Beauty will be convolsive...
Wm. Dubin
>
>1/31/95
>
>i certainly don't want to trigger a discussion on who is
>and who isn't "surrealist", nor is my intention to
>attack zgaynes personally, but the implications of this
>post need to be addressed in open forum...
>
>
>zga...@aol.com (ZGaynes) wrote in response to Wm. Dubin:
>
>>Oh, hush up and put away your rapier...or go to alt.gothic.
>
>do you mean to imply the most revolutionary of all cultural
>movements has atrophied in alt.surrealism to the point where
>it has no use for a rapier? that it should limit itself to
>only "acceptable" pronouncements which do not offend the
>fragile sensibilities of timid minds? that the inhabitants
>of alt.gothic are more able to handle a bold statement which
>conflicts with status-quo perspectives? react to what was
>said, if you dare, but don't say a radical thought has no
>place in "surrealism".
>
>>Surrealism is the nightmare of the 20th c, sure enuff, but
>>it's also *some* of the pablum you rail against...
>
>say what? "surrealism" and pabulum (as in baby food?) are
>compatible? that's the kind of statement that would've had
>interesting effect at rue fontaine.
>
>>...true, ma tortue, much that is here is unpolished...,
>
>i have no impulse to rate or critique the offerings here. i
>find some of it interesting and most of it irrelevant to my
>interests, but are you implying that polishing can make a pile
>of crap "surrealist" or that "surrealism" is concerned at all
>with how shiny a thought is as opposed to how sharp and
>pointed?
>
>>...The only problem we have here IMO is pieces written just
>>to be kooky and surreal, forced wierdness without a
>>point in mind- ...
>
>do you mean to imply that "surreal"=weird? or that
>"surreal" should have a "point in mind"? "surrealism" is
>more than a look, more than a directed behavior, and more than a
>means. it is a way of creative life.
>
>>...that's about as useful as your molested->child comment.
>>Chill out, knock back a few absinthes, and come back when
>>you feel better..
>
>"useful" is irrelevant unless you're trying to get
>somewhere. the "where" we should be trying to get is free
>from any chains (self-imposed or otherwise) that limit our
>creative explorations. what is "useful" toward this goal is
>the open embrace of that which offers the greatest challenge
>to our habitual thought patterns--that which most provokes
>us.
>
>
>--barrett
>
>
>
It is interesting to speculate on what would and would not have an
effect at rue Fontaine. Of course, it might be interesting to see
just how many USERS of the word Surrealism, and this network, know
what you are referring to. In October, I visited the location of
#42, and the expierence was more mystical than I would have expect-
ed. The PURPOSE, in the long run, of ALL hand grenades thrown into
comfortable groups is EXACTLY to see who knowns what they are talk-
ing about, and who simply illustrates with thwarted desires.
Most of what appears on alt. surrealism has nothing to do with
Surrealism. It is doubtful that many subscribes have read ANY of
Breton's actual writing, muchless studied any of the history in-
volved in the movement, or have the slightest idea what came after
Breton's death. Surrealism is not some cute fuzzy idea to curl up
with in cyberspace. When I wrote it is the nightmare of the 20th.
century I meant it. It is obivious, that the replys to my use of
VIOLENCE in reference to Surrealism come from people who have not
read Sade, muchless Lautremont, and have no concept of what part
these writers play in Surrealist methodology. It is necessary, to
even begin understanding a new manifesto, to come to at least a
vague understanding of what has come before. To call yourself a
Surrealist requires nothing more than pushing these silly keys; to
live as a Surrealist require specific commitements. BEAUTY IS NOT
CUTE! IT WILL BE CONVOLSIVE!