Surrealism: shocking?
Leo Sgouros
comes out of surrealist perspective, and if you were to formulate it as a
tool I would think this would actually just become another deliberate art
vector, where surrealism would have a rather "open-ended" result for the
viewer.
"Aeon" <ae...@bullet.40-eyes.com> wrote in message
news:slrn8c2ud...@bullet.20-eyes.com...
>
> "The surrealists often deliberately propose to shock and
> suprise, so that you may be deprived of all preconceived
> standards and open to new impressions. They intend to
> shock, as the safe-breaker might pare the skin off his
> finger tips, so that his supersensitized bared flesh might
> the better feel the tumblers fall; to shock as the bull-
> fighter first bares the nerves of his audience by the
> willful shedding of blood and disembowelling of
> defenceless horses, so that the supersensitized public
> might better respond to the grace and agility of
> subsequent performance. Age and habit have too often
> overcome the original intensity of living. Unfortunately,
> unless people are startled they frequently fail to devote
> their attention to anything as subtle as a work of art,
> which must be understood through contemplation. The
> surrealist fight is against apathy, not against
> comprehension."
>
> "Surrealism" by Julien Levy, The Black Sun Press, New York
> published in 1936 and again in 1968
>
>
> So with all that said, is there anyone else here that would
> agree with the above in that there is a use for the shocking
> as a tool within surrealism?
>
> orlan
> --
>
> - What if the hokey pokey IS what it's all about? -
>
> - remove EATME to email, and I have 20-eyes, not 40 -
Parry
>
> "The surrealists often deliberately propose to shock and
> suprise, so that you may be deprived of all preconceived
> standards and open to new impressions. They intend to
> shock, as the safe-breaker might pare the skin off his
> finger tips, so that his supersensitized bared flesh might
> the better feel the tumblers fall; to shock as the bull-
> fighter first bares the nerves of his audience by the
> willful shedding of blood and disembowelling of
> defenceless horses, so that the supersensitized public
> might better respond to the grace and agility of
> subsequent performance. Age and habit have too often
> overcome the original intensity of living. Unfortunately,
> unless people are startled they frequently fail to devote
> their attention to anything as subtle as a work of art,
> which must be understood through contemplation. The
> surrealist fight is against apathy, not against
> comprehension."
> "Surrealism" by Julien Levy, The Black Sun Press, New York
> published in 1936 and again in 1968
>
> So with all that said, is there anyone else here that would
> agree with the above in that there is a use for the shocking
> as a tool within surrealism?
>
> orlan
“[In the 1930’s] in no country, with the possible exceptions of Nazi
Germany and Stalinist Russia, was surrealism so foully misrepresented,
so consistently maligned, as in the ‘land of the dollar.’ The situation
was aggravated even by those who believed they were combating it -- the
self-styled promoters who took it on themselves to ‘bring’ surrealism to
America. [...] Thus the entrepreneur Julien Levy -- whose New York
gallery, opened in 1931, regularly featured surrealists (in addition to
non-surrealists and pseudo-surrealists) -- may be said to have added far
more than two cents to the mounting confusion. Astute enough to perceive
the marketability of Dali’s works to the nouveau riche investor, Levy
became a veritable Dalinian agent. His book ‘Surrealism,’ published by
Black Sun Press in 1936, was the standard US reference work on the
subject for years. Intended as a popularization, it was particularly
weak on questions of psychology and politics.” From Franklin Rosemont’s
Introduction to “What is Surrealism?” (Monad Press, 1978).
In other words, Levy was not a surrealist and his representation of
surrealism’s “shock value” only undermines the work’s real content, by
giving the viewer a convenient frame through which to look at the work
-- that is, the viewer can now easily dispense with the troubling
aspects of a work with the knowledge that the artist is only “trying to
shock” and need not be taken seriously. Once “questions of psychology
and politics” are sucked out, the work exists in a vacuum where its
“shock value” is an aesthetic decision. This is why a work can be
shocking while not being scandalous.
But there’s no point in fixating on the word “shock,” which may have
different meaning in different instances. This discussion refers to the
story of the guy (I think it was a guy) with the chameleon beliefs. From
the sketchy details given of the case, it does not appear the guy’s
antics were related to a critique of reality, but rather referenced only
his own narcissism.
-- 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! =-----
Dale Houstman
> suprise, so that you may be deprived of all preconceived
> standards and open to new impressions. They intend to
> shock, as the safe-breaker might pare the skin off his
> finger tips, so that his supersensitized bared flesh might
> the better feel the tumblers fall; to shock as the bull-
> fighter first bares the nerves of his audience by the
> willful shedding of blood and disembowelling of
> defenceless horses, so that the supersensitized public
> might better respond to the grace and agility of
> subsequent performance. Age and habit have too often
> overcome the original intensity of living. Unfortunately,
> unless people are startled they frequently fail to devote
> their attention to anything as subtle as a work of art,
> which must be understood through contemplation. The
> surrealist fight is against apathy, not against
> comprehension."
>
> "Surrealism" by Julien Levy, The Black Sun Press, New York
> published in 1936 and again in 1968
>
>
> So with all that said, is there anyone else here that would
> agree with the above in that there is a use for the shocking
> as a tool within surrealism?
>
surrealism (or how instrumental in its "material propagation") he remains an
outsider to its basic program. This is borne out by his implication that
Surrealism was "about" getting people to look at the art productions, and
that shock was thus a form of publicity. This is egregious.
From all that I have read and observed, I would say the above description
fits more accurately Dadaism. (And not even them: the political component of
Dadaism is quite strong. Shock as such is only useful insofar as the viewer
is forced to readress the basic assumptions of their life, the mandates as
it were.) The truth is, for Surrealists, the audience as such was of little
consequence, the participants being immensely more concerned with their own
investigations. At any rate, Breton and the others soon found that shocking
the "bourgeoisie" was entirely too easy. And thus boring. And - if it is
only shock one is going for - dropped pants and pissing in beer will still
do quite nicely, eliciting more reaction than any considered project. The
mere shock value of any action is entirely useless as a guideline. The main
thrust is NOT to help an audience to come to the art with a fresh mind,
although this would - obviously - be Mr. Levy's focus. If the end result of
all surrealist activity is just to create a new room or two at the
Guggenheim, I am not interested.
DMH
Dale Houstman
"Leo Sgouros" <lsgo...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:b5Hw4.9659$9q2....@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> >
>
> It can be intended, but if that is the extent of your work as an artist,
to
> shock people, I feel it starts to drift into something else.
For myself, mainly what I am looking for when I write or draw is to surprise
myself, or to be surprised by the process I have only set in motion. It is
the getting somewhere you didn't imagine that makes the entire action
worthwhile for me. How other people react - or usually don't react - is
secondary at best, although I have enjoyed some "interpretations" over the
years, which reveal nuances of the other's interests and POV. It is this
"Rohrshach" quality that I like in art, its nearly unexpressible sensations
in a world dedicated to efficiency and utilitarianism.
DMH
Aeon
>The shock comes about naturally, I think.It is a natural occurrence that
>comes out of surrealist perspective, and if you were to formulate it as a
>tool I would think this would actually just become another deliberate art
>vector, where surrealism would have a rather "open-ended" result for the
>viewer.
So you feel that there cannot be an intended shock, and that the shocking
only results from the art by accident?
What exactly do you mean by deliberate art vector? I'm afraid I don't
follow too well. Would an "open-ended" result be wrong?
Leo Sgouros
> It would appear that <lsgo...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> >The shock comes about naturally, I think.It is a natural occurrence that
> >comes out of surrealist perspective, and if you were to formulate it as a
> >tool I would think this would actually just become another deliberate art
> >vector, where surrealism would have a rather "open-ended" result for the
> >viewer.
>
> So you feel that there cannot be an intended shock, and that the shocking
> only results from the art by accident?
>
It can be intended, but if that is the extent of your work as an artist, to
shock people, I feel it starts to drift into something else.
If we are talking about the written words, deciding in advance what you will
apply for a desired goal of shocking people takes away from the totality of
the possible experience,I feel.In other words, if I sit down to constantly
shock people through words and acts and pictures, am I still a surrealist?
I am not sure now that I typed this out.
Hmmmmmm...
> What exactly do you mean by deliberate art vector? I'm afraid I don't
> follow too well. Would an "open-ended" result be wrong?
>
> orlan
>
An open-ended result..would not be "wrong"-let me see if I can clear this
up.
I guess instead of where a painter of nudes may intend to tap into the
desire and the beauty of the body (vector) a surrealist artist's output may
access several different levels.
Leo Sgouros
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message
news:hyHw4.573$F7.1...@ptah.visi.com...
>
> "Leo Sgouros" <lsgo...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:b5Hw4.9659$9q2....@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
> > >
> >
> to
> > shock people, I feel it starts to drift into something else.
>
surprise
> myself, or to be surprised by the process I have only set in motion. It is
> the getting somewhere you didn't imagine that makes the entire action
> worthwhile for me. How other people react - or usually don't react - is
> secondary at best, although I have enjoyed some "interpretations" over the
> years, which reveal nuances of the other's interests and POV. It is this
> "Rohrshach" quality that I like in art, its nearly unexpressible
sensations
> in a world dedicated to efficiency and utilitarianism.
>
> DMH
>
>
I find myself unable to really answer the question about the intention to
shock with art.
If this is what someone wants to do, do you consider it surreal art still?
Is shock art a subgroup??
Dale Houstman
>
> >
>
> I find myself unable to really answer the question about the intention to
> shock with art.
> If this is what someone wants to do, do you consider it surreal art still?
> Is shock art a subgroup??
I am not (despite what appearances might be) a group theoretician. I can
only speak from personal evidence when I say that I only desire to surprise
and shockm myself. The audience is - at best - a secondary element. So the
idea of social shock doesn't intrgue me; as much as it did.
But - thinking about it - even shock has qualities; some shocks impair the
imagination, force all the attention into purely defensive or utilitarian
funnels. Some produce violent outrage, or passive surrender. And some shocks
obviously can open new paths. Maybe - sometimes - shocks start out as one
kind and evolve into the others?
The moment of shock is an opportunity. If that shock is exploited for its
mere sensationalistic qualities, the moment seems to pass, and becomes the
stuff of chit-chat or ego-construction. Shock can then turn to
scarification, callousing.
So I wouldn't designate this fragile wedge as a subset, but more as an
instrument of surrealism, like so many others. If the application does lead
toward more freedom, and more imagination (and the substance of both can be
argued) then it has been worthwhile. But - I suspect that surrealism
involves a teetering balance of many instrumentations - and must, from time
to time, trip itself up and be made a clown of, be defeated, be humiliated
by those who love it both the most and the least. There is always a
reinvestigation being initiated somewhere. Whether or not these "intramural
shocks" are eventually valuable cannot be known. That's the reason for
experiments.
DMH
fluffy...@prodigy.net
audience uncomfortable, but not just for its own sake. A horror movie
can shock you or make you uncomfortable, but that is not the result I'm
going for. I write performance texts as well as poetry, and my partner
is always asking "what is your antipathy for the audience?" I don't
have an antipathy. But I don't want them to just sit there politely
because they're at the theatah and then go home unaffected as if
nothing happened, as if they had just gone to the latest Meg Ryan
movie. Ideally, after seeing my work, (I would like the audience to at
least contemplate quitting their jobs, selling their house and car and
completely changing their lives. They won't do it. But it would be
nice for it to occur to them.) At least something that makes them
question the rut of their daily lives and think about the world around
them or their choices or someone else's reality.
A company I used to work at periodically had "creativity contests" --
not much at stake-- a $20 gift certificate--but it gave us a chance to
share our writing or art with the rest of the staff. The store manager
told someone about one of my poems "I wasn't sure if I was going to
like it as well as so-and-so's, but Laura's piece really stayed with
me." That, to me, is an excellent response to my work, and it's what I
desire more than a mere shock.
Besides, sometimes with shock effect, it causes people to put up their
defenses and thus manage to avoid being touched by your work.
In article <eHDw4.501$F7.1...@ptah.visi.com>,
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote:
>
> "Aeon" <ae...@bullet.40-eyes.com> wrote in message
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Aeon
>shock people, I feel it starts to drift into something else.
>apply for a desired goal of shocking people takes away from the totality of
>the possible experience,I feel.In other words, if I sit down to constantly
>shock people through words and acts and pictures, am I still a surrealist?
>I am not sure now that I typed this out.
>Hmmmmmm...
I think it would also have to be considered whether there is more purpose
behind the "shock" than simply shocking people. It's possible that an
artist would sit down with the intent to shock people in order to pound
home a political view, or a moral belief.
If shocking people isn't the extent of an artist's work, but it plays an
integral part in their work, can this still fall under the umbrella of
surrealism?
>An open-ended result..would not be "wrong"-let me see if I can clear this
>up.
>I guess instead of where a painter of nudes may intend to tap into the
>desire and the beauty of the body (vector) a surrealist artist's output may
>access several different levels.
ahhh... I think I see what you are getting at here.
orlan
Aeon
>different meaning in different instances. This discussion refers to the
>story of the guy (I think it was a guy) with the chameleon beliefs. From
>the sketchy details given of the case, it does not appear the guy’s
>antics were related to a critique of reality, but rather referenced only
>his own narcissism.
>
>-- Parry
Thanks for the info on Levy.. I hadn't read anything on the man himself
yet. It puts his book into perspective.
As far as talking about the chameleon, that's really not what I came to
this thread to discuss. In fact, I was hoping to avoid it.
I'd like to discuss what people think of the value of deliberately
shocking people with art. Does it have any place in surrealism? Can it
have a worthy purpose? If something shocking results from a work of
art, but it was not the original purpose, is this better or worse?
Aeon
>instrument of surrealism, like so many others. If the application does lead
>toward more freedom, and more imagination (and the substance of both can be
>argued) then it has been worthwhile. But - I suspect that surrealism
>involves a teetering balance of many instrumentations - and must, from time
>to time, trip itself up and be made a clown of, be defeated, be humiliated
>by those who love it both the most and the least. There is always a
>reinvestigation being initiated somewhere. Whether or not these "intramural
>shocks" are eventually valuable cannot be known. That's the reason for
>experiments.
>
>DMH
I would agree that "shock" can be an instrument of surrealism. I feel it
opens a doorway through which new things can be discovered.
Aeon
>not much at stake-- a $20 gift certificate--but it gave us a chance to
>share our writing or art with the rest of the staff. The store manager
>told someone about one of my poems "I wasn't sure if I was going to
>like it as well as so-and-so's, but Laura's piece really stayed with
>me." That, to me, is an excellent response to my work, and it's what I
>desire more than a mere shock.
>
>Besides, sometimes with shock effect, it causes people to put up their
>defenses and thus manage to avoid being touched by your work.
Yes... and I feel I've seen this occur with some people's artwork... they
seem to get dismissed as wackos.
Aeon
>fits more accurately Dadaism. (And not even them: the political component of
>Dadaism is quite strong. Shock as such is only useful insofar as the viewer
>is forced to readress the basic assumptions of their life, the mandates as
>it were.) The truth is, for Surrealists, the audience as such was of little
>consequence, the participants being immensely more concerned with their own
>investigations. At any rate, Breton and the others soon found that shocking
>the "bourgeoisie" was entirely too easy. And thus boring. And - if it is
>only shock one is going for - dropped pants and pissing in beer will still
>do quite nicely, eliciting more reaction than any considered project. The
>mere shock value of any action is entirely useless as a guideline. The main
>thrust is NOT to help an audience to come to the art with a fresh mind,
>although this would - obviously - be Mr. Levy's focus. If the end result of
>all surrealist activity is just to create a new room or two at the
>Guggenheim, I am not interested.
>
>DMH
I'm glad you, and another, have brought up the intent behind Mr. Levy's
publication.
Maybe forcing people to view art with a fresh mind is not a goal of
surrealists, but could forcing them into a certain state of mind prove useful
as far as opening the imagination goes?
Leo Sgouros
Hopefully the outcome of viewing a piece of work will lead to a new
perspective, I dont see where you can force somebody to have an open mind.If
by shocking you mean forcing a perspective, what do you think the gut
reaction to being forced is??
If a work is outrageous it may have the opposite effect.
> --
>
> - What if the hokey pokey IS what it's all about? -
>
It may be.
Dale Houstman
> surrealists, but could forcing them into a certain state of mind prove
useful
> as far as opening the imagination goes?
>
It is the word "forcing" here that trips me up. I am not interested in
"forcing" anyone to do anything, no matter how odious I find their present
stance. As I said - and this is strictly a personal position - the audience
as such means nothing to me. I am more involved in furthering my own
clarification and liberation. Whether or not this sets any precedent or
fronts an example is not my concern. On the other hand I am more than
willing to discuss the nature of surrealist activity (past and present), or
to engage others in debate when they purposely misrepresent that nature.
Other than that, the state of the abstract public's imagination scarcely
interests me.
DMH
Nikolaus Maack
Nik & Dale Rape a Blind Foetal Pig
An unwitting colaboration between Nik (master) & Dale (slave)
There is no darkness in Mudville, friends. The skies glisten gray like
used Kleenex in a ball; the grassy knolls roll endlessly in all
directions. Nik, in attractive homoerotic leather, stands looking south.
Dale, entirely naked and with freshly shaved head -- concentration camp
shiek -- squats down on his haunches, looks north. They face each other.
"Smells like rain," Nik says.
"Smells like sun," Dale counters with a grin.
"Facist! Oppress me, will you?" Nik pulls an assortment of stainless
steel clothes-pins out out of nowhere and begins applying them to various
exposed parts of Dale's trembling body.
Dale struggles only slightly, should some third person -- a disembodied
narrator camera in the sky, perhaps? -- be watching. He rocks back and
forth, forcing Nik to push him to the ground, kneeling on top of him,
pinning him still so yet more pins can be applied to various portions of
Dale's body. One stainless steel clip on Dale's cockhead causes Dale to
let out a yelp. Pain? Pleasure? Hard to tell.
(The surrealist experiment insists that pain and pleasure are one and the
same. Dali, dressed in leather, whips Breton -- sodomizes the old lion
with a strap on.)
Dale says:
> It is the word "forcing" here that trips me up. I am not interested in
> "forcing" anyone to do anything, no matter how odious I find their present
> stance.
"No one can be forced to do anything, Dale," Nik giggles, pinching up
folds of flesh and pinning them. "You over-estimate your own importance.
Or, perhaps, under-estimate it. Now tell Dada that you love him."
"Fuck you," Dale whispers, a hint of a smile on his fifty year old face.
Part of him knows that an act of rebellion, such as this one, leads to
more punishment. It is an invitation for Nik to take things further.
Nik turns Dale over with a flip of his foot, so that the old man -- fifty
isn't old, really, but it's important to humiliate one's slave -- is lying
on his stomach. Cold grass presses up against belly and groin. Soothing.
Hurtful. Nik plants a foot in the centre of Dale's back, pinning him to
the ground.
The unseen third person -- omniscient narrator replaces God in literature,
pass it on -- records all. Dale squirms beneath the gaze of this deity.
Nothing like a little humiliation in front of a crowd in order to get the
gonads going. Dale flails his arms and legs in a mockery of struggle.
Look, I'm fighting it. I hate this. I'm fighting it. I don't really
enjoy my erection pressing into the grass.
"Tell God that you love him," Nik says, slapping Dale's flabby,
middle-aged buttocks.
Dale moans:
> As I said - and this is strictly a personal position - the audience
> as such means nothing to me.
"Liar!" Nik yells, and applies another smack on Dale's ass. "Getting
senile, old man? You love your audience. You love to lie naked and
beaten before it, you blue balls held in clothes-pin prisons, your erect
cock of shame exposed before it. Show God your erect cock." Nik takes
his foot from Dale's spine. "Do it!" he commands.
Dale obediently rolls over on to his back. His belly is slick with dew.
His penis is indeed erect, even with five or six clothes-pins all over it,
pinching the flesh. Dale points his erect prick at the sky -- at us, the
omniscent invisible narrator -- and begins to masturbate.
Dale declares:
> I am more involved in furthering my own
> clarification and liberation. Whether or not this sets any precedent or
> fronts an example is not my concern.
"Orgasm is liberation. Orgasm is humiliation. Orgasm is power," Nik
mutters. He is looking away, for some reason. Too much, too much, oh,
gentle reader, too much. Old men with blue balls and pain fondling
themselves. It's all enough to make a maggot vomit bile. But, perhaps --
most definitely -- that's why Dale loves it.
"I can fight," Dale says. "I'm strong. I have super powers."
"Of course you do, Dale," Nik says to the grass.
"I know things. I have power." Tears run down Dale's cheeks. "I don't
have to be like this."
"Of course, of course," Nik soothes.
Dale says:
> I am more than
> willing to discuss the nature of surrealist activity (past and present), or
> to engage others in debate when they purposely misrepresent that nature.
"Come, come, I want you to come," Nik says, thinking, end it. "Show daddy
a big blast of wet white, won't you? Squirt it out, Dale. Shoot forth
your grotesque essence, your power."
Dale's noodle -- as obedient as Dale himself -- spits forth cream. It
splatters on Dale's belly. A death's rattle moan from Dale's purple lips.
Eyes convulse, back tenses then falls. A smile.
It's not about power, it's not about power, Dale's thoughts mutter. Not
about power at all. Truth isn't power. Love isn't power. He humiliates
himself for both. Powerless for truth and love. Powerless.
Nik scoops up some of Dale's cum, and forces the old man to lick it off
his fingers. Dale devours it greedily, old man feeds off his son's teats.
"I like them to watch," Dale admits slyly. "I like them to see me like
this."
Dale sees the invisible omniscent narrator, the audience. Somehow,
always, it's visible to him, in the sky. Dale lies naked before it,
ruined, small, broken.
"I like to be watched," Dale says.
> Other than that, the state of the abstract public's imagination scarcely
> interests me.
"Me either, Dale," Nik says. "Me either."
As the narrator -- the audience -- flies away, the Kleenex tears open, and
it begins to rain. It washes away the cum and lies, and wets the grass.
Nik
--
DH says: "Nik is an idiot: every idea he has is a mistake."
The Nik Maack Art Gallery
http://members.xoom.com/gotnik/
Aeon
>"forcing" anyone to do anything, no matter how odious I find their present
>as such means nothing to me. I am more involved in furthering my own
>clarification and liberation. Whether or not this sets any precedent or
>willing to discuss the nature of surrealist activity (past and present), or
>to engage others in debate when they purposely misrepresent that nature.
>
>interests me.
>
Truth be known, I just got back onto my Prozac, and it makes me stumble
on my words. I cannot talk fast enough to get my ideas across, even
though I type faster than I talk. The word forcing was definately wrong.
I think I just meant that sometimes shock can be utilized to make people
feel a certain way, not always a predictable way, and sometimes the
opposite of what you intended.
orlan
--
- What if the hokey pokey IS what it's all about? -
- remove EATME to email, and I have 20-eyes, not 40 -
Parry
> I'd like to discuss what people think of the value of deliberately
> shocking people with art. Does it have any place in surrealism? Can it
> have a worthy purpose? If something shocking results from a work of
> art, but it was not the original purpose, is this better or worse?
>
> orlan
It rather depends how one interprets the word “shock.” I interpret it as
something commonplace and not difficult to achieve. “Scandalizing” and
“disturbing” are other matters.
What constitutes “shocking” is very subjective. There are plenty of
people who are shocked by just about anything. There are even people who
fish around for stuff to be “shocked” at so they can climb on their
soapbox and demand censorship. Just ask a librarian. On the other side,
there are works which self-consciously defile the boundaries of good
taste and revel in the humiliation of their subjects, and audiences
which eat this stuff up. While these works are intentionally shocking,
they do not change the viewer. When the lights go up, the boundaries
heal shut, and the audience’s confidence in its knowledge of the
boundaries is strengthened.
“Scandal,” on the other hand, implies a threat that cannot be ignored,
for it exists in real life. “Disturbing” is an unexpected and nearly
inexplicable quality, which doesn’t necessarily have to be shocking. I
once suggested a scene to a student film-maker: a woman makes a sandwich
with raw meat and then sews the slices of bread together with black
thread. It was intended as a pun on the feminine arts of cooking and
sewing, but projected on a screen the scene was quite eerie.