mark of the beast; 666
g.v.w. iv
elag wrote:
> it reminds me of gvwivism.
Why? Does it demand that you think? Or write?
>
> Jason Hummel wrote:
> > Is this surreal? or is it real?
> > http://www.jasonhummel.com
> > 808 Bark of the East 808
> > Bicycle Quotes and Web Winks
> > Property being filled.
> > http://www.jasonhummel.com
--
gilbert vanburen wilkes iv
http://eserver.org/home/wilkes
<a href="http://www.2600.com/mindex.html">Free Kevin</a>
Revolutions are always verbose.
Leon Trotsky
Brandon J. Freels
it reminds me of gvwivism.
g.v.w. iv wrote:
>Why? Does it demand that you think? Or write?
No, but it makes you play follow the leader. You know, how you play follow
the critic. Let the critic think for you. Suck the critics off, etc. Poser
school boy!
g.v.w. iv
-----Original Message-----
From: Brandon J. Freels <fre...@teleport.com>
Newsgroups: alt.surrealism,rec.arts.prose
Date: Wednesday, April 14, 1999 1:26 AM
Subject: Re: mark of the beast; 666
>elag wrote:
> it reminds me of gvwivism.
>
>
>g.v.w. iv wrote:
>>Why? Does it demand that you think? Or write?
>
>
>No, but it makes you play follow the leader. You know, how you play follow
What leader do you imagine i follow?
>the critic. Let the critic think for you. Suck the critics off, etc. Poser
>school boy!
Oh, that hurt. You ill-educated non-Surrealists are so mean spirited.
Brandon J. Freels
>What leader do you imagine i follow?
It is obviously no secret that you have your head so far up a critics ass
that you can't help but follow him/her. Tell us g.v.w. iv, what were the
circumstances that you first encountered Surrealism? Maybe this will help
explain you lack of understanding.
Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes
have been yours.
What ''critic'' do you imagine i follow?
i don't remember when i first encountered Surrealism. It obviously failed
to make a terribly big impression on me.
Why do you ask?
g.v.w. iv
http://eserver.org/home/wilkes
<a href="http://www.2600.com/mindex.html">Free Kevin</a>
Brandon J. Freels
misundersand? So far, all the misunderstandings have been yours."
If you read Breton's Manifestoes of Surrealism, Nadja, Communicating
Vessels, Mad Love, and Arcane 17 you will understand how you have
misunderstood Surrealism. I also recommend reading Aragon's Paris Peasant,
or taking a look at anthologies of Surrealist writings such as Alestair
Brotchie's A Book of Surrealist Games, Jose Pierre's Investigating Sex:
Surrealist Discussions 1928-1932, Lucy Lippard's Surrealists on Art, Marcel
Jean's Autobiography of Surrealism, J. H. Matthews' The Custom-House of
Desire, Penelope Rosemont's Surrealist Women, Michael RIchardson's The
Identity of Things, The Myth of the World, and Refusal of the Shadow.
But since you are standing in a sink hole full of your own feces (i.e. your
anus), and can not think for yourself by reading and comprehending primary
sources, I will also recommend these critical analysis of the Surrealist
project, but keep in mind that each text has its own biases and failures:
Maurice Nadeau's History of Surrealism, Fiona Bradley's Surrealism and
Matthew Gale's Dada and Surrealism.
stribs
Brandon J. Freels <fre...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:hsgR2.43754$A6.21...@news1.teleport.com...
<shear>
>.I also recommend reading <nick> Jose Pierre's Investigating Sex:
>Surrealist Discussions 1928-1932
<clip>
stibs
g.v.w. iv
Date: Thursday, April 15, 1999 2:21 AM
Subject: Re: mark of the student; GVW
>Gilbert Vanburen Wilkes ignorantly wrote, "What do you imagine that I
How does one write something ''ignorantly,'' adverb boy? Did i lose
consciousness of the conventions of written discourse?
>misundersand? So far, all the misunderstandings have been yours."
>
>
>If you read Breton's Manifestoes of Surrealism, Nadja, Communicating
>Vessels, Mad Love, and Arcane 17 you will understand how you have
i read Mad Love. i own Caws' translation. It bored me to tears. But you miss
the point. i know the Surrealists--the real Surrealists, the Surrealists of
that particular historical period--produced a great deal of descriptive,
expository, analytical &c. material.
i understand them, because i understand how they responded to their own
historical moment, the issues and concerns of their times. You, however,
believe you can ape their practices (however badly) some fifty years later
and still think yourself anything other than conventional, mannered,
stilted, derived.
The world moved on. It's all been done, boy. Surrealism can no longer offer
anything new.
And merely reciting book titles hardly makes your case for you, moron.
>misunderstood Surrealism. I also recommend reading Aragon's Paris Peasant,
>or taking a look at anthologies of Surrealist writings such as Alestair
>Brotchie's A Book of Surrealist Games, Jose Pierre's Investigating Sex:
>Surrealist Discussions 1928-1932, Lucy Lippard's Surrealists on Art, Marcel
>Jean's Autobiography of Surrealism, J. H. Matthews' The Custom-House of
>Desire, Penelope Rosemont's Surrealist Women, Michael RIchardson's The
>Identity of Things, The Myth of the World, and Refusal of the Shadow.
>
>But since you are standing in a sink hole full of your own feces (i.e. your
>anus), and can not think for yourself by reading and comprehending primary
>sources, I will also recommend these critical analysis of the Surrealist
>project, but keep in mind that each text has its own biases and failures:
>Maurice Nadeau's History of Surrealism, Fiona Bradley's Surrealism and
>Matthew Gale's Dada and Surrealism.
>
>
>
gilbert vanburen wilkes iv
http://eserver.org/home/wilkes
<a href="http://www.2600.com/mindex.html">Free Kevin</a>
Revolutions are always verbose.
Leon Trotsky
Brandon J. Freels
dominate "topics." He is obviously frustrated with the idea that he hasn't
yet dominated Cubism and Dada, which he made obvious by his earlier blunder,
and now he is enraged for his false understanding of Surrealism is being
uncovered. Embarrassed by his misunderstanding he is simple claiming that
Surrealism is "dead," and has nothing more to offer us. As if someone was to
say that what they don't understand doesn't matter.
Brandon J. Freels
>It bored me to tears.
Then leave it alone. Get out of alt.surrealism. Of course you only know
about "historical" Surrealism, because you suck the critics cock, and it is
the critic who puts this "historical" label on something. If something is
not "historical" than what is it? Everything is "historical."
g.v.w. iv
From: Brandon J. Freels <fre...@teleport.com>
Newsgroups: alt.surrealism,rec.arts.prose
Date: Friday, April 16, 1999 5:22 AM
Subject: Re: mark of the student; GVW
>The problem with g.v.w. iv is that, as a student, he thinks he needs to
i also teach. i also write white papers and develop helpsets for software
developers. i also do research. Actually, as a student i do very little,
other than work on a prospectus for a dissertation.
>dominate "topics." He is obviously frustrated with the idea that he hasn't
>yet dominated Cubism and Dada, which he made obvious by his earlier
blunder,
So i blew it on a detail. Big deal. The question i asked still stands. You
have yet to answer it.
>and now he is enraged for his false understanding of Surrealism is being
>uncovered. Embarrassed by his misunderstanding he is simple claiming that
Uncovered? You uncovered nothing. i am embarrassed that people like you
still want to cling to antique modes of expression void of critical content
when so much goes one elsewhere, but other than that, i'm quite content.
>Surrealism is "dead," and has nothing more to offer us. As if someone was
to
>say that what they don't understand doesn't matter.
It is dead, deader than post impressionism. You, Brandon/Dale, are proof of
that, you who quotes from texts dating back to the twenties.
g.v.w. iv
-----Original Message-----
From: Brandon J. Freels <fre...@teleport.com>
Newsgroups: alt.surrealism,rec.arts.prose
Date: Friday, April 16, 1999 5:18 AM
Subject: Re: mark of the student; GVW
Some things are contemporary, little one. Some things matter to us now.
Surrealism, however, has entered the historical record.
You can find excellent examples of Surrealism on PBSs (insipid) Antique Road
Show.
Brandon J. Freels
>Surrealism, however, has entered the historical record.
Brandon:
So have the germans, but that doesn't mean they don't exist just because
they existed in the past.
sy_s...@bigfoot.com
"Brandon J. Freels" (fre...@teleport.com) wrote:
: g.v.w. iv wrote
:> Surrealism, however, has entered the historical record.
: So have the germans, but that doesn't mean they don't exist just
: because they existed in the past.
Firesign Theatre sez: Papoon for President!
The Toon Show http://www.well.com/user/silly/ version upgrade soon
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
g.v.w. iv
-----Original Message-----
From: Brandon J. Freels <fre...@teleport.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.prose,alt.surrealism
Date: Friday, April 16, 1999 1:46 PM
Subject: Re: mark of the student; GVW
>g.v.w. iv wrote
>>Surrealism, however, has entered the historical record.
>
>
>Brandon:
>So have the germans, but that doesn't mean they don't exist just because
>they existed in the past.
You have Dale's talent for making wretched analogies. Cultural movements
pass in and out of being. Nation states too, but differently. The generation
that gave us Surrealism has left us.
You may as well wear lederhosen, a felt hat, and slapdance yourself silly.
You'd be every bit as relevant as your caricatured notion of Surrealism.
Dale Houstman
> How does one write something ''ignorantly,'' adverb boy?
By bring in a state of ignorance when one writes, asswipe boy. This
"pick out a sentence and react" method of yours leads you into mistake
after mistake.
> i read Mad Love. i own Caws' translation.
How does one "own: a book, commerce boy?
> It bored me to tears.
This I don't doubt, since it is obvious that the one thing that doesn't
bore you is yourself. Unfortunately (for you) that item bores everyone
else.
> But you miss the point. i know the Surrealists--the real
> Surrealists, the Surrealists of that particular
> historical period--produced a great deal of
> descriptive, expository, analytical &c. material. i understand them, because i
> understand how they responded to their own historical moment, the issues and
> concerns of their times.
Like economic oppression, sexual oppression, censorship, political
control, cynicism (your favorite!), etc. Yeah, thank goodness these
issues don't confront us anymore.
> You, however, believe you can ape their practices (however
> badly) some fifty years later and still think yourself
> anything other than conventional, mannered, stilted, derived.
Okay, who are you aping? You sound to me like that cynical
voice that has existed since man first hated man. How old is that?
> The world moved on. It's all been done, boy. Surrealism can no longer offer
> anything new.
Okay, so when are you going to reveal to us the New Order of
the Imagination. What is in your program besides cynicism and attack?
> And merely reciting book titles hardly makes your case for you, moron.
He wasn't "making a case" (that's the lawyer and judge in you), but
merely (and helpfully) suggesting guides to understanding. The texts
may (or may not) "make a case" but if you come to any art expecting
such nonsense, it is not surprising when you are bored.
Drill/Abandon
bob jones
UMUFA13 wrote:
An unwitting pawn of the conspiracy, Robert Maughan was overcome by
sinister forces and said...
That seemed so quick and easy. Perhaps UMAFA12 3/4 hasn't
flipped out totally, taking on RJM on his own ground and actually
knows what he's doing here. One has to admire the determination.
Did I say that?
Still, new battlefields, new horizons and all that.
ś
ś UMUFA13 <umu...@mhm23x6.fa>
ś
ś >ś Please, do explain the repeated reference -
ś >
ś >Beg harder.
ś >
ś Nah, patently, you're a wanker with no real idea of what it is
you're
ś rattling on about. I'll assume you're full of shit.
I suppose it's easier for you than firing up the 'ole synapses. You'll
have fewer nosebleeds, too.
'Don't let the door slam you in the face as you leave.'
ś
ś >ś I appreciate your attempt at sophisticated repartee, but you
mean shit.
ś >
ś >If what I've read from you so far is any indication, your idea of
ś >"sophisticated" is a French dubbed version of Deep Throat, and
frankly
ś >I'm insulted.
ś
ś What you've read from me so far is recreational prose. What about
that
ś simple concept don't you understand? Sophistication, or in your case
the
ś attempt at sophistication,
Judging from the style of your "No, *I* am sophisticated, *you're* not
sophisticated" repartee, I'll have to take "Why Does Bobby 'Pee Wee'
Maughan Consider Making a Public Ass of Himself Recreation" for $500,
Alex.
<snip of standard poster fictionalisation a la P*lmjob/everyone_else>
"FUCKHEAD."
--
: Usenet Modification Unit FA.13 - mhm 23x6 :
What's with this number stuff anyway.
Make you proud?
--
You'll find your ignorance is blissful,
every godamn time.
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---