What is Surrealist
fluffy...@prodigy.net
object can be surrealist. Does it soothe anyone's objections to
distinguish between SURREAL and SURREALIST? Thus,an object can be
said to have surreal qualities, but not be SURREALIST in and of itself.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Nikolaus Maack
> Re: the debate between Barrett & Nik (and others) about whether an
> object can be surrealist. Does it soothe anyone's objections to
> distinguish between SURREAL and SURREALIST? Thus,an object can be
> said to have surreal qualities, but not be SURREALIST in and of itself.
Sounds reasonable to me. A surrealist painting, a surreal painting -- the
"ist" doesn't make that much of a difference. I suspect the others will
refuse to accept this "compromise" however.
Someone asked if there is a FAQ to alt.surrealism. Not that I know of.
Barrett, I think, could write a great FAQ for this newsgroup. He seems
reluctant to write one. I think, on occasion, that I should write one.
Whatever I came up with would probably make the more serious surrealists
howl with outrage. Would they be outraged enough to write their own FAQs?
Sounds like an interesting project for me to take on.
Nik
--
UPDATED! Feb 2nd, 2000 -- go look!
The Nik Maack Art Gallery
http://members.xoom.com/gotnik/
Brandon J. Freels
free and indulging in subjectivity, or possibly b) when an object is created
while the creator's imagination is free.
Both depend on *you* not the *object.*
We could possibly see found objects a product of the first type, but the
problem is simple: a bottle of Redrum doesn't look surreal, but it can to
someone. Saying something has "surreal qualities" is rather dangerous in
that you are forcing your subjective view of the object onto the rest of us.
There is no objective dictionary description of what can be surreal. There
is only one "quality" in the surrealist object, and that is that it is the
product or catalyst of a free imagination.
For example, if a bottle of Redrum somehow leads someone to personal self
discovery, or if the act of autonomously carving a piece of wood into an
object of which the finished product you are unaware, then we can start
talking about Surrealism.
Please, someone correct me if I'm wrong.
diva...@my-deja.com
different. The irony of life, how fucking vivid you see it, just screams at
you in panoramic surround sound, style rainbow life induced sight and noise
clutter. I perceive Maxfield Parrish as a surreal artist. Others see him as
art novueo.(deco) Maybe it is a personal vision...whatever you just know. I
don't want to get a bunch of emotion lotion, fruit flavored bananarama shit
over this. I just want to state my opinion. Thank you, Brenda
In article <87f6ug$j5b$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
fluffy...@prodigy.net wrote:
> Re: the debate between Barrett & Nik (and others) about whether an
> object can be surrealist. Does it soothe anyone's objections to
> distinguish between SURREAL and SURREALIST? Thus,an object can be
> said to have surreal qualities, but not be SURREALIST in and of itself.
>
dale houstman
<diva...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:87iu02$428$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>I perceive Maxfield Parrish as a surreal artist.
Okay. But why? What in your comprehension of surrealism leads you to
consider Parrish's fey conventionalism (literally: his work is rank with
elves and fairies) as "surreal"? Inquiring minds want to know...
DMH
diva...@my-deja.com
> DMH
>
>
Hello Dale, It's not the elves or fairies that give it a surreal quality. I
was thinking of the landscape. The colors the way they blend.I can't explain
the feeling.It is my feeling.I can't explain Dali either, I can't describe
why things look one way to me, and entirely different to someone else. I
like different perspectives on my views. I'm open to comments. Brenda
Brandon J. Freels
> I perceive Maxfield Parrish as a surreal artist.
dale houstman asked:
> Okay. But why? What in your comprehension of surrealism leads you to
> consider Parrish's fey conventionalism (literally: his work is rank with
> elves and fairies) as "surreal"? Inquiring minds want to know...
I think we are dealing with two different developements here. Maxfield
Parrish may not be a surrealist artist, but his "art" can be looked upon as
a surrealist object if it somehow is used for autonomous self-discovery by
an individual exterior to its creation. Not being familiar with Parrish's
work I can't make any claims about if he is a surrealist or not, but then
again that quality won't be "visible" in his outpooring, rather will be
found in his purpose. Does he create art for the purpose of discovery?
Surrealism's connection to art has more to do with motive than appearance.
dale houstman
Brandon J. Freels <fre...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:x1nn4.32190$C4.2...@news1.teleport.com...
> diva blue wrote:
> > I perceive Maxfield Parrish as a surreal artist.
>
> dale houstman asked:
> > Okay. But why? What in your comprehension of surrealism leads you to
> > consider Parrish's fey conventionalism (literally: his work is rank with
> > elves and fairies) as "surreal"? Inquiring minds want to know...
>
> I think we are dealing with two different developements here. Maxfield
> Parrish may not be a surrealist artist, but his "art" can be looked upon
as
> a surrealist object if it somehow is used for autonomous self-discovery by
> an individual exterior to its creation.
Yes, Brandon, but you sort of ruined my attempt to elicit some response from
"diva." The very reason I asked this question was to prompt more than the
usual "I think the Three Stooges are surreal" statements. Now, I admit
Maxfield Parrish doesn't elicit much more in me than (at most) a sort of
technical buzz: he's another competent illustrator quite evolved out of his
proper niche, but... I was interested in (really) hearing a definition of
surreality from diva, not you!
Anyway...
DMH
dale houstman
<diva...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:87l0av$fc2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <87kiak$7f1$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net>,
> "dale houstman" <dm...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> > <diva...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:87iu02$428$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >
> >
> > consider Parrish's fey conventionalism (literally: his work is rank with
> > elves and fairies) as "surreal"? Inquiring minds want to know...
> >
>
> >
> >
>
> Hello Dale, It's not the elves or fairies that give it a surreal quality.
I think I knew that (although I have run into people who confuse fantasy
with surreality).
>I was thinking of the landscape. The colors the way they blend.I can't
explain
> the feeling.It is my feeling.
Well, this isn't arguable. But if you are attaching a specific word to that
sensation, I think you must know more about it then you feel you can
explicate.
I can't explain Dali either
Don't get me started! At any rate you have hit on something here: the color
values in these two are not far apart; a sort of setting sun intensity of
shadow and light that is used precisely because it is dramatic. Dali did do
some fine work, although he went bad in the air of commericialism and
catholicism.
>I can't describe why things look one way to me, and entirely different to
someone else.
It's not that you are not describing the difference between our
apprehensions, but that you are not describing your own apprehension in a
way that lends itself to discussion. Still, if that's how it is...
But - as for Parrish - his work is extremely conventional: arising out of a
tradition of illustration that winds all the way back to Victorian England
and finds expression in those famous "orange crate" ads. If we put aside the
subject matter (the usual Victorian mish mash of fairies and pseudo-graecian
portico sets, and a certain "soft-porn" appeal to his boys and girls), the
presentation has almost no psychological weight. He's very ornamental, even
a bit too retinal to withstand, but there doesn't appear to be any "there"
there ( as Gertrude Stein said of some California town). It's pleasant
enough - and I am not one to downgrade the appeal of "mere" pleasure - but
doesn't really own any of the enigmatic or mental aspects of work I (and
many others) deem as surrealist in nature.
But, all this would be quite beside the point if I could elicit from you a
description of this sensation you know well enough to have named "surreal."
If - as you claim - it is a feeling so vague you cannot describe it, then
why is it so particular as to be named surreal? Unless - and this is what I
must suspect at the moment - this very air of vagueness is what you
designate as surreal.
DMH
dale houstman
<diva...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>
> When I see Maxfield Parrish art,some of it is surreal. It takes me with
it.It
> makes me see an almost distorted sometimes beautiful frightening world.
.Not
> only Parrish or Dali.Not only art.Sunsets,clouds, crowds, voices,rain
> everyday anytime situations. It is like another emotion. So if this still
> sounds vague,I welcome your views. Thanks Dale, My name is Brenda.
>
>
I understand this, and though I still find your descriptions vague, they
are also beyond discussion in any manner that is useful to me to pursue.
There's a slight tautological quality to your thought-process here
(something is surreal because it makes you see something
distorted/beautiful/frightening and so things that are
distorted/beautiful/frightening are surrealist, etc.)
Why do you use the word "surreal" specifically to describe a feeling that -
as near as I can see - could just as easily be described as "spiritual" or
"religious" or "magical"? Do you distinguish between these words, and what
are those distinctions? Where did you first come across the word surreal?
Why did it appeal to you as an adjective?
I only ask out of curiosity... thanks Brenda, my name is Dale.
diva...@my-deja.com
> DMH
>
> I do not associate surrealism with vagueness.
When I see Maxfield Parrish art,some of it is surreal. It takes me with it.It
makes me see an almost distorted sometimes beautiful frightening world. .Not
only Parrish or Dali.Not only art.Sunsets,clouds, crowds, voices,rain
everyday anytime situations. It is like another emotion. So if this still
sounds vague,I welcome your views. Thanks Dale, My name is Brenda.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
diva...@my-deja.com
> it.It
> > makes me see an almost distorted sometimes beautiful frightening world.
> .Not
> > only Parrish or Dali.Not only art.Sunsets,clouds, crowds, voices,rain
> > everyday anytime situations. It is like another emotion. So if this still
> > sounds vague,I welcome your views. Thanks Dale, My name is Brenda.
> >
> >
> are also beyond discussion in any manner that is useful to me to pursue.
> There's a slight tautological quality to your thought-process here
> (something is surreal because it makes you see something
> distorted/beautiful/frightening and so things that are
> distorted/beautiful/frightening are surrealist, etc.)
Good point Dale.
The answer is of course not.
>
> Why do you use the word "surreal" specifically to describe a feeling that -
> as near as I can see - could just as easily be described as "spiritual" or
> "religious" or "magical"?
I do not see religion, magical is a pretty word, and spiritual is a different
feeling to me.
Do you distinguish between these words, and what
> are those distinctions? Where did you first come across the word surreal?
I don't remember not knowing the word.I'm sure there was a first time I heard
it.There is so much I could say about the times in my childhood and teens I
tried to explain it.
> Why did it appeal to you as an adjective?
> Because I can't use it as verb.
> I only ask out of curiosity... thanks Brenda, my name is Dale.
>
Dale you are making me think.I realize you believe I am repeating myself,
and if my answers still seem vague to you, they are vividly clear to me. I do
appreciate your help. You are making me think how to communicate my feelings
on surrealism. Thanks, Brenda
Brandon J. Freels
> Yes, Brandon, but you sort of ruined my attempt to elicit some response
from
> "diva." The very reason I asked this question was to prompt more than the
interested in (really) > hearing a definition of surreality from diva, not
you!
Oops! Sorry about that.
dale houstman
call off the hellhounds. They're busy pissing on Nik's existence anyway...
DMH
Santa Salsera
>
> In article <87lkrv$ohc$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>,
> "dale houstman" <dm...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> > <diva...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> >
> > >
> > > When I see Maxfield Parrish art,some of it is surreal. It takes me with
> > it.It
> > > makes me see an almost distorted sometimes beautiful frightening world.
> > .Not
> > > only Parrish or Dali.Not only art.Sunsets,clouds, crowds, voices,rain
> > > everyday anytime situations. It is like another emotion. So if this still
> > > sounds vague,I welcome your views. Thanks Dale, My name is Brenda.
Sounds like you are describing the feeling of the sublime rather than
the surreal.
Unless and until you do that, Brenda, your feelings on surrealism will
be of precious little consequence to anyone but you.
F*
diva...@my-deja.com
No I am sublime, I feel surreal, a tisket a tasket a wavy haired chihuahua
fell out of my basket/case.
~and breathe~ Wake up time.
F*
I appreciate your insight.
Brandon J. Freels
> Sounds like you are describing the feeling of the sublime rather than
> the surreal.
While I agree with your statement, I can't help be see that the two are
somewhat connected. Didn't Breton once say that Surrealism was the tale end
of Romanticism? Isn't the sublime forever connected to Romanticism in the
works of Turner, Friedrich, etc?
john adams
>
> No I am sublime, I feel surreal, a tisket a tasket a wavy haired chihuahua
> fell out of my basket/case.
>
> ~and breathe~ Wake up time.
>
> F*
> I appreciate your insight.
> Brenda
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Ahhh, so you're that big blue lady in "the 5th element". I knew it all
along!
john
diva...@my-deja.com
Hey are you being mean?
sad blue teardrops are leaking on my keyboard.
brenda
diva...@my-deja.com
Soon I am hoping to unite my conscious/unconcsious
into a surreal/real voice.
I feel that
I owe you a > Thank you,
john adams
>
> In article <38A07F37...@aol.com>,
> john adams <gala...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > No I am sublime, I feel surreal, a tisket a tasket a wavy haired chihuahua
> > > fell out of my basket/case.
> > >
> > > ~and breathe~ Wake up time.
> > >
> > > F*
> > > I appreciate your insight.
> > along!
> >
> > john
> >
> Ssssshit,now I have to watch that movie again.
> Hey are you being mean?
> sad blue teardrops are leaking on my keyboard.
> brenda
>
> Before you buy.
Nope, and so you don't have to sit through it again it's the mysterious
"singing blue diva".
john
dale houstman
Santa Salsera <sal...@picadillo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:389FF0...@picadillo.nospam.com...
> diva...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <87lkrv$ohc$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>,
> > "dale houstman" <dm...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > <diva...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > >
> > > >
> > > > When I see Maxfield Parrish art,some of it is surreal. It takes me
with
> > > it.It
> > > > makes me see an almost distorted sometimes beautiful frightening
world.
> > > .Not
> > > > only Parrish or Dali.Not only art.Sunsets,clouds, crowds,
voices,rain
> > > > everyday anytime situations. It is like another emotion. So if this
still
> > > > sounds vague,I welcome your views. Thanks Dale, My name is Brenda.
>
>
> the surreal.
Yes, this is pretty much what I fel too, but hadn't found the word to
describe.
>
>
> Unless and until you do that, Brenda, your feelings on surrealism will
> be of precious little consequence to anyone but you.
>
I might have said this, but - for once - I was being kind.
DMH
dale houstman
Brandon J. Freels <fre...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:JBWn4.34993$C4.2...@news1.teleport.com...
> Santa Salsera wrote
> > Sounds like you are describing the feeling of the sublime rather than
> > the surreal.
>
> somewhat connected. Didn't Breton once say that Surrealism was the tale
end
> of Romanticism? Isn't the sublime forever connected to Romanticism in the
> works of Turner, Friedrich, etc?
>
is that surrealism is a - so to speak - special case of Romanticism, and
surely one of its distinguishing characteristics is that it doesn't take the
sublime at face value, but attempts to even further wrestle from deity and
mystery the basis for the enigmatic. Brenda seems satisfied with allowing
this "epiphany" to wash over her, and while I fault no one for wanting to
experience the cosmos this way, I do find a vague description of a vague
feeling to be of little use in a discussion of surrealism.
DMH
dale houstman
<diva...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:87pfi9$n5f$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> I appreciate your insight.
> Brenda
>
This I don't believe. I find it impossible to accept your linguisitc
structures as the speech of someone who is genuinely interested in the
subject of this group.
You are a living non sequitor and - as such - beneath my continuing
interest.
Bye, my name is Dale.
DMH
diva...@my-deja.com
Good gollypollywog! I thought I was being kind to you,by answering all of the
sophmoric questions/treats you hurled my way.You don't play nice with
others..you may not agree with what I say or how I perceive surrealism, that
is fine and maybe good. Fess up pardner', you loved saying, " beneath my
continuing interest". Automatic writing' perhaps? I bequeath beneath to you.
Thank you for your spurious attempts of help Dale. You renew in me why I
prefer surreal over real. brenda
jessi...@my-deja.com
of the quote, but it just seemed to fit.<g>)
In article <87q7fc$bgn$1...@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net>,
Dale Houstman
<jessi...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:88a4m1$bj3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> "Give me ambiguity, or give me something else." (Can't remmeber the
author
> of the quote, but it just seemed to fit.<g>)
How wonderfully unrevealing and insipid!
DMH