Surrealism.
Andrea Chen
>
> APhi77ips wrote:
>
> > You haven't replied to Gilbert's wider point that, far from being
> > revolutionary, surrealism is now in the mainstream. Or, as Prince
> > Charles (gorblessim) put it, "The Avant Garde is now the status quo."
> > What do you think about that?
>
> I think it is an extremely dubious statement uttered by an >extremely dubious person.
Bad boy Gilbert! You are dubious. We must not listen to you!
> In what way are the ideals of the avant garde the common coin
> of society?
We need to specify the "avant garde." In this case I assume you mean
the surrealists. Also specify ideas. There are many. They shift and
change. Surrealism went through a mystic period, then seduced by the
party and desiring to assert power, Breton rejected this, in his old age
we find that he embraced aspects of eastern mysticism. Certainly his
friendship with Octavio Paz shows he didn't oppose them even in the late
thirties.
> Your confusion stems (as so many confusions do) from a
> reduction of surrealism's experiments to mere aesthetic mimicry.
Experiments must take some describable shape. You and your friends are
inclined towards vague concpets such as "emacipation of the imagination"
letting this mean whatever it likes. This is nice and safe. It will
get you good grades on junior high school essays, but it means nothing.
Surrealism was (in part) a set of techniques and experiments. as i
have tried to point out these can be understood and continued. For
example various forms of automatic writing or collective creating can be
played out in this medium. Individuals from rec.arts.prose recently
proposed an example of the later in which different stages of a story
(possibly with alternative branches) were composed. There was no
interest among the socalled surrealist, this means of discovery was of
no interest. Instead you play with theory.
Despite all you say surrealism was little more than a grouping of
aesthetic approaches. Unlike the communist party or the Jehovah's
witnesses it did not act as a way of life though Breton did at times
attempt to impose dogma and discipline.
>There
> is no doubt that Magritte (for instance) has had his imagery lifted
> endlessly by commercialism; this is a left-handed compliment to his
> rich imagination. But this is not avant garde, or new in any way;
> society at large has always exploited the individual's achievements
> and in that process flattened them, stripped them of any power
> to disturb, and left them only with the strength to sell, or convince
> the viewer to subscribe to a rather limited field of choice.
"Society at large?" s opposed to the "individual." It's boring to
discuss social issues with you and this shows why. Once again you
define things as the most standard of cliches, the concepts which go
over well in junior high school English classes.
> But
> if you look at this corporate/militant/christian landscape we are
> living through
If you look at the lanscape you are living in you will note that there
are sever differences in corporation defined society and Christian
desired society. They conflict. As a simple example, Jerry falwell
doesn't like what's on television. You always resort to vague terms
which make sense to people who don't think and don't look. But if one is
serious about "experimenting" with society, one must actually study the
complex relationships.
> and see the wholesale application of any avant garde
> ideals, I am convinced you must be blind.
>
Nope. 2 "avant garde" ideas were the weakining of the family and the
loosening of sexual restrictions. These have occured along with a
serious weakening of class barriers in Europe. Many "avant garde"
ideals have been at least partially realized, differently than the avant
garde imagined or hoped for.
> And (isn't it odd?) that surrealists (or us "self-proclaimed surrealists")
> are derided for being old hat or washed up, and ALSO for being
> ubiquitous in the culture.
Actually surrealist techniques are ubiquitous in our culture and they
often retain power. Surrealist "ideals" are washed up. I once tried to
explain to you how certain themes had been taken up by others (possibly
influenced by the surrealists); I pointed out certain intellectual
flows, people like Marcuse and brown; concepts of liberating the soul by
liberating inhibitions, the rebellion against Freud (within a Freudian
context) in the desire for ploymorpheous sensuality. You couldn't get
it. If surrealism is alive intellectually as it is aesthetically, it is
is the same form, a thread of ideas or techniques woven into others.
You might desire to go back and resurrect a purer vision. Do so. But
so far all you do is harp out this fifties, vaguely leftist philosophy
filled with vague desires and vague goals without any power.
If surrealism is serious (as you and your friends claim) about
transforming society or at least letting a few people break the bondage,
then it becomes about power (if only the power to control your mind.)
You can talk about vague goals like "emancipation" but they mean nothing
unless you define (at least a little) from what and to what. You can
talk about the importance of art that shocks and startles (also desired
in our faced paced consumer society), but the power of visions and ideas
is their ability to take hold of your mind. Yesterday you (or brandon,
it's hard to tell you apart) happily quoted it sinks, it flats, it's
ivory soap; you used it as referance to Gilbert. *THATS* the imagery
which controls you and directs your thoughts.
> Which end of the swizzle stick are you holding
> when you stir your cognition? Or is the need to attack (this addiction
> to a sort of small beer of invisible victories) so intense in certain
> members of the jaded crew, that it overcomes your ability to
> even see the limits of your own arguments?
>
> DMH
Andrea Chen
>
> Keep up the crossposting--I'm
> going to have a lurk at alt.syntax.tactical now.
For the record alt.syntax.tactical was an invasion group. It recieved
some fame including an article in Wired. The most famous act was an
invasion of rec.pets.cats. I don't see it, but the first part of it was
evidently some innocent posts from an individual with some problem cats
which after lots of helpful advice and more problems wound up with
requests for advice on the best way to kill the cats with some helpful
friends invading the group and giving some advice.
I teased them for a while and even went along with one of their
invasions (alt.gathering.rainbow.) I wasn't greatly impressed but they
did touch on some issues (such as racism in the hippie community), it
was better than most.
I liked the idea of cooridinated (or at least improv) play on groups, I
tend to prefer discussions with some depth or some attempt at art not
really caring for the flames (though I seem to keep people riled.)
The people occupying ast now fled after a dispute over kosovo in
alt.pouting.sandwich With the exception of Bill Cleere I'm not sure if
any of then know the origin of the group or it's place in Usenet
history.
I took the "official faq" (which I posted earlier) from a FAQ by a
"gandalf" (or some such name) a 10 part thing availiblke in dejanews in
which most of the discussion is on what nasty people the ast folk are.
Andrea Chen
> The people occupying ast now fled after a dispute over kosovo in
> alt.pouting.sandwich With the exception of Bill Cleere I'm not sure if
> any of then know the origin of the group or it's place in Usenet
> history.
>
> I took the "official faq" (which I posted earlier) from a FAQ by a
> "gandalf" (or some such name) a 10 part thing availiblke in dejanews in
> which most of the discussion is on what nasty people the ast folk are.
If you want some fun (since most of you are unknown), you might go in
and attack the people posting there for being disruptors and perhaps
even threaten to tell their sysops. Righteous indigation at anti social
behavior should make some of them defensive. You can read Gandalf's faq
for ideas.
Leo Sgouros
Andrea Chen wrote in message <37167E...@earthlink.net>...
Sure folks, listen to Andrea lead you to hell.
Hi Andrea, is anything wrong?
I want to talk about war, Andrea.Just not on aps. Oh well, too late now.
Heres one for 1000 points.
2 gigahertz is important to which space vehicles?
MKLEO