Mass produced on cheap paper.
>> Not a very good seller, I'm afraid. But it's hot among the college kids,
>> so you know, we gotta keep some on the market. Makes a little bit every
>> year. Wouldn't Thoreau have been pleased?
_
dale houstman
john adams <gala...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:38979661...@aol.com...
> It depresses Nik to have the culture he holds so true and dear spoken
> badly about.
If corporations manufactured surrealists Nik would be their flagship
product.
Unfortunately (for Nik) surrealists manufacture surrealists, so he's just a
low standard.
DMH
fluffy...@prodigy.net
What would I have you do?
Make more art. Talk less politics. Make art about politics too, if
that's your bag.
It depresses me to see so many people complaining and attacking, and
so few people writing something poetic, dangerous, silly, fun,
whatever.
I like to do both--bitch AND write. Kali-Ma destroys. But she also
creates.
But it is still difficult to deny that conformity, which is so
prevalent in corporate life, is the enemy of creativity. I am not
bitching because I cannot create per se. I am bitching because we have
a society--guided by corporations which are run by people who live in
suburbs--another bastion of conformity--that denies derides and
discourages creativity from its members. Greeting cards and movies of
the week pass as deep thoughts.
It's lonely in the middle.
john adams
badly about.
and be poetic, if you have to make a difference". So, what did artists
have to do with the corporate discussion anyway? Oh that's right,
surrealism is only about art-making! By the way, Nik doesnt like to
"discuss" things on common ground. He could be disinterested in learning
in that manner, or just afraid, but at any rate he would rather dish
some crap AT you, or stir up things up within the mix (for attention).
Obviously he can not cite where the connection to art and poetry that
the discussion has and that it isn't just 'politics'. If you don't agree
with the argument, let's hear it. If you're confused, well that's ok
too. We're here for YOU.
john
btw Laura, i thought SLC punk was a pretty big let down, although some
parts were fun and reminiscent.
Nikolaus Maack wrote:
>
> (fluffy...@prodigy.net) writes:
> > What would you have us do?
>
> (I really liked American Beauty a lot. It moved me deeply.)
>
> An artist doesn't talk about art endlessly -- an artist makes art. Too
> many people spend their days saying how they wish they were more creative,
> without ever actually being creative. What would I have you do?
>
> Make more art. Talk less politics. Make art about politics too, if
> that's your bag.
>
> American Beauty is beautiful because it tells you a story about a man who
> said no. It preaches, a little, but not too much. It makes you love
> dancing plastic bags.
>
> Show me what you feel in song. Write a poem. Write a story. Dance for
> me. Dance for yourself. Griping isn't an art form. (Well, it can be,
> but it usually isn't.)
>
fluffy...@prodigy.net
btw Laura, i thought SLC punk was a pretty big let down, although some
parts were fun and reminiscent.
Alas, I, too was let down somewhat. But you don't forget a line like
"I didn't sell out, I bought in."
Nikolaus Maack
> It depresses Nik to have the culture he holds so true and dear spoken
> badly about.
Speak badly of everything, so long as you speak badly beautifully. I hold
nothing so dear that I can't mock it. Including myself.
This reminds me of one of my favorite moments on the internet. On IRC one
night, someone made a nasty and sarcastic joke about my mother. I responded:
"My mother is dead."
This was shocking enough -- for some reason -- to make everyone in the
newsgroup fall silent. They all (textually) shuffled their feet in
embarrassment. Someone said that they were sorry. It was then that I
typed:
"She choked to death on my cock."
This had the effect of making several people laugh hysterically, and to
make an equal number of people extremely upset. (Success!) One is not
supposed to joke about the death of one's mother, especially when one's
penis is involved. (Bonus question: Was this a surreal act?)
> "It isn't so bad, and if you think it is, damnit shut up, make silly art
> and be poetic, if you have to make a difference".
Not what I'm saying at all. You have every right to complain, but know
that your complaints will achieve nothing, so complain beautifully. Make
the complaint worthwhile. Or maybe I should say it another way --
complain differently. Blaming all the sins of the world on the church,
corporations, and the other gang of usual enemies gets rather tedious,
especially if you make your complaints the same way every single day.
The young boy I look after -- my day job is 'nanny' -- used to come down
every morning and ask everyone, one at a time:
"Did you sleep well?"
Every single morning, without fail, he would ask this question three times
-- one to every member of the household. "Did you sleep well?" "Did you
sleep well?" "Did you sleep well?" And the most irritating part was his
obvious care. He really wanted to know if we'd slept well. This wasn't
just some morning routine to him. He wanted to know that we were all
okay.
One morning he asked me this question, again, and I tried to explain to
him that repeating the same phrase over and over again irritates people.
Why? People assume that, if you say the same thing over and over again,
you're not thinking. Also, we like variation. The same thing, over and
over, bores the mind.
So when I see people in this newsgroup, over and over again, say how BAD
the corporations are... My god, it puts me to sleep. Sure, the
corporations are bad. So fucking what? Is this a new thought? Does it
have to be said again? If that's how you feel, can you at least find a
NEW way to say it?
I sometimes get the feeling people aren't actually communicating on this
topic, or even thinking about it. When they say, "Corporations are bad,"
it's like flashing an ID card.
"See, I think corporations are bad. That makes me a surrealist. I'm one
of you. I fit in. I believe what you believe."
And I find that incredibly depressing.
I'm sure saying all of this is very snotty and arrogant and terrible of
me. Oh well.
Nikolaus Maack
> It's lonely in the middle.
It is lonely, I agree. People gather together to talk about their
favorite sitcom. When they ask you what you thought of last night's
episode of whatever sitcom is most popular right now, it is difficult to
say, "I don't own a TV." Why is it difficult?
Because the person looks at you with such pity and confusion. Why would
someone NOT watch television? Are you some kinda intellectual weirdo?
How can we possibly communicate if we don't have the shared experience of
FRIENDS or last night's hockey game? What else is there to talk about?
I find that just as depressing and as isolating as you do. I find it even
more depressiong when the non-TV watchers get together and say how much
better they are than the TV watchers, because they know that TV is stupid,
and the others don't.
I also find it depressing when my friends get embarrassed because the
topic of human sexuality is taboo. One does not talk about homosexual
desire, rape fantasies, or masturbation. Why the hell not? No one seems
to be able to answer that question.
All in all, far too many things depress me.
*grin*
Nikolaus Maack
> This makes sense: American Beauty teaches that you can fuck up all you want
> to, and lust after high school cheerleaders, and be surrounded by totally
> undelineated characters like his wife, live next door to a badly scripted
> voyeur/sensitive artist, and STILL (as long as you stare at a picture of
> your family just before you die) be a sentimentalist.
> You would like it...
Not a non-sequitur: Are you now, or have you ever been, autistic?
I consider American Beauty to be one of the best films to come out of
Hollywood in years. The film is a summary of what the surrealist movement
stands for.
Here is a man whose passion, whose sudden lust makes him question
everything around him. He realizes that his life is built on bullshit.
He has been dead for years. At some point, he swallowed his soul.
Because of teenage tits, he wakes up. He is not dead. Somewhere inside
of him is that soul he once owned. He turns around 180, and fights for
what he wants. He becomes creative, real, vital.
He beings to follow his true passion. He acts spontaneously. He says
what he thinks. He becomes real. Are these not the key elements to
surrealism?
Next door is a boy on his own path, looking for his own vitality. Both
characters are on a quest for understanding. The boy seeks meaning by
questioning everything as closely as he can. He looks for the beauty in
things. (The scene of the plastic bag spinning in the air is utterly
breathtaking. It will be with me for a long, long time.) The man
and the boy recognize each other as equals. They're both looking for the
same thing.
The daughter is a semi-zombie. She's going with the flow, but feels that
something is wrong. The boy wakes her up. He makes her see beauty. He
makes her see reality, or maybe surreality.
The wife is dead. Totally buried. As is the boy's neighbour. They both
suffer because their lives remains unexamined. They both suffer due to
buried desire.
When the man stares at the photograph of his family, it isn't a moment of
sentimentality but complete understanding. Suddenly he knows. He
understands. He has achieved a moment of perfect clarity. And that's why
he has to die. He welcomes his death.
Perhaps the real reason you didn't like this film is because it was made
by "the corporations". Are there any commercial films that you allow
yourself to enjoy? Please list them. I'm curious.
By the way, "The Truman Show" is another excellent example of a film
promoting surrealist concepts. It moved me profoundly as well. Do you
hate it, too?
fluffy...@prodigy.net
BAD the corporations are... My god, it puts me to sleep. Sure, the
corporations are bad. So fucking what? Is this a new thought? Does it
have to be said again? If that's how you feel, can you at least find a
NEW way to say it?
>
I sometimes get the feeling people aren't actually communicating on this
topic, or even thinking about it. When they say, "Corporations are
bad," it's like flashing an ID card.
>
"See, I think corporations are bad. That makes me a surrealist. I'm
one of you. I fit in. I believe what you believe."
>
> And I find that incredibly depressing.
______
Nik, I think you are oversimplifying everyone's positions. I think
some interesting things have been said on this discussion--and it's one
of the longer threads I've seen since I've been on alt.surrealism. It
is certainly one of the more thoughtful ones--I have seen few silly,
glib comments on this thread, so obviously people do have something to
say on the subject beyond "CORPS are bad." And I myself have posted a
few things, such as a spoof corporate "poem" based on emails I have
seen, as well as an automatic poem called "the code". Those don't
always engender discussion, though, do they?
I have to tell everyone that at the company where I am currently
temping, they are going to have a spoken word poetry group come in for
Black History month to do "politically correct and corporate friendly
poetry" (direct quote from the internal news release.) "nuff said.
gannee
but i think they all miss an important point
we're already IN the corporate machine
and if any of these folks know - correction, feel - a thing
about the supposed subject matter of this message board - well,
the they know we have plans
it's not about arguing your point at the top of your lungs -
it's about MAKING your point in any way you want - children, you
all need to study more
nice gallery, nik - you lean on color
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Mags
and go to Coney Island together and share sugar candy in two colors and go
on all the rides and be merry and talk about childhood and laugh and buy
balloons and skip. You'll feel better.
Or you can brood in your mutual semi-hatred. "Semi" because recently I'm
into prefixes.
Mags
On Tue, 1 Feb 2000, dale houstman wrote:
>
> Mags <mk...@is9.nyu.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.SOL.4.21.00020...@is9.nyu.edu...
> > It seems like you feel underappreciated Nik.
> > We all love you here (even Dale probably although he'd never admit it).
>
> I think he's a pig's intestinal parasite, though lacking the requisite
> ethos.
>
> DMH
>
>
>
Elephants are not camels.
dale houstman
> Or you can brood in your mutual semi-hatred.
>
Oh get off the drama train Mags! It can hardly be brooding when one spends
three seconds reading and writing responses to the empty-headed little
weiner.
Anyway, it isn't a matter of embracing Nik as a person - who knows, he might
be good fun on the otter farm - but of embracing his lack of intelligent
commentary and his total disregard for the essentials of surrealism and
discourse. This is impossible...
DMH
users
> conversely, what i've learned about "American Beauty" leads me to
> believe it is yet another of those ultimately status quo
> reinforcing morality plays where desire is frustrated or punished.
> the "hero" dies for his transgressions (regardless of how
> illuminated he became or how liberated he felt in the end, the
> message is ultimately that such rebellion is a capital crime that
> will not be ignored).
Have you seen Bad Lieutenant?
#Paul
users
> It is lonely, I agree. People gather together to talk about their
> favorite sitcom. When they ask you what you thought of last night's
> episode of whatever sitcom is most popular right now, it is difficult to
> say, "I don't own a TV." Why is it difficult?
In the United Kindom, if you do not own a TV, the TV Licensing
Authority refuse to believe you, and harass you with official letters
and visits by Inspectors. They shame streets whose homeowners
own an insufficient number of TV's with giant billboard advertisments.
#Paul
Nikolaus Maack
> Have you seen Bad Lieutenant?
That's the movie where Harvey Keitel stands completely naked, his arms
outstretched to either side, totally fucked up on drugs, whimpering
slightly, near tears, making strange "meep meep meep!" noises. I saw the
movie over a decade ago -- I think -- and that scene is still in my head.
fluffy...@prodigy.net
> (fluffy...@prodigy.net) writes:
> > It's lonely in the middle.
>
> It is lonely, I agree. People gather together to talk about their
> favorite sitcom. When they ask you what you thought of last night's
> episode of whatever sitcom is most popular right now, it is difficult
to say, "I don't own a TV." Why is it difficult?
>
> Because the person looks at you with such pity and confusion. Why
would someone NOT watch television? Are you some kinda intellectual
weirdo?
How can we possibly communicate if we don't have the shared experience
of FRIENDS or last night's hockey game? What else is there to talk
about?
>
> I find that just as depressing and as isolating as you do. I find it
even more depressiong when the non-TV watchers get together and say how
much better they are than the TV watchers, because they know that TV is
stupid, and the others don't.
>
That's why I seek out stupid tv--but the really far out stupid stuff:
Public access
cartoons
the porno channel (through all the squiggly lines 'cuz I don't have a
converter)
occasionally the partridge family. But I would NEVER watch a Charlie's
Angels or Love Boat rerun. Unless Donnny Osmond was on it.
jsday
Nik, perhaps your reading comprehension skills could use a little work...
barrett john erickson wrote "There are no surreal acts":
>>
>> again, "surreal" is not an attribute to be found or not found in
>> things or events or actions or people. there are no "surreal
>> acts", only actions by surrealists or actions viewed from a
>> surrealist context.
Nikolaus Maack replied "So you're saying that my act was surreal!":
>
> So what you're saying is, I'm a surrealist, I made the action -- "she
> choked to death on my cock" -- therefore it is surrealist. So your
> opinion doesn't matter. Of course, that's never stopped you from giving
> it before.
And he continues with this logic, making it the basis of his post,
asking "how does one determine if a painting is 'surrealist' or not?"
Didn't Barrett just answer that? So why are you asking him?
Hasn't this been explained about a dozen times before here?
Get this much clear, and never get it wrong again: Barrett,
and various others here seem to agree that there is not, and
never can be such a thing as a "surrealist painting".
Again - paintings are not surreal. Being made rather inert
canvas and paint, they don't really have the imagination for it.
Nik, you're free to disagree with that, but please do not
forget it's the opinion of the majority here.
> In others, shock is an element of the art?
Shock is the intended reaction of the viewer, not an element
of the art. It's quite permissible to create, using surrealist
techniques, a work intended to shock. It is also quite possible
to create, using surrealist techniques, a work intended to soothe
and pacify the minde. But such intentions of course depend on
the audience for their success, and are not inherent in the work
itself.
> You make surrealism sound like some project that never considers its
> audience, but only itself. I think this is obviously untrue. Thank God.
If one considers the media and materials to make use of, there is
no harm in considering the audience as well, they're part of the same
thing sometimes. As you're well aware. But nobody is saying anything
against that idea, you have no need to defend it.
> One does not put an apple in front of the man's face just for oneself.
> Why hang a painting in a gallery, why have shows, if it's all for
> yourself? Why publish poetry, if its only YOUR exploration?
The vast majority of my work, such as it is, is entirely unpublished,
and in fact rarely recorded at all. Why? Well, uh... why not?
_
Nikolaus Maack
> Get this much clear, and never get it wrong again: Barrett,
> and various others here seem to agree that there is not, and
> never can be such a thing as a "surrealist painting".
The word "surrealism" describes a "style" or mode as much as it describes
a philosophy. If I show you a picture of a painting, you can, almost
certainly tell me whether it is "surreal" or not -- that is, whether it
has the qualities of "surrealism". You can do this in the same way that,
if I show you a picture of a painting, you can tell me if it has
impressionist qualities or not.
To say there is no such thing as a surrealist painting is like saying
there's no such thing as a romance novel, only romantics. No such thing
as a porn novel, only pornographers. No such thing as a dog turd, only
dogs.
Surrealism is a philosophy. That philosophy promotes certain
characteristics which appear in "surreal" art. To say that the art object
itself is not surreal is, in my opinion, rather silly. WHY take such a
stance?
> Nik, you're free to disagree with that, but please do not
> forget it's the opinion of the majority here.
Now you're getting really silly.
> Shock is the intended reaction of the viewer, not an element
> of the art.
Water isn't wet. When you touch it, you feel wetness. The quality of
wetness is in you. Nothing is BLUE. You look at something and perceive
BLUE-ness. No painting is shocking. You look at the painting of an 80
year old white woman having sex with a 10 year old black child on top of a
pile of dead babies, and you perceive shocking-ness.
This stance strikes me as almost dissociative, and mentally unhealthy.
Why worry, why intellectualize about whether water is really wet, or if we
just perceive it that way? By distancing yourself from your own
experience, you damn yourself to never feel real water sloshing around
you, waves crashing over you. You'll never experience real wetness
attacking your skin, making you all pruney, spilling on your tongue,
making you squeeze your eyes shut.
Experience water. Experience wet. Don't make it into some distant ghost,
a mere perception, a mere opinion.
"Maybe someone will touch water and it will feel dry to them. Who am I to
say that water is really wet? I don't want to step on any toes."
The WATER is WET. Accept it. Move on.
> The vast majority of my work, such as it is, is entirely unpublished,
> and in fact rarely recorded at all. Why? Well, uh... why not?
If a tree falls in a forest, and no one is there to see it, how can we
determine whether or not the tree's fall was tragic or comic?
Nik
--
UPDATED! Feb 2nd, 2000 -- go look!
barrett john erickson
>Nik, perhaps your reading comprehension skills could use a little
work...
thanks. it's reassuring to know others can see this.
"Nikolaus Maack" wrote:
> The word "surrealism" describes a "style" or mode as much as it
describes
> a philosophy.
only among those who don't understand "surrealism".
-- barrett
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
==============================================
Fascinan
>> The word "surrealism" describes a "style" or mode as much as it
>describes
>> a philosophy.
>
Barrett:
>only among those who don't understand "surrealism".
I happen to agree with Nik's previous post, in general. To be quite honest,
Nik's use of language is much more lucid than Barrett, even if Nik's ideas are
more whimsical, less rigid, and often at odds with Dale and Barrett, who seem
to garner majority opinion (alot has to do with, I believe, their *perceived*
authority).
So, instead of the continual ad homineums against Nik, your (Barrett) arguments
would carry alot more weight if they were *accessible* to the uninitiate. I'm
not saying that I am for or against your views, just that it is very difficult,
at times, to dissect your philosophy and make practical use of it in my own
quest for comprehension and learning.
I think you previously said that surrealism should not be easy to understand.
Why? Perhaps your own vision of surrealism has become so conviluted,
ambiguous, and abstruse, as you've gone deeper and deeper into the
juxtaposition of your ideas with other fields of knowledge, that any sensible
or immediate identification with "surrealism" seems to cheat your intensive,
laborious trek. It would be similar to me having studied Norse mythology for
years, and getting upset over someone saying, "Loki was really Norse."
Then just saying, "You really don't understand Norse mythology."
Fas
barrett john erickson
news:20000203142413...@ng-fc1.aol.com...
> Nik:
> >> The word "surrealism" describes a "style" or mode as much as
it
> >describes
> >> a philosophy.
> >
>
> Barrett:
> >only among those who don't understand "surrealism".
>
>
> I happen to agree with Nik's previous post, in general. To be
quite honest,
> Nik's use of language is much more lucid than Barrett, even if
Nik's ideas are
> more whimsical, less rigid, and often at odds with Dale and
Barrett, who seem
> to garner majority opinion (alot has to do with, I believe,
their *perceived*
> authority).
Nik's comments about "surrealism" are invariably simplistic
abstractions of a subject that is most beautiful for its enigmatic
complexity. in this respect his "ideas" are not "whimsical" but
frivolous, not "less rigid" but petrified.
> So, instead of the continual ad homineums against Nik, your
(Barrett) arguments
> would carry alot more weight if they were *accessible* to the
uninitiate. I'm
> not saying that I am for or against your views, just that it is
very difficult,
> at times, to dissect your philosophy and make practical use of
it in my own
> quest for comprehension and learning.
i understand what you're saying, but as i said "'surrealism' is
not simple." a casual survey of the vast range of those who
gather in its service (from poets to painters to nuclear
physicists -- those who make art and those who don't) should make
this clear.
what i object to are those easy definitions of "surrealism" that
simplify for popular consumption that which is irreducible, and in
so doing cut away vital aspects of its reality because they're
more difficult to understand.
it's more "truthful", if you will, to speak of "surrealism" in
ways which highlight (without distorting) its complex enigmatic
character. still, i try to limit my objections to those cases
where someone deliberately reduces it to something smaller than it
is so it can be contained within their limited imagination.
> I think you previously said that surrealism should not be easy
to understand.
> Why? Perhaps your own vision of surrealism has become so
conviluted,
> ambiguous, and abstruse, as you've gone deeper and deeper into
the
> juxtaposition of your ideas with other fields of knowledge, that
any sensible
> or immediate identification with "surrealism" seems to cheat
your intensive,
> laborious trek. It would be similar to me having studied Norse
mythology for
> years, and getting upset over someone saying, "Loki was really
Norse."
> Then just saying, "You really don't understand Norse mythology."
the point is that "surrealism" already has many more facets than i
could ever bring to it and that Nik seems to deliberately ignore
this, preferring to think of "surrealism" as something he can
carry around in his back-pack like fake dog shit.
jsday
>
> Surrealism is a philosophy. That philosophy promotes certain
> characteristics which appear in "surreal" art. To say that the art object
> itself is not surreal is, in my opinion, rather silly. WHY take such a
> stance?
In my case, it was in part a reaction to your taking the opposite
stance to such an extreme. I suppose it might be going too far
to deny the utility of calling an object or action "surrealist",
but it is equally, if not more ridiculous, to claim that that's
all there is to it. Especially when the person you were talking
to was using the word in an entirely different way, attempting
to discuss the more personal and real activity of surrealism.
> "Maybe someone will touch water and it will feel dry to them. Who am I to
> say that water is really wet? I don't want to step on any toes."
Particle man. "He doesn't get wet, the water gets him..."
> If a tree falls in a forest, and no one is there to see it, how can we
> determine whether or not the tree's fall was tragic or comic?
That's for the "boring police" to decide, I suppose. I imagine them
as steely grey robots wearing little pink and yellow hats. They judge
what's boring according to a patented algorithm that awards points for
bright colours and shiny nonsense verse. If you fail to smile with
sufficient enthusiasm when they interrogate you, they take you away
for reprogramming at the National Institute of Amusement.
_
diva...@my-deja.com
ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Nikolaus Maack) wrote:
> Talk politics. Talk about how you hate corporate culture. Bitch about
> how we corporations drain the soul from humanity. You're just a bug on
> the grand piano, my friend. A slip of a pedal, a hammer, a finger, a
> single key, and you die. Why should we possibly care what you have to
> say?
>
> But sure, yes, speak your mind. You're free to do so. Say anything you'd
> like. No one is listening, of course, because no one cares. You can't
> compete with our advertisements and our superstars and our flash and
> sparkle. We have tits, we have ass, we have hairy chests, we have cock,
> we have fireworks, we have explosions.
>
> What have you got? Reason? Hope? A battered copy of WALDEN in your back
> pocket? We sold you that book. $4.95. Mass produced on cheap paper.
> Not a very good seller, I'm afraid. But it's hot among the college kids,
> so you know, we gotta keep some on the market. Makes a little bit every
> year. Wouldn't Thoreau have been pleased?
>
> rube slightly more than minimum wage to process such letters.
>
> "Dear disgruntled consumer, sorry to hear you are unhappy with the way
> things are. That's life. Fuck you. Signed, the Coca-Cola Corporation."
>
> Why not tell all your friends how mad you are? Why not tell strangers on
> the internet. Spend hours pouring over your hate.
>
> "Corporations are bad. They hurt us. I don't like them. You shouldn't
> like them either."
>
> Surprise! We don't give a shit if you like us. Just get a job with us,
> earn some money, and then spend it on our goods. Why should we give a
> shit if you like it? What does it matter, if our stock goes up and up?
> Why should we care about something as intangible as your feelings?
>
> (Besides, isn't this all really about your parents? You don't hate us, you
> hate your mother and your father. Authority -- that's what pisses you
> off. We just happen to have some power, and that fills you with envy.
> Isn't that what this is all about?)
>
> So talk, and talk, and talk if it makes you feel better. Squirt out a
> little steam, a little rage, and you'll feel more in control, even though,
> really, you haven't changed anything. Go on, do it! Speak your mind!
> What are you waiting for?
>
> "Those nasty corporations! They're destroying the world! They're killing
> us all! They're destroying all creativity and life and passion!"
>
> Hey, maybe you've got something there. It's a good thing I accidentally
> listened to you on my lunchbreak. I see a movie about it. A triumph of
> the human spirit against a faceless sea of oppression. The enemy will be
> called GlobalMegaCorp. Consumers eat that shit up. I see Julia Roberts
> and Bruce Willis. They'll fight and they'll win against some kind of
> business conspiracy.
>
> Yeah, man. This is a multi-million dollar idea. Thanks, kid. Thanks for
> earning me some more cash.
>
> Nik
>
> --
> Face The Art of Faces Being Faced
Hi Nik, Welcome to the real world. I wake up reluctantly each morning.leave
my nice warm comfty bed,arise to another hellish day. Driven by my greed,
dependent on others greed.Sucks. Brenda
Nikolaus Maack
> occasionally the partridge family. But I would NEVER watch a Charlie's
> Angels or Love Boat rerun. Unless Donnny Osmond was on it.
Stupid films are quite an art form. MST3K level material is nice. Films
so bad that they're good. One of my all time favorite films has to be Ed
Wood's "Glen or Glenda?" which is stunningly awful.
Unfortunately, a lot of really bad films manage only to be mediocre.
Statistically it makes sense, but it still strikes me as odd -- a film so
awful it's fun to watch is almost as rare as a film so good it's fun to
watch. Life is a bell curve, I guess. Stick a nipple on top of it;
that's all I ask.
Nik
--
UPDATED! Feb 2nd, 2000 -- go look!
Nikolaus Maack
> the point is that "surrealism" already has many more facets than i
> could ever bring to it and that Nik seems to deliberately ignore
> this
I've asked this question in here before -- do you think that being able to
laugh at yourself is an important quality? Can you laugh at yourself? Do
you understand why I would see this as an important quality to have? Can
you understand why I would specifically direct this question to you,
personally?
Nikolaus Maack
> That's for the "boring police" to decide, I suppose. I imagine them
> as steely grey robots wearing little pink and yellow hats. They judge
> what's boring according to a patented algorithm that awards points for
> bright colours and shiny nonsense verse. If you fail to smile with
> sufficient enthusiasm when they interrogate you, they take you away
> for reprogramming at the National Institute of Amusement.
That's no fun -- although I like the name "National Institute of
Amusement". Try to imagine an evil dictator who is on your side,
enforcing your deepest, darkest desires with the barrel of a gun. Who
would this dictator be, and what would the world be like?
Can the freedom you wish everyone to have be brought about by putting
those who refuse to be free in death camps?
john adams
directly related to surrealism. Surrealism in art is attributable to
certain methods of uncovering the unconscious, dreams, an attitude of
poetic revolution and the search for the marvelous, defying logic and
the same time the status quo, the bourgeois, and accepted asethetic
'standards' of art. So because a work of Fantasy art, for instance, may
seem dreamy or dark, it may be immediately (while unsuitably) called
surrealist by someone without the proper motivation to seek out what
that term really means first - someone who prefers to simplify and mold
it to fit due to his current undersized understanding and perhaps a case
of severe stubborness, for all the while debating about its
qualifications over and over, often misrepresenting it - intentionally
and unintentionally, which can become tiresome and annoying to others.
john
jsday
>
> Stupid films are quite an art form. MST3K level material is nice. Films
> so bad that they're good. One of my all time favorite films has to be Ed
> Wood's "Glen or Glenda?" which is stunningly awful.
BIOHAZARD - TERROR FROM ANOTHER DIMENSION
In a remote desert laboratory, government scientists experimenting
with psychic power expanding drugs are gathered to demonstrate the
capabilities of their project.
During the demonstration one of the psychics involved in the test
materializes a vicious reptilian Bio Monster. The creature,
displaying incredible ferocity and strength, escapes into the
night headed for the city.
A team of Vietnam vets is assembled to halt the creatures rampage
of carnage and destruction - can mankind survive the Biohazard?
_
Leo Sgouros
"jsday" <js...@dragon.achilles.net> wrote in message
news:slrn89kl46...@dragon.achilles.net...
t h e p r o b l e m i s i t lives o n l y i n t h e corners o f r e a l
i t y
like something you see o n l y o u t o f t h e corner o f y ou r
e y es a n d a t t a ches t o a l l thinGs
of a never to be shared
of a nothing to be given
a false bottom tear trap
o h b y t h e w a y i t l i v e s o n f e a r t h a t y o u hide
14
Brandon J. Freels
> Nik, I think you are oversimplifying everyone's positions.
As usual.
> some interesting things have been said on this discussion--and it's one
> of the longer threads I've seen since I've been on alt.surrealism.
No shit. I go away for a little while [not physically] and come back and
there's this big ass thread.
Why do we have to go over these issues over and over again?
Can Nik please tell us how corperations are good?
And while he's at it, tell us how religions are good...
And don't forget crack. Please Nik, tell us how crack is good...
Oh, don't forget slavery. Please tell us how slavery is good...
Brandon J. Freels
Why do we even argue with him? He doesn't listen. He reminds me of the born
again Christians who preach at the University [I believe I've spoken about
this in the past]. There is nothing I can say to them that will make them
change, and there is nothing they can say to me that can make me change.
There intent is not "conversation" but "provocation." Its all a lost cause.
Nik, take your Bible and Taoist library and shove them up your ass.
Do you have a point?
barrett john erickson wrote
"surrealism" isn't
> _about_ shocking people, and it certainly isn't about
> _manipulating_ them (either with "lies" or "truths").
Nikolaus Maack
> Welcome to the real world.
My father is the sort of person who says this sentence in every breath.
He also says, "Somday you'll understand, when you're older." He's been
telling me this since I was fifteen. I am almost thirty. Nothing he has
said makes any more sense.
My father has retired, and is obsessed with the stock market. Every day,
about eight times a day, he checks his stocks. He used to do this by
phone, but now uses the internet. He also hangs out in chat rooms, and
talks only to women. Why only women? Because, he tells me, he is not
gay.
My father is a newbie.
Nikolaus Maack
> Can Nik please tell us how corperations are good?
> And while he's at it, tell us how religions are good...
> And don't forget crack. Please Nik, tell us how crack is good...
> Oh, don't forget slavery. Please tell us how slavery is good...
A friend of mine described a conversation he once had.
"I'm not interested in joining the peace movement," he said.
"How can you possibly be against peace?" asked his baffled companion.
Nikolaus Maack
A romantic writes a book. It's what the world would call "a romance
novel". The writer insists that the book is NOT in fact a romance novel.
The writer says, "There's no such thing as a romance novel. There are
only romantics who write books."
A surrealist writes a book. It's what the world would call "a
surreal(ist) novel". The writer insists that the book is NOT in fact a
surreal(ist) novel. The writer says, "There's no such thing as a
surreal(ist) novel. There are only surrealists who write books.
Explain the difference between these two situations. This is open to
anyone who would care to comment on the comparison.
diva...@my-deja.com
ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Nikolaus Maack) wrote:
> (diva...@my-deja.com) writes:
> > Welcome to the real world.
>
> My father is the sort of person who says this sentence in every breath.
> He also says, "Somday you'll understand, when you're older." He's been
> telling me this since I was fifteen. I am almost thirty. Nothing he has
> said makes any more sense.
>
> My father has retired, and is obsessed with the stock market. Every day,
> about eight times a day, he checks his stocks. He used to do this by
> phone, but now uses the internet. He also hangs out in chat rooms, and
> talks only to women. Why only women? Because, he tells me, he is not
> gay.
>
> My father is a newbie.
>
> Nik
>
Sorry Nik,my father was an attorney.I hated the man, still do. When I
replied to you I meant it as satirical cynicism. Brenda
> --
> UPDATED! Feb 2nd, 2000 -- go look!
> The Nik Maack Art Gallery
> http://members.xoom.com/gotnik/
>
ann_...@my-deja.com
"Brandon J. Freels" <fre...@teleport.com> wrote:
> <fluffy...@prodigy.net> wrote
> > Nik, I think you are oversimplifying everyone's positions.
>
> As usual.
>
> > some interesting things have been said on this discussion--and it's
one
> > of the longer threads I've seen since I've been on alt.surrealism.
>
> No shit. I go away for a little while [not physically] and come back
and
> there's this big ass thread.
>
> Why do we have to go over these issues over and over again?
Hi! Sorry to interrupt! Is there a FAQ?
> Can Nik please tell us how corperations are good?
> And while he's at it, tell us how religions are good...
> And don't forget crack. Please Nik, tell us how crack is good...
> Oh, don't forget slavery. Please tell us how slavery is good...
Instead, why don't you both tell us how your griping and whining is
good...
jsday
>
> Can the freedom you wish everyone to have be brought about by putting
> those who refuse to be free in death camps?
Uhm, no, it can't. Actually, "a dictator on my side" sounds like one of
the most oxymoronish oxymorons that I've ever encountered.
My kind of dictator is one who rules absolutely, is universally recognized
as the sole vessel of all political power in the world, lives 1600005 light
years away, and has never heard of, or had any communications with this
planet, and is probably dead by now anyway since by last report he hadn't
spoken in 2.8 billion years.
_
Nikolaus Maack
> Uhm, no, it can't. Actually, "a dictator on my side" sounds like one of
> the most oxymoronish oxymorons that I've ever encountered.
And that doesn't make you incredibly happy and make you want to describe
it? What does glow-in-the-dark dark look like? Can it glow, seeing as
how it's not in the dark, because it is the dark? Or is it always glowing?
Oscar Wilde made love to paradoxes in the privacy of his favorite club.
Join him.
Nik