Pretentious Surrealist Fuckers
Nikolaus Maack
"Radically different from other websites "about" surrealism--the great
majority of which contain nothing but misinformation--this site is the
voice of the Surrealist Movement itself."
Every cluster of pretentious surrealist assholes asserts that they carry
The Truth in their gray little brains. This striving for "authenticity",
to be the one true voice, to be the "real" surrealists... God, it's so
very idiotic and small.
Blah.
Nik
--
Licking clouds while my toes
touch the centre of the earth.
scot...@uswest.net
wrote:
>On the main page of www.surrealism-usa.org:
>
>"Radically different from other websites "about" surrealism--the great
>majority of which contain nothing but misinformation--this site is the
>voice of the Surrealist Movement itself."
>
>Every cluster of pretentious surrealist assholes asserts that they carry
>The Truth in their gray little brains. This striving for "authenticity",
>to be the one true voice, to be the "real" surrealists... God, it's so
>very idiotic and small.
>
>Blah.
>
> Nik
No Nik, it is simply good marketing. Brand recognition is important.
Other wise how could it be ensured that some people will choose to buy
maroboro's rather than wiston's or vote for gore rather than bush.
Why should you give a shit?
Dale Houstman
"Nikolaus Maack" <ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:93ch7c$km2$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> On the main page of www.surrealism-usa.org:
>
> "Radically different from other websites "about" surrealism--the great
> majority of which contain nothing but misinformation--this site is the
> voice of the Surrealist Movement itself."
>
> Every cluster of pretentious surrealist assholes asserts that they carry
> The Truth in their gray little brains. This striving for "authenticity",
> to be the one true voice, to be the "real" surrealists... God, it's so
> very idiotic and small.
>
> Blah.
>
> Nik
>
more importantly wanting to understand) what the nature of surrealism might
be, the pretentious crap you reveal here is just that. Of course this isn't
to say I agree - in any fashion - with your notion that surrealism can be
anything you want it to be, but the high-flown tone of the quoted
pronouncement seems contrary to the stated aim of building an international
movement. In fact the entire program of the Chicago group tends to be
exclusionary and high-handed. Now they're begging us for infusions of money.
I would prefer they put on a bake sale, or sell cookies door to door. It
would - at the very least - surprise people to be asked to donate to the
international surrealist scouts. I imagine they might design a very nice
uniform, which might include muck boots and a codpiece full of horse smegma.
dmh
Nikolaus Maack
>> Every cluster of pretentious surrealist assholes asserts that they carry
>> The Truth in their gray little brains.
Dale said:
> Couldn't agree more. Although you show very little sign of understanding (or
> more importantly wanting to understand) what the nature of surrealism might
> be, the pretentious crap you reveal here is just that.
Christ, Dale. With one hand you slap the Chicago people for masturbating,
while your other hand is firmly wrapped around your trouser serpent.
"Yes, these Chicago people are bad for being exclusionary. How odd that
Nik, who has no real understanding of true surrealism whatsoever (unlike
myself) is the person to point this out."
> Of course this isn't
> to say I agree - in any fashion - with your notion that surrealism can be
> anything you want it to be
Surrealism isn't anything you want it to be. Each individual person
approaches surrealism from their own particular angle. Some angles are
much more skewed than others. Each angle is useful. Forcing everyone to
approach surrealism from the same angle would be counter-productive.
It's called Postmodernism. Check it out.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/086316188X/o/qid=979046531/sr=8-10/107-9730386-9256533
> In fact the entire program of the Chicago group tends to be
> exclusionary and high-handed.
You're just still pissed off because they snubbed you and your three
friends, and ignored that incredibly pathetic, whiny letter you mailed
them. While you continue to carry this grudge, they probably don't even
remember you exist.
john adams
Nikolaus Maack wrote in message <93f3po$pku$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>...
>I said:
>>> Every cluster of pretentious surrealist assholes asserts that they carry
>>> The Truth in their gray little brains.
>
>Dale said:
>> Couldn't agree more. Although you show very little sign of understanding (or
>> more importantly wanting to understand) what the nature of surrealism might
>> be, the pretentious crap you reveal here is just that.
>
>Christ, Dale. With one hand you slap the Chicago people for masturbating,
>while your other hand is firmly wrapped around your trouser serpent.
>
>"Yes, these Chicago people are bad for being exclusionary. How odd that
>Nik, who has no real understanding of true surrealism whatsoever (unlike
>myself) is the person to point this out."
>
>> Of course this isn't
>> to say I agree - in any fashion - with your notion that surrealism can be
>> anything you want it to be
>
>Surrealism isn't anything you want it to be. Each individual person
>approaches surrealism from their own particular angle. Some angles are
>much more skewed than others. Each angle is useful. Forcing everyone to
>approach surrealism from the same angle would be counter-productive.
>
>It's called Postmodernism. Check it out.
Oh, now nik with his postmodern thumb up his bum. What you said, essentially, was that while surrealism is not just anything, any
stance any person might decide to take towards - any idea of it - is just as valid as any other form of surrealism. That's well and
fine but just a little too contradictory for me. Noone here, atleast not me, is trying to stuff their "own" version down someone
else's neck. You're just annoyed you can't twist and arrange it any old way you see fit and it really gets your goat when you come
across here and people actually have the nerve to disagree; it becomes your quest to alter them.
barrett john erickson
> [...]
> It's called Postmodernism. Check it out.
nik, one of the things that places you so conspicuously _outside_ of
"surrealism" is that you _are_ quintessentially postmodern. which is to
say: you have lost interest in unmediated reality, seduced into believing
your alienation from it is an inescapable condition of living human.
rather than taking your dreams for reality you take reality for a dream.
and you think that's just the way it is and the way it is is just fine with
you.
it's all a performance for you and all that matters to you is what is
"useful" to your performance.
-- 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
==============================================
Brandon Freels
> majority of which contain nothing but misinformation--this site is the
> voice of the Surrealist Movement itself."
>
> Every cluster of pretentious surrealist assholes asserts that they carry
> The Truth in their gray little brains. This striving for "authenticity",
> to be the one true voice, to be the "real" surrealists... God, it's so
> very idiotic and small.
I don't see what is so wrong with their quote. The truth is that most
websites about surrealism are done by people outside of the movement with an
art historical understanding of the movement. These people usually subscribe
to that awful understanding that the movement is dead, and that we have no
part participating in history, for we are only hear to observe not to
interact. The Chicago Group is simply pointing out that their website is
made by actual surrealists. So what?
barrett john erickson
"Brandon Freels" <b.j.f...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:lYL66.1211$Cy.8...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
as i've said before, the objection from _my_ perspective -- as a surrealist
in minnesota -- can be found in this statement:
"The Surrealist Movement in the United States includes the Chicago
Surrealist Group and its many participants scattered from coast to coast."
the chicago group has proclaimed itself "The Surrealist Movement in the
United States," then co-edited magazines and signed tracts as such
(regardless of how few in number actually participated). by implication
they have declared that all surrealists in the USA are subsidiaries of
chicago and it alone is the sole representative and arbiter of surrealist
activity in this country.
they show no interest in attempting to strengthen and clarify the surrealist
movement by confronting whatever they find objectionable in the activities
of a group of self-proclaimed "surrealists in minnesota" -- even as we
challenge their right to speak for all surrealists in the USA -- preferring
to challenge our credentials clandestinely among the europeans. and they
react strongly when one of their own steps out of line.
this does indeed make "The Surrealist Movement in the United States" seem
more like an exclusive club than a movement directed toward a "revolution of
the mind".
and it is for this reason we found it necessary to declare our independence
from them.
Brandon Freels
> the objection ... can be found in this statement:
> "The Surrealist Movement in the United States includes the Chicago
> Surrealist Group and its many participants scattered from coast to coast."
I was referring to the quote Nik provided. I still see nothing wrong with
them pointing out that there is a difference between those websites about
surrealism and those websites created by surrealists.
As for your relationship with Chicago (and for that matter, future groups),
perhaps you need to make a more direct declaration of what your group is
trying to accomplish. While I enjoy Blue Feathers it does present
information in a rather vague and ambigious way. I bring this up because I
tend to think that the Chicago group could be somewhat confused as to what
is going on with your group and a direct statement of objectives could be
presented. I have nothing wrong with the format or how it is presented but
they, a few generations older than me, may find it confusing, alien. They
may have not responded all those years simply because they didn't know how
to respond. In addition, I thought maybe the "enactive cognition" angle
might have turned them off, but after glancing over my Blue Feathers early
today I didn't seem to see any of it in the pages. Maybe even the zine
format was a problem (I hope not, I like zines)?
Beyond that, I see the problem not that at times they call themselves the US
Group (at this point who cares what they call themselves?), but rather that
they don't acknowledge your existence. Talking to a wall can be frustrating.
Do the Wisconsin surrealists have the same problems? How many other
Surrealist's groups in the US are there, and how are they "treated" by the
Chicago group?
> they show no interest in attempting to strengthen and clarify the
surrealist
> movement by confronting whatever they find objectionable in the activities
> of a group of self-proclaimed "surrealists in minnesota" -- even as we
> challenge their right to speak for all surrealists in the USA --
preferring
> to challenge our credentials clandestinely among the europeans. and they
> react strongly when one of their own steps out of line.
What do you mean "preferring to challenge our credentials clandestinely
among the europeans"? Can you explain.
Nikolaus Maack
> nik, one of the things that places you so conspicuously _outside_ of
> "surrealism" is that you _are_ quintessentially postmodern.
Barrett, it comes as no surprise that you would say there is no room for
postmodern surrealists. Your main chore in life is defining who can and
who cannot be a surrealist. This work of yours is never-ending, and
supposedly keeps the movement "pure".
I would argue that it's just this kind of exclusionary thinking that makes
surrealism so disorganized and small. It's also the very problem that has
been eating away at surrealism since the Breton days.
Consider:
1. You believe in God? You're out of the movement.
2. You're not a communist? You're out of the movement.
3. You support any government agency of any kind. The police? The
military? Pack your bags -- we're kicking you out.
4. Are you some kind of post-modernist? Bye bye. You're gone.
5. You believe in (choke) financial success? See you later.
And on and on the list goes, eventually leaving four people and a dead dog
who get together every Tuesday afternoon and congratulate themselves on
making the grade. That is, until they notice weaknesses in each other and
have a trial to eliminate the "traitors". (Witness the hounding of
Brandon because he finds gays in the military to be a worthwhile issue.)
In the end, the only member left is the dead dog, because he never stormed
out of the room in disgust.
You'll argue that what I'm saying is the equivalent of a member of the
vegitarian club saying we should let meat-eaters join up. Which I think
only proves my point. You have become entrenched in certain, specific
points of view, convinced that they are absolutely correct, that anyone
who varies from these views is your opposite. Anyone who disagrees is a
traitor to the cause.
Man, you and surrealism NEED some post-modern thinking to see where things
have gone wrong.
If surrealism is freedom of the mind from all external constraints, how do
we define that freedom? Is there one, objective freedom? Or do each of
us have our own, subjective perspective on what our freedom is? One
person's open space is another person's claustrophobia.
Once you start saying that there is only one true freedom, and insist
everyone embrace it, you're (irony of ironies) taking away people's
freedoms.
Nik
PS.
I find blueberry yogurt tastes better with a fork.
Nikolaus Maack
> from them.
How many Minnesotans are there in your particular surrealism franchise,
anyway?
barrett john erickson
nik can drown in the shallowest nuance.
i wrote:
<<<
nik, one of the things that places you so conspicuously _outside_ of
"surrealism" is that you _are_ quintessentially postmodern. which is to
say: you have lost interest in unmediated reality, seduced into believing
your alienation from it is an inescapable condition of living human.
rather than taking your dreams for reality you take reality for a dream.
and you think that's just the way it is and the way it is is just fine with
you.
it's all a performance for you and all that matters to you is what is
"useful" to your performance.
>>>
nik responds:
barrett john erickson
> "barrett john erickson" (bar...@magneticfields.org) writes:
> > and it is for this reason we found it necessary to declare our
independence
> > from them.
>
> How many Minnesotans are there in your particular surrealism franchise,
> anyway?
we chose to refer to ourselves as "surrealists in minnesota" specifically to
avoid the concept of "membership" and its inherent deceptions and
misdirections.
as far as i'm concerned, a "group" is a process and only exists during the
specific moment of collaboration and consists only of those participating at
that time.
others seem to think a "group" is a list of names identifying all those who
have ever participated in such an activity, or whose interest in
participation has been verified. once a member always a member (even if
they live thousands of miles away and they haven't heard from group-central
in years).
what makes a "franchise" for you?
Dale Houstman
"barrett john erickson" <bar...@magneticfields.org> wrote in message
news:3a5ca5a1$0$40756$7f89...@newsreader.visi.com...
>
> "Nikolaus Maack" <ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:93hoo5$1f5$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> > "barrett john erickson" (bar...@magneticfields.org) writes:
> > > and it is for this reason we found it necessary to declare our
> independence
> > > from them.
> >
> > How many Minnesotans are there in your particular surrealism franchise,
> > anyway?
>
>
> we chose to refer to ourselves as "surrealists in minnesota" specifically
to
> avoid the concept of "membership" and its inherent deceptions and
> misdirections.
>
> as far as i'm concerned, a "group" is a process and only exists during the
> specific moment of collaboration and consists only of those participating
at
> that time.
>
> others seem to think a "group" is a list of names identifying all those
who
> have ever participated in such an activity, or whose interest in
> participation has been verified. once a member always a member (even if
> they live thousands of miles away and they haven't heard from
group-central
> in years).
>
> what makes a "franchise" for you?
>
good hamburger and some onion blossoms...
dmh
Dale Houstman
"barrett john erickson" <bar...@magneticfields.org> wrote in message
news:3a5ca5a1$0$40756$7f89...@newsreader.visi.com...
>
> news:93hoo5$1f5$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> > "barrett john erickson" (bar...@magneticfields.org) writes:
> > > and it is for this reason we found it necessary to declare our
> independence
> > > from them.
> >
> > How many Minnesotans are there in your particular surrealism franchise,
> > anyway?
>
>
> we chose to refer to ourselves as "surrealists in minnesota" specifically
to
> avoid the concept of "membership" and its inherent deceptions and
> misdirections.
>
> as far as i'm concerned, a "group" is a process and only exists during the
> specific moment of collaboration and consists only of those participating
at
> that time.
>
> others seem to think a "group" is a list of names identifying all those
who
> have ever participated in such an activity, or whose interest in
> participation has been verified. once a member always a member (even if
> they live thousands of miles away and they haven't heard from
group-central
> in years).
>
> what makes a "franchise" for you?
>
Nikolaus Maack
>> How many Minnesotans are there in your particular surrealism franchise,
>> anyway?
Barrett:
> we chose to refer to ourselves as "surrealists in minnesota" specifically to
> avoid the concept of "membership" and its inherent deceptions and
> misdirections.
I prefer to use the word "elephant" instead of "chicken", because when I
order chicken wings, I would prefer that they be very large. Elephants
are large, therefore I order "elephant wings". This gets me thrown out of
the finer restaurants across North America, as the North American elephant
is wingless due to a heavy snowfall in '52.
> as far as i'm concerned, a "group" is a process and only exists during the
> specific moment of collaboration and consists only of those participating at
> that time.
I see. So, what I hear you saying is that you're a pretentious git.
> others seem to think a "group" is a list of names identifying all those who
> have ever participated in such an activity, or whose interest in
> participation has been verified. once a member always a member (even if
> they live thousands of miles away and they haven't heard from group-central
> in years).
I cannot help but notice that you are being evasive. I suspect this is
because the number of surrealists in Minnesota really is four and one dead
dog. And you're the dead dog.
Allow me to define "group" as those members who are currently actively
involved in your surrealist shenanigans in and/or around Minnesota.
Perhaps such a definition will assist you in replying to my query.
> what makes a "franchise" for you?
I was teasingly insinuating that the Minnesotans and the Chicagoans are
competing franchises of Surrealism Inc. Presumably the home office is
still located in Paris, France.
Andre Breton has his secretary put in a call to Minnesota.
"Barrett, my boy, I wanna know what you Minnesotans are doing with my
goddamn franchise. What's this I hear 'bout you and the boys in Chicago
not getting along? Now, lookee here, Barrett. I ain't lettin' you run
around town makin' my surrealism look bad, shee? Now if you don't
straighten up 'n fly right, I'll put some new kid in your place.
Unnerstan'? Maybe that Nik Maack fellow. Shore, he lives in Ottawa, but
he's got four times the gonads you got, Bear. So get smart real fast, or
get lost!"
Breton slams the phone down in the cradle and goes back to doing automatic
drawings with his own snot. The surrealist world is on edge, waiting for
a chance to see these new works by The Master.
Will Barrett have to hand in his jen-ewe-wine surrealism cufflinks, and
leave the group in disgrace? Will Andre Breton's snot-works sell for
millions? Will Nik conquer Minessota? Tune in tomorrow for the next
exciting chapter of, "STUPID AMERICAN SURREALISTS".
Nik
PS.
If there are any Chicagoan surrealists reading this newsgroup, I highly
encourage you to post a message, explaining why you ignore Bear and his
Minnesota Half-a-Minute Men.
john adams
Nikolaus Maack wrote in message <93hok3$1b3$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>...
>Man, you and surrealism NEED some post-modern thinking to see where things
>have gone wrong.
You know everyone could use a little more of that shit, bitch. Serious!
>If surrealism is freedom of the mind from all external constraints, how do
>we define that freedom? Is there one, objective freedom? Or do each of
>us have our own, subjective perspective on what our freedom is? One
>person's open space is another person's claustrophobia.
I would be led to say the latter, as the obvious choice. Yet, there are
the self-limitations, linear thinking, or common and recognizable stumbling
blocks one can strive to overcome to enhance that freedom. It is probably true that
all individuals seek a greater level of freedom throughout their lives to bring to fruition their dreams and desires, in one way or
another - some become more vivified than others. There need not be some mutual definition of personal freedom to "abide" by.
But certainly individuals can incorporate methods of enhancing their own freedom,
which I believe is the important thing.
>Once you start saying that there is only one true freedom, and insist
>everyone embrace it, you're (irony of ironies) taking away people's
>freedoms.
That I don't think was ever an issue.
Dale Houstman
"barrett john erickson" <bar...@magneticfields.org> wrote in message
news:3a5ca5a1$0$40756$7f89...@newsreader.visi.com...
>
> news:93hoo5$1f5$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> > "barrett john erickson" (bar...@magneticfields.org) writes:
> > > and it is for this reason we found it necessary to declare our
> independence
> > > from them.
> >
> > How many Minnesotans are there in your particular surrealism franchise,
> > anyway?
>
>
> we chose to refer to ourselves as "surrealists in minnesota" specifically
to
> avoid the concept of "membership" and its inherent deceptions and
> misdirections.
>
> as far as i'm concerned, a "group" is a process and only exists during the
> specific moment of collaboration and consists only of those participating
at
> that time.
>
> others seem to think a "group" is a list of names identifying all those
who
> have ever participated in such an activity, or whose interest in
> participation has been verified. once a member always a member (even if
> they live thousands of miles away and they haven't heard from
group-central
> in years).
>
> what makes a "franchise" for you?
>
Treeclimbr
___________________
Robert Pearson
Creative Virtue: http://www.eskimo.com/~telical/
ParaMind Brainstorming Software http://www.paramind.net/
R.S. Pearson Music Page http://users.50megs.com/rspearson/
paghat
(Nikolaus Maack) wrote:
> On the main page of www.surrealism-usa.org:
>
> "Radically different from other websites "about" surrealism--the great
> majority of which contain nothing but misinformation--this site is the
> voice of the Surrealist Movement itself."
>
> Every cluster of pretentious surrealist assholes asserts that they carry
> The Truth in their gray little brains. This striving for "authenticity",
> to be the one true voice, to be the "real" surrealists... God, it's so
> very idiotic and small.
>
> Blah.
>
> Nik
The only TRUE TRUTH about surrealism can be found in a little article
called "How To Be A Surrealist" which appears in a book called THE
ELEVENTH JAGUARUNDI & OTHER MYSTERIOUS PERSONS (Jazz Police / WordCraft of
Oregon, 1995). The book's Afterword "Why Write, White Rye?" decodes the
meaning of all things.
I've probably just posted one big fuck of a lie but am even I sure.
-paghat the ratgirl
paghat
(Nikolaus Maack) wrote:
> "barrett john erickson" (bar...@magneticfields.org) writes:
> > nik, one of the things that places you so conspicuously _outside_ of
> > "surrealism" is that you _are_ quintessentially postmodern.
>
> Barrett, it comes as no surprise that you would say there is no room for
> postmodern surrealists. Your main chore in life is defining who can and
> who cannot be a surrealist. This work of yours is never-ending, and
> supposedly keeps the movement "pure".
>
> I would argue that it's just this kind of exclusionary thinking that makes
> surrealism so disorganized and small. It's also the very problem that has
> been eating away at surrealism since the Breton days.
>
> Consider:
>
> 1. You believe in God? You're out of the movement.
>
> 2. You're not a communist? You're out of the movement.
>
> 3. You support any government agency of any kind. The police? The
> military? Pack your bags -- we're kicking you out.
>
> 4. Are you some kind of post-modernist? Bye bye. You're gone.
>
> 5. You believe in (choke) financial success? See you later.
Max Ernst died gibbering on his sickbed & watching woody woodpecker
cartoons on the tube. Surrealism is life.
-paghat the ratgirl