Remembering Dreams (Dali)
pisto...@hotmail.com
during the state of semi-consciousness during sleep. I hate the fact I can't
clearly remember such thoughts after waking up.
So I read where Salvador Dali ("I do not take drugs because I am drugs") said
some of his greatest work came as a result of his semi-conscious thoughts.
So to capture them, he set up a primitive device to wake him up as soon as he
began to drift off. He held in his hand a spoon and put a plate under it.
As soon as his grip loosened, the spoon would crash into the plate, waking
him.
Well, any other thoughts?
--
"It seems, in fact, as though the second half of a man's life is made up
of nothing but the habits he has accumulated during the first half."
-Fyodor Dostoyevsky
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Dale Houstman
The problem with Dali (of course) is that he's an inveterate liar, even
a mythically epic one. In most of his career (and the word "career"
is specific in his case) he is obviously not only not asleep (or even
half asleep) but wide awake to opportunity cocking. He stole Tanguey's
infinite horizon, he incoporated imagery consciously from Freud, and
supported Hitler in word and paint when he knew it would maximize
his profit as an "outrage from Europe" Breton might say of him that he
is Surrealist in profit. This is no small thing, and Breton used him too
(to promote his philosophy), and only dumped him (not that you can
dump Dali from a movement, since he is his own movement) when he
was possibly feeling a bit left out: he sublimated this into a Surrealist
ethics question, butr I don't find that compelling. Can you imagine
though Breton on the Tonight show? Dali is network sitcom, Breton is
what they used to call "educational television."
So who knows: maybe he painted best after drinking several bottles of
Holy Wine.
Could be...
DMH
Daddy Makes Hay
Brandon J. Freels
Although I have a slight interest in the fellow I am not sure why the fools
of North America have taken to seeing him as the Pioneer of Surrealism. I
read a web site recently, don't remember the address, that stated that Dali
was the founder of Surrealism, and another that said he was the leader of
the movement! I find this rather sick since most experts (?) on Surrealism
have a hard time "placing" him in the movement after 1933 let alone giving
him foundership.
Someone I read recently, I believe it was Soupault, in an article in Yale
French Studies #31 (?) made a comment about Dali as a clown who only "used"
Surrealism for personal success. I see Dali as much worse. With his
capitalistic ways Dali distorted the North American understanding of what
Surrealism really is. If you think about the fact that most of Breton's
works weren't translated until the sixties [I believe Barrett posted
something on this subject a few months back] than you can see where the
misunderstanding and confusion comes from. Luckily much of Breton's work is
now in translation, and so are many works on Surrealism that clarify
matters.
Maybe Dali's distortion of Surrealism in North America is why people such as
Nik are out there [this was not meant to be an insult Nik and I really hope
you don't respond]? Am I repeating myself? Have I said this all before?
No one should ever pass up chance to shit on Dali. Never.
---BJF
Andrea Chen
>
> It is always a relief, no pun intended, to hear someone shit on Dali.
>
> Although I have a slight interest in the fellow I am not sure why the fools
> of North America have taken to seeing him as the Pioneer of Surrealism. I
Dale:
Dali had the more effective long lasting publicity machine. He was the
one who defined "surrealism" to the American public. Culturally he is
the primal influence (making the roots of our surrealist traditions
different than europe)
Breton was unable to compete as effectively for the hearts and minds of
the people (the masses). When this happens your memes suffer. To
define surrealism in your image requires that you spark the
imagination. Otherwise it remains an esoteric discipline of an elite.
If one is "Marxist" then the vision of the "masses" is considered as
legitimate (often more so) than that of those who write the texts.
You may dislike Dali, but you might want to learn from him. You might
find some of his techniques consistent with your morality. If not you
must at least understand them to counter them.
That's if your interest is the practical application of ideas rather
than their discussion.
Dale Houstman
> > I am not sure why the fools of North America have taken to seeing him as the
> Pioneer of Surrealism.
This you auto-clarify a few sentences later with:
> With his capitalistic ways...
Americans love success as measured by money and Dali loved money and was
more than willing to sell himself for its allurements. The extent of this
illness is profound: a few years ago I asked some poor working schlub (like
myself) if he thought some particular person he had been discussing was better
than him because he had more money. He said "of course" and only looked slightly
put off by his own immolation. This sickness is rampant, and infected us as a
people even then. Dali liked noise,
bravado, cash, publicity, celebrity, lights, camera, ACTION! It would have been
stranger if America hadn't fallen for him like a Furby. Breton (as an
intellectual) couldn't begin to compete on such a level in a country rather
notoriously anti-intellectual. Breton (as it turned out) wasn't much of a
"mixer" and suffered greatly in exile. He is of course triumphant because his
work is (essentially) life-affirming in an unsticky way. Dali's work is cynical
and manipulative. That he was a genius at this cannot be doubted, but it's not
much to admire, only to be awed by. He's a human firecracker. Filled with pus.
Also: I have always imaged Gala as an earlier form of Yoko.
It seems that every year brings us more and more of the central works; I heard
of plans to produce a definitive collection of Breton's complete poetic works,
but still have seen nothing beyond the selected University of Texas Press
edition; which I have and which is pretty in its way. I have various other books
(I luckily have a friend who makes it his
business to trawl the book lists for such gifts) but wouldn't hesitate to
procure it as one set. I find (as many don't) Breton's poetic works compelling.
Dali did Surrealism a bad turn, there's no doubt. One only wishes he might have
suffocated in that diving suit...
DMH
Brandon J. Freels
>Dali did Surrealism a bad turn, there's no doubt. One only wishes >he might
have suffocated in that diving suit...
Brandon:
Yes, Dali did do Surrealism a bad turn, but did he ever do right? I believe
he was one of the first to write about the surrealist object (inspired by a
Giacometti piece) but I could be mistaken, and then there is his critical
paranoia theory which seems to be an imitation of some of Max Ernst's early
theories. So what good did Dali do? And where are the Dali defenders
(besides Chen)? Since we have already determined that his popularity did
Surrealism wrong than is that, the production of misunderstandings in North
America, the only importance Dali plays in the history of Surrealism?
Dale Houstman
>
> >Yes, Dali did do Surrealism a bad turn, but did he ever do right?
It's a good question and one could answer it by noting Breton's rather
fervent embracing of him, and (supposedly) a guilty delight over the attention
that it brought Surrealism in america, at a time when Breton was hungry to
extend its spheres. But that's pure commerce, and the product Dali was
selling turns out to be rather an over-promoted series of provocation landed
precisely where Dali must have known would not produce cathartic revelations
but instead another embracing, this time of the Surrealist Poster Boy and
clown lunatic. One would have to measure this against an "alternate time-line"
in which only Duchamp, Ernst, Arp, Breton, etc. "molded" the interface,
but Dali had almost no effect on serious artists of the coming American Age,
which
took its cues from Gorky and Arp and Miro. But one cannot judge (either)
an artist's "worth" by influence solely; Magritte seems mainly to have
revolutionized
the advertising world. In some ways Dali is a hard act to follow, like coming on
stage after the escaped madman set fire to his psychologist/jailer.
> >I believe he was one of the first to write about the surrealist object
> (inspired by a
> >Giacometti piece) but I could be mistaken, and then there is his critical
> >paranoia theory which seems to be an imitation of some of Max Ernst's early
> >theories.
Do not know the truth of this surrealist object claim. If so, it has to be
marked on his dance card, I suppose. I found his "paranoid critical" method to
be more a satire than
a sober system, (his intentions are suspect in exactly that fashion for the most
part), and its painting manifestations (double and triple images) are among his
least interesting because so obviously forced. They seem like highly glossy
rebuses and are barely a parody of themselves.
>And where are the Dali defenders (besides Chen)?
Well, for one, a friend of mine in Maryland, who appears to be a breathing
temple to Dali in some ways. I don't know the consensus "on ng" and I am not
convinced a poll would determine much on this point besides some index of
popularity.
>Since we have already determined that his popularity did Surrealism wrong than
is that, >the production of misunderstandings in North America, the only
importance Dali plays in >the history of Surrealism?
I can't say we "determined" this, only that we agreed on it; and yet I still
find Dali
in some ways, repulsively intriguing. He may have (as Breton had hoped) brought
some added attention to the existence of surrealism. In the main this seems
sensationalistic
and commercial, but who knows that some serious cortexes weren't "turned to"
simply by this Coyote/Rabbit/Monkey figure. He does (for money) bring a lot of
the notion of
surrealist humor into the mix.
DMH
RCWilk
used to further a surrealist project. Or better, a kind of neo-surrealist
project.
Since it's too big and complex to debate surrealism in general (what it is and
ain.t) how about we work with some of the more productive elements.
I would suggest the approach to dreams where dreams further the project of
breaking with normalizing body and mind and getting through to the surreal.
This is of great interest to me and many clinicians and artists, writers and
others who are interested in not only inspirational sources but postmodern
tools to open the can of - well, whatever, that tends to seal up and
self-organize. The clinicians call this neurotic ego, the buddhists compuslive
ego, the postmoderns just refer to any repressive authority and remain less
categorical.
Each form of dreamwork that has developed in the last 100 years offers some
surreal breakthrough and some normalizing components.
I began seeing that this issue of representation itself might be a useful
viewpoint. The shift in dreamwork (art working, working with dreams, not
freud's dreamwork, though primary processes are involved in both).
For example, how to develop a dreamwork that is more Bergsonian, that sees
that there is life and representations of life and favors the first? Dreamwork
tends towards the second, but works with both. Note for example Fritz Perls use
of dreamwork to break through the bullshit, gameplaying levels of reality. Or
Mindell and Gendlin's body based dreamwork. And in general, most contemporary
dreamwork has a notion of liberation somewhere or another embedded.
I feel a re0view of Surrealist practice can now be performed to produce some
very productive dreamwork.
If this interests you, I also have some papers online that are available,
exploring non-represtntational dreamwork. Very preliminary stuff and we
experiment online, a little offline, but not as much.