Lashing out at Multi-cultural levelers
William Palmer
> "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message news:<3DE2D381...@oco.net>...
> William Palmer wrote:
> > "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message news:<3DE1B9F...@oco.net>...
> >
> >>William Palmer wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>There you go again, scrambling around those slippery
> >>>slopes. Yes, Bataille is mentioned very briefly in
> >>>a couple of good books I've read on Surrealism.
> >>>However, I approach Surrealism as an art lover, not
> >>>as a reverent scholar ready to be greatly influenced
> >>>by every pronouncement by every minor figure on the
> >>>vast stage of Surrealist art.
> >>
> >>But you see, William, if you pass-off Bataille as a "minor figure" of
> >>surrealism, you only betray your superficial knowledge of the topic.
> >>Groking pictures is not actually an "approach" to Surrealism.
> >>Surrealism is a major discourse of Modernism, and at best if you only
> >>know how to name pictures you can't claim any real understanding of this
> >>discourse.
> >>
>
> But I didn't say that, did I? I said you have a superficial knowledge
> of surrealism. I've known people who enjoy Max Ernst because his works
> reminds them of their acid trips. If you look at Surrealism in its
> historical context, you could say that this is superficial. But that
> doesn't mean they don't enjoy Max Ernst, does it.
No, it doesn't. And, who knows, without Max Ernst,
they might be using heroin instead.
> I just said "since you're interested in surrealism..." or words to that
> effect. Why are you making a mountain out of a molehill? Relax - kick
> back - smoke a joint.
I don't use any drugs or alcohol. There's no drug
that could get me higher than life in the Usenet
thoughtstream does. Drugs would only separate me
from my readers and fans.
> Learn to laugh at yourself.
I'm too busy howling with laughter at you.
>
> The informal essays I
> > have written on the topic are written from
> > the standpoint of a writer and art lover, not
> > someone who flatters himself he is adding
> > to the serious scholarship on the subject.
>
> I just mentioned one of Bataille's surrealist projects, Bill. If you're
> not familiar with his work, so be it.
What, I'm supposed to be humiliated? I have two
great books on Surrealism right in front of me
(Gaetan Picon's SURREALISTS AND SURREALISM and
Marcel Jean's THE HISTORY OF SURREALIST PAINTING,
in total, almost 600 pages) and they make scant
mention of the gentleman. What is especially
amusing is the fact that while Marcel Jean
mentions Bataille twice (in 380 pages) he
also mentions Rube Goldberg once. I guess
we can argue which one had more influence on
Surrealism!
Personally, I think you should
> consider what he is saying in regard to allegory, for your own
> enrichment. But we can always go back to the Margaret Meade example
> which may be easier for you to understand.
I'm surprised you brought the name up again
after I remarked on your fallacious argument
in which you sommersaulted down a slippery
slope while glibly implying that readers were
somehow obliglated to view the planet as if
they were social scientists postulating that
one society is as important and deserving of
study than another. Fine, you can argue that
the art of the Trobriand Islanders, not being
"colonialist art," is as worthy of lengthy
contemplation than the contents of the Louvre,
but I don't think many people outside the
Trobriand Islands are going to agree with you.
Maybe you should move to the Trobriand Islands
for a few years. When you finished surveying
the works of art there, be they approximations
of hen-scratchings on a tree-trunk or whatever,
maybe you would appreciate the Louvre for a
change. Perhaps you would learn to be thankful.
And, frankly, I think what you said last time
about not being able to enjoy 19th century art
because it was the product of a colonial power
is the nuttiest thing I've heard all week. I
suppose if you ever see a Roman artifact you
will immediately go into convulsions too.
I've got to tell you: Sometimes when I read
posts by people like you, I get the weirdist
feeling that there is a pince-nez wearing
donkey with an academic mortarboard on his
head sitting out there typing this stuff
with his front hooves while braying loudly
every couple of minutes...
a.g.b-p
> Erik
Jeffrey Meyer
Rugeley are you?
Just curious.
--
Jeffrey
"William Palmer" <willia...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:cbc76035.02112...@posting.google.com...
William Palmer
> You're not by any chance related to that 19th century doctor from
> Rugeley are you?
> Just curious.
> --
> Jeffrey
Hey. That reminds me. I have not made one
of my "The Life and Crimes of William Palmer"
posts recently. Whee... Thanks for the tip,
Jeffrey.
Twinkles, the alt.genius.dwarf