Drug guide banned @ UTS
Iain Sinclair
p...@cs.uow.edu.au (Rev Dr Phil Herring) writes:
>Note 1: the use of the term "bimbos". The assumption seems to be that Iain
>assumes that any woman who'd indulge in an all-night orgy with him would
>have to be intellectually deficient.
I didn't think intellectual capacity was an important criterion for
participating in a hump session. But anyone who might do so with
their mind frying is, in my mind, well on their way to bimbosity.
I was also referring to Sydney people in general, who I have mostly
found to be missing a few spots on their dice. But Phil-chan has
long since raced ahead and assumed that I consider "brains" to be a
measure of worth.
>Note 2: the use (misuse, really, since it's a noun) of the term "surrealist".
>The implication is that Iain is quite happy to associate himself with an art
>movement that has produced nothing original for half a century.
You're speaking through your arse here. Where did this weird figure
of half a century come from? Many innovative surrealist masterpieces
were created a very long time after 1942. If you're referring to, say,
the last decade, you can give me a detailed critique of why the works
of (say) Gleeson and H.R.Giger are "nothing original". Is there anything
"original" anyway? That's a very old question.
There's a lot to be gained from the surrealists' theory and practice,
just as there is a lot to be gained from pop art, dadaism, minimalism,
expressionism, "the new aesthetics" of computer graphics and even
postmodernism.
Some primitive artists have "produced nothing original" for many centuries.
Are their works therefore worthless?
Is someone's subconscious racism beginning to shine through here?
Better pop another one, Phil.
>Next, consider the facts: Iain has consistently posted articles that
>express a political view sufficiently extreme to fit the description
>"surreal". Am I to conclude that his political opinions, as he expresses
>them, are sincere (interpretation one: Iain is a surreal entity), or insincere
>(interpretation two: Iain is a surrealist, in the canonical sense)?
A creative, but flawed, attempt to synthesize a contradiction where
none exists. Who would possibly describe their political views as
"surreal", and what surrealist would describe themself as insincere?
I think my achievements speak for themselves, but since you don't
know what they are, you're out of your "depth" when you "refer" to
"me" and put ""art"" "in" "quotation marks".
--
Iain Sinclair axo...@socs.uts.edu.au
Iain Sinclair
>suggest "wild women", you respond with "bimbos".
That's because the "wild women" you suggest fulfil most of my criteria
for "bimbos".
>So, by your measure, were Byron and Coleridge bimbos? Or would you have
>it that laudanum doesn't "fry" the mind?
I don't know about bimbos; by my measure, they're just irrelevant.
Would either have been as accomplished without their druggo escapades?
If somone needs a fix to do something interesting, then I can't be
bothered with them, personally. (NB: This is not to say that the
drug-crazed writer produces nothing of worth. For example, W.S.
Burroughs has covered new ground, but you don't need to be a junkie
to do that. I was producing dissociated non-linear fiction long before
I heard of him.)
You can bandwidth me in on the effects of laudanum.
>I'm glad you're not the bigot I thought you were.
Would you like to live in Phnom Penh? Why not? Are you a bigot?
>>>[phil]
>>>Note 2: the use (misuse, really, since it's a noun) of "surrealist"
(Is this a misuse like "communist"?)
>Well, I'm unfamiliar with the work of Gleeson.
>As for Giger, I wouldn't call his work "surreal". Strange, yes; surreal, no.
It's plain that you don't know nearly enough about surrealism to pass
judgement. Do you know as much about Giger as Giger? He describes himself
as a surrealist. I assume he'd know his stuff there; wrt his techniques,
subject matter and results, he also fits my definition of "surrealist"
(q.v.).
>Unfortunately, the term "surreal" has been so debased by misuse [...]
Sort of like "postmodern", really. Or "gay", for that matter --
>I would challenge you to establish your contention: define "surrealism",
>use that definition to identify artworks made after 1945 as such, and
-- however, with context, even oft-abused words are sufficient to
communicate effectively. You know what I'm talking about when I say
"surreal" or "surrealist". You're trying to get me to produce a
(nonexistent) 'definitive' definition whose surface can be scratched,
so that you can announce the scratch as a mortal wound.
I don't go in for those pedantic bullshit games. If you want a definition,
look it up in a fucking dictionary.
>If you _really_ want, I'll give you your critique
No, I don't, since it's obvious that
a) you don't know the subject,
b) you'll go for condescension and technicalities, rather than
substance, as you've done so far.
>Well, you claimed to be surrealist (sic) in aus.politics
On aus.politics, you claimed that I "needed" "good acid and a couple
of wild women". So, should we conclude that the summation of your
political aspirations? Is Rev Dr. Phil gonna try and get elected on
this platform? I could form "other hypotheses", but they might be
sensible ones, and then I couldn't wank on about nothing.
>No, my dear Siredon pisciforme, I don't know what your achievements are.
>Nobody does. That's why you're salving your ego with attempted insults.
I don't see any attempted insults. I see an attempt to carry on
a substantial discussion, but your overdose of jibes (and underdose
of relevant background) is not makin' it worth my while.
I don't need no salve on my ego, as I don't consider myself King Shit in
any walk of life. But... (THAT'S ENOUGH ABOUT ME. LET'S TALK ABOUT YOU.)
You don't know about Gleeson, you don't know about Giger, you entertain
(or feign) ignorance of the surrealists' work after an arbitrary date,
you ask for a definition of surrealism, and presumably produce no
significantly surrealist-influenced work of your own. It still seems
that I am more surrealist than YOU.
--
Iain Sinclair axo...@socs.uts.edu.au
Rev Dr Phil Herring
(Batrachian Reptile) writes:
> Followups to aus.flame.
Aaah, my dear Iain, you have almost - but not quite! - discouraged me
from responding. You will recall that I vowed never to return to aus.lame.
Well, I suppose I shall grant this one exception.
> p...@cs.uow.edu.au (Rev Dr Phil Herring) writes:
> >Note 1: the use of the term "bimbos". The assumption seems to be that Iain
> >assumes that any woman who'd indulge in an all-night orgy with him would
> >have to be intellectually deficient.
>
> I didn't think intellectual capacity was an important criterion for
> participating in a hump session.
Let me see: you used the word "bimbos". What else is one to think? I
suggest "wild women", you respond with "bimbos". I can only analyse
what you _say_. If you don't express yourself clearly, then I think
that I am excused any errors that I might make.
> But anyone who might do so with
> their mind frying is, in my mind, well on their way to bimbosity.
So, by your measure, were Byron and Coleridge bimbos? Or would you have
it that laudanum doesn't "fry" the mind?
> I was also referring to Sydney people in general, who I have mostly
> found to be missing a few spots on their dice.
I'm glad you're not the bigot I thought you were. (That was sarcasm.
Did you notice?)
> But Phil-chan has
> long since raced ahead and assumed that I consider "brains" to be a
> measure of worth.
Oh, you accuse me of that, but you have no basis for it.
>>Note 2: the use (misuse, really, since it's a noun) of the term "surrealist".
>>The implication is that Iain is quite happy to associate himself with an art
>>movement that has produced nothing original for half a century.
> You're speaking through your arse here. Where did this weird figure
> of half a century come from?
It is, roughly, the interval between the end of world war two and the
present.
> Many innovative surrealist masterpieces
> were created a very long time after 1942. If you're referring to, say,
> the last decade, you can give me a detailed critique of why the works
> of (say) Gleeson and H.R.Giger are "nothing original".
Well, I'm unfamiliar with the work of Gleeson. As for Giger, I wouldn't
call his work "surreal". Strange, yes; surreal, no. Unfortunately,
the term "surreal" has been so debased by misuse that it could readily
be applied to almost anything. (Witness Susan Sontag's assertion in _On
Photography_ that all photographs are inherently surreal.)
I would challenge you to establish your contention: define "surrealism",
use that definition to identify artworks made after 1945 as such, and
analyse their originality.
If you _really_ want, I'll give you your critique, but it'll bore the
franger off a Bankok-bound politician.
> There's a lot to be gained from the surrealists' theory and practice,
> just as there is a lot to be gained from pop art, dadaism, minimalism,
> expressionism, "the new aesthetics" of computer graphics and even
> postmodernism.
"There is a lot to be gained..." What does that mean? That you can stand
on their shoulders? This is true; but do you derive, or do you quote? Do
you steal, or do you refer to? These are the usual issues in art, but
nobody quoting Titian in a painting today would claim to be a renaissance
painter; and nobody borrowing a motif from Magritte would claim to be
a surrealist.
> Some primitive artists have "produced nothing original" for many centuries.
> Are their works therefore worthless?
>
> Is someone's subconscious racism beginning to shine through here?
You accuse without cause again. I never expressed my opinions on the worth
(or otherwise) of originality per se. Read what I wrote. You can _read_,
can't you?
>>Next, consider the facts: Iain has consistently posted articles that
>>express a political view sufficiently extreme to fit the description
>>"surreal". Am I to conclude that his political opinions, as he expresses
>>them, are sincere (interpretation one: Iain is a surreal entity), or insincere
>>(interpretation two: Iain is a surrealist, in the canonical sense)?
>
> A creative, but flawed, attempt to synthesize a contradiction where
> none exists. Who would possibly describe their political views as
> "surreal", and what surrealist would describe themself as insincere?
I sought no contradiction; I asked a question, one which you haven't
answered. But let's get to the nitty-gritty. I interpreted your words
as indicating either: that you claim that you are surreal; or that you
claim that you are a surrealist whose purported political pleropheries
are an exercise in surreal fiction.
Now, who would possibly describe their political views as "surreal"?
Well, you claimed to be surrealist (sic) in aus.politics, so I can form
few other hypotheses. I have allowed that your persona _might_ be
a surreal fiction, which is insincerity of a kind, since you haven't
actually made it clear that you are such. As for your last question:
no surrealist has described himself is insincere. _I_ have accused _you_
of insincerity.
> I think my achievements speak for themselves, but since you don't
> know what they are, you're out of your "depth" when you "refer" to
> "me" and put ""art"" "in" "quotation marks".
No, my dear Siredon pisciforme, I don't know what your achievements are.
Nobody does. That's why you're salving your ego with attempted insults.
-- Phil.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rev Dr Phil Herring,University of Wollongong, Australia
p...@cs.uow.edu.au This article is copyright (c) 1992 Phil Herring
"My manner of thinking, so you say, cannot be approved. Do you suppose I
care? A poor fool indeed is he who adopts a manner of thinking for others!
My manner of thinking stems straight from my considered reflections; it
holds with my existence, with the way I am made. It is not in my power to
later it; and were it, I'd not do so." Donatien Alphonse Francois de Sade
---------------------------------------------------------------------------