reanimation
barrett john erickson
the following was sent to surrealist e-mail colleagues:
==========================================
Greetings all,
The sudden flurry of activity today caused me to edit some
parts of this comment on Pierre's post. I am feeling a bit
more optimistic.
But there are days when I wish I didn't care, days when I'd
rather relocate to a more nimble, active community, a
community with less historical weight, less structural
decay, fewer dissipating fissures, a community still able to
recognize and collaborate on its common project, a community
with better plumbing.
But, as I prowl what Pierre called "the neighborhood of
nervous breakdown," like Pierre, all my paths find yet
another serpentine trail back to Surrealist Commons.
Of course this is no surprise, I've always expected as much,
but it's frequently disappointing to find myself back in
such a poorly maintained place.
Pierre reminds us of our failure to put forward a clear
position on the potential (both creative and repressive) of
emerging media. This is currently, as I see it, the most
critically volatile front in the struggle against the
reduction of all human activity to the consumer/commodity
marketplace model.
The news _today_ reports that Vietnam will require all
their Internet Service Providers to access the rest of the
world through a government controlled (and content
filtered) "gateway."
This is not the first country to do this and it won't be the
last. The struggle in the USA over the "Communications
Decency Act" goes to the Supreme Court on March 19th. The
time may come when this list is not only at the mercy of the
mega-multi-national communications corporations, but also
must pass through government filters at every border. In
such a time, the more seriously we take our work, the more
likely we are to find ourselves unable to communicate via
this medium.
But instead of climbing through, we close our window
against a chill wind.
It is, after all _our_ impotence which renders us
invisible, just as it is _our_ profound abdication which
perpetuates alt.surrealism as it is today.
I'll make no distinctions between appearance and reality:
alt.surrealism _is_ what surrealists have allowed surrealism
to become - no less accurately (in many ways _more_
accurately) representative than participation on this
list, café meetings in Paris, Leeds, Stockholm, Vancouver,
Prague, or whatever the hell might be going on in that most
secret of surrealist societies rumored to be based in
Chicago.
Indeed, this should shame us into action.
We've had several projects fall apart in recent months (and
my friends know quite well that many of _my_ projects have
met the same fate for many of the same reasons, so I'm
claiming no high ground here), but there must be some way to
overcome this centrifugal inertia.
It may be that creative, collaborative interventions
require the immediacy of spontaneous, face-to-face
discussion - that the most significant work must be done by
smaller, more localized groups. I've seen plenty of
evidence to this effect in the past year or two. But at
the very least, participants of this list should be able to
join in defense against the appropriation and falsification
of the surrealist project.
Better to send a series of not-quite-perfectly written,
perhaps even slightly-off-target single author texts, which
maybe only five or six of us are semi-comfortable signing,
than to let the drivel which dominates alt.surrealism
continue as our unchallenged representation.
To our potential allies (and there are many) who are
exploring the resources available on the internet and
finding first (as most of us once did) alt.surrealism, the
surrealist "movement" looks more like a post-guillotine
death spasm.
It's time for assertive reanimation.
~~barrett
[posted also to alt.surrealism]
Scranton
bar...@skypoint.com (barrett john erickson) wrote:
>
>the following was sent to surrealist e-mail colleagues:
>
>==========================================
>Greetings all,
>
>The sudden flurry of activity today caused me to edit some
>parts of this comment on Pierre's post. I am feeling a bit
>more optimistic.
>
>
>Better to send a series of not-quite-perfectly written,
>perhaps even slightly-off-target single author texts, which
>maybe only five or six of us are semi-comfortable signing,
>than to let the drivel which dominates alt.surrealism
>continue as our unchallenged representation.
>
>To our potential allies (and there are many) who are
>exploring the resources available on the internet and
>finding first (as most of us once did) alt.surrealism, the
>surrealist "movement" looks more like a post-guillotine
>death spasm.
>
>It's time for assertive reanimation.
>
>~~barrett
>
>
>[posted also to alt.surrealism]
>
That's a fine little speech, sir, but we must face the facts.
Surrealism is dead. The world has moved on. We can tell because
"surrealism" has gone "mainstream." There might be a place for a
"neo-surrealism," or somesuch. . . but you know what I'm saying
and you know what I'm saying is true. Kick all the crap into the
next realm, get to the next level, break the damn skin on the
pudding and let's get a move on. . . in the 21st century, there
is no room for tired, old college-student hobbies. . .
regards,
rws
_________________________________________________________________
______________
My grandfather used to say: "Life is astoundingly short. To me,
looking back over it, life seems so foreshortened that I scarcely
understand, for instance, how a young man can decide to ride over
to the next village without being afraid that--not to mention
accidents--even the span of a normal happy life may fall far
short of the time needed for such a journey."
-Kafka
scot...@earthlink.net
On Thu, 13 Mar 97 17:59:03 GMT, bar...@skypoint.com (barrett john erickson)
wrote:
>....it is _our_ profound abdication which
>perpetuates alt.surrealism as it is today......
>
>alt.surrealism _is_ what surrealists have allowed surrealism
>to become -
>
>It's time for assertive reanimation.
>
Barrett,
This is a place that could be a hot house for the mind.
Instead it is an orange peel on the rug.
I think you have correctly identified the problem and proposed
an appropriate response.
I hope your newsletter collaborators come to agree with you.
It would be nice to see a reanimation begin here.
Thank you for your efforts.
Scott
barrett john erickson
>
>That's a fine little speech, sir, but we must face the facts.
>Surrealism is dead. The world has moved on. We can tell because
>"surrealism" has gone "mainstream." There might be a place for a
>"neo-surrealism," or somesuch. . . but you know what I'm saying
>and you know what I'm saying is true. Kick all the crap into the
>next realm, get to the next level, break the damn skin on the
>pudding and let's get a move on. . . in the 21st century, there
>is no room for tired, old college-student hobbies. . .
>
> regards,
> rws
>
"Surrealism" isn't dead, it's invisible -- a missing inaction. The world
hasn't "moved on," surrealists have abandoned their responsibility.
"Surrealism" hasn't "gone 'mainstream'," it has been falsified and
recouperated (in the Situationist sense) by those who play the power game in
the consumer/commodity marketplace.
The most important aspect of the original surrealist project was, and remains,
to integrate the liberated imagination with all aspects of daily life. To
find what Breton refered to as "that certain point of mind at which life and
death, the real and the imagined, past and future, the communicable and the
incommunicable, high and low, cease to be perceived as contradictions."
Has this been accomplished? Is it no longer worth finding?
If you pay attention, what's happeining today (in Neuro-psychology, Chaos
Theory, Autopoesis, Quantum Physics, and especially the work of Ilya
Prigogine -- not to mention the effects of emerging information technologies )
you can see that we are in the midst of one of Thomas Kuhn's revolutionary
periods -- a time of profound "paradigm shift." If you know the surrealist
movement, you should also recognize that this is a convergence on that
original surrrealist project.
At least it _can_ be such a convergence, if we don't abandon the project to
the merchants of POWER.
~~barrett
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
barrett: <http://www.skypoint.com/~barrett/>
ARTlab: <http://www.skypoint.com/~barrett/ARTlab/>
Aesthetic Automatism: <http://www.skypoint.com/~barrett/aarc/>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Scranton
bar...@skypoint.com (barrett john erickson) wrote:
>"Surrealism" isn't dead, it's invisible -- a missing inaction. The world
>hasn't "moved on," surrealists have abandoned their responsibility.
>"Surrealism" hasn't "gone 'mainstream'," it has been falsified and
>recouperated (in the Situationist sense) by those who play the power game in
>the consumer/commodity marketplace.
I hear the same bullshit spouted from everyone who preaches
dogma, from fundamentalist Christians to knee-jerk vegetarian
hippies. The secret armies of surrealism are waiting in the
wings to save the world from it's evil twin cousin, "consumer
surrealism."
One more thing: If it's an artistic movement, and it's
invisible, and it's inactive: It's NOT there. It's dead.
>The most important aspect of the original surrealist project was, and remains,
>to integrate the liberated imagination with all aspects of daily life. To
>find what Breton refered to as "that certain point of mind at which life and
>death, the real and the imagined, past and future, the communicable and the
>incommunicable, high and low, cease to be perceived as contradictions."
>
>Has this been accomplished? Is it no longer worth finding?
No it hasn't been accomplished, yes it is worth finding, but
it is not the sole property of surrealists.
That "aspect" that you attribute to the "surrealist project"
has been the goal of artists and creators down from Aeschylus.
Surrealism was an artistic movement, a movement by fellows with
manifestos, perhaps, but still an artistic movement, which pins
it down to a specific era, with precedents and descendants. A
call for the re-emergence of Surrealism might as well be a call
for a re-emergence of the Transcendentalists, or the Romantics,
or the Baroque. You are hoping to lash your principles to a dead
artist and make him walk.
Why?
Why can't you try to do what the surrealists did, and make
something NEW, make something appropos to the times? You're a
damned apostle, and a preacher.
>If you pay attention, what's happeining today (in Neuro-psychology, Chaos
>Theory, Autopoesis, Quantum Physics, and especially the work of Ilya
>Prigogine -- not to mention the effects of emerging information technologies )
>you can see that we are in the midst of one of Thomas Kuhn's revolutionary
>periods -- a time of profound "paradigm shift." If you know the surrealist
>movement, you should also recognize that this is a convergence on that
>original surrrealist project.
Yes, yes, yes, of course dear. A time of profound "paradigm
shift." sure. I don't disagree with that. But as I said, the
time for the Surrealism movement, the time for the surrealists,
has passed.
The original surrealist project is not the word of God.
It's a creation of some guys almost a century ago.
I like Surrealism. I like it alot. I think it's very
valuable. But now, what it is now, is a joke. Oranges. Send
oranges. Fish. It's true. "How many surrealists does it take
to screw in a light bulb?" "Fish."
More importantly, the art world has moved on. Surrealism,
in painting, music, literature, etc., has been surpassed by
subsequent movements. Even artists whose work is surrealistic
are under different labels these days. William S. Burroughs was
a "pop artist writer." Robert Wilson is a "postmodern
deconstructionalist." Etc. That's the way it goes.
>At least it _can_ be such a convergence, if we don't abandon the project to
>the merchants of POWER.
You won't beat them, they always win. Let them have what
they have won, and make something new, that they don't have.
Work ahead and around them, instead of seventy years behind.
Please.
sincerely,
r w scranton
D.E. Williams
In article <5gcbb9$r...@mtinsc03.worldnet.att.net>, Scranton <mare...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
<snip>
> You won't beat them, they always win. Let them have what
>they have won, and make something new, that they don't have.
>Work ahead and around them, instead of seventy years behind.
>Please.
>
> sincerely,
> r w scranton
I disagree with some of RW's assessment of what surrealism was, HOWEVER, I
agree with RW on where surrealism is. Having an established 'ism' to wave
around like a banner is reassuring, but unneccessary. Having an 'ism' that
essentially ceased in the mid sixties as a banner is sad.
Surrealistic thought isn't gone away with the movement (which I feel
was more of a literary movement). In fact, 'surrealistic thought' surely
existed long before surrealism was even conceptualized. Conceiving of
juxtaposed imagery, guided by chance and automatism, is something humans heve
explored since the creation of myths, if not before. I certainly think that
fractal imagery falls under this definition - are fractals surreal? Maybe.The
important thing is not whether or not something has surrealistic qualities
(which fractal imagery certainly does), but can it be surrealism? The movement
has come and gone, and saying it is part of the movement of surrealism would
be a misinterpretation. However, saying that a work is in a surrealistic style
is completely possible, although it places one's work in a 'preform' of
expectation.
Maybe we need a new 'ism'? One that is like no other art movement, yet
one which encompasses all art. Maybe it could be called 'nothingism' or mayhap
'neitism' (sounds better - means the same). Or maybe we are maturing enough as
a culture to dispense with 'isms' entirely. Non artist art critics will
probably always need 'isms' to make sense of what they can't understand. I
think most artists would be happier to completely shrug of the yoke of 'isms'
if the 'isms' weren't so neccessary for commercialization. It's kind of like
the music industry. Having a great sound means nothing if the sound doesn't
fit into a category (and thus becomes much more marketable). Now if one is
talking about commercial aspects of surrealism, by all means lets ressurect
the dead beast to flay its hide for a few more pence. If one is reffering to
the art, let's do as the surrealists did and keep the species (artists as
humans, humans as artists) continually evolving. To evolve is to become
someting that was not before.
As a side note: the Mindspawn website has an exhibit entitled 'Surreal
Visions.' The works therein have surrealistic qualities, and many were done
with a surrealistic approach. Does that make me a surrealist? No. It means I
chose to use surreal notions and techniques combined with other techniques and
ideas to arrive at an expression of idea or concept. If you want to hang an
'ism' on the works why not evolutionism, or postnoveau deconstuctionism, or
some may feel 'neitism' would be the best description of the works. That is
not for me to decide. I create what I see, need, want, or have to. Figuring
out what category it belongs in is for marketing professionals.
_________________________________________________
Cogitare! Deus ex machina! D.E. Williams
http://www.mindspawn.com Artist
PETIOT Pierre
Scranton wrote:
>
> bar...@skypoint.com (barrett john erickson) wrote:
>
> >"Surrealism" isn't dead, it's invisible -- a missing inaction. The world
> >hasn't "moved on," surrealists have abandoned their responsibility.
> >"Surrealism" hasn't "gone 'mainstream'," it has been falsified and
> >recouperated (in the Situationist sense) by those who play the power game in
> >the consumer/commodity marketplace.
>
> I hear the same bullshit spouted from everyone who preaches
> dogma, from fundamentalist Christians to knee-jerk vegetarian
> hippies. The secret armies of surrealism are waiting in the
> wings to save the world from it's evil twin cousin, "consumer
> surrealism."
> One more thing: If it's an artistic movement, and it's
> invisible, and it's inactive: It's NOT there. It's dead.
Who wrote that surrealism was a surrealist movement?
Is art itself alive ?
What evidences do you have that art is alive?
> >The most important aspect of the original surrealist project was, and remains,
> >to integrate the liberated imagination with all aspects of daily life. To
> >find what Breton refered to as "that certain point of mind at which life and
> >death, the real and the imagined, past and future, the communicable and the
> >incommunicable, high and low, cease to be perceived as contradictions."
> >
> >Has this been accomplished? Is it no longer worth finding?
>
> No it hasn't been accomplished, yes it is worth finding, but
> it is not the sole property of surrealists.
I was not aware that surrealists had properties...
> That "aspect" that you attribute to the "surrealist project"
> has been the goal of artists and creators down from Aeschylus.
Yet, if it "has been" the goal of artists and creators down from
Aeschylus.
Because I do not see anyone with such a goal anymore,
then I am bound to consider that Art is dead.
So what sort of new things
could a dead movement (such as art)
produce?
These nice young people will all their promises of creation and _new_
things
do not seem to have realized that Duchamp definitively killed art in
1911.
All what is left are dolls
playing in the shadow of the large glass.
> Surrealism was an artistic movement,
Who wrote first that surrealism was an artistic movement ?
> a movement by fellows with
> manifestos, perhaps, but still an artistic movement, which pins
> it down to a specific era, with precedents and descendants.
Of course, since all newspapers say so.
> A call for the re-emergence of Surrealism might as well be a call
> for a re-emergence of the Transcendentalists, or the Romantics,
> or the Baroque.
I am afraid it might be more difficult to establish a link between
"the Transcendentalists, or the Romantics, or the Baroque"
and modern epistemology and cognitive sciences
than an equivalent link with surrealism.
But an interesting property of ignorance
is to make all things equal.
> You are hoping to lash your principles to a dead
> artist and make him walk.
> Why?
> Why can't you try to do what the surrealists did, and make
> something NEW, make something appropos to the times? You're a
> damned apostle, and a preacher.
I am sure that YOU have evidences of "something a propos to the times"
Which will reflect, as anything alike
by the waves it will create in the coming centuries...
The only thing worse than preaching, I am afraid
is auto suggestion.
> >If you pay attention, what's happeining today (in Neuro-psychology, Chaos
> >Theory, Autopoesis, Quantum Physics, and especially the work of Ilya
> >Prigogine -- not to mention the effects of emerging information technologies )
> >you can see that we are in the midst of one of Thomas Kuhn's revolutionary
> >periods -- a time of profound "paradigm shift." If you know the surrealist
> >movement, you should also recognize that this is a convergence on that
> >original surrrealist project.
But Barrett he obviously has no knowledge of what is at stake in BOTH
cases.
He just read a few magazines in the best case.
> Yes, yes, yes, of course dear. A time of profound "paradigm
> shift." sure. I don't disagree with that.
Yes, but you do not provide the slightest evidence
that you are capable of using this beautiful "paradigm shit",
so that it is hard to tell whether your absence of disagreement
relies on anything like a concrete basis or not.
I mean on more than the attempt to look fashionable...
Why not show a bit the sort of coins you would pay with when asked ?
Just to see if it is gold or paper.
> But as I said, the
> time for the Surrealism movement, the time for the surrealists,
> has passed.
The time has passed for us all dear,
you included...
> The original surrealist project is not the word of God.
> It's a creation of some guys almost a century ago.
And what was the original surrealist project exactly ?
Could you remind me ?
> I like Surrealism. I like it alot. I think it's very
> valuable. But now, what it is now, is a joke. Oranges. Send
> oranges. Fish. It's true. "How many surrealists does it take
> to screw in a light bulb?" "Fish."
> More importantly, the art world has moved on.
What Art ?
Where ?
In art newspapers ?
Or more obviously, more simply towards its grave ?
> Surrealism,
> in painting, music, literature, etc., has been surpassed by
> subsequent movements. Even artists whose work is surrealistic
> are under different labels these days.
Very interesting these labels considerations
Sounds like washing powder
OMO, SKIP etc... Are extremely different fron Unilever.
And if you stick the label NEW, then it is new for sure
since it's written...
And if you stick the label CAVIAR on a bull shit
will swallow the bull shit with delighted eyes.
Do you want to improve anything ?
Just stick the label granting it is improved.
Why make life difficult when writing and duplicating is so simple?
> William S. Burroughs was
> a "pop artist writer." Robert Wilson is a "postmodern
> deconstructionalist." Etc. That's the way it goes.
That's the way the newspapers make it.
And the way you accept The Holy Bible.
You see...
The technological improvements in the duplication of information
(starting with writing and printing)
have introduced a strange and funny situation.
Our minds and bodies have been built to adapt
to what is the most frequent in the REAL world.
This was a bit required for your ancestors to survive.
Improvements in the duplication of information
lead to a situation in which the number of occurrences of a given
message
is totally de-correlated from its _actual_ importance.
However, your mind goes on reacting on frequencies,
based on the fact that the more frequent a message is
the more it is important to adapt.
The result is that it all looks as if
what is repeated frequently enough
gets more and more real
with the number of times it is repeated.
If you say it 100.000.000 times,
IT IS A TRUTH, that's all.
Just by the simple virtue of repetition.
It is a very simple trick
but its efficiency has been proven much more than 100.000.000 times.
> >At least it _can_ be such a convergence, if we don't abandon the project to
> >the merchants of POWER.
>
> You won't beat them, they always win.
Short-sighted historical vision I am afraid.
Generated by a system who has to go against history
(See the mechanims above...)
And has to present as new
ideas which are quite stale
to anyone who has a minimum of memory, left.
(Old fashioned feature, these memory habilities,
which used to enable human beings
to establish a difference between the old and the new.
Now that this feature is lost,
no way you may ever tell what is really true
from what is not (Which was a tricky issue anyway))
Takes the present moment for eternity...
(Does not even see
that he happened to lose a few dimensions in the bargain)
Speaks from his little narrow generation window
and think he's seen the whole picture...
Loses almost totally any perceptive habilities
along the time axis.
Has lost any sensitity to time shapes and forms and aesthetics.
Is caught in a stupid technology trick
and does not even see it.
Is exhibiting opinions
that have already been duplicated in thousands of copies
and do not seem to realize that he is in fact repeating
instead of thinking.
Does not think it might be useful
to check what he is told.
> Let them have what they have won,
Well the have CREDIT, they have belief.
They never had anything else.
> and make something new, that they don't have.
On that point, I do agree...
> Work ahead and around them,
> instead of seventy years behind. Please.
Ahead of them is not too difficult...
They were born in the 12 and 13th century in Europe.
They live on 18th century ideas.
Anyone who came after is still largely ahead of them.
Beautiful quotation from Kafka by the way...
Why are you quoting such a long dead sort of person ?
scot...@earthlink.net
Scranton,
For a long time designers of text books have drawn diagrams using long black
lines that connect sequentially positioned boxes. Such diagrams are devices
for instilling a common understanding of the difference between "then" and
"now". Often these diagrams end with a single arrow pointed towards the right.
It appears to me that you take black lines, sequential boxes, and directional
arrows seriously. These objects appear to set the dimensions of your world
and define relevance for you. You may have learned their use so well that
their validity seems self evident.
They appear to provide you with a structure for a natural order of things.
I don't think your argument is really with Barrett or about art. You
understand who Barrett is, and what his activities are about, only through
hallucination. Your argument is about the text books you use.
Its common for human beings to assume their vision of the natural order is a
universal. Human behavior which is incompatible with this natural order must
be invalid. Sometimes murder is a next step.
What’s interesting is that the means of producing text and diagrams are now
being designed so they can have holes in them large enough for Alice to fall
through. Text book diagrams can have more complicated dimensions than lines,
boxes, and arrows allow. I think Barrett knew that before the software
designers went to work.
Scott
Scranton
scot...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
>Scranton,
>
>For a long time designers of text books have drawn diagrams using long black
>lines that connect sequentially positioned boxes. Such diagrams are devices
>for instilling a common understanding of the difference between "then" and
>"now". Often these diagrams end with a single arrow pointed towards the right.
>
>
>It appears to me that you take black lines, sequential boxes, and directional
>arrows seriously. These objects appear to set the dimensions of your world
>and define relevance for you. You may have learned their use so well that
>their validity seems self evident.
>
>They appear to provide you with a structure for a natural order of things.
But thankfully those of you who can cross the space-time
border and cross into the n-realm are around to keep us mortals
in line.
Perhaps you prefer spontaneous existence that occurs outside
of precedent, influence, and relation? That certainly would make
things easier to understand and require a great deal less
thought.
Perhaps you are right, and historical context has no
validity. Perhaps the geneaology of thought is completely
useless. Very well.
I pay, I go to store, I buy milk, I think of buying milk.
Last Tuesday. . . but that doesn't matter.
Perhaps Barrett was right. . . Perhaps we really should
enlist the invisible Surrealist ninja armies to ressurrect the
power and the might on a dead artistic movement.
But I am at a fault to even use the word movement, because
art is created by men (humans. . .?) and not movements, and
Surrealism is simply a label that cubby-holes some works and
artists so that it is easier to discuss them and find their place
on the black box/line continuum of history, which of course is
irrelevant to ye space lords.
>I don't think your argument is really with Barrett or about art.
No, it's not. My argument was with his silly, dogmatic rant.
Perhaps my argument was not phrased well, no, it was certainly
not phrased well. Fair enough.
M. Barrett proposed action, and I was attempting to vent my
frustration at his narrow-minded proposal.
Save the world by resurrecting surrealism. . .
or Christianity. . .
or Nazism. . .
or whatever you like. . .
>You understand who Barrett is, and what his activities are about, only through
>hallucination.
Only through his words, Scott, only through his words.
>Your argument is about the text books you use.
I try to avoid textbooks. But you aren't listening.
>Its common for human beings to assume their vision of the natural order is a
>universal. Human behavior which is incompatible with this natural order must
>be invalid. Sometimes murder is a next step.
Once again, let's give a big shout out to the immortal time
insect-lords who can point out to us humans the folly of our
actions.
>What’s interesting is that the means of producing text and diagrams are now
>being designed so they can have holes in them large enough for Alice to fall
>through. Text book diagrams can have more complicated dimensions than lines,
>boxes, and arrows allow. I think Barrett knew that before the software
>designers went to work.
And way to go, Barrett!!!!
sincerely,
rws
_________________________________________________________________
scot...@earthlink.net
Scranton,
You paste a wall paper of colorful language over your arguments. The words
and phrases are enjoyable, seem to invoke many interesting points of reference
("space time boarder", " ninja armies", "Christianity", "Save the world",
"insect lords", etc.) , and gives a look of fullness and complexity. However
its just a wall paper paste, an interesting fill, and is not seriously
connected to much of anything.
Your arguments are very simple. With Barrett it is: his behavior disturbs
you and he should do something other than what he did.
What did Barrett do? He encouraged some friends to get their projects done.
In regards to this newsgroup he asked for individuals who have abandoned it
to return with examples of their thoughts and work.
Why in the world would such behavior be disturbing to you?
You give no artistic or political reasons as to why you are disturbed. It
appears that it was your sense of propriety that was offended: Surrealism,
as you understand it, was then... and this is now.
It occurred to me that what was being exhibited was an extreme commitment to
a linear view of things. Barrett was suggesting behavior which was
incompatible with your understanding of the proper sequencing of things.
It occurred to me that for you a thought process of connecting sequential
boxes by single lines and directional arrows was something more than one means
of viewing the word. Perhaps for you it had come to represent the natural
order of things.
I made comment on this. You responded. Your argument with me was also rather
simple. You understood what I was getting at and did not disagree. You
indicated that mortals like yourself know how the world works. I if I saw
things differently maybe I was some kind of freak.
Its common for human beings to assume their vision of the natural order of
things is a universal. Human behavior or viewpoints which are incompatible
must be invalid. Sometimes murder follows. Often before the murder starts,
within the mind of the murderer, the future victim is transformed into
something other that an ordinary human being.
Scott