Alt.Surrealism - Surrealism for masses?
Carlos Martins
As Barrett said (see last 23.4.96 message) alt.surrealism is probably
the less surrealist as possible on Internet. The group and discussions
here has nothing to do do with surrealism. Surrealism is a revolutionary
movement of spirit emancipation and also dealing with social and political
revolution. Discussing aesthetics around surrealism is the most non-
surrealist contribution for the discussion of what is the surrealism
in present times. Surrealists make paintings, collages or whatever they
want but the important surrealist matter is to change the life and world
poeticalley but also social and politically.
For example in the present times to be surrealist is also to struggle against
USA presence in Arab countries (not to protect the human rights but to suck
arab resources), to struggle against the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal
(arrested in Pensilvania and comdamned to death), struggling with
Irish people`s against England occupation, struggling to free Pepe Rei
accused by old Franco`s trial to be a member of terrorist
ETA`s organization, struggling against portuguese police that recently
decapitated a 21 years`s old young arrested in Sacavem, Lisbon or struggling
against any authoritarian regimes from right or left.
Yes, all of you can say: ok this is surrealist too but it isn`t
so political? Well, we need to read more what surrealism is in social and
political domain (Breton, Naville and others). May we as surrealists (artists
or not) be indiferent to the human destiny? Individually or as a community
human kind and after all entire nature is on the center of our concerns!
Surrealism is life and refuse to be buried at museums or conventional
galleries. If you want to see surrealists in action please get out of
the museums!
regards
carlos martins
against reactionary regimes in everywhere
Carlos Martins
>
>Carlos Martins wrote:
>>As Barrett said (see last 23.4.96 message) alt.surrealism is probably
>>the less surrealist as possible on Internet. The group and discussions
>>here has nothing to do do with surrealism. Surrealism is a revolutionary
>>movement of spirit emancipation and also dealing with social and political
>>revolution.
>Did the revolution that you mean not already happen?
>Surrealism has proved it's value for Capitalism.
>It has become obsolete since the mid 20's
>It's 1996 and we live in the realm of the power of imagination
>>Discussing aesthetics around surrealism is the most non-
>>surrealist contribution for the discussion of what is the surrealism
>>in present times.
>I agree!
>>Surrealists make paintings, collages or whatever they
>Bullshit! The whole painting and image thing did sell surrealism out to
>the hands of the capitalists. Painters were the reactionairies in the
>movement. Painters always need ateliers, paint, linnen, etc. This
>makes them slaves of the materials they use. And would they destroy
>their fruits of creativity? No!!!! Would you do this for "a revolution"?
>>want but the important surrealist matter is to change the life and world
>>poeticalley but also social and politically.
>Historical you are right about there claims. But they stayed artists.
>Just look what their flirt with the French communist party brought.
>>For example in the present times to be surrealist is also to struggle
>>against USA presence in Arab countries (not to protect the human rights but
>>to suck arab resources), to struggle against the execution of Mumia
>>Abu-Jamal
>>(arrested in Pensilvania and comdamned to death), struggling with
>>Irish people`s against England occupation, struggling to free Pepe Rei
>>accused by old Franco`s trial to be a member of terrorist
>>ETA`s organization, struggling against portuguese police that recently
>>decapitated a 21 years`s old young arrested in Sacavem, Lisbon or struggling
>>against any authoritarian regimes from right or left.
>Why should we fight for people so far away. To fight for yourself or the
>enviroment near you is hard enough. It all smells to much like
>Amnesty, writing for others (that are far away) freedom, while you live
>in misery. It stinks...
>>Yes, all of you can say: ok this is surrealist too but it isn`t
>>so political? Well, we need to read more what surrealism is in social and
>>political domain (Breton, Naville and others). May we as surrealists
>>(artists or not) be indiferent to the human destiny? Individually or as a
>>community human kind and after all entire nature is on the center of our
>>concerns!
>Humanity, humanity, humanity finally you have found your new god?
>>Surrealism is life and refuse to be buried at museums or conventional
>>galleries. If you want to see surrealists in action please get out of
>>the museums!
>What do you do with your paintings??????????????????????????
>>regards
>>carlos martins
>>against reactionary regimes in everywhere
>Why do you paint?
>Gr...
>Erik Rot
>re...@xs4all.nl
>Whatever it is I'm against it!
http://www.openart.com/artistes/martins/accueil.htm
Carlos Martins
hi
Well, maybe you are right if you meant some "surrealists"
"has proved it`s value for Capitalism". However and i return to
the Surrealism essence - it`s a movement fondamentally based
on the struggle for the mind`s emancipation. In the mesure the
capitalist system (as comunism) based its economical and social principles
in man`s explotation and oppression, Surrealism is anti-capitalist and a
revolutionary movement.
The fact some surrealists "has proved its value for capitalism" it`s
precisely what i intent to say - only surrealist aesthetics has proved
its value for capitalism. Aesthetics is it, just one more product in
the market values. That`s why a vigprous army of idolaters of the system try
to convince the others (and especially students in schools and universities)
that Surrealism was fondamentally an aesthetical movement trying to hide all
the other components of its struggle - in philosophical, social and political
domain. Of course if you see Surrealism only on aesthetical side
certainly you are right when you say "it has become obsolete since the mid
20`s". However even on aesthetical field, to be clear, what surrealists tried
to express in painting, sculpture, etc. it`s tottally wrong to say what
they expressed "artistically" become now obsolete because all the concerns,
fears and hopes they had are still present today.
What you mean where you say "we live in the realm of the power of
imagination" ? Perhaps you mean the use of the imagination and fantasy in
publicity and business. That`s true but this don`t means that we
live as you said. Capitalists are not ignorant persons and they knew
that the "good old days" of the wild slavery had one`s days numbered.
They had to change and naturally they counted with a talented but
very subservient court of artists and literates. The massive work
they produce to convince us that we are living in the better of the
worlds, that`s what really means the "realm of the power of imagination"
in the nineties.
The fact that some surrealist painters (as Dali) become very reactionary
as citizens (not as artists) this don`t means the movement itself is
reactionary. On the contrary. Only a few of members have betrayed the
surrealist position in political field.
When you say "the artists need ateliers, paint etc makes them
slaves of the materials they use" you are totally wrong also here. Why we are
slaves of the materials if we used them freely to express what we feel. We
feel free when we used it. I don`t think we need to destroy any fruits of
creativity to defend the struggle against opression and man`s explotation.
The sell of the fruits of creativity as the others fruits doesn`t means any
conversion to the market itself. You are maybe voluntarly confounding the
things - the fact one needs to sell something doesn`t make him slave
of the buyer, capitalist or not. It`s very simplistic put the things
on this plan. Maybe you are talking based on your own experience and
the reality of your country. Many surrealists from here died totally poor
and abandoned. Have you heard the names of Antonio Maria Lisboa or
Jose Escada, for example, that died of ilness and misery?
The flirt (as you called) with French Communist Party was one of the
wrongs but quickly solved with a very strong position against
stalinism. However you have to understand the historical context of this
atittude - in the earlier times communist party represented a hope of
change of the old world. As surrealists many communists was really
interested to struggle capitalism and built a new world based on freedom and
brotherhood. The facts proved that surrealists were wrong concerning
this decision. However who can say that was right in that period? It`s too
easy to answer this question for those that stood aside from any significant
fight for freedom. All those surrealists that stood aside from any political
position how they can accuse the others ?
Maybe you think that defending the human rights and warn about torture
and repression in everywhere is a matter only for politicians and the
media. Maybe you think surrealists have nothing to do with this kind of
matters. If they paint or write if they got fame and money why they
concerned with these questions? Well, here we have to return to the
question of Surrealism being only an aesthetical movement or more than this
a large movement of free thought, philosophical, social, political and
over all poetically.
When i warned against the fact mostly of you are discussing Surrealism in
alt.surrealism only in the aesthetical field (and even in aesthetics
Surrealism was and continue to be a revolutionarian movement despite you say
about the artists "has proved its value for capitalism") of course
i only pretended to contribute for a large discussion concerning all the
domains that always interested surrealists and not offend no one. As
surrealists (struggling for freedom and poetry in everywhere since a
very long time) naturally we have to complaint when we see on the media and
here on the Net a pure mistification and fake about what Surrealism was and is
nowadays. Probably some of you think that surrealists as other artists
(and mostly are very talented) only are concerned about his artistic
carrier and have nothing to do with politics or social issues. Totally
wrong. Depending of the historical and political circunstances (each
country has its own manner of viewing it) surrealists can`t be blind
about reality, social and politically. In Portugal, for example surrealists
struggled against fascist regime during many years and some of them
fighted with Communist Party and with other opposition forces. Of course they
continued to paint and write (and here also resisting against censorship) but
they don`t forgot the need to fight also politically. In other countries
(Netherlands for example) surrealists never felt this need. Even politically
the concerns are very different.
I hope you may understand my point of view. Probably i am alone on this
position but even alone we have to stand one`s ground.. Surrealism and
especially the Surrealist manifestoes are not a Bible for us, we are not
fondamentalists of any kind and we refuse any orthodoxy even surrealist. Any
surrealist orthodoxy is non- surrealist itself. However we have principles and
of course we must to stand against. Freedom, Love and Poetry are the
trilogy of our concerns and certainly we are very proud to be "submitted" to
the battle for them. Sorry for any misunderstanding.
regards
Carlos Martins
Well, if you think the struggle for civil rights in everywhere is a
matter only for peoples that are directly suffering the problem i have to
say that you are very selfish and individual. In your theory the
neighbours have to be treated as strangers. Some peoples are very far
from you but no so far in the past when your country and mine (then
colonialist states as you know) was going there to steal their
resources and making slaves. Then they don`t lived in misery, were us
that leaved them misery and illness. Yes, you are right. It stinks...
About what i do with my paintings well, i sell them and not sell them.
I am not a rich painter as those you mentioned.
But if we struggle against capitalism we refuse any kind of fanatism or
fondamentalism. Revolution is a dialectical process of a permanent changing
and don`t necessary means any violence. An example: the decision of separating
Czechs from eslovacs was taken without any violence. Have you asked why? Why?
Another example: the democratic revolution here in Portugal in 1974 - the only
persons that died were murdered by the guns of some agents of the secret
services (political police as we called here).
regards
carlos martins
http://www.openart.com/artistes/martins/accueil.htm
Stephen Allcroft
In article: <1825.535...@mail.telepac.pt> ana...@mail.telepac.pt
(Carlos Martins) writes:
>
> Surrealism is life and refuse to be buried at museums or conventional
> galleries. If you want to see surrealists in action please get out of
> the museums!
Surrealism is what I do IRL, I'm glad there's someone else who does the
same.
Ford doesn't make money selling cars, it makes money selling credit.
50% of the London stock exchange is owned by pensions funds who are in
turn owwned by working people who, as a result are exploiting
themselves.
The nuclear-armed countries have been condemned at international law,
but there will be no war crimes tribunal.
When a British Company sent aircraft to Indonesia for Genocide in East
Timor, a group of women hit one of the aircraft with hammers, as a
result the plane can't be used for war, they are being charged with
criminal damage.
The world is surreal, when people realise it we can liberate ourselves.
>
> against reactionary regimes in everywhere
>
There's no government like no government, like no government I know.
Everything about it is appealing...
--
Stephen Allcroft
TimeZones
Mumia Abu-Jamal?
Talk about surreality! I don't see how surrealism has anything to do with
the ex-reporter's court case. In the interests of "mind emancipation" I
can neither declare him guilty or innocent... but, I do not think throwing
his name about as some sort of criteria for joining a movement is
appropriate or warranted. Seems more along the lines of pop-politics than
sumblimation of conciousness.
Charles*
"whammy!"
Stephen Allcroft
In article: <4te7hu$5...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> time...@aol.com
>
> Mumia Abu-Jamal?
> Talk about surreality! I don't see how surrealism has anything to do
> with the ex-reporter's court case.
You can't! The "land of the free" holding a jounalist on trumped up
charges while a criminal like Liddy is treated as a celebrity and a spook
like Bush became president, that's surreal, if you can't see it you need
help.
> In the interests of "mind
> emancipation" I can neither declare him guilty or innocent...
You're either a troll or a bhuddist. Surrealism is about liberation IRL,
not a search for inner peace and enlightenment.
Go back to your lotus position and meditate on that, and if you'd
rather chant or do your brain in with chemicals you're not a surrealist
at all.
> but, I
> do not think throwing his name about as some sort of criteria for
> joining a movement isappropriate or warranted.
Mentioning Mumia isn't a criteria. Breton never metioned Mumia. Breton
did however support the Spanish Republic and work with Trotsky,
Engagement in real life is the criteria, if you're a fantasist an
onanist or a solipsist you're not a surrealist.
> Seems more along the
> lines of politics than sumblimation of conciousness.
sorry old boy, surrealism always has been political, go back to your love
beads and prayer wheels if you want a sublime consciousness.
--
Stephen Allcroft