meat & war
pony...@my-deja.com
it is too clean. people walk by it and smile. war isn't like that. if
it reaked of death and rot i suspect people would give the memorial
more respect. should i do this? does this have anything to do with
surrealism? wot is surrealism, if not this?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Laura
> should i smear meat on the war memorial in my home town? i think that
> it is too clean. people walk by it and smile. war isn't like that. if
> it reaked of death and rot i suspect people would give the memorial
> more respect. should i do this? does this have anything to do with
> surrealism? wot is surrealism, if not this?
This would not be surrealism.
This would be a political act of sorts, or at least an action that tries to
represent your particular opinion on something.
I think if you want to make that point, you should do it.
On the other hand, people will not give the memorial more respect, in
fact they will be angered and greatly upset at you for desecrating a spot
dedicated to the ones that they loved and perhaps lost... If they find you,
they'll try to charge you with some type of vadalism.
Now this should not stop you if what you feel is strong. If that's how you
would like to state your problem, go for it.
Laura
pony...@my-deja.com
"Laura" <or...@gurlmail.com> wrote:
> <pony...@my-deja.com> ...
> > should i smear meat on the war memorial in my home town? i think
that
> > it is too clean. people walk by it and smile. war isn't like that.
if
> > it reaked of death and rot i suspect people would give the memorial
> > more respect. should i do this? does this have anything to do with
> > surrealism? wot is surrealism, if not this?
>
thanks for your reply laura. wot are the surrealists in this newsgroup
doing? are any of them artists? they all seem to be talking theory and
nothing else. is this typical?
> This would be a political act of sorts, or at least an action that
tries to
> represent your particular opinion on something.
yes.
> I think if you want to make that point, you should do it.
meat is expensive. i am not sure i can afford it. i am not sure people
would understand it either. i am trying to think of a way to do it and
have an explanation present at the scene so people understand why it
was done. the bourgeois of my home town will not understand without an
explanation. they will think it is just vandalism unless i explain it
to them.
how do i alert the media? i am considering getting an annonymous
webpage and posting information there to explain. pictures too. art. i
would then leave the url at the scene. wot do you think?
> On the other hand, people will not give the memorial more respect, in
> fact they will be angered and greatly upset at you for desecrating a
spot
> dedicated to the ones that they loved and perhaps lost... If they
find you,
> they'll try to charge you with some type of vadalism.
you are right. i might enjoy getting arrested for this.
> Now this should not stop you if what you feel is strong. If that's
how you
> would like to state your problem, go for it.
thank you for your words. i told my mom about this and she said that i
am crazy. my mom watches four hours of soap operas a day. after my meat
i will cut down the television tower that broadcasts her shows so i can
see what she would do without her soaps. ha ha.
brandon...@my-deja.com
> thanks for your reply laura. wot are the surrealists in this newsgroup
> doing? are any of them artists? they all seem to be talking theory and
> nothing else. is this typical?
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURRURURURURURURURURURURURURURURURURUR
UEEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUAAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUA
UAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUAUKKUKUKUKULKLKLKLKLKLKLKLKLKLKLK
LKLKLKLKLKLKLKLKLFHFHKLDDFHKLDFHKLDFHKLDFHKLDFHKLDFHKLDFHKLDFHKLDFHKLDFH
KLDFHKLDFHKLDFKLDFKLDFKLDFKLDFKLDFKLDFKLDFKLDFKLDFKLDFKLDFKLDFKLDFKLDFKL
DFKLDFKLDFKLDFKLDFKLDFKLDFKLDFKLDFKLDFKLDFKLDFKLDFKLDFKLDFKLDFKLDFKLDFKL
DFKLDFKLDFKLDFKLDFKLDFKLDFKLDFKLDFKLDFKLDFKLDFKLDFKLDFKLDFKLDFKLDFKLDFKL
DFKLDFKLDFKLDFKLDFKLDFKLDFKLDFKLDFKLDFKLDFKLDFKLDFKLDEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRR
RRRDDDDDVVV!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What, my remixes not good enough for ya?!
Dale Houstman
"Laura" <or...@gurlmail.com> wrote in message
news:im4w5.7894$Y7.1...@news1.rdc1.ab.home.com...
> <pony...@my-deja.com> ...
> > should i smear meat on the war memorial in my home town? i think that
> > it is too clean. people walk by it and smile. war isn't like that. if
> > it reaked of death and rot i suspect people would give the memorial
> > more respect. should i do this? does this have anything to do with
> > surrealism? wot is surrealism, if not this?
>
>
to
> represent your particular opinion on something.
>
surrealist act - that might depend on his "web" of intent and on any
collaborative functions -I would like to know why you put up a dichotomy
between surrealism and a political act, since surrealism has been (and still
is) interested and involved in political acts of all kinds.
dmh
Laura
> if it reaked of death and rot i suspect people would give the memorial
> more respect. should i do this? does this have anything to do with
> surrealism? wot is surrealism, if not this?
>
> This would not be surrealism.
>
> Why not?
I feel that surrealism is an exploration of the unconcious/subconcious world
and ways to bring that into reality. This is a lame description but it's
generally
my idea of how surrealism is...
With this in mind, deciding to use a tool (meat) to make a statement (war is
bloody) is not an exploration of the subconcious but rather a loud
proclamation
to the masses about war.
Now maybe it could be argued that this is an attempt to reach the
subconcious
of those that view the "act", but I would personally disagree. I think it's
an
attempt to reach their hearts, their conciousness, and their opinions.
> Are political acts not surrealist?
Political acts can be surrealist. I'm fuzzy on this as to what political
acts
would be considered surrealist... and maybe due to that, the above act
is surrealist.
cythera:
> You could steal it. And if you get caught that could be part of your
> statement.
He could explain it to whomever would listen why he was stealing the
meat. It might get some attention.
the guy who's name I've forgotten said: (sorry!)
> > the bourgeois of my home town will not understand without an
> > explanation.
>
cythera said:
> I'm curious: where do you live?
It could be New York and I'm willing to be the majority of the "bourgeois"
would
never understand.
> Laura:
> On the other hand, people will not give the memorial more respect,
>
> Um is that the point of pony_fish's idea?
He stated that he is troubled by the fact that they do not give the memorial
(hence the people it is designed to remember) any respect. I assume by
smearing meat over it and reminding them that war is bloody awful, he was
hoping to force the viewers into a situation where they will remember to
respect. Lots of other things as well I assume.
Laura
Laura
> > This would not be surrealism.
> >
> to
> > represent your particular opinion on something.
> >
Dale said:
> Now while I am not prepared to say whether or not his act would be a
> surrealist act - that might depend on his "web" of intent and on any
> collaborative functions -I would like to know why you put up a dichotomy
> between surrealism and a political act, since surrealism has been (and
still
> is) interested and involved in political acts of all kinds.
I think I left the two comments to close together, and possibly another
statement would be good here.
I did not mean to say that a political act could not be surrealist, or that
surrealism is not political. What I meant is that in my mind this is simply
a political act and not surrealist.
Laura
brandon...@my-deja.com
> With this in mind, deciding to use a tool (meat) to make a statement
> (war is bloody) is not an exploration of the subconcious but rather a
> loud proclamation to the masses about war.
While I don't really agree with Laura's definition of Surrealism, I do
agree that this would not be a Surrealist activity. It would be too
consciously planned out and motivated.
Laura
> In article <8ptj5o$4u0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> brandon...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > Laura wrote:
> > > With this in mind, deciding to use a tool (meat) to make a
> > > statement (war is bloody) is not an exploration of the subconcious
> > > but rather a loud proclamation to the masses about war.
>
> > While I don't really agree with Laura's definition of Surrealism, I
> > do agree that this would not be a Surrealist activity.
>
> > It would be too consciously planned out and motivated.
>
> think?
>
> cythera
Maybe so. We'll have to ask. From what I read in the one post though,
it sounded like it was a planned act. Maybe if the person saw the image
of meat on the memorial in a dream or a sudden thought it would be
surrealist?
Laura
Dale Houstman
> > if it reaked of death and rot i suspect people would give the memorial
> > more respect. should i do this? does this have anything to do with
> > surrealism? wot is surrealism, if not this?
> >
> > This would not be surrealism.
> >
> > Why not?
>
> I feel that surrealism is an exploration of the unconcious/subconcious
world
> and ways to bring that into reality. This is a lame description but it's
> generally
> my idea of how surrealism is...
It is more important to keep in mind that surrealism is about liberation in
all arenas of life, and ALWAYS anti-oppression and anti-power. The
oppressions of the military (and the influence that such repugnant displays
of "national glory" have on the populace) are acts of coercion and (say in
the case of the military budget) robbery on a grand order.
>
>
> Now maybe it could be argued that this is an attempt to reach the
> subconcious
> of those that view the "act", but I would personally disagree. I think
it's
> an
> attempt to reach their hearts, their conciousness, and their opinions.
This is a vague division of cognition to me. It is difficult to address.
What is the "heart" and how does one reach it? Where do opinions arise from?
Since one of the surrealist aims was to show that there is a continuum
between the unconscious and the conscious world, how does an appeal to the
consciousness not rate in that spectrum. It seems that you are making the
common error of assigning (condemning) surrealism to that perfumed jungle of
aesthetic response. To a surrealist these segmentations you speak of are
(heart/consciousness/unconsciousness/opinion/etc.) are all quite irrelevant.
>
> He stated that he is troubled by the fact that they do not give the
memorial
> (hence the people it is designed to remember) any respect. I assume by
> smearing meat over it and reminding them that war is bloody awful, he was
> hoping to force the viewers into a situation where they will remember to
> respect. Lots of other things as well I assume.
>
If this is his aim: to gain respect for dead killers, I am not interested.
dmh
Dale Houstman
<brandon...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8ptj5o$4u0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Laura wrote:
> > With this in mind, deciding to use a tool (meat) to make a statement
> > (war is bloody) is not an exploration of the subconcious but rather a
> > loud proclamation to the masses about war.
>
> While I don't really agree with Laura's definition of Surrealism, I do
> agree that this would not be a Surrealist activity. It would be too
> consciously planned out and motivated.
>
dichotomy between surrealism and political action. The original description
of the protest is far too vague to draw any conclusions from. I have nothing
against smearing meat (feces, blood, toothpaste, etc.) on war memorials, but
I must say it isn't very intriguing in this case. As Laura said, it is far
too easily misunderstood, so - just as a simple political stance it is bound
to fail - but poetically it is relatively empty also.
dmh
Dale Houstman
> "cythera" <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote
> > In article <8ptj5o$4u0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > brandon...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > > With this in mind, deciding to use a tool (meat) to make a
> > > > statement (war is bloody) is not an exploration of the subconcious
> > > > but rather a loud proclamation to the masses about war.
> >
> > > While I don't really agree with Laura's definition of Surrealism, I
> > > do agree that this would not be a Surrealist activity.
> >
> > > It would be too consciously planned out and motivated.
> >
> > think?
> >
> > cythera
>
> Maybe so. We'll have to ask. From what I read in the one post though,
> it sounded like it was a planned act. Maybe if the person saw the image
> of meat on the memorial in a dream or a sudden thought it would be
> surrealist?
>
seems one can run in a rut while you sleep also!
Also we can't base every analysis of "surreality" on whether or not the idea
arose totally without preconception; there is something to be said for
considered action in these cases. One would hope a certain degree of poetic
fervor would be incorporated, and this is where the project fails for me
personally.
Even given the manifestation was in a dream, I would still have to question
the poetic energy of the act, which appears both too obvious (meat
substances have been overplayed as engines of statement it seems to me, so
it has a cliched feel to it), and too easy to take the wrong way, so that
its potential for impact would be blunted.
Whatever the case though, I encourage the action, since it certainly has a
chance at pissing off the right people. I don't think I'd join in on this
one though.
dmh
Parry
> > On the other hand, people will not give the memorial more respect,
> >
> > Um is that the point of pony_fish's idea?
>
> (hence the people it is designed to remember) any respect. I assume by
> smearing meat over it and reminding them that war is bloody awful, he was
> hoping to force the viewers into a situation where they will remember to
> respect. Lots of other things as well I assume.
It all sounds very ill-conceived to me. For one thing, everyone already
knows war is awful. Even the people who conduct them readily admit this.
A political act should attack the idea that was is *necessary*.
-- Parry
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Laura
> If this is his aim: to gain respect for dead killers, I am not interested.
>
> dmh
This is very off topic for me, but I get itchy under the skin when I hear
people refer to the soldiers of past wars as killers. I guess in the
literal sense they are. More I'm uncomfortable with the subtle implications
of what you just said. I imagine if I were to pursue this, we could end up
in a lengthy discussion, probably heated... but I just found it extremely
strange to hear someone say something like that these days.
I think more than gaining respect for dead soldiers he was aiming to
demonstrate the absolute grotesque horrors of war in order to remind the
people what the memorial is really a tribute to. Certainly nothing to smile
about, nor to ignore. It's nothing to be proud of.
Laura
scot...@earthlink.net
>should i smear meat on the war memorial in my home town? i think that
>it is too clean. people walk by it and smile. war isn't like that. if
>it reaked of death and rot i suspect people would give the memorial
>more respect. should i do this? does this have anything to do with
>surrealism? wot is surrealism, if not this?
>
If your desire was to make people think, to change attitudes, to
confront, to create dialog, to create conflict, to end boredom, to
experiment with peoples reactions, to alter how things are, etc.,
your attempt to make a war memorial stink (or a tv tower to topple)
would not be a surrealist act.
If situationally you had reached a point where every bit of you being
was aware of the crisis you faced, and within the full reality of the
situation and within the full scope of your imagination there existed
only one clear act (be it making a war memorial stink, or toppling a
tv tower) through which you could maintain your status as a human
being..... you would have had no choice but to commit the act.
In my view it then would have been a surrealist act.
Dale Houstman
"cythera" <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8puhqs$99g$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> What drew me to the idea in question was that pony_fish seemed to have
> a desire to do _something_.
This - as I said - contains most of what I might value in the project.
>
> About the potential poetics of the pony_fish project: to me the whole
> blood/meat mental image is more wretched, I suppose, because I don't
> use animals' products, except goats' milk from a farm that puts its
> elderly goats out to pasture. This farm is Redwood Hills, btw.
> Cows' milk supports the veal industry so I don't use it. (And I don't
> use leather).
> So after nearly 4 years of avoiding dead animal's flesh, I might be
> nauseated to see a public statue decorated with chunks of rotting
> meat (and by this I mean meat with even more putrefaction than what
> people buy at the Safeway: meat is only "fresh" when it's on the
> living mammal, amphibian, crustacean, etc).
Your nausea has a certain value.
>
> > Even given the manifestation was in a dream, I would still have to
> > question the poetic energy of the act, which appears both too
> > obvious (meat substances have been overplayed as engines of
> > statement it seems to me, so it has a cliched feel to it),
>
> But you do feel, though, that any _real_ validity and beauty in such
> an act resides in the "actor's" relationship to it?
Yes - but the "fatigue" of any act or poetic substance (how many hands its
seductive powers have already passed through) might tend to make that
relationship more difficult, and that hurdle has to be overcome. And we are
discussing a purposely public act here, so I would think the reaction would
have to be considered (though not kow-towed to). Of course, the actor might
well derive some marvelous pleasure from the project at any rate, and that
has a value. But when one hopes to leave the personal realm and wager all on
an open forum, other difficulties arise.
> I can't explain this well, but did want to add it here so as to de-
> emphasize aesthetics, not that they aren't a requisite if one is
> desiring to create a work of art.
> For myself, I really don't like to view my actions, thoughts and
> desires in terms of poetic/not poetic or surrealist/not surrealist.
> It just seems so limiting. But you know what I mean...
Yes again: the labeling isn't crucial in the act, only in the discussion of
the act. I would rather he piss on a CEO, but that's my sexual hangup...
>
> :)
>
> > and too easy to take the wrong way, so that its potential for
> > impact would be blunted.
>
> > Whatever the case though, I encourage the action,
>
> Me too.
>
> > since it certainly has a chance at pissing off the right people. I
> > don't think I'd join in on this one though.
>
> I did a few things along this line at my high school. Part of what
> makes it so fun is that if you don't get caught, you can blend in with
> the pissed-off people and enjoy their reactions to the hilt.
>
I am afraid I have mostly been a coward in these affairs: I tend to avoid
being jailed. Probably the manic height of rebellious behavior on my part
was when I (rather much alone) cursed out a NYC riot cop cadre over their
excessive involvement in some social triviality. I do recall the burly
little boss saying "Ooh, we got ourselves a revolutionary." But I must have
been feeling very plucky that night. This is not something I have repeated
often since, and (at 50) I don't see putting myself in such a position
again, unless it is over a matter of them dragging people out of their beds
at night to "disappear" them. But freaks did spend a lot of time "goofing"
on the straights' reactions in the 60s. Not that it was hard to get a rise
out of them for the most part, especially on army bases, where I resided for
quite a time. I have become less enamored of such small thrills since then.
Whether this is good or bad, I don't know. Just is, I guess.
dmh
Dale Houstman
> Dale stated:
> > If this is his aim: to gain respect for dead killers, I am not
interested.
> >
> > dmh
>
> This is very off topic for me, but I get itchy under the skin when I hear
> people refer to the soldiers of past wars as killers. I guess in the
> literal sense they are. More I'm uncomfortable with the subtle
implications
> of what you just said. I imagine if I were to pursue this, we could end
up
> in a lengthy discussion, probably heated... but I just found it extremely
> strange to hear someone say something like that these days.
Why? I have no problem with dead soldiers being remembered as victims of the
military system - which they are - memorializing them as examples of what
the government can do to you once they get their filthy hands on you. But
this is not how they are recalled: their humanity is reduced by Memorial to
a mere patriotic shill. I don't like seeing it much, and we are being asked
to idealize them as killers.
One understands that people end up as soldiers for a variety of reasons:
some sadistic, some socio-economic, some merely ignorant: but I am talking
about what the memorial is attempting to tell us about the soldiers, which
is that killing is a noble profession, given the right government's
sanction. To my mind this is odious.
If you admit that they are literally killers, I don't see what the argument
might be here.
dmh
Laura
> Why? I have no problem with dead soldiers being remembered as victims of
the
> military system - which they are - memorializing them as examples of what
> the government can do to you once they get their filthy hands on you. But
> this is not how they are recalled: their humanity is reduced by Memorial
to
> a mere patriotic shill. I don't like seeing it much, and we are being
asked
> to idealize them as killers.
Ahhhhhhh. Now I see where your comment came from and what you meant by it.
Sorry, I read it the wrong way and made a few assumptions. It made me feel
weird to think that there was someone out there that might blame the
soldiers themselves and considered them all cold blooded heartless killers
that deserved their own deaths.
Laura, creative reader.
Dale Houstman
> Dale said:
> > Why? I have no problem with dead soldiers being remembered as victims of
> the
> > military system - which they are - memorializing them as examples of
what
> > the government can do to you once they get their filthy hands on you.
But
> > this is not how they are recalled: their humanity is reduced by Memorial
> to
> > a mere patriotic shill. I don't like seeing it much, and we are being
> asked
> > to idealize them as killers.
>
> Ahhhhhhh. Now I see where your comment came from and what you meant by
it.
> Sorry, I read it the wrong way and made a few assumptions. It made me
feel
> weird to think that there was someone out there that might blame the
> soldiers themselves and considered them all cold blooded heartless killers
> that deserved their own deaths.
>
> Laura, creative reader.
Well, it isn't as if my purposefully blanket statement gave you much to go
on.
It just reminds me of how we had - for a brief moment in the 60s - the
military on the run, even to the point that soldiers were afraid to wear
their uniforms in public. We made the soldiers themselves (sadistic
collaborators or hapless victims) rethink what being a soldier might mean.
As uncomfortable as this might have made some people, I think it points to a
healthier situation than blind patriotic rah-rah.
Also, during the Persian Gulf War, this sort of soft-sell created the stance
of "We support the soldiers, but not the war" which quickly became rather
infertile as political postures go. Those who are the instrumentations of
military "glory" also have to be reminded that there might be a price to pay
for involvement. Every little bit helps. It might have been better phrased
as "we support the soldiers becoming civilians, and the war becoming
extinct" but I suppose that doesn't exactly make for a good bumper sticker.
dmh
>
>
>
Laura
> Well, it isn't as if my purposefully blanket statement gave you much to go
> on.
>
> It just reminds me of how we had - for a brief moment in the 60s - the
> military on the run, even to the point that soldiers were afraid to wear
> their uniforms in public. We made the soldiers themselves (sadistic
> collaborators or hapless victims) rethink what being a soldier might mean.
> As uncomfortable as this might have made some people, I think it points to
a
> healthier situation than blind patriotic rah-rah.
I find the blind patriotic rah-rah involved in all things around us
frightening.
>
> Also, during the Persian Gulf War, this sort of soft-sell created the
stance
> of "We support the soldiers, but not the war" which quickly became rather
> infertile as political postures go. Those who are the instrumentations of
> military "glory" also have to be reminded that there might be a price to
pay
> for involvement. Every little bit helps. It might have been better phrased
> as "we support the soldiers becoming civilians, and the war becoming
> extinct" but I suppose that doesn't exactly make for a good bumper
sticker.
The "support the soldiers, but not the war" sounds like a lame excuse to
simply
have no opinion on war and to shrug off any responsibility that having an
opinion
might carry.
Laura
Dale Houstman
the moment. That entire period (short and brutal as it was) was very
depressing and frustrating to me and others. Everything moved so fast, the
media was chained and bought off, while received the (beautiful) green
fireworks over Baghdad, and the same two or three pictures of "clean bombing
succesess." It was sort of modernity at its worst. A bad time all around.
dmh
Dale Houstman
> In article <39c31990$0$28257$65a9...@news.citilink.com>,
> "Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote:
>
> "cythera" <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8puhqs$99g$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>
> >For myself, I really don't like to view my actions, thoughts and
> >desires in terms of poetic/not poetic or surrealist/not surrealist.
> >It just seems so limiting. But you know what I mean...
>
> Yes again: the labeling isn't crucial in the act, only in the
> discussion of the act.
>
> from reading you on poetry.comments. I'm wondering what your approach
> toward editing your own work is.
I'm lazy as a wheel without a circumference. I try to get most of the work
of imagery building completed quickly - very quickly. These lines may
coalesce immediately or lie around in loose "viral" packets for months,
sometimes years. I have a box full of unused lines. Once the thing seems to
"move" I may or may not tinker with it - often using the same quick methods
to create new lines - but I have a bend for telling ambivalences and
inverted commonplaces. The main thing is to surprise myself, and to derail
as many expectations as possible. Years later, I may return to the piece and
find a new way around making sense.
>
> I have a few comments/questions about "Blue Feathers" as well.
> 1. My favorite piece is "Not Impressed". Would you care to post that
> here?
Oh - I'll do that soon.
> 2. I enjoyed Tom Clarkson's poem and collage. Does he read this
> newsgroup, and has he ever written on it?
Tom is sub-electronic: he barely has a workable phone. I will tell him of
your regard. What was it you particularly liked? He will be gratified to
hear.
> 3. Same question about the other contributors.
>
> And how do you think alt.surrealism could go about attracting
> interesting people to post here?
Barrett and I have briefly discussed this point of late. We are rather
disheartened that more of the world's surrealist - those actually in the
know on the subject and acxtive in its projects - don't take this group up
as a showcase for discussion. This would really be helpful to the task of
sustaining a viable conversation. But we haven't really formulated an
approach to this concern as of yet.
>
> Finally, are you a member of the Chicago group? If so, perhaps
> you'd post some of your writing for them in this space.
As far as I can tell, the Chicago group thinks we're invisible. Another
disheartening aspect of world surrealism; it seems to at times construct
arbitrary lines of influence and prestige, which I just find silly.
>
> Sounds like I'm interviewing you...
Katydid Cork or Barbarian Wa-Wa?
dmh
elag
----
A satirical poem, song, or story about someone in particular that
has been posted in a public place is a pasquinade, and to post such a
lampoon is to pasquinade the person who is being satirized. Usually,
pasquinades are anonymous.
The word originated in Rome, Italy. According to one story, there
was a shop there in the 15th century owned by a man named Pasquino.
Outside of his shop there was a somewhat mutilated statue, where
satirical poems were frequently posted. Pasquino himself was said to be
quite a wit, and was thought to have been the source of most of the poems.
The satirical pasquinades did not go unanswered. Some distance
across town, there was a very old statue called Marforio. On that
statue, replies to the pasquinades were posted.
http://wings.buffalo.edu/AandL/Maecenas/L&M_rome99/ac992101.html
Parry
> > The "support the soldiers, but not the war" sounds like a lame excuse to
> > simply
> > have no opinion on war and to shrug off any responsibility that having an
> > opinion
> > might carry.
> >
> It was difficult to swallow, but it was the politically correct action of
> the moment. That entire period (short and brutal as it was) was very
> depressing and frustrating to me and others. Everything moved so fast, the
> media was chained and bought off, while received the (beautiful) green
> fireworks over Baghdad, and the same two or three pictures of "clean bombing
> succesess." It was sort of modernity at its worst. A bad time all around.
One could almost write this as a manual: once the war is instigated (by
the government, against public sentiment), any political faction that
had been opposed to the strategy will hold their tongues for the sake up
not undermining the war effort -- i.e. not fanning the flames of
dissent. So, what you describe as the politically correct action for the
Gulf War was repeated for the NATO bombing, only less pronounced as in
North America there was only weak opposition to the war, what with
liberals jumping on the fascist bandwagon.
This thread reminded me of a commentary I read on usenet last year and
saved. It addresses the idea of a “just” war; and all wars are sold as
“just.” I’m re-publishing it below.
-- Parry
----------------------------------------
Commentary by A. N. Wilson: "Was the Second World War worth 56 million
lives?"
We had grown used to having a prime minister who was ignorant, but now a
much more worrying thought occurs. Has he gone mad? Perhaps this is a
question that only doctors could answer. But Tony Blair's recent
self-justifying speeches, delivered with laryngitic, manic jerkiness
persuade me that war is almost always an act of madness. And the
rhetoric that he has chosen to employ, with its pseudo-Churchillian
echoes and its allusions to the Second World War, provoke disturbing,
unwelcome thoughts, not merely about the conflict in Kosovo, but about
the whole of 20th-century history, and the brave sorrows which our
parents' generation underwent. Blair's speeches about war make me think
that all war, even the war against Hitler, is and was worse than
pointless.
The German culture minister, Michael Naumann, recently deplored the fact
that Hitler's war continues to obsess the British. Over the last few
weeks one sees not merely that Herr Naumann is right but that the
British way of viewing the Second World War is deeply dangerous.
Tony Blair now seems to be by far the most hawkish of Nato's leaders.
The German peace proposals, which would have involved bringing in the
Russians to persuade Slobodan Milosevic to the negotiating table, have
been dismissed by Blair as not enough. Blair wants blood, toil, sweat
and tears; he wants Bill to give him the tools and we'll finish the job.
The early identification of Milosevic with Hitler was bizarre. Milosevic
has shown no desire for territorial expansion, let alone world
domination. The unending story of minor, nasty warfare in the Balkans is
part of the story of the last 1,000 years. It is quite unlike the
resurrection of German nationalism in the 1920s as a reaction against
the unjust Versailles Treaty. Britain went to war against Hitler not
because he was persecuting the Jews, as Blair implies every day, but
because of treaties designed to check German expansionism. The treaties
to "protect" Czechoslovakia were quietly forgotten - some said to
Britain's shame. The treaty to protect Poland was observed, and it was
because Hitler invaded Poland that Chamberlain declared war. As AJP
Taylor caustically observes in The Origins of the Second World War: "In
1938 Czechoslovakia was betrayed. In 1939 Poland was saved. Less than
one hundred thousand Czechs died during the war. Six-and-a-half million
Poles were killed. Which was better - to be a betrayed Czech or a saved
Pole?"
When we consider the 56 million people - most of them civilians - who
died during the Second World War we of a younger generation can
understand why those who watched their comrades die in it were obliged
to tell themselves not only that it was an inevitable conflict, but that
it was the only noble way of defeating an evil tyranny. Even this way of
thinking only leads to more intolerable thoughts - namely that Poland,
Czechoslovakia, and all the Eastern bloc countries were "liberated" only
in the sense that they were taken away from the Nazis and given into
Soviet slavery at the insistence of Stalin, who outstripped Hitler in
the numbers he killed.
The one fact about Hitler which nobody believed during the Second World
War was that he meant what he said about the Jews. The British Foreign
Office and the BBC consistently refused to believe the stories of
extermination as they began to come through from Poland, Latvia,
Lithuania and elsewhere in the middle years of the war. Only in 1945
when people watched the newsreels of Belsen did the extent of the Nazi
atrocities become clear. And of course - another intolerable thought -
this slaughter only began after the outbreak of war. Could it be -
intolerable question - that it was the cover of war alone which made the
massacres possible?
For Tony Blair to liken Milosevic to Hitler is to trivialise every one
of those 56 million deaths between 1939-45 and to miss the point which,
tragically, they make. It is not an easy thought. It is literally
unbearable, but it must be thought if politicians are not to go on
repeating the mistakes of the past. It is this.
If the Second World War had never been fought, not only would those 56
million, most of them, have died in their beds; not only would the
beautiful cities of France, Germany, Italy and Poland, which were
destroyed, have remained intact, but Hitler and his crazy regime would
almost certainly have been overthrown in the fullness of time by his own
people.
Yet Blair tells us that the Second World War was "a war started by a
dictator visiting racial genocide on his people". He tells us that. "You
have to come down to the simple clear choice, to act, or not to act."
This isn't even pseudo-Winston Churchill. It is government by Biggles.
Blair's and Nato's decision to "act" has escalated a war which, in the
three years previous to 25 March 1999 had killed between two and three
thousand people. To act or not to act. There are so many actions other
than bombing - to increase aid, for example, to flood a distressed or
war-torn region with hospitals, schools, foreign observers who, if they
can't stop the fighting, can at least ensure that the atrocities are
kept to a minimum. The bombing raids have provided the biggest possible
cover for acts of genocidal slaughter.
When one thinks of the war memorials all over Europe, and the stories of
self-sacrifice which they embody, and the unselfish bravery of our
parents' generations, one hardly dares to write these words. But the
lesson they teach is that war never works, that the notion of a just war
is a political con. God help us if our world order is now in the hands
of those whose history books are closed and whose moral values are
conceitedly summed up by the doctrine that whatever Blair thinks and
does is right and whatever anyone else does is "evil".
Dale Houstman
>
>
> > What was it you particularly liked? He will be gratified to hear.
>
> to it in part because it's the sort of thing I might write; because of
> Tom's literary reference [to Cornell Woolrich]; and also because it
> (like "Joseph K." and "Fucking Children") has a strong individual
> voice. Whereas most of the poems seemed that they could have been
> written by a single author, his most stood out. All totally my
> opinion, naturalmente.
Tom's quite the reader, so it isn't surprising Cornell came up. I assume
you've read Woolrich. A very interesting writer, and (along with Jim
Thompson) one of the more "perverse" of the 50s noir writers.
> Your poem was the other that stood out, but to me it's not one of
> your most satisfying, though I think I might have an idea why you
> chose it (if you did).
Yup: I think you know.
> Sweet.
> I love the cover and am thinking of making a frame for it. Whose work
> is it?
(Modestly), me. Up to now I've done the cover work. When we finally get
around to the next issue (once we wrap up the ongoing musical obsessions),
that cover will be by Kristina.
>
>
> Hmmm. Please tell me more.
Barrett's more conversant on this "intra-family" affair.
>
>
> > Katydid Cork or Barbarian Wa-Wa?
>
> Katy Couric: what's up with that mascara, lipstick and suntan? They
> make her look older, not younger. And those shoes? Uck.
Well, as Tom and I say, when the perk goes it's gone.
>
> But it's just her hideous boringness and MOR-ness (ditto for "Matt")
> that sends me grabbing for the remote control... I would rather see
> Kathy Knee with Regis _any_ day: I like my anachronisms neat.
>
> Katy Couric actually went to the same university as Poe (but they
> booted _him_).
>
No accounting for distaste.
dmh
scot...@earthlink.net
sounds of armed men taking their neighbors away... And in the
morning they find the bodies... And they know exactly who is behind
the killing.
Some people in these situations come to believe that regardless of
consequences they too must pick up a gun. They must become soldiers.
They must form armies. They conclude they have no choice but to
become killers themselves. They may be the Sandinistas or they may be
the Kosova Liberation Army. They may be the Jewish Militias who
fought in the Warsaw Ghetto. They may have been the Surrealists who
joined the French Resistance.
I respect the decision of people who decide they will offer absolutely
no cooperation to their oppressor.
I respect the decision of people who decide they must go beyond non
cooperation, and who begin to actively resist the oppressor in any way
they can. Even if this means becoming a soldier.
For some people in some situations the picking up of a gun and
declaring oneself a soldier may be a pure surrealistic act. A point
in the trajectory of their lives and fabric of their experience where
they are informed of a new human necessity.
.....
I demand that people be acknowledged as human beings who have real
experiences... and that individual experience be acknowledge as having
real meaning.... even the experience of killers ... even killers I
have no sympathy for...
To heap the recent human experience of the Peoples of the Balkans
into this one simple statement:
"
>The unending story of minor, nasty warfare in the Balkans is
>part of the story of the last 1,000 years
"
.... is disgusting in the extent that it avoids the specifics of real
human experience. It insults human beings.
On Sun, 17 Sep 2000 06:37:38 -0400, Parry <pa...@zxOMITmail.com>
wrote:
barrett john erickson
> > Hmmm. Please tell me more.
>
> Barrett's more conversant on this "intra-family" affair.
OK, i'll take on that dreary little storyline with a bit of help from the
archive.
basic summary:
whereas european surrealists were immediately responsive (from the earliest
attempts to contact them 6 or 7 years ago) and remain quite generous in
their interactions, i/we have never received any kind of response or direct
communication from Chicago (about 6 years of silence). this even though
Rosemont was approached directly by mail a couple times, and he has received
everything BlueFeathers has published, and many other things produced in the
years before BF came together in the spring of '98. well, OK, to be fair,
Paul Garon once acknowledged the recpt of an e-mail by sending me his
address so i could send him a full set of all BFs (and much of the earlier
material) with hopes that a different avenue of communication might be
possible.
that was last summer, and there was never any response to that package
either.
then in december '99, we learned (via someone -- Brandon? -- posting it to
this space as i recall) that Chicago had distributed a WTO flyer and signed
it "the surrealist movement in the united states". which provoked us to
produce an "official coming out" as a distinct surrealist group, and also
send the following open letter to Paul Garon, with distribution to all known
groups:
>>> text of "460 miles..." >>>
greetings Paul,
we've learned that Franklin Rosemont recently distributed a flyer titled
"Who Needs the WTO" and signed "The Surrealist Movement in the United
States."
[ we have not seen this flyer, only a transcription of it, so please correct
us if we are mistaken. ]
since we are in minnesota, and minnesota is generally considered part of the
united states, and we consider ourselves surrealists in minnesota and
therefore surrealists in the united states, we wonder why we did not receive
a copy of this text or even hear of it until three weeks after its
publication date. in fact, we wonder why we have never received any
substantive communication from chicago on any subject.
we must assume Franklin Rosemont is aware of our activities and has our
address, since it is printed on all of the mailings that he's received from
us over the past year (and those we sent you in august) and none of these
envelopes has been returned as undeliverable.
perhaps we have failed to specifically ask for judgment and acceptance, but
judgment and acceptance is not what we seek. what we seek is a greater
sense of connection and common purpose with surrealists around the world in
furtherance of the surrealist project.
we've always believed that this was a desire shared by all surrealist
groups.
so now, in the context of such blatant evidence of estrangement at a time
when collaboration is most important, we must ask for specific
clarification:
just what is the position of the Chicago group relative to surrealists in
minnesota and our efforts on behalf of the surrealist movement?
we do not ask this because we feel WE need such attentions, but because - as
surrealists engaged in public surrealist activities - we know that the
surrealist movement at large needs such connections, and at a time when we
sense a re-emergence of worldwide activity on behalf of liberty and the
imagination, every sort of instrumentation should be brought to bear so as
to secure a greater linkage of surrealists' intent and manifestation.
to hold back now is tantamount to abdication, or even surrender to the
forces of individualism and the cult of the personality. we don't feel that
this would be productive.
Tom Clarkson -- barrett john erickson -- Dale M. Houstman
<<< end text <<<
need i say Chicago never responded to this either?
we did, however, receive many positive responses from the larger surrealist
community, including notes of support from several surrealists usually
associated with the Chicago group.
there are a few convoluted subplots with a clandestine intrigue or two, but
no need to go into that...
-- barrett
==============================================
bar...@MagneticFields.org
http://www.MagneticFields.org/
==============================================
"Everything tends to make us believe that there exists a
certain point of the 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."
...André Breton
==============================================
brandon...@my-deja.com
> then in december '99, we learned (via someone -- Brandon? -- posting
> it to this space as i recall) that Chicago had distributed a WTO
> flyer and signed it "the surrealist movement in the united states".
Yep. That was me.
> need i say Chicago never responded to this either?
I can't understand this. I have pretty much recieved responses from
them every time I've communicated (from Garon or Penelope Rosemont).
But then again I'm usually buying stuff. I would have thought that the
letter you sent would have recieved some kind of response. Its
puzzling. They've all been very friendly in their letters to me.
> we did, however, receive many positive responses from the larger
> surrealist community, including notes of support from several
> surrealists usually associated with the Chicago group.
Who?
Parry
> Katy Couric actually went to the same university as Poe (but they
> booted _him_).
She was what drove him to alcohol, as I recall.
-- Parry
Parry
>
> The reality for some peoples is that in the night they can hear the
> sounds of armed men taking their neighbors away... And in the
> morning they find the bodies... And they know exactly who is behind
> the killing.
>
> Some people in these situations come to believe that regardless of
> consequences they too must pick up a gun. They must become soldiers.
> They must form armies. They conclude they have no choice but to
> become killers themselves. They may be the Sandinistas or they may be
> the Kosova Liberation Army. They may be the Jewish Militias who
> fought in the Warsaw Ghetto. They may have been the Surrealists who
> joined the French Resistance.
>
> I respect the decision of people who decide they will offer absolutely
> no cooperation to their oppressor.
>
> I respect the decision of people who decide they must go beyond non
> cooperation, and who begin to actively resist the oppressor in any way
> they can. Even if this means becoming a soldier.
>
> For some people in some situations the picking up of a gun and
> declaring oneself a soldier may be a pure surrealistic act. A point
> in the trajectory of their lives and fabric of their experience where
> they are informed of a new human necessity.
I agree, as does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which (to my
recollection) upholds the right of people to take up arms against
aggressors. Wilson, though, is writing about the UK which -- like the US
-- doesn’t have such enemies, and for which war is entirely an export
business. I don’t see his commentary as being an argument for pacifism
> .....
> I demand that people be acknowledged as human beings who have real
> experiences... and that individual experience be acknowledge as having
> real meaning.... even the experience of killers ... even killers I
> have no sympathy for...
>
> To heap the recent human experience of the Peoples of the Balkans
> into this one simple statement:
>
> "
> >The unending story of minor, nasty warfare in the Balkans is
> >part of the story of the last 1,000 years
> "
>
> .... is disgusting in the extent that it avoids the specifics of real
> human experience. It insults human beings.
I see that it could be taken that way, but in the context of the humane
commentary I give the writer the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up as
being written in an unfortunate shorthand. It seems callous to call the
warfare minor and provincial, but Wilson is remarking on the WWII
allusions employed by the UK and others in selling the NATO war. The
Kosovo civil war was minor in that it was not a genocide, as it was
advertised to be; and minor in the sense that the violence reached a
level typical of the world’s trouble spots, and not the level of
catastrophic emergency that NATO required to give their venture a patina
of justification under international law. That the violence is
provincial also differentiates from the WWII imagery of invading powers;
indeed, the invaders here were NATO. Most unfortunate about Wilson’s
characterization is the suggestion that the war of the 80’s/90’s
disappears into a thousand year continuum of violence, but he at least
reminds that the conflict does have its own history and is not simply a
repeat of a Hollywood WWII flick.
-- Parry
Nikolaus Maack
I've tried to bite my tongue, but I cannot. Are you guys genuinely
baffled as to why someone would not answer this letter? I mean, do you
*really* have no idea? Really and truly? Shall I explain it to you?
Despite its attempts not to sound that way, it is an incredibly whiny,
vicious, and petty piece of text. It's extremely difficult to take
seriously. Your people skills definitely need work.
If I was on the receiving end of such a letter I'd roll my eyes, show it
to my friends, and we'd all have a good laugh. The letter makes a prissy
fuss about such a tiny thing, I'd assume the guys in Minnesota were
seriously in need of a sense of perspective. Not to mention a sense of
humour. The phrase "blatant evidence of estrangement" alone would be
enough to make us all chuckle in our beers.
Can you really not see that this letter simply MUST provoke such a
reaction? Instead of this piece, which is in turn pathetically
self-deprecating and offensively belittling, wouldn't it have made more
sense to simply ask them to send whatever flyers and literature they're
producing, and ask for more interactions between the two groups?
In other words, wouldn't it have made more sense to ask "What's going on,
guys?" instead of slapping them across the face?
"barrett john erickson" (bar...@magneticfields.org) writes:
>
> greetings Paul,
>
>
> we've learned that Franklin Rosemont recently distributed a flyer titled
> "Who Needs the WTO" and signed "The Surrealist Movement in the United
> States."
>
> [ we have not seen this flyer, only a transcription of it, so please correct
> us if we are mistaken. ]
>
> since we are in minnesota, and minnesota is generally considered part of the
> united states, and we consider ourselves surrealists in minnesota and
> therefore surrealists in the united states, we wonder why we did not receive
> a copy of this text or even hear of it until three weeks after its
> publication date. in fact, we wonder why we have never received any
> substantive communication from chicago on any subject.
"Please allow me to explain why we are insulted in the most insulting of
ways: since we are in Minnesota and Minnesota, as you'd know if you
consulted an atlas, is part of the United States..."
> we must assume Franklin Rosemont is aware of our activities and has our
> address, since it is printed on all of the mailings that he's received from
> us over the past year (and those we sent you in august) and none of these
> envelopes has been returned as undeliverable.
"Franklin is a jerk because he doesn't answer our mail."
> perhaps we have failed to specifically ask for judgment and acceptance, but
> judgment and acceptance is not what we seek. what we seek is a greater
> sense of connection and common purpose with surrealists around the world in
> furtherance of the surrealist project.
"You are probably the sorts of assholes who expect us to ask for judgement
and acceptance -- to grovel at your feet -- but we refuse to do so. Fuck
you."
Assuming the worst about people tends to make people angry, Barrett.
> we've always believed that this was a desire shared by all surrealist
> groups.
"You guys clearly don't think globally like we do. You suck."
> so now, in the context of such blatant evidence of estrangement at a time
> when collaboration is most important, we must ask for specific
> clarification:
"such blatant evidence of estrangement" -- Jesus, Barrett! This klunky
turn of phrase has your fingerprints all over it. When you write
something like this, it sounds pompous, pretentious, and just plain
offensive. It reads like you would be insulting, but you're the better
man, so instead you're going to treat them with respect and dignity --
even though they don't deserve it.
> just what is the position of the Chicago group relative to surrealists in
> minnesota and our efforts on behalf of the surrealist movement?
Why should they even need a position? Isn't it a little odd to assume
they should care about you?
> we do not ask this because we feel WE need such attentions, but because - as
> surrealists engaged in public surrealist activities - we know that the
> surrealist movement at large needs such connections, and at a time when we
> sense a re-emergence of worldwide activity on behalf of liberty and the
> imagination, every sort of instrumentation should be brought to bear so as
> to secure a greater linkage of surrealists' intent and manifestation.
This paragraph is totally unbelievable, given the main focus of this
letter is about how they didn't include your group in the flyer, how they
ignore your mail, how they clearly don't know what they're doing. I'd
believe your motives were more sincere if, say, you asked for their
writings and more interactions between Minnesota and Chicago, instead of
attacking them.
> to hold back now is tantamount to abdication, or even surrender to the
> forces of individualism and the cult of the personality. we don't feel that
> this would be productive.
"Listen to my jargon and know that I mean business. You guys are fucking
up badly and you don't even know it. Good thing we're here to set you
straight."
> Tom Clarkson -- barrett john erickson -- Dale M. Houstman
I pray that more than three people signed this letter. If it really was
only three people, it's the worst part of the insult.
"Hello, large group in Chicago. We three people in Minnesota are upset
that you are ignoring us, and wish to be included in everything you do
from now on. Please give us a lot of attention and respect, even though
we are a tiny, insignificant collective of three. Thank you."
Why should one group go out of their way to ackowledge another, is that
other group has three lousy people in it?
Does any of this help explain why these people ignored your letter?
Nik
--
"I dote on myself. There is a lot of me, and all so luscious." -- Whitman
The Nik Maack Art Gallery
http://www.nikart.com
brandon...@my-deja.com
> Your people skills definitely need work.
And, after reading the subject line of your post, I think the entire
newsgroup agrees that YOUR people skills need work as well. I mean the
first conversation you start up after getting out of your lazy boy is
an ATTACK. Are you trying to pick a fight, or just giving Barrett and
Dale some tough lovin'? As usual your hypocritical flesh show through
your shit-stained underwear. Hint: get a new pair.
> If I was on the receiving end of such a letter I'd roll my eyes, show
> it to my friends, and we'd all have a good laugh.
But you don't have any friends.
Michael Voytinsky
>meat is expensive.
Have you considered using tofu instead? Or textured vegetable protein?
I think the softer types of tofu are quite smearable.
Also, you would not have to kill animals to make a statement if used tofu.
Smearing tofu on the war memorial would be far more surreal than meat
>was done. the bourgeois of my home town will not understand without an
>explanation. they will think it is just vandalism unless i explain it
>to them.
What makes you think that the proletariat will understand it without an
explanation? What makes you think that the workers will not think it is
just vandalism?
>thank you for your words. i told my mom about this and she said that i
>am crazy.
You are still living in your mom's basement? Figures.
Cheers,
Michael Voytinsky
http://voytinsky.freeservers.com
Michael Voytinsky
>> Smearing tofu on the war memorial would be far more surreal than
>> meat was done.
>
>How so?
It would challenge both the concept of war and its glorification in our
society, and the very notion of protest. The current protest forms are old
and no longer have an impact. Smearing meat on the war memorial will cause
a reaction similar to throwing fake blood at wearers of fur - "yeah,
whatever".
Tofu will not only challenge the notion of war, but symbolizes an
alternative - since tofu itself is a non-violent alternative to the output
of the slaughter-houses.
brandon...@my-deja.com
> It would challenge both the concept of war and its glorification in
> our society, and the very notion of protest. The current protest
> forms are old and no longer have an impact. Smearing meat on the war
> memorial will cause a reaction similar to throwing fake blood at
> wearers of fur - "yeah, whatever".
> Tofu will not only challenge the notion of war, but symbolizes an
> alternative - since tofu itself is a non-violent alternative to the
> output of the slaughter-houses.
But how is that "Surreal"? I mean, sure its interesting, but I think
its more DADA.
john adams
cythera wrote in message <8q87pm$18u$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <8q7pkk$fbc$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>,
> ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Nikolaus Maack) wrote:
>> On the topic of Barrett's letter, which is quoted in this post...
>
>> I've tried to bite my tongue, but I cannot. Are you guys genuinely
>> baffled as to why someone would not answer this letter? I mean, do
>> you *really* have no idea? Really and truly? Shall I explain it
>> to you?
>
>to why they had been virtually ignored (a lack of responsiveness which
>is hardly unique to the Chicago group vis a vis those it "disapproves"
>of or finds dull, or what-the-freaking-ever [and anyway, who cares on
>a personal level what some bunch of uptight wankers values?]).
I agree that it may be a little peculiar for a long silence from that group,
and to refer to themselves as 'the' surrealist group of the united states
(with no recognition to any other, it would seem) - but I'm curious what
brings you to speak of them as uptight wankers, and is this common you find
that they "disapprove" of those "they find dull"?. I recall you recently
posted information and links about them and wondered if there was anything
that may have changed your initial opinion through further contact or some
other channels of information.
john
john adams
cythera wrote in message <8q8rpk$qar$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
>> I agree that it may be a little peculiar for a long silence from
>> that group and to refer to themselves as 'the' surrealist group of
>> the united states (with no recognition to any other, it would seem)
>
>Hmmm, I didn't get that they had shut out all other groups.
Well, in using the phrase "surrealist group of the united states", it would
seem to 'not' recognize the
participation of other american groups, right? And additionally, in forming
actions and making session with the public, this lack of contact seems to
imbue with their voice of "american" surrealism, hence not recognizing
others in the process. Although, is this just an argument over the semantics
with one occasion or one flyer - i dont really know, myself. If you say
that on britannic they advertise themselves as the united states group, i
have to doubt them already in their choices.
>> - but I'm curious what brings you to speak of them as uptight
>> wankers,
>
>Well, I didn't mean just them. Everyone is too uptight and too much
>of a wanker, including myself. That's the result of a lot of
>influences.
>When I was younger I looked around for a living person to emulate,
>and have never found a person with a completely liberated mind; never
>found a totally free person.
Well, it coudl be an endless search. We're all human, so being human subject
to life's restraints, but then the idea is to surmount its miseries (and
embrace surreality).
Complete liberation as an ideal is wonderful, but thinking in terms of sheer
absolutes can get us into trouble, i tend to think. How would you measure if
someone was completely, mentally liberated and is that possible at all
times? Is it possible to be 100% free? Again, i have to say not entirely all
the time, as entirely is what you remark of.
>But, back to the Rosemonts, what you said: They refer to themselves
>as 'the' surrealist group in the U.S.A. This, to me, implies a
>hierarchy. Or a monarchy? barrett's post was pretty scary.
>Also, they have their site at britannica.com and it's a mighty clean
>and tidy one. Additionally, they have a "writing test" of sorts to
>get in: a "What does surrealism mean to me" sort of thing. I don't
>at all disagree that they ask this question, (or that they apply a
>group standard per se), but it seems very "old school" and cloistered:
>_I_ would have felt thrilled if they'd requested art, poetry, CDs,
>someone's play, book manuscript, or film, etc.: Let the work do the
>talking.
I haven't seen the writing test. Perhaps they are simply seeking opinions,
ideas, or feedback
from the public on it, in addition to welcoming one's works. I'd have to
return to the site sometime in order to explore what you describe further.
>But maybe they _would_ like this, I don't know. I asked Dale for
>information about them a few days back, and now here we are...
>
>> and is this common you find that they "disapprove" of those "they
>> find dull"?.
>
>Here too I didn't mean just them, and don't have enough information to
>say why they have chosen thus far to ignore Dale, barrett and Tom's
>group. I can only guess that since the larger group received the BF
>materials, someone in fact read at least parts of them, and
>he/she/they:
>a.) disapproved of the writings of these 3 surrealists in Minnesota, or
>b.) found said writings dull, or
>c.) had some other "negative" reaction/s (which I hoped to cover with
>the blanket-phrase "what-the-freaking-ever").
One possibility is they find their opinions clash too much...or some other
reason exists, x, thus far left to be left explained but with fair
reasoning.
>> I recall you recently posted information and links about them
>
>That was primarily to open up "dialogue" (a silly expression) on
>alt.surrealism, and to counteract Nik's "joyful nihilism" what-the-
>fuck version of surrealism. There were questions I had about the
>Chicago group, and still do; such as, what do they mean by "the
>dialectic of dialectic", or "psychoanalysis as a subversive activity"?
>
>Quoting from their britannica.com site, these I believe are their key
>issues:
>Revolution against Capital and State
>Poetry as revolutionary praxis
>psychoanalysis as a subversive activity
>love and sexual insurrection
>the struggle against miserabilism
>exaltation of play
>necessity of laziness
>creation of free territories of the imagination
>defense of the Marvelous against religion
>abolition of whiteness
>undermining patriarchy
>importance of recalcitrant undercurrents in popular culture
>special glory of Black music
>dialectic of dialectic
>alchemy by any means necessary
>emancipation of wilderness
>humor, the pivot of surrealism's revolutionary project today
>
>these are good, but why are just _these_ the stated primary issues
>for "'the' surrealist group of the United States", here as we all are
>on the border of the 21st century? There are the issues around AIDS
>(see ACT-UP S.F.s site: these people are wonderful), and cancer;
>animals' rights; childcare; universal healthcare; etc.
There are probably enough important issues to tend to that nothing would
ever get taken care of if the intent became to embrace them all, so
inevitably a focusing down is required, on what they themselves feel is
important enough. I can think of many others in addition to those you list
and either's importance could be debatable. As for their list, i cant say i
agree with it entirely either.
>I also would like to know, if they represent all U.S.A. surrealists:
>1.) why don't they post all their for-sale flyers et.al on their
>site, so that everyone can have a look? (with appropriate apologies
>if they do; that was not my impression when I looked at it last time),
>and
>2.) what do they do as a group.
Not familiar with those for sale flyers.
>Once I find out this stuff, I'll have an idea of whether their
>"uptight wankerism" is a deal-breaker to me or not.
>
>I myself am very picky about what groups I give my time and money to,
>and want to join. I hope Brandon will answer some of my questions, if
>he likes. I'll add here that much of what he's written since his
>return to alt.surrealism has prompted me to look at my ideas in new
>ways.
>
>> and wondered if there was anything that may have changed your
>> initial opinion through further contact or some other channels of
>> information.
>
>It's really a matter of my own exploration, which takes me from a
>certain path to what may ultimately be a divergent one.
>
Quite right, quite right.
john
john adams
john adams wrote in a message ...
>>When I was younger I looked around for a living person to emulate,
>>and have never found a person with a completely liberated mind; never
>>found a totally free person.
>
>
>Well, it coudl be an endless search. We're all human, so being human
subject
>to life's restraints, but then the idea is to surmount its miseries (and
>embrace surreality).
>Complete liberation as an ideal is wonderful, but thinking in terms of
sheer
>absolutes can get us into trouble, i tend to think. How would you measure
if
>someone was completely, mentally liberated and is that possible at all
>times? Is it possible to be 100% free? Again, i have to say not entirely
all
>the time, as entirely is what you remark of.
Sometimes realizing this offers its own reward of a different kind
(liberation through having accepting our inherent limitations).
just felt i shoudl clarify...
yanni
Nikolaus Maack
> And, after reading the subject line of your post, I think the entire
> newsgroup agrees that YOUR people skills need work as well. I mean the
> first conversation you start up after getting out of your lazy boy is
> an ATTACK.
Brandon, if I wrote a description of what I had for lunch, you'd see it as
an attack. Is this not the sorry state our special friendship has reached?
brandon...@my-deja.com
> Brandon, if I wrote a description of what I had for lunch, you'd see
> it as an attack. Is this not the sorry state our special friendship
> has reached?
HA! HA! HA! HO! HO! HO!
Here's a link I found for YOU:
http://www.jokeclub.com/comedians.htm
brandon...@my-deja.com
cythera wrote:
> ... They refer to themselves as 'the' surrealist group in the U.S.A.
> This, to me, implies a hierarchy. Or a monarchy?
I don't understand what you are saying---why does it imply a hierarchy?
I think they are attempting to created a focus point for Surrealism in
the U.S.A. As far as I know only the Rosemonts and Garon are in
Chicago. In the Surrealist issue of Race Traitor a Surrealist from
Arizona had a text. That seems pretty national to me. They recently
asked me to fill out a questionaire for a Surrealist issue of a San
Francisco magazine (don't remember the title right now), and I don't
live anywhere near Chicago.
> ... they have a "writing test" of sorts to get in: a "What does
> surrealism mean to me" sort of thing ... _I_ would have felt
> thrilled if they'd requested art, poetry, CDs ... Let the work do the
> talking.
I don't think there is any "getting in" or "getting out" of the Chicago
Group. I think they are trying to created, as I said before, a central
station. I also agree with John about their "writing test," that they
are primarily interested in finding out what's going on out there with
people they are not normally associated with (opinions, feedback, etc),
possibly focusing on individuals.
> I can only guess that since the larger group received the BF
> materials, someone in fact read at least parts of them, and
> he/she/they:
> a.) disapproved of the writings of these 3 surrealists in Minnesota,
> or b.) found said writings dull, or c.) had some other "negative"
> reaction/s (which I hoped to cover with the blanket-phrase "what-the-
> freaking-ever").
Or:
c) They didn't know how to respond. What are they supposed to say?
d) Or they possibly feel Dale, Barrett, and Tom are doing fine without
them.
[ Whatever the answer, I think the letter has possibly ended any of
the "little" hope of communication between the two groups. ]
> There were questions I had about the Chicago group, and still do;
> such as, what do they mean by "the dialectic of dialectic",
> or "psychoanalysis as a subversive activity"?
First, certain techniques used by psychoanalysis are still useful
to "break through the psychical and social obstacles separating desire
from action" (Forcast is Hot!, xxiii), such as free association, and
dreams. They are not talking about psychotherapy, and agree with Freud
that therapy is not its most important aspect. Second, when speaking of
dialects they seem to be directing us towards they idea we all seem to
share of a revolutionary and progressive surrealism that exceeds the
past. They have simply put it into Hegelian terms. Of course, I'm not
big on Hegel so I may be incorrect [perhaps someone could elaborate].
> defense of the Marvelous against religion
This is my favorite, and something I constantly find myself doing when
attempting to communication with our favorite amateur comedian from
Canada.
> these are good, but why are just _these_ the stated primary issues
> ... There are the issues around AIDS (see ACT-UP S.F.s site: these
> people are wonderful), and cancer; animals' rights; childcare;
> universal healthcare; etc.
But, besides animal rights [which I see as part of emancipating the
wilderness], how does one justify these as Surrealist causes? How can
they be connected to freedom? Once we've made the connection, then
we've got an arguement.
brandon...@my-deja.com
"The Surrealist Movement in the United States includes the Chicago
Surrealist Group and its many participants scattered from coast to
coast."
[from http://www.surrealism-usa.org/index.html ]
From this I gather that they are not claiming that Chicago = the U.S.
I just realized (or remembered) that the entire text of the
introduction to "The Forcast is Hot!" is published here:
http://www.surrealism-usa.org/pages/forecast.html
****
Just another side note. One of the areas I see being avoided by the
Chicago group, and even put down by Barrett and Dale in recent posts,
is the cultural revolution of queer politics. If the Surrealist
movement is, as I believe Penelope onced said, a cultural movement for
a non-repressive society, why do the queers get the shaft (no pun
intended)? I am also, after having discovered Claude Cahun, very
interested in the concept of "genderfuck" which I think can only be
supported by Surrealists without question. How can a Surrealist not
support the revolt against gender [which is an artificial construction
of a repressive society].
Perhaps these topics have been avoided or overlooked by both Chicago
and Minn. not on purpose, but rather as a consequence of growing up in
a different era than myself.
brandon...@my-deja.com
> In this case, the _implication_ of hierarchy is in their refusal to
> communicate with the three men in Minnesota who kept writing them,
> over what I read to be a period of years.
Hmm, I don't know. Its hard to say what's going on, and I just don't
like the idea of jumping to conclusions about why the Chicago Group
hasn't responded to Barrett, and Dale.
> Can john be correct, that they basically ignore all surrealist groups
> in the U.S.A.?
I'm not sure about this either.
> I haven't read ALL the Blue Feathers material, but have read
> everything on their site. And I don't understand the cold shoulder
> from the people who you say, and I agree, are attempting to create a
> focal point for surrealism in the U.S.A.
I don't see any main clashes between their ideas and Blue Feathers
[maybe Barrett and Dale could enlighten us on this]. But at this point,
until some communication happens, we really shouldn't jump to
conclusions about why the "cold shoulder" is in effect. I would really
like to know what kind of e-mail discussion Paul Garon and Barrett had.
> I've also noticed that they send no information to this newsgroup.
> Why do you think that is?
They're new to the Internet (a year, maybe two). I'm not even sure if
they know alt.surrealism exists. I'm not even sure if they know usenet
exists.
> Well, that sounds good. What did you send them initially, and did it
> take a long time for them to respond? My mind isn't closed to them by
> any means, but I'm puzzled by their non-responsiveness, which seems
> callous and potentially discouraging to other surrealists in the
> U.S.A. Do you perhaps see it as such?
The first e-mail I sent to Garon was about a class I was taking on
Surrealism and Sexuality. I was very upset about a certain critics lies
and bullshit, and I voiced off to Garon, and also, I believe, to Dale
and Barrett (it was a long time ago, not sure if they remember). Garon
wrote me back basically saying that this type of misinformation is
everywhere. He got my address, and later on I got a package from
Penelope with a buch of cool fliers they had done. It later turned out
that my professor was an aquantance of Penelope's. This was a surprise
to me, and I'm assuming it was to Penelope also (I found out through my
professor). But anyway, in some form or another the communication
hasn't stopped. That's why this whole thing with Barrett and Dale
puzzles me.
> Well, again I don't have the full picture, but as I am a teacher by
> profession, I must say that ignoring someone's sincere efforts has
> nothing positive in it that I can find to recommend it.
I can agree with that. [what do you teach?]
> Yes, but that's a two-way street.
I'm not argue that it isn't.
> Sure, but Brandon, psychoanalysis costs hundreds ...
I think your confusion the business of psychoanalysis (which is a joke)
with certain philosophical ideas that developed out of Freud. I think
its a safe bet that very few of the Chicago group (maybe even none of
them) have been "psychoanalyzed." I think they are using the word in a
different way than you are (you're thinking of NIK). They are only
interested in it as a catalyst to freedom, not as a means of therapy
[which I believe is the original approach of the Parisian Surrealists].
Notice their choice of words, "as a subversive activity" and "remains
useful to surrealism." They are stripping out all the bullshit, and
only taking what they find useful for surrealism --- just as Breton and
the others demystified automatic writing in the same sort of way.
From the intro to THE FORECAST IS HOT!:
"The Chicago surrealists argued that, just as communism is too splendid
an idea to be surrendered to the Communist Party, so too Freudian
analysis is too subversive to be left to the psychoanalytic
establishment. Agreeing with Freud that therapy is "not the most
important" aspect of his research, we elaborated a critique that
focused on the expanding horizons of revolutionary self-activity.
Rejecting both the vulgar-Marxist denial of internal reality and the
Jungian fetishization of a pseudo-unconscious, our aim in this ongoing
project has always been to resolve the contradiction between conscious
and unconscious, subjective and objective擁n short, to break through
the psychical and social obstacles separating desire from action. As a
catalyst of such "breakthroughs," and a destroyer of repressive
machinery, psychoanalysis remains useful to surrealism. Oneiric
inquiry, trance states, erotic reveries, chance actions, and the
development of new forms of surrational exploration continue to provide
the most effective ammunition in the arsenal of surrealist subversion."
http://www.surrealism-usa.org/pages/forecast02.html#psychoanalysis
Michael Voytinsky
>
>>should i smear meat on the war memorial in my home town?
As I have mentioned, I think tofu would be more appropriate.
Rather then smearing the tofu on the memorial - which will cause offense and
nothing else - have you considered handing out packages of tofu at the war
memorial?
This will give you a great opportunity to explain what you are doing, and
why.
If you do not have the money for a couple of boxes of tofu, I could provide
the tofu.
Sven
>> On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 04:28:02 GMT, pony...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>>> should i smear meat on the war memorial in my home town?
>
> As I have mentioned, I think tofu would be more appropriate.
>
> Rather then smearing the tofu on the memorial - which will cause offense and
> nothing else - have you considered handing out packages of tofu at the war
> memorial?
>
> This will give you a great opportunity to explain what you are doing, and
> why.
>
> If you do not have the money for a couple of boxes of tofu, I could provide
> the tofu.
For a more subtle approach, why not hand out packages of tofu somewhere
else? For example, in a pleasant green field. Or even in your own home.
In fact, I think that handing out packages of tofu to imaginary people in
your own home would be very cutting comment on the horrors of war, and
extraordinarily surreal. Set up a webcam so that we can watch, and laugh.
Sven
> In article <B5EEB207.130F6%svenh.this...@blueyonder.co.uk>,
> Sven <svenh.this...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> Michael Voytinsky wrote to pony_fish:
>>> If you do not have the money for a couple of boxes of tofu, I could
>>> provide the tofu.
>
>> For a more subtle approach, why not hand out packages of tofu
>> somewhere else? For example, in a pleasant green field. Or even in
>> your own home.
>
>> In fact, I think that handing out packages of tofu to imaginary
>> people in your own home would be very cutting comment on the horrors
>> of war,
>
> How so?
>
>> and extraordinarily surreal.
>
> In what way/s would this be surreal?
>
>> Set up a webcam so that we can watch, and laugh.
>
> ?
This was all a joke. The thread was getting enjoyably farcical, I thought I
would take it a step further.
Sven
> In article <B5EEDA58.1310C%svenh.this...@blueyonder.co.uk>,
> Yes, I realized it was a joke to you, (incidentally, with this young
> person (?) pony_fish as the butt of it).
No, there was no butt of the joke. The idea of handing out tofu in front of
a war memorial struck me as ridiculous. I wasn't insulting anyone.
> I recall your posts in which you chided me for doing that to Nik
> (who is 30 years old, and has made a mess out of any possible
> communication he could have with most people on the
> newsgroup). So I'm going to request that you adhere to your own
> standards, or have I misunderstand your series of posts to me about
> Nik?
Yes. Utterly.
Look, the above post was harmless. If pony_fish took offence (which would
surprise me) then they can point it out for themselves. I was making a
joke; nowhere is there an insulting comment. The posts I objected to of
yours were those which went...let me see if I can remember...
oh yes: "Yawn."
> As for my questions about the surreal nature of idea of pony_fish's
> project (and whether either of you is joking, or not), how about
> accepting this invitation, which I give you right now, to express a
> thought or opinion about surrealism.
Cythera, I don't understand. Really, I don't.
I am an active participant in this newsgroup. I regularly post automatic or
semi-automatic poetry; I've posted over twenty of these since I started
posting here. I've started *many* discussions on surrealism: for instance,
my questions about where the dividing line is in automatic writing. I don't
*pretend* to be an expert on surrealism. I like it. I feel that I
contribute to this newsgroup in a creative way.
You seem seem intent on challenging me. You have made numerous demands that
I (and/or Laura, Fas etc) tell you about all the surrealist books that we
have read, the surrealist art we like, what we think about surrealism. You
seem intent on "testing" me.
I'm not interested in being tested. I come here for enjoyable discussion,
to post my poetry, and occasionally to throw in a comment, sometimes light
hearted. I will read up on the history of surrealism in my own time, if I
so choose. I will post my opinions when I choose. Most people don't get
offended. Why do you?
brandon...@my-deja.com
> You probably know a bit about Maturana and Varela's work.
Actually I know very little.
> Could you find out from Paul Garon?
At this point I'm really not sure if I want to query them about this
discussion.
> Do you feel the term "cold shoulder" is inappropriate to use before
> we get more information? Granted, it has a pejorative connotation.
Somewhat, but what else could we call it?
> Are there just the three of them, the Rosemonts and Garon? What is
> the structure of their organization, do you know?
As far as I know they are the solid base of the Chicago Group. Other
names come and go. Guy and Rikki Ducornet appear from time to time.
This is why I CAN'T see them reacting as Nik did: "a letter such as
this written by "only" three guys?! HA!"
> The two seem interlocked to me at this point. Can you recommend some
> texts that examine psychoanalysis from the perspective below.
Its rather simple. Surrealism started from this perspective. Freud used
techniques that freed the mind from conscious control. While
psychoanalysis and Freud originally tried to use these techniques to
help people with their illnesses, Surrealism saw these techniques as a
way to free the imagination. [I have a photocopy of a text somewhere
written by a critic who actually tried to explain the difference
between the psychoanalytic communities approach to psychoanalysis and
the Surrealist's approach. I'll try and find it.]
> My problem then would be in their unclear expression of that in their
> list ... wouldn't their position be better expressed
> as: "Appropriating those elements of psychoanalysis which remain
> useful to surrealism and self-discovery as a subversive activity"?
Yes, but for them it seems the word "psychoanalysis" doesn't seem to be
as big of an itch as it is for us. Besides, the list is not supposed to
be a be-all end-all statement on the subjects. Simply a point of
departure for further discussion. Some of this stuff is relatively new.
Some of this stuff has been around from the beginning.
> But (and I assume you and they agree), this b.s. about "disorders"
> etc. has to go.
Pretty much.
> Well, not to be too picky I hope, but the above are not at all
> exclusive to psychoanalysis (and which, after all, _does_ have a
> patriarchal, white, capitalist foundation); the West; or the 20th
> century.
True. I'm sure Barrett has more access to texts of theirs than I do.
Maybe he can brings some light to this subject.
barrett john erickson
<brandon...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8qbhe0$uup$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> [..]
> True. I'm sure Barrett has more access to texts of theirs than I do.
> Maybe he can brings some light to this subject.
we still talking chicago? wouldn't be so sure about that. after all, they
responded to your comments by sending you an envelope full of literature.
they responded to my letter of introduction with 5 years of silence.
[ by way of contrast: Wm. Dubin and i contacted the Groupe de Paris only a
few months before we first contacted chicago ('95 i think it was). _they_
responded with a couple books of poetry (warmly inscribed), a handful of
tracts, a copy of the 2nd International Surrealist Bulletin, and a video
tape of a recent exhibition opening. ]
all i have from chicago is what i've bought via Amazon.
-- barrett
BLUE FEATHERS #3 is now available
http://www.MagneticFields.org/blue/
bar...@MagneticFields.org
http://www.MagneticFields.org/
surrealists in minnesota
Sur...@MagneticFields.org
==============================================
"Everything tends to make us believe that there exists a
certain point of the mind at which life and death, the real and
the imagined, past and future, the communicable and the
incommunicable, high and low, cease to be perceived as
contradictions."
...André Breton
==============================================
barrett john erickson
"cythera" <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8qb518$f8s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8q9vss$2hs$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> brandon...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > cythera wrote:
> >> In this case, the _implication_ of hierarchy is in their refusal
> >> to communicate with the three men in Minnesota who kept writing
> >> them, over what I read to be a period of years.
>
> > Hmm, I don't know. Its hard to say what's going on,
>
> what really went on, and without being given enough information we
> can only form vague connections: "this appears to resemble this". You
> probably know a bit about Maturana and Varela's work. I take that
> perspective. Do you know Magritte's "The Human Condition"? :) It
> also speaks to our role as (limited) (self-)observer.
>
> > and I just don't like the idea of jumping to conclusions about why
> > the Chicago Group hasn't responded to Barrett, and Dale.
>
> not that I think they won't at some point. And then hopefully there
> will be a flow of "information".
sorry, but the different ISPs Dale and i use apparently both use the same
regional usenet feed and that suffered some kind of grand mal seizue
slipping into unconsciousness for the past few days.
it just returned, but none of the posts from monday thru about 3:30pm
(central) today are available to us.
i tried to cull the necessary bits from some posts brandon made (via
dejanews) for a response i just posted.
please ask again anything missed that that doesn't cover.
> [...]
> Is there a co-
> ordinating body that pulls all the U.S.A. surrealists together in some
> way, and also some outlet for discussion, such as a message board?
no.
there have been attempts to utilize mailing lists but these are always
abandoned as soon as someone like nik shows up.
> [...]
Parry
[snippy snip snip]
> Well, in using the phrase "surrealist group of the united states", it would
> seem to 'not' recognize the
> participation of other american groups, right? And additionally, in forming
> actions and making session with the public, this lack of contact seems to
> imbue with their voice of "american" surrealism, hence not recognizing
> others in the process.
>
> >But, back to the Rosemonts, what you said: They refer to themselves
> >as 'the' surrealist group in the U.S.A. This, to me, implies a
> >hierarchy. Or a monarchy? barrett's post was pretty scary.
> >Also, they have their site at britannica.com and it's a mighty clean
> >and tidy one. Additionally, they have a "writing test" of sorts to
> >get in: a "What does surrealism mean to me" sort of thing. I don't
> >at all disagree that they ask this question, (or that they apply a
> >group standard per se), but it seems very "old school" and cloistered:
> >_I_ would have felt thrilled if they'd requested art, poetry, CDs,
> >someone's play, book manuscript, or film, etc.: Let the work do the
> >talking.
>
> I haven't seen the writing test. Perhaps they are simply seeking opinions,
> ideas, or feedback
> from the public on it, in addition to welcoming one's works. I'd have to
> return to the site sometime in order to explore what you describe further.
I don’t know how they do things now, but Chicago’s supplement to the
“City Lights Anthology” (1974) carried this convoluted message: “If you
are deliriously (and seriously) attracted to the principled expressions
of surrealism revealed in [these pages] and desire to take preliminary
steps towards liaison (assuming knowledge of, and your vital affinity
to, the basic principles of the movement and *attending occultation*,
found, to mention only the most available texts, in Breton’s
*Manifestos* and *Surrealism and Painting*) you are invited, *at the
risk of your present life*, to correspond with us by furnishing a
comprehensive statement of your understanding of surrealism, indicating
the forms of your co-relatable motivation, experiences and potential
contribution.” If this were a job interview, I would have left the room
by now. “Replies may be expected only if terms of the invitation are
coherently fulfilled through which the desired reciprocity can germinate
a significant *complicity*.” I wonder if they gave marks for penmanship.
I have my own small beef with Chicago, by the way, as Black Swan stiffed
me on a book order ten years ago. No axe is too small to grind if it’s
dull enough.
Other than that, Chicago has been an important conduit for surrealism in
North America during those dry years when the internet was just a rumour
spread by conspiracy nuts. In particular the books “Arsenal 3” and
“Surrealism & Its Popular Accomplices” are rich and wondrous resources.
Some of this material is re-printed on their web page.
It’s obvious why they would require a demonstration of a newcomer’s
understanding of surrealism -- to screen out the type who would say
“surrealism is whatever I claim it to be.” But the “essay contest”
format they employed was garish at best. Maybe it was a joke.
If Chicago does indeed freeze out Minnesota, it is a stupidly
self-destructive act, a schism premised only on petty personal
differences. Perhaps they are simply disorganized, though Barrett seems
to feel the slight is intentional. Will Magnetic Fields be given a link
on Chicago’s web page, assuming they ever get around to putting up their
links page?
-- Parry
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Parry
>
> In article <39C716...@zxOMITmail.com>,
> pa...@zxOMITmail.com wrote:
> > cythera wrote:
> > > Katy Couric actually went to the same university as Poe (but they
> > > booted _him_).
>
> > She was what drove him to alcohol, as I recall.
>
> Yeah, he didn't like her cheerleader/resident adviser (narc) little
> fake ass.
>
> And "Matt Lauer" makes her look interesting...
I just found out Katie Couric has a new book called “The Brand New Kid.”
Thus she joins the ranks of such esteemed children’s book authors as
Whoopie Goldberg, Deborah Norville, Kathy Lee Gifford, Shaq O’Neal,
Laura Schlesinger...
john adams
cythera wrote in message <8q99r7$a3j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <hXUx5.184284$6y5.10...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com>,
> "john adams" <johnqa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> cythera wrote in a message...
>> john adams wrote in a message ...
>
>>>>When I was younger I looked around for a living person to emulate,
>>>>and have never found a person with a completely liberated mind;
>>>>never found a totally free person.
>
>>>Well, it coudl be an endless search.
>
>your own desires better than you -- or is in a better position to help
>you turn what you feel in your body into something in front of your
>eyes.
>
>[...]
>
>> Sometimes realizing this offers its own reward of a different kind
>> (liberation through having accepting our inherent limitations).
>
>> just felt i shoudl clarify...
>
>> yanni
>
>skater because of certain limitations, some of them pure circumstance.
>Distinguishing what you can only do for fun from what you can learn
>to do well and have a different kind of fun with helps a person
>understand which direction to go into: that is, depending on a
>person's desire. Some people are content to stay in the same place,
>and that's okay too.
>
>cythera.
>
>
>
But i suppose the important thing to mention is that for the most part the
imagination is limited only by our approach - be that whatever it may at the
time or circumstance - and not that it isn't limitless in its resource
predicated by our desire.
john
barrett john erickson
"Parry" <pa...@zxOMITmail.com> wrote in message
news:39C98A...@zxOMITmail.com...
> john adams wrote:
>
> [snippy snip snip]
> [ditto]
> I don't know how they do things now, but Chicago's supplement to the
> "City Lights Anthology" (1974) carried this convoluted message: "If you
> are deliriously (and seriously) attracted to the principled expressions
> of surrealism revealed in [these pages] and desire to take preliminary
> steps towards liaison (assuming knowledge of, and your vital affinity
> to, the basic principles of the movement and *attending occultation*,
> found, to mention only the most available texts, in Breton's
> *Manifestos* and *Surrealism and Painting*) you are invited, *at the
> risk of your present life*, to correspond with us by furnishing a
> comprehensive statement of your understanding of surrealism, indicating
> the forms of your co-relatable motivation, experiences and potential
> contribution." If this were a job interview, I would have left the room
> by now. "Replies may be expected only if terms of the invitation are
> coherently fulfilled through which the desired reciprocity can germinate
> a significant *complicity*." I wonder if they gave marks for penmanship.
oh my. i guess no comment is necessary. but i'm sure nik now views my
prose in an entirely new light.
> I have my own small beef with Chicago, by the way, as Black Swan stiffed
> me on a book order ten years ago. No axe is too small to grind if it's
> dull enough.
>
> Other than that, Chicago has been an important conduit for surrealism in
> North America during those dry years when the internet was just a rumour
> spread by conspiracy nuts. In particular the books "Arsenal 3" and
> "Surrealism & Its Popular Accomplices" are rich and wondrous resources.
> Some of this material is re-printed on their web page.
no argument from this corner.
>
> It's obvious why they would require a demonstration of a newcomer's
> understanding of surrealism -- to screen out the type who would say
> "surrealism is whatever I claim it to be." But the "essay contest"
> format they employed was garish at best. Maybe it was a joke.
>
> If Chicago does indeed freeze out Minnesota, it is a stupidly
> self-destructive act, a schism premised only on petty personal
> differences. Perhaps they are simply disorganized, though Barrett seems
> to feel the slight is intentional.
there are also more specifically hard to misinterpret indications.
> Will Magnetic Fields be given a link
> on Chicago's web page, assuming they ever get around to putting up their
> links page?
it may be the first indication we get as to what it is they find lacking in
us.
but for now, i'll just entertain myself with the little discoveries.. like
noticing that the most direct route to the chicago site from the Groupe de
Paris site appears to be by way of our "fellow travelers" page.
[ http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jjmeric/Amics/amics.html ]
Brandon Freels
> we still talking chicago? wouldn't be so sure about that. after all,
they
> responded to your comments by sending you an envelope full of literature.
> they responded to my letter of introduction with 5 years of silence.
All I have, besides a hodge-podge of flyers (one about a zoo, another about
a market that's being closed, etc), is Arsenal #4, and The Forecast Is Hot.
Oh wait, I also have an exhibition catalog "Marvelous Freedom" and the City
Lights Anthology.
Cythera was asking about their position on psychoanalysis, and I noticed
that all the articles they made reference to in The Forecast is Hot were in
Arsenal's #1-3 or other various books (the one's that I thought would help).
I thought maybe you had them, or someone else.
> [ by way of contrast: Wm. Dubin and i contacted the Groupe de Paris only a
> few months before we first contacted chicago ('95 i think it was). _they_
> responded with a couple books of poetry (warmly inscribed), a handful of
> tracts, a copy of the 2nd International Surrealist Bulletin, and a video
> tape of a recent exhibition opening. ]
Nice. Was everything in French?
Dale Houstman
"Parry" <pa...@zxOMITmail.com> wrote in message
news:39C98A...@zxOMITmail.com...
>
> "City Lights Anthology" (1974) carried this convoluted message: "If you
> are deliriously (and seriously) attracted to the principled expressions
> of surrealism revealed in [these pages] and desire to take preliminary
> steps towards liaison (assuming knowledge of, and your vital affinity
> to, the basic principles of the movement and *attending occultation*,
> found, to mention only the most available texts, in Breton's
> *Manifestos* and *Surrealism and Painting*) you are invited, *at the
> risk of your present life*, to correspond with us by furnishing a
> comprehensive statement of your understanding of surrealism, indicating
> the forms of your co-relatable motivation, experiences and potential
> contribution." If this were a job interview, I would have left the room
> by now.
It is pretty daubting, but I have nothing against this attitude, which is
(it seems) more a habitual Surrealist pattern of a type: almost a joke, and
merely redolent of countless Bretonisms. I've employed this "technique"
several times myself. It's sort of high-flown and off-putting, but it is
probably appreciated by those who know surrealism for what it is ( and thus
recognize this common voice), and only confusing to those who don't: which
is probably the point.
>
> Other than that, Chicago has been an important conduit for surrealism in
> North America during those dry years when the internet was just a rumour
> spread by conspiracy nuts. In particular the books "Arsenal 3" and
> "Surrealism & Its Popular Accomplices" are rich and wondrous resources.
> Some of this material is re-printed on their web page.
I agree with this. My first contact with American surrealism was via a
beautiful large booklet advertising a gathering in the early 70s. And I have
several of their publications. Their importance cannot be denied, and I
don't think Barrett or myself have done so.
> It's obvious why they would require a demonstration of a newcomer's
> understanding of surrealism -- to screen out the type who would say
> "surrealism is whatever I claim it to be." But the "essay contest"
> format they employed was garish at best. Maybe it was a joke.
It seems so to me: but surrealists tend to take their jokes pretty
seriously, utilizing humor as a weapon.
>
> If Chicago does indeed freeze out Minnesota, it is a stupidly
> self-destructive act, a schism premised only on petty personal
> differences. Perhaps they are simply disorganized, though Barrett seems
> to feel the slight is intentional. Will Magnetic Fields be given a link
> on Chicago's web page, assuming they ever get around to putting up their
> links page?
>
Honestly, this is more an issue with Barrett - who has been involved with
the worldwide community for much longer than I have - but I really don't see
why they won't simply put the damn link there. But if they don't - and even
if international surrealism is reduced to a series of bake sales and yearly
"jamborees" on federal property - my life will be as good (or as bad) as it
ever was.
dmh
Dale Houstman
"Parry" <pa...@zxOMITmail.com> wrote in message
> cythera wrote:
> >
> > In article <39C716...@zxOMITmail.com>,
> > pa...@zxOMITmail.com wrote:
> > > cythera wrote:
> > > > Katy Couric actually went to the same university as Poe (but they
> > > > booted _him_).
> >
> > > She was what drove him to alcohol, as I recall.
> >
> > Yeah, he didn't like her cheerleader/resident adviser (narc) little
> > fake ass.
> >
> > And "Matt Lauer" makes her look interesting...
>
> I just found out Katie Couric has a new book called "The Brand New Kid."
> Thus she joins the ranks of such esteemed children's book authors as
> Whoopie Goldberg, Deborah Norville, Kathy Lee Gifford, Shaq O'Neal,
> Laura Schlesinger...
>
Will she be touting this book as long and as anally as Brokaw has been
flogging his "The Universe's Goddamn Bestest Bunch Of Old Bastards"?
Give it up!
dmh
Dale Houstman
"barrett john erickson" <bar...@magneticfields.org> wrote in message
news:39c994a6$0$28251$7f89...@newsreader.visi.com...
>
>
> > Is there a co-
> > ordinating body that pulls all the U.S.A. surrealists together in some
> > way, and also some outlet for discussion, such as a message board?
>
> no.
>
> there have been attempts to utilize mailing lists but these are always
Which is a base (and self-destructive) attitude, ain't it? Akin to Breton
etal just giving up if a lone idiot wandered into The Surrealist Gallery one
day? I mean, several of us have been putting up with Nik's buglike profile
for years now, with some lively results (plus aggravation) at times. I just
miss what is missing: a larger community of knowledgeable surrealists to
counter all that dry poo (strangely smelly and odorless at the same time)
that Nik and ilk leave on the lawn.
dmh
>
Dale Houstman
> In article <8qbhe0$uup$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> brandon...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> Hi Dale, please let me know if you can see this.
>
> About the Chicago question:
>
> From Deja I read one post by john, to me. Then there was the johamar
> thread you wrote on. Everything else I've seen was on _this_ thread,
> between Brandon and me.
>
> Would like to see some repostings? Let me know, but was the basic
> thrust of the past 3 days:
>
I think I've got the general sexless thrust by now. It just hits me as more
of the same. I am not at all interested in getting very involved in such
pointless disputes over marginal hierarchies. Believe it or not, I've got a
life!
I was a trifle mooked off by the implication that I am somehow opposed to
the queer cultural revolution, simply because I am less than enticed by
queer soldiers.
But I think I can absorb the "oh my god Monster Magnet" blow. Codeine helps.
That and listening to my Monkees albums!
dmh
Sven
>>>> This was all a joke. The thread was getting enjoyably farcical,
>>>> I thought I would take it a step further.
>
>>> Yes, I realized it was a joke to you, (incidentally, with this
>>> young person (?) pony_fish as the butt of it).
>
>> No, there was no butt of the joke. The idea of handing out tofu in
> front of
>> a war memorial struck me as ridiculous. I wasn't insulting anyone.
>
>>> I recall your posts in which you chided me for doing that to Nik
>>> (who is 30 years old, and has made a mess out of any possible
>>> communication he could have with most people on the
>>> newsgroup). So I'm going to request that you adhere to your own
>>> standards, or have I misunderstand your series of posts to me
>>> about Nik?
>
>> Yes. Utterly.
>
>> Look, the above post was harmless. If pony_fish took offence (which
> would
>> surprise me) then they can point it out for themselves. I was making
> a
>> joke; nowhere is there an insulting comment. The posts I objected to
> of
>> yours were those which went...let me see if I can remember...
>>
>> oh yes: "Yawn."
>
>
> By Cyclotron. 8-25-2000. RE: Nikolaus Maack.
>
[...]
Sigh.
Look, if you're intent on digging up Deja posts, then go ahead. I don't
understand why, though. Am I really that objectionable? Am I such a blight
on this newsgroup? What, to get to the nub of it, is your problem? If a
few bitchy comments I made a month or so ago are the heart of it, please get
over it, or at the very least admit that you're doing the same now.
> ---
> If you re-read your that thread, you might come closer to understanding
> "where I'm coming from". The url below will get you into the thread,
> but please do re-read at least all your posts on it.
>
> http://x68.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=663752697.1&mhitnum=
> 16&CONTEXT=969508988.860225574
I'm rereading them now.
After those first two posts: hey, what a surprise! You *challenge* me:
Cythera:
> And so, assuming that you assimilated at least some of what McGoohan
> was trying to tell you, are _you_ going to produce something with a
> mature sensibility _yourself,_ instead of being a tourist?
And I wasn't even offended, although I had every right to be. Here I am
stating my position for the first of many times:
Sven:
> I don't know what you mean by "tourist". If you're implying that I only dip
> my toe into surrealism, then maybe that's true. I enjoy what I write; I hope
> others get something from it. If they don't, well, never mind. All I'm
> looking for is a forum in which to write.
After that first post, that we got derailed into a conversation about the
Prisoner, and it's all very amicable. What, where, *PLEASE* is the problem?
In another post on the same thread, here I am discussing whether or not
Nikolaus Maack is a troll. Not really much room for offence there, I sit on
the fence as ever.
> and there was more stuff like this elsewhere -- one example, something
> about me "being cunning" in my writing to you; but I'm not going to
> look for this stuff now, or probably ever.
You really are scraping the barrel. That remark was part of an amiable
thread, and, again, wasn't intended as an insult.
> This Re: Nikolaus Maack
> thread I hope is enough for you to glean the basic problems I
> have with some of your posts.
You don't have a *basic* problem with my posts. You object to a few I made
shortly after I first arrived at this newsgroup. I've settled in now. I am
not some sort of troll, although you seem to think I am. Reread my last
hundred or so posts and see if there's anything in there that offends you.
I'm sure you'll find something. However, I don't post solely to keep you
happy.
> It would be nice to get this stuff settled sooner rather than later; do
> you agree?
I don't see that there's anything to settle.
> So in that interest, could you please let me know if I'm remembering
> incorrectly:
>
> 1. In your first or second post to alt.surrealism, you called someone
> "unpleasant".
Yup, I called Dale "unpleasant" because he slagged off one of my posts.
Sorry Dale. Hope you're not still offended.
Is that the extend of my evil malice?
> 2. Soon after, another regular poster was labelled by you as a
> "yahoo".
This is not true. The word itself is an Americanism and isn't used in my
country. I'm not even sure what it means, exactly.
> 3. A new poster ("prawn", etc.) who may have only been _making a joke_
> was labelled by you as "insane". (Question: how do you
> know such a thing about this prawn-person, anyway?)
Try having a look at "alt.alien.visitors". No, I don't read there
regularly, but "prawn's" posts crossed over into another ng from there and I
got curious. Look up "prawn", "pawn", "pawn in the game", "prawn in the
game", "shrimp", "shrimp in butter sauce" and finally "Ojo". These are all
one and the same person. This person and "Chive Mynde" engaged in an
enormous flame war that went on for such a ridiculous amount of time and
involved such ludicrous claims and demonstrations of bizarre logic that they
are either a) disturbed or b) utterly, utterly malicious. I advise you to
read every thread. See you next year.
>>> As for my questions about the surreal nature of idea of pony_fish's
>>> project (and whether either of you is joking, or not), how about
>>> accepting this invitation, which I give you right now, to express a
>>> thought or opinion about surrealism.
>
>> Cythera, I don't understand. Really, I don't.
>
>> I am an active participant in this newsgroup. I regularly post
>> automatic or semi-automatic poetry; I've posted over twenty of these
>> since I started posting here. I've started *many* discussions on
>> surrealism:
>
> Could you refresh my memory on some of them?
There you go again. Always challenge, challenge, challenge. What does it
matter if I have started *no* discussions? Why do you care?
Here's a start:
http://x53.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=665326857&CONTEXT=969530256.1641152525&hitn
um=4
It's odd that you are so motivated to look for my bad posts whilst not
bothering to look for my good ones at all.
>> for instance, my questions about where the dividing line is in
>> automatic writing.
>
> I saw a question (1) on the thread Re: Nikolaus Maack, mentioned
> above.
> And that's great;
Thank you. But I don't need your approval. In fact, my respect for you is
dropping the more I read.
I really would like to get along with everyone on this newsgroup. I made a
few provocative posts to start with, but that was just to get some
attention. Why do I have to live up to your standards? We can quite
happily coexist.
> I hope you keep it up! But again, surrealism isn't
> a writing technique... nor is this a writing group...
No, but my interest in surrealism centres round writing.
>> I don't *pretend* to be an expert on surrealism. I like it. I feel
>> that I contribute to this newsgroup in a creative way.
>
> I feel that you do as well and am puzzled why you resist reading about
> surrealism. Can you just tell me why you don't read? Is the material
> boring to you, or you can't find any books, or haven't looked at any
> of the links we've been providing?
There you go again. Cythera, I don't know whether it's the fact that you're
a teacher, but you seem to feel that everyone in this newsgroup should
"study".
I look at all the links that are posted here that are about surrealism. I
have read the first manifesto. I have investigated the work of many
surrealist painters on the web, including your own beloved Leonora
Carrington when she was mentioned. I have read lots of on-web texts that
have been pointed to. I went looking for books about surrealism a couple of
weeks ago in my local bookstore, but I couldn't work out which category they
came under. Ah well. I shrugged and went home. My motivation on this
front isn't huge. I may get round to it, I may not. I'm not "resisting".
I'm simply not making the effort. This is because (3rd time at least I've
said this) I visit this newsgroup as a LEISURE activity. I enjoy the
discussion. I don't view it as an intellectual competition.
> Sven, I do wish you would help clear this up, instead of posting stuff
> like the following as a response (it is basically nonresponsive).
>
>> You seem seem intent on challenging me. You have made numerous
>> demands that I (and/or Laura, Fas etc) tell you about all the
>> surrealist books that we have read, the surrealist art we like, what
>> we think about surrealism.*
>
> 1. Please post a few of these demands!
Allll righty then.
http://x75.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=662576020&CONTEXT=969532580.2098
46282&hitnum=20
>Good for you if you like "The Prisoner" for its _content_ rather than "the
>surreal quality of its images" alone.
>And so, assuming that you assimilated at least some of what McGoohan was trying
>to tell you, are _you_ going to produce something with a mature sensibility
>_yourself,_ instead of being a tourist?
Do you realise how insulting this sounds?
http://x75.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=670442442&CONTEXT=969532410.2090
59847&hitnum=8
> >An initial suggestion would be that Sven, Laura, Fas and anyone
> >else new to surrealism write barrett for a copy of "Blue Feathers",
> >read it, and then write a post: essay, poem, anything.
> >Then we can respond, see if we're all even remotely on the same
> >wavelength, and go from there...
> >I'm throwing this out, by the way, with 0 expectation that it will
> >happen...
Do you realise how patronising this sounds?
http://x56.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=667104615&CONTEXT=969532706.1689
845765&hitnum=14
>>We can sort out all our
>>little difficulties.
>For that to happen, some people need to study surrealism. Then
>possibly the group can sustain interesting conversations.
Do you realise how insulting this sounds?
http://x64.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=667366574&CONTEXT=969532879.1196
687380&hitnum=15
>I mean what books have you and others read so far that are by or about actual
surrealists.
>Now that you have the names of some of them, if you all begin reading, we might
>find that we have some interesting avenues to explore
>together.
Do you realise how patronising this sounds?
>As for my questions about the surreal nature of idea of pony_fish's project
>(and whether either of you is joking, or not), how about accepting this
>invitation, which I give you right now, to express a thought or opinion about
>surrealism.
And this isn't a challenge?
How about this classic:
http://x64.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=662603743&CONTEXT=969532879.1196
687380&hitnum=33
>Please create something or shush. If you don't recognize that
>surrealism is political and not a parlor game, then you seriously need to begin
>reading some books, going to museums, and checking out those urls. Period.
You also like the phrase "the new people", or "newbies". You have a very
patronising attitude to all these people. Do you want me to post the
references to this too? Because frankly I'm tired.
>> You seem intent on "testing" me.
>
> However, you could be mistaken.
>
> But I am challenging you to back up your entire statement* re my
> "demands".
>
>> I'm not interested in being tested. I come here for enjoyable
>> discussion, to post my poetry, and occasionally to throw in a
>> comment, sometimes light hearted.
>
>> I will read up on the history of surrealism in my own time, if I so
>> choose.
>
> The LIVING history.
...if I choose.
>> I will post my opinions when I choose.
>
> I have no problems with anyone's opinions whatsoever, on any topic, as
> long as they will back them up.
Excellent.
>> Most people don't get offended. Why do you?
>
> Now how in the WORLD could you possibly know I have "gotten
> offended"???
Well, if you haven't, why are you objecting?
> Thank you in advance for any direct responses you'll make to me. :)
You're welcome. :)
Parry
> > 2. Soon after, another regular poster was labelled by you as a
> > "yahoo".
>
> This is not true. The word itself is an Americanism and isn't used in my
> country. I'm not even sure what it means, exactly.
Not exactly an Americanism. I believe the word was coined by Jonathan
Swift. It indicates a “brutish, bestial person.”
You hadn’t used the word “yahoo.” I used it to characterize your picture
of Brandon -- i.e. as lacking “the simple requirement of politeness and
civility” required for reasonable discourse -- after he called you a
“fucking idiot.”
Glad to be of help.
> There you go again.
Ronald Reagan, 1980. The classics never die.
barrett john erickson
"Brandon Freels" <brandon...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:3Qiy5.73$eg....@news-west.usenetserver.com...
> "barrett john erickson" wrote:
> > we still talking chicago? wouldn't be so sure about that. after all,
> they
> > responded to your comments by sending you an envelope full of
literature.
> > they responded to my letter of introduction with 5 years of silence.
>
> All I have, besides a hodge-podge of flyers (one about a zoo, another
about
> a market that's being closed, etc), is Arsenal #4, and The Forecast Is
Hot.
> Oh wait, I also have an exhibition catalog "Marvelous Freedom" and the
City
> Lights Anthology.
>
> Cythera was asking about their position on psychoanalysis, and I noticed
> that all the articles they made reference to in The Forecast is Hot were
in
> Arsenal's #1-3 or other various books (the one's that I thought would
help).
> I thought maybe you had them, or someone else.
not i.
>
> > [ by way of contrast: Wm. Dubin and i contacted the Groupe de Paris only
a
> > few months before we first contacted chicago ('95 i think it was).
_they_
> > responded with a couple books of poetry (warmly inscribed), a handful of
> > tracts, a copy of the 2nd International Surrealist Bulletin, and a video
> > tape of a recent exhibition opening. ]
>
> Nice. Was everything in French?
certainement!
[ i understand every 25th word or so. ]
barrett john erickson
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message
news:39c9d0d7$0$28254$65a9...@news.citilink.com...
indeed.
Sven
> Sven wrote:
>>> 2. Soon after, another regular poster was labelled by you as a
>>> "yahoo".
>>
>> This is not true. The word itself is an Americanism and isn't used in my
>> country. I'm not even sure what it means, exactly.
>
> Not exactly an Americanism. I believe the word was coined by Jonathan
> Swift. It indicates a “brutish, bestial person.”
Yeah, of course you're right. It's not widely used as such, though. It
does have a slang meaning in the US, though, that is more widely used,
meaning a sort of bumpkin. That's what I thought the reference was.
And, of course, it's Yet Another Heirarchical Organized Oracle...dot com.
> You hadn’t used the word “yahoo.” I used it to characterize your picture
> of Brandon -- i.e. as lacking “the simple requirement of politeness and
> civility” required for reasonable discourse -- after he called you a
> “fucking idiot.”
>
> Glad to be of help.
See, I'd forgotten that! But brandon and I are on good terms now, I think.
Grudges are unproductive and boring.
>> There you go again.
>
> Ronald Reagan, 1980. The classics never die.
Did he say that? I didn't listen much. Mind you, I was three at the time,
and in another country.
I'm thinking now of that song by the La's, "There she goes...there she goes
again..." But I think that's about love...or drugs. Isn't it annoying when
bands are ambiguous about that? Perfect Day by big Lou being an example. I
mean, how were we supposed to know?
Sven
[...whole loada crap...]
>> [...]
>>
>> Sigh.
>>
>> Look, if you're intent on digging up Deja posts, then go ahead. I
> don't
>> understand why, though. Am I really that objectionable? Am I such a
> blight
>> on this newsgroup? What, to get to the nub of it, is your problem?
>
> You act like a fool. Clear enough for you?
No, I don't act like a fool. Not at all. If your previous post was intent
to demonstrate that, then it failed. Calling someone "unpleasant",
upbraiding people for repeated zero content posts, is probably the worst of
what I've done. My god. The folly! Apart from that, I seem to make a hell
of a lot of sense. But then, that's my opinion. Add to that the fact that
I always apologise and retract my statement when I believe myself to be
wrong, or if I have offended someone without cause, and I still fail to see
your problem.
[...]
>>> As for my questions about the surreal nature of idea of pony_fish's
> project
>>> (and whether either of you is joking, or not), how about accepting
> this
>>> invitation, which I give you right now, to express a thought or
> opinion about
>>> surrealism.
>>
>> And this isn't a challenge?
>
> From your perspective it appears to be so. But that does not address
> what I said above, and what you are ostensibly responding to: I said:
> "Please post a few of these [numerous] demands!" [you claimed I made
> on you, Laura, Fas, Nik, etc.]
>
> And what you've written is your (so far, non-)response? I don't
> understand:
>
> How does "a challenge" = "a demand"?
>
> Ditto for what you deem "insulting" and "patronizing"?
>
> How are any of these germane to (I repeat): "1. Please post a few of
> these demands!"
A challenge, when repeated one too many times (especially when it is
purposefully ignored the first time) becomes a demand.
I'm not talking about "demand" in the "order" sense. I'm talking about
"demand" in the sense of "claim as due"; i.e. you seem to think it's
*expected* of us to study surrealism.
[...]
>>> The LIVING history.
>>
>> ...if I choose.
>
> Somewhere in here I guess you snipped my question re why you aren't
> reading surrealists, and reading about them and the surrealist movement.
> I asked if you had, so far, found the reading boring; or couldn't
> find any books; or hadn't yet looked at the urls we've been posting?
I answered that in full. Did you miss it?
I said, and I quote:
"I look at all the links that are posted here that are about surrealism. I
have read the first manifesto. I have investigated the work of many
surrealist painters on the web, including your own beloved Leonora
Carrington when she was mentioned. I have read lots of on-web texts that
have been pointed to. I went looking for books about surrealism a couple of
weeks ago in my local bookstore, but I couldn't work out which category they
came under. Ah well. I shrugged and went home. My motivation on this
front isn't huge. I may get round to it, I may not. I'm not "resisting".
I'm simply not making the effort. This is because (3rd time at least I've
said this) I visit this newsgroup as a LEISURE activity. I enjoy the
discussion. I don't view it as an intellectual competition."
End quote. It's in my last post. Question answered.
> I recommend to whoever is interested the one I reposted re Leonora
> Carrington, a writer and artist (I included examples of her work in
> both genres plus various links to more, to biographical info etc.;
> and from barrett's site you can get to her son Paul Weitz-Carrington's
> site). Leonora was present during the early days of the surrealist
> movement and is still alive and painting, to the best of my knowledge.
> She lived with Max Ernst for 2 years, so for anyone who isn't familiar
> with _her_, this tidbit alone could indicate to you what an interesting
> and gifted person is she is...
Yes, she is good, but I found the interview with her a little unsettling.
She seems to believe in all sorts of odd things. Sorry, I can't back that
up; all I remember is I came out of it thinking that she was a little odd.
Not in a bad way, though. Requisite for a surrealist?
[...]
>>>> Most people don't get offended. Why do you?
>>>
>>> Now how in the WORLD could you possibly know I have "gotten
>>> offended"???
>>
>> Well, if you haven't, why are you objecting?
>
> If this rationale for your "conclusion" that I'm "offended" is the
> best you're willing to come up...
I don't know. I've tried, and I can't think of a possible intellectual
reason for your objection and failure to understand my light-hearted posts,
e.g. the one in response to pony_fish.
> At this point (since you did, and one time, ask), your writing isn't
> good, because your ability to consistently add 2 and 2 and come up
> with 4 is impaired.
This means nothing in any relevant context I can think of. Please say
something that makes sense, or explain the relationship between logic and
automatic writing.
> (Does this sound insulting etc to you? I rather mean it to), because:
>
> Your unwillingness to challenge your assumptions and ask pertinent
> questions is a very horrible quality for a poet and novelist.
In what way am I willing to challenge my assumptions? What are my
assumptions? It seems that you are unwilling to challenge your assumption
that I need to be what you think I should be. This is *your* problem.
> I've been there myself but I doubt you want to learn from my example:
> you appear to me to think you've got it all locked up.
There's that teacher again. I don't have anything locked up. Your
statement is baseless and, again, meaningless.
Sven
"Where's the beef?"
That was pretty good. :)
Nikolaus Maack
> Apologies to all but Sven for what will probably appear a boring and
> repetitive post.
I'm not finding it boring at all. On the contrary, it has been quite
educational.
There is a sexual fetish found on the internet known as "giantess" or
"gts". The men who are interested in it want to be dominated by a
controlling woman several times taller than they are. The women who are
interested in it want to be worshipped by puny men. One particular
flavour of gts is known as "crush". The giant women want to kill all the
tiny little men. And some men want to be killed that way. Both parties
find the idea incredibly arousing.
There is a certain amount of pedophilia in this symbolism. A woman wants
to be huge, and have a tiny man she can control, push around, hurt, even.
What is a tiny man, after all, if not a boy? Some giantesses admit -- in
private only, of course -- that they are not entirely adverse to the
notion of pedophilia.
(There are, of course, men who fantasize about tiny women, helpless and
"childlike". Some men even fantasize about killing these "childish"
women. Men and women both can be pedophiles, although it is more common
in men. Pedo can take on many "friendlier" disguises. The "age
regression" fantasy is another obvious one -- your partner starts getting
younger and younger, but their adult mind stays intact. Suddenly,
fantasy-wise, it's okay to fuck a child. You have an "adult" toddler who
can consent.)
The two groups of giantess -- the giant women and the tiny men -- have
certain odd psychological aspects. The men are pushy. Even though in
their fantasy world they are the size of insects, they demand to be abused
in certain specific ways. They bitch and moan if their giant women don't
treat them right. These incessant demands often chase the "giant women"
away, and the men accuse each other of being the "one who made her leave".
They're also intensely homophobic. Every woman they meet on line is
suspected of being a man.
The women are usually quite power-hungry and full of hate. After all, if
you fantasize about being 200 feet tall and crushing everyone you see,
you've got a lot of hate inside of you. Many of these giantesses seem to
be a bit broken. They are oddly weak in their strength. They give in to
the tiny men's pushy demands, and play their giantess role in the terms
the men dictate. That way the women can get more power.
It's like a paid dominatrix -- is she really in charge of the man, given
that he is paying for the service and he gets to dictate the rules of the
abuse? She may roleplay power, but does she have real power? It's a
difficult question.
The giantess women often strike me as sort of sad. So eager to please,
pushy towards only those men they know want to be pushed around, or that
they can get away with pushing around. If the man turns on her, she
screams down fury:
"Don't you know I'm an object to be worshipped?"
The power giantesses demonstrate is always sort of half-assed.
Aggressive, but strangely unreal. I always picture some chunky, rather
dull-witted woman who has never had a speck of power in her life, suddenly
stumbling across giantess. She gets her first taste of power, and it is
addictive. "Power is an aphrodesiac" after all. But having never held
this kind of power before, she is constantly terrified that someone is
going to snatch it away from her. She feels she hasn't earned it, so she
struggles desperately to hold on to it. Which makes her look weak.
(It is possible to be a woman who wields real power. I believe this.
However, in this particular community, it is rare.)
In her worst nightmares, all the tiny men turn on her, realizing she's a
fraud. They refuse to worship her. Worse still, they call her a "man"
and strip her of all power. Without femaleness, she is nothing. And once
the taint of being labelled a "fake woman" touches her, it inevitably
never comes off.
I'm not a part of this giantess community, but I have a friend who has
been studying the people in it for a long time now. He is fascinated by
the psychology of the fetish, and is constantly telling me about it. He
says that, as an outsider watching the complex power struggles, it blows
him away just how very seriously these people take their fetish. It is
all consuming. It dominates their minds day and night.
Cythera:
> The people on the outside of surrealism should do what they like, and
> continue on their ignorant ways: they are to all intents and purposes
> deaf. (And hopefully, if you are one of them, you will simply ignore
> this post)
[snip]
> I overall find you [Sven] have (or use) a rather limp cognition (see
>your recent post to barrett): and thus you aren't enough of a challenge
>for me to continue communicating with (having been through all that with
>Nik).
You can try to crush them all, Cythera. Every last one of the tiny men.
Stomp them all flat. I doubt very much that you'll feel any stronger,
when they're all dead.
Nik
--
"I dote on myself. There is a lot of me, and all so luscious." -- Whitman
The Nik Maack Art Gallery
http://www.nikart.com
Nikolaus Maack
> Since, according to you, barrett, Dale and Brandon are the puny men
> on the ng, and I'm (rather clearly) not asking that they worship me--
> nor do they show the slightest inclination to do something so lame--
> your argument turns back into the fluff of your dreams.
You have misunderstood me, as usual. Barrett, Dale, and Brandon are your
giants, and you'd like to be a giantess. Surrealism has become your
fetish. You're fighting for power in such a way that, to me at least, you
look extremely weak. For example, your dialogue with Sven. He's being
extremely rational, while you're being quite bizarre. And yet you claim
it is he that is being irrational. Funny.
Did you get into teaching because it allowed you to push people around?
Sven
Cythera, if you're tiring of this then please rethink pointlessly attacking
my posts in future.
>>> You act like a fool. Clear enough for you?
> your apparent behavior isn't _my_ problem.
It's entirely your problem. It's you that claims I behave like a fool. I
don't think I behave like a fool. Case closed.
> I do feel that you (too often) behave foolishly in this space. For
> instance, you continue to point out to me the very same things you
> yourself engage in, and continue (I suppose) to be blind to. Or, you
> may have a separate standard for yourself. See below.**
By pointing this out, you display those very double standards. Unlike you,
I don't say that there is anything we *should* be doing in this newsgroup.
> Now I'm not going to address your point-by-points. You were correct,
> I did miss where you said you had read my "beloved Leonora Carrington"
> (and please knock off the little digs, Sven. Was this one
> "patronizing", or was it "insulting"...
No, that was just a straight observation, but I see how it could be read as
sarcastic. I apologise.
> ditto your remarks about me
> being a teacher--as if that's something negative.)?
Don't get my wrong (my Dad's a teacher). What I object to is your being a
"teacher" *here*; not in the sense of imparting wisdom, but in the sense of
treating certain of us as idiots or children. Despite what you might think,
I am neither.
> As I said, I scan posts--those that appear to be continued retellings
> of the very same material, especially those embodying the very same
> defensive attitude. And _especially_ if they are larded with
> someone's jumping to conclusions: "I know from this 'evidence' in
> front of me that you feel thus-and-so".
All I inferred was you were offended. Hey, if I was wrong, I was wrong.
It's just what I inferred. See below where you infer that I've got it all
locked up. You claim that my opinion of you as being offended is,
essentially, baseless. See the symmetry?
[...]
>
> I read you now as saying, (and I have to paraphrase):
>
> "There you go again, Cythera. I don't know if it's because you're a
> teacher, but you seem to think everybody in this newsgroup should
> study".
Yes.
> And I read you as finding this some problem (for you).
My problem isn't with that! It is your opinion, and it makes sense
certainly, I don't have a problem with it. My problem is with your
continued challenges and patronising attitude. If you would accept that I
(in particular) *will* read up on surrealism, but not necessarily at your
request -- entirely in my own time -- and simply leave me to get on with it,
then I think we would get along a hell of a lot better!
> The people on the outside of surrealism should do what they like, and
> continue on their ignorant ways: they are to all intents and purposes
> deaf. (And hopefully, if you are one of them, you will simply ignore
> this post), because
Okay, you didn't finish this, so I can only respond to what's there. I'm
quite happy to get along on my "ignorant ways", if you're happy to leave me
to it. I get fulfilment out of what I do, here and elsewhere. I don't feel
I have to be immersed in surrealism to participate in this newsgroup.
> I overall find you have (or use) a rather limp cognition (see your
> recent post to barrett): and thus you aren't enough of a challenge
> for me to continue communicating with (having been through all that
> with Nik).
"Limp cognition?" Sometimes I'm glad to be on the fringes. However,
patronising/disparaging comments aside, I haven't been trying to communicate
with you. It's you that keeps mentioning me and criticising my posts, not
the other way round.
> I wrote:
>>> you appear to me to think you've got it all locked up.
>
> You responded:
>> There's that teacher again. I don't have anything locked up.
>
>> Your statement is baseless and, again, meaningless.
>
> My statement begins, "YOU _APPEAR_ TO _ME_ TO _THINK_...".
> That's hardly an assertion that you ARE a certain way, or do indeed
> THINK a certain way, although you APPEAR to have chosen to read it as
> such.
>
> How is what I _observe_ "baseless and meaningless"?
If your statement appears to me to be lacking in any kind of basis, and
lacking in any kind of meaning, I will say it is "baseless and meaningless",
whether it is something that you observe (which it would be anyway) or not.
It means you're wrong.
john adams
cythera wrote in message <8qdnmm$hjn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>Not limited in its resourcefulness, or not limited in the resource/s
>it draws upon?
Yes and yes.
>I think the imagination's resources (a sort of library if you will)
>are not only entangled with what we already have learned and can
>remember (and thus may be limited?), but may have something to so
>with native intelligence: IQ, common sense, etc.
Well, obviously (atleast to me) instict and the passing along of information
prior to life's 'great experience' does occur and should account for some
aspects, although i feel it could be more better explained than just: little
bits of datum randomly passed along through gene molecules, or excited
through chaotic diversion. I , personally, don't see myself in this
fashion--but that's just my opinion, likely not to correspond to some
others. Call it an intuition, or call me a romantic. I wish to regard things
as a form of creative discovery through time and to reduce it to certain
other notions is, well, reductionist (that all things are a happenstance of
chemical reaction and physical law and so on).
>In July (?) I posted some urls with links to studies on imagination.
>The post itself is called "Imagination."
>
>One of the links I included was to a message board run by the Dr.
>Thomas (?) you mentioned a little while later.
Yes, Nigel Thomas. I have been to the site a few times before your post to
glance some different perspectives. Most search engines bring it up through
a query on the word imagination fairly promptly. I mentioned his essay at
psyche's website on a particular cognition book by Ralph D. Ellis during a
discussion with dale.
john
john adams
I dont wish to jump into anything here, but I don't think this is very fair
to Sven. Essentially, in having brought these points of disagreement up
with him, him then expressing his opinions and defences, even apologetically
in places of miscommunication, you don't wish to weigh him in any further,
instead prefering to seal it off with 'too boring to listen to any more'.
Whereas, (and this may not be directly relevant to what you've expressed to
him) i think he does have a point that he need not be 'pressed' along to
further study surrealism nor does he *have* to act within any certain
accordance inside this group (although we would hope it to be in a mature
inquisitive manner) - he only just got here recently and has admitted
atleast some concrete interest to pursue it through his own volition. I feel
that would tend to spoil rather than affect his choices positively.
john
cythera wrote in message <8qganq$j3h$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <B5F0DE6C.13238%svenh.this...@blueyonder.co.uk>,
> Sven <svenh.this...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> cythera wrote:
>>
>> Cythera, if you're tiring of this then please rethink pointlessly
>> attacking my posts in future.
>
>How about this. I stop reading you here, rather than scrolling down.
>I'm going to spend the time it would take to read and respond and use
>it for something pleasurable. Maybe I'll look at the site of the
>Groupe de Paris.
>
>If everytime someone doesn't see it your way, you must construe their
>thoughts as pointless, and as (personal?) attacks on you, then you are
>welcome to this conversation.
>
>As I said, I'm looking for challenge (read "adventure"). So goodbye,
>and my apologies for the non-erasure I referred to last time.
>>
>> >>> You act like a fool. Clear enough for you?
>> It's just what I inferred. See below where you infer that I've got
>it all
>> locked up. You claim that my opinion of you as being offended is,
>> essentially, baseless. See the symmetry?
>>
>> [...]
>> >
>> > I read you now as saying, (and I have to paraphrase):
>> >
>> > "There you go again, Cythera. I don't know if it's because you're a
>> > teacher, but you seem to think everybody in this newsgroup should
>> > study".
>>
>> >>> you appear to me to think you've got it all locked up.
>> >
>> > You responded:
>> >> There's that teacher again. I don't have anything locked up.
>> >
>> >> Your statement is baseless and, again, meaningless.
>> >
>> > My statement begins, "YOU _APPEAR_ TO _ME_ TO _THINK_...".
>> > That's hardly an assertion that you ARE a certain way, or do indeed
>> > THINK a certain way, although you APPEAR to have chosen to read it
>as
>> > such.
>> >
>> > How is what I _observe_ "baseless and meaningless"?
>>
>> If your statement appears to me to be lacking in any kind of basis,
>and
>> lacking in any kind of meaning, I will say it is "baseless and
>meaningless",
>> whether it is something that you observe (which it would be anyway)
>or not.
>> It means you're wrong.
>>
>>
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
Sven
> In article <ZwUy5.196698$6y5.11...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com>,
> "john adams" <johnqa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I dont wish to jump into anything here, but I don't think this is
>> very fair to Sven. Essentially, in having brought these points of
>> disagreement up with him, him then expressing his opinions and
>> defences, even apologetically in places of miscommunication, you
>> don't wish to weigh him in any further, instead prefering to seal
>> it off with 'too boring to listen to any more'.
>
> If there are some places in the last post of his where he expressed an
> apology for places of miscommunication, then that is very nice, and
> it's appreciated.
>
> Perhaps he would like to emphasize them under a new subject header, if
> he wants me to see them.
>
> As I hope I made clear, I read no further than his first sentence.
>
> You may wish to go back and re-read it. In person, if you; or Sven;
> or my _best friend_; wanted to continue to speak to me that way, I
> would walk away, and so I did here.
Well, I'm sorry you feel that way about it. I've reread the correspondence,
and I fail to see where I spoke to you in such a way that you felt offended.
Which you so obviously are, now.
I don't want to argue any more, though. It would be nice if we could put
this behind us. Peace treaty? Will you shake hands? (I'm sure there's an
emoticon for it, somewhere...)
Sven
You ignored me.
You keep arguing. In fact, worse, you keep arguing by ignoring most of what
I have to say, replying only to the first few lines of the post. This is
not a rational way to conduct a discussion. In fact, it's just damn rude.
You seem to be determinedly attacking Laura in another thread with similar
lack of perspective.
>> Well, I'm sorry you feel that way about it. I've reread the
>> correspondence, and I fail to see where I spoke to you in such a
>> way that you felt offended.
>
> "Offended" as in, "You felt offended by my innocuous remarks",
> i.e. "You overreacted, I guess you just don't know what you're talking
> about".
You are interpreting me in your own way. That's *not* what I said. READ IT
AGAIN.
> Anyway, Sven...
> You say that you've reread the correspondence. I don't know which
> correspondence you're referring to specifically, but will just cut-
> paste the first sentence of your last post to me. (again, it's all
> that I read of it):
>
>> Cythera, if you're tiring of this then please rethink pointlessly
>> attacking my posts in future.
>
> This seems rather dismissive and bad-"teacherish" (using this word
> here so you can hopefully get a look from where I'm standing)...
>
> and I've pointed out what else I don't care for (as you yourself have
> done since Day 1, and I truly prefer that to some spineless preference
> for mediocrity over the unknown).
>
> And, it's tempting to say let's start over, but I really _don't_
> understand how you're going to stop writing what I dislike
>
> (e.g., "Your post to me was full of cunning; your post was boring and
> humorless; I got paranoid behind your words; everyone here is just
> text to me...)
Eh?
1. I said I detected cunning in you; you claimed not; I retracted the
statement. "Cunning" isn't an insult, unless you choose it to be so.
2. "your post was boring and humorless" - reminder to everyone: you posted
"Yawn". REPEATEDLY. I got sick of it.
3 & 4. YOU'RE LYING. Didn't say the last two at all; in fact, they don't
even make sense.
> unless I keep pointing it out to you.
But Cythera, the post you objected to that started this whole sorry thread
HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU. Read this thread again. You complain. I say,
"No, look, it's alright, I wasn't trying to be offensive, and sorry if I
was." You just keep on going.
I don't understand your problem with me. Did I insult you in a past life?
> The other alternative is that I say nothing, and that's untenable.
>
> As I said, I'm looking for challenge (read "adventure"). I'm not
> going to water down my imagination and desire in order to play by a
> false and rather ugly set of rules, so that some people can continue
> to feel "safe".
>
> I suppose one or two of you actually KNOWS what I'm talking about.
I have never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever,
ever, ever EVER asked that you do so.
When have I ever asked to feel "safe"? All I ask is that you stop trying to
get me to read up on surrealism, and that you stop complaining about posts
of mine that a decapitated lemur could tell were in jest. And what has that
got to do with imagination, desire? It's ADMINISTRATION, Cythera. It's
pedantry. These things are the enemy of creativity.
I still offer the handshake. Two posts and we can stop all this; we can
both agree to disagree. If you've got any more issues that you'd like to
take up with me, go ahead! My hair the wrong colour? Don't like my accent?