Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

A Definition Of Surrealism

3 views
Skip to first unread message

claire balding

unread,
Jan 17, 1994, 12:58:24 PM1/17/94
to
Many years ago, I was given the following quotation:

"Definition of Surrealism:
The chance meeting of a sewing machine and an umbrella on an
operating table."

As I have always wondered why a sewing machine and an umbrella
should not, by chance, meet on an operating table, I wonder if this
quotation does surrealism justice, or if it is just a piece of rubbish.

The problem is, if we discard it as a piece of rubbish, we are forced
to question the surrealist qualities of other surrealist works, until
either we must somewhere draw the line between surrealism and non-surrealism,
or we discard everything surreal until there is nothing left.


Then again,
Is not all reality a bit surreal, or is it me?

cLaIrE.

Lynn Bry

unread,
Jan 17, 1994, 2:34:35 PM1/17/94
to

cbal...@maths.tcd.ie (claire balding) writes:

>Many years ago, I was given the following quotation:
>
>"Definition of Surrealism:
> The chance meeting of a sewing machine and an umbrella on an
> operating table."

As stated by the Count de Lautreamont. Also known to state
'Poetry should be made by all,' something Tristan Tzara and
his compatriots put into action some years later.

However, I forget the context in which the above statement was
made but it is supposed to represent a man (umbrella) and a
woman (sewing machine) together in bed (operating/dissecting table).


Now make a drawing.

chquta.

corn muffins should be made by all.

Rocco Caputo

unread,
Jan 18, 1994, 5:44:16 PM1/18/94
to
claire balding (cbal...@maths.tcd.ie) wrote in alt.surrealism:

The surreal bit is the operating table. All my tables just
sit there. I have yet to find a power cord, a battery compartment
or an FFO/NO switch.

Since I have never seen one, could someone indicate the proper
signs to look for in an operating table? I would so hate to be
sold yet ANOTER defective piece of furniture!

--
-><- Rocco Caputo (tr...@inca.gate.net) has left the building.

Jason Lamport

unread,
Jan 18, 1994, 2:57:18 PM1/18/94
to
In article <CJsH1...@freenet.carleton.ca> aj...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
(Lynn Bry) writes:

> cbal...@maths.tcd.ie (claire balding) writes:
>
>>Many years ago, I was given the following quotation:
>>
>>"Definition of Surrealism:
>> The chance meeting of a sewing machine and an umbrella on an
>> operating table."
>
>As stated by the Count de Lautreamont. Also known to state
>'Poetry should be made by all,' something Tristan Tzara and
>his compatriots put into action some years later.

This was not _originally_ a defenition of surrealism. Le Compte de
Lautreamont (a.k.a. Isadore Ducasse) wrote "Les Chantes de Maldoror", the
novel from which the above "defenition" was taken, in the 1800's, long
before there was any surrealism to define. At some point I shall post the
entire passage from which this was taken, and I will not ruin that moment
by posting a synopsis here or commenting on what Lautreamont may have
meant, except to say that THIS:

>However, I forget the context in which the above statement was
>made but it is supposed to represent a man (umbrella) and a
>woman (sewing machine) together in bed (operating/dissecting table).

is idiotic rubbish. Where did you get this absurd interpretation? The
statement "was supposed to represent"!? Who supposes that this passage
"represents"? Certainly not Lautreamont; certainly not the surrealists
who revered him. Objects do not represent, and it is only cowards who
wish them to.


< His Holiness the Pope >

Joe McMahon

unread,
Jan 19, 1994, 1:49:37 PM1/19/94
to
The sine qua non of surreal furnishings: the Occasional Chair.

--- Joe M.

Gordon Fitch

unread,
Jan 22, 1994, 8:27:23 AM1/22/94
to
jlam...@pomona.claremont.edu (Jason Lamport):

| is idiotic rubbish. Where did you get this absurd interpretation? The
| statement "was supposed to represent"!? Who supposes that this passage
| "represents"? Certainly not Lautreamont; certainly not the surrealists
| who revered him. Objects do not represent, and it is only cowards who
| wish them to.

I think objects should be free to represent anything
they wish. And as for idiotic rubbish -- well, what
do you find wrong with it? It seems as good to me as
any other kind of rubbish. Only the other day I pulled
a weird, Australian teardrop-shaped espresso machine
from a pile of it. It now sits next to my chromium
cat-toaster (taoster) thing on the radiator. As far
as I know, this rubbish was idiotic, or at least
moronic. It couldn't even get into grade school.
--

)*( Gordon Fitch )*( g...@panix.com )*(

Gordon Fitch

unread,
Jan 22, 1994, 6:43:45 PM1/22/94
to
Joe McMahon <xr...@twinpeaks.gsfc.nasa.gov>:

| The sine qua non of surreal furnishings: the Occasional Chair.

Not quite as sine, but still deserving of mention:
The Ottoman.

Brian W. Dunn

unread,
Jan 25, 1994, 4:12:32 PM1/25/94
to

Surrealism is when you piss in a can of beer and your friend drinks it.
hag...@gagme.wwa.com

--
Who is John Galt?

hag...@gagme.wwa.com
hagb...@delphi.com

Gordon Fitch

unread,
Jan 26, 1994, 10:13:06 PM1/26/94
to
hag...@gagme.wwa.com (Brian W. Dunn):

| Surrealism is when you piss in a can of beer and your friend drinks it.

That depends on which drugs you've been taking.

| Who is John Galt?

Another amnesiac.

Adam Lieberman

unread,
Jan 30, 1994, 12:13:31 AM1/30/94
to
You're not taking this newsgroup seriously.
*Flame!*

Adam Lieberman

unread,
Jan 30, 1994, 12:15:07 AM1/30/94
to
Is "You're not taking this newsgroup seriously" in the FAQ?
0 new messages