Don't Show Them This
Martijn Benders
Dale Houstman wrote:
> Agree/Disagree: I don't consider (as the original surrealists didn't
> consider) surrealism as an aesthetic or literary movement. More a philosophy
> of sensations I would think. But they did (and I do) write surrealist works,
But it seems to me your work has much more in common with the absurdists
than the surrealists. And in those parts where no conflict is present it
(so it seems to me) bends over to magic realism. Then again I might have
some subconscious dislike of the term 'surrealism' since it's the flag
that often covers the most crappy art nowadays, or at least the art I
dislike most since it's influences are often so obvious. And pure
philosophically it seems to me that absurdism is a more mature form of
surrealism, and magic realism (if performed adequately) the annihilation
of both.
Surrealism is somewhat the 'new age' of art movements, it easily gets on
ones nerves. This is clear by investigating the (somewhat arbitrary)
definitions of the three art catagories I've used:
SURREALISM: A literary, artistic, and philosophical movement, founded in
France in 1924. Surrealism sought a reality above or within the
surface reality, usually through efforts to suspend the discipline of
conscious or logical reason, aesthetics, or morality in order to allow
for the expression of subconscious thought and feeling.
ABSURDISM: A philosophy based on the belief that humans exist in an
irrational and meaningless universe and that the search for order
brings one into conflict with that universe.
As for Magic Realism, it's a bit harder to define. Marquez isn't a bad
example of it, since the term 'magic realism' derived from Alejo
Carpentier in his prologue to El reino de este mundo (The Kingdom of
This World). The Cuban novelist was searching for a concept broad enough
to accommodate both the events of everyday life and the fabulous nature
of Latin American geography and history.
'Magic Realism can be defined as a preoccupation or interest in showing
something common or daily into something unreal or strange. Angel Flores
explains that in magic realism, time flows without the restriction of
"time", and what can be unreal
appears as real.1 The writer confronts reality and tries to reveal it by
looking for what can be mysterious in life, objects, and even human
actions. A magic realist narrator creates the illusion of "unreality",
faking the escape from the natural, and tells an action that even if
appears as explainable it comes across as strange. In the strange
narrations, the writer instead of presenting something as real, the
reality becomes magical. The strategy the writer consist in suggesting a
supernatural atmosphere without denying the natural, and the tactic is
deforming the reality. Characters, things, and events are recognizable
and reasonable, but because the
narrator's intentions are to provoke strange feeling, the explanations
are not clear nor logical. Also, there is no ambiguity or psychological
analysis of the characters,
instead they are well defined almost in opposition, and they never
appear confused or surprised about the supernatural.'
------
Above definitions make it clear that, since magic realism is almost
entirely without conflict, it creates disorder. Surrealism, on the other
hand, is entirely focused on bringing order to the known universe and
thus it's easily classified as rather appolonian.
Lorca's complaints about Dali where usually focussed on Dali's 'hiegenic
nature' which expressed itself as an almost obsessive urge to want to
see birds in the air, and fish in the sea, and wanting to see grass
green and air blue but all with as much conflict as possible.
> and there are several whom I admire greatly just for this aspect: Breton
> himself (both as a polemicist and a writer: I think his Nadja is one of the
> finest texts of the century), Arp (who wrote marvelously funny poems),
> Desnos the great lyric poet of ghostly love, and so on.
Maybe you just love things that have curtains in them :)
'That shadow at the window is you--no, it's not a shadow, it's really
you! But don't open that window behind whose curtains you're pacing back
and forth. Instead, close your eyes.
I'd like to shut them myself--with my lips.'
Robert Desnos
So I don't judge the "value" of
> surrealism by its virtues as literature. It has informed my life deeply, and
> that is my main interest.
Would you, by above definitions, describe your attitude towards the
universe as 'surrealist'?
Martijn
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
De Zeekannibaal online:
http://members.brabant.chello.nl/~m.benders/sea/zeekannibaal.htm
DE nederlandsche CACAOFABRIEK
http://www.cacaofabriek.com/
"Nu mag beugeltje zelf zijn druppeltjes praatolie in de koffie doen"
Uit 'Wipneus en Pim op de Kleiberg'
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
Brandon Freels
"Martijn Benders" wrote
>And pure philosophically it seems to me that absurdism is a more mature
form of
> surrealism, and magic realism (if performed adequately) the annihilation
> of both.
How can this be? Surrealism is the freedom of the mind. The "philosophy" of
Absurdism, as you present it (Camus influenced?) relies on the ir/rational
dychotomy which is a repressive force against the mind. If anything
Absurdism is regression. And magic realism is simply a boring artist's
"trick" and not really comparable with the other two.
[snip definitions]
> Above definitions make it clear that, since magic realism is almost
> entirely without conflict, it creates disorder. Surrealism, on the other
> hand, is entirely focused on bringing order to the known universe and
> thus it's easily classified as rather appolonian.
I'm not sure how you got to this conclusion that surrealism is about "bring
order". Rather it is about stipping artificial (man-made) order, and getting
back to the natural order. As I wrote in the FAQ, it is "the primary and
natural condition of the mind and all its faculties free from the
interference of external constraints such as rationalism, aestheticism,
utilitarianism, and religious superstition. This autonomy is achieved only
when the socially constructed apparatuses of repression are dismantled and
those ostracized characteristics of the mind (innovative imagination,
uncompromised desire, and so on) are reintegrated into everyday life,
delivering the mind to a state of free development and spontaneity. It is in
this state, where the individual has regained the primeval senses, that the
mind can move forward to an untainted awareness of existence, which is the
most complete experience of reality---a surreality."
The Lemming
Nikolaus Maack <ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:98t2rn$17l$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> Perhaps I am alone in wishing you would "throw out" the FAQ, and leave it
> at that.
I find it very useful. As others have said, it's a good thing to throw at
people that clearly don't understand surrealism, and for newbies that aren't
entirely certain, or want to understand more. Most NGs have a FAQ, and
etiquette suggets that it is read before posting to a group; hopefully the
FAQ will stop the inane posters coming here and assuming that by posting a
message including the word fish they're somehow being surreal.
Nick the Lemming
--
Happy VHEMT Volunteer
May we live long and die out
In Your Face, Space Coyote!
Parry
> Parry <pa...@perfectOMITmail.com> wrote in article
> <3AB17A...@perfectOMITmail.com> :
> >cythera wrote:
> >> Parry <pa...@perfectOMITmail.com> wrote in article
> >> <3AB0DC...@perfectOMITmail.com> :
> >> >Martijn Benders wrote:
> >> >> Brandon Freels wrote:
> >> >> > How can this be? Surrealism is the freedom of the mind.
> >> >>
> >> >> Not any more than communism, despotism or pope-of-the-day'ism represent
> >> >> the 'freedom of the mind'; I find this tendency of presenting itself as
> >> >> the single solution to be utterly irritating of any ideology.
> >> >
> >> >Brandon is suggesting that “freedom of the mind” is the definition of
> >> >surrealism, not that surrealism promises the path to freedom as if were
> >> >some Dianetics con.
> >>
> >> Please let Brandon et al explain their own posts. It is rather ironic that
> >> you had to jump in and explain his own words re “freedom of the mind” for
> >> him, do you know what I mean?
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> >> and it's pretentious claims of having the power to strip
> >> >> anything back to naturalism is often more apologist material.
> >> >
> >> >What you call pretentious others call ambitious.
> >>
> >> >And probably what you call unpretentious others call trivial.
> >>
> >> And probably you could simply give him room to explain.
> >
> >You snipped my direct question to him.
>
> Yes, it had already been asked and was not relevant to my post.
Just relevant in that you said I gave him no “room to explain” when in
fact I invited a response. A minor quibble.
> Would you mind answering my direct question about liberating the imagination? I wrote:
> "How do your unsubstantiated claims liberate your imagination or anyone else's (and no this is not a rhetorical question.)."
> If you would like to change the word in question to "assumption", "inference",
> "surmise", etc. that is certainly fair.
A claim is not the same thing as an assumption. I considered the
question unanswerable because of its faulty premise (the
“unsubstantiated claims”), and so addressed the premise. If your
question instead is “how does making inferences from what one reads
liberate your imagination,” well I never claimed it did.
> If, on the other hand, you want to continue in the same vein as below: "I
> would have thought all this was elemental" (implying what exactly? please
> feel free to be direct with me);
I feel as if you’ve ignored the substance of my post and changed the
focus to questions on the level of “how one is able to draw conclusions
from what is read.” In the first instance you appeared to think it
untoward of me to cite what Brandon wrote, in the second you acted as if
my comments on the word “pretentious” were a personal attack on Martijn.
Features which are par for the discourse have been made to appear
extraordinary.
> is always Kristina's "you're an abomination to surrealism"
> quote, right?), then like her and Brandon you get that one
> go at me gratis, and any further discussion on this matter
> from me to you will not be forthcoming. I feel sure that I am
> making myself clear. Frankly Parry I wonder that you let such
> remarks go un-"interrogated", to use your word below
I tend to stay out of personal disputes. When someone writes to a.s.
that surrealism has “this tendency of presenting itself as the single
solution” to “freedom of the mind” in the manner of “communism,
despotism or pope-of-the-day'ism,” that’s another matter. But if you’re
so sensitive about “unsubstantiated claims,” why did you not challenge
Martijn on such statement as “[surrealism] presents itself as 'freedom'
and it's aims are to show that the naked man behind the bushes is the
model for our liberation” or “the evangelic factor has always been large
with the surrealists” or “[surrealism makes] pretentious claims of
having the power to strip anything back to naturalism”?
> or if you choose to follow Brandon and tell me to "fuck off"
> and/or, as he did Martijn, call me asshole (or slut, stupid,
> ugly, hypocrite, liar, etc., as he did recently; and then there
> (not that I need someone to defend me, but rather _do_ these remarks,
> e.g. your recent "Is Nik an imbecile?" liberate _anyone's_ imagination,
> either the writer's or the reader's?).
The question was in reference to Nik’s insinuation that the users of
this newsgroup are fascists. The question stands.
> It's my opinion that they most likely do not: as you are probably aware,
> like you I've been on both ends of them. But as far as any liberation goes,
> the proof is in the pudding, don't you think?! I am wondering why people
> who desire freedom would be so willing to step on other people and to
> watch this time and again. Doesn't it remind you of good Germans?
Not at all. How could it be in the interest of freedom to not challenge
the sentiment that fascism and anti-fascism are the same thing?
[snip]
> > but rather to interrogate the word “pretentious.”
>
> Perhaps guests could be treated a bit more cordially?
Even when the guest is so rude as to write to Brandon: “You seem unaware
of what the prefix 'sur' actually means. Hint: it does not mean 'most
complete'...”? Even when I’m a guest here as much as anybody else? Why
don’t you pop into a math newsgroup, blow some hot air about mathematics
and see what sort of cordial reception you get?
-- 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
>
> Parry (pa...@perfectOMITmail.com) writes:
> > I’m certainly not trying to bully anyone.
>
> Alas, you are bullying people. As are we all. In our intellectual
> arrogance and certainty we are right, we raise our mighty fists and smash
> anything that disagrees with us. The amusing thing is, our differences
> could be settled simply by not fighting.
>
> We are all weak, inside. I believe differences can be settled when we can
> all admit that each of us, inside, has weakness. Unfortunately, it is
> difficult to admit such a thing, as it (ironically enough) makes us look
> weak, and gives the "opponent" an opportunity to kick us one more time in
> the belly.
>
> I have weakness in me. When I kick you, I do so not out of strength, but
> weakness. When you kick me, you do so for the same reason. Do you agree?
No, because I’m not kicking you. And when the differences are a simple
matter of factual record, I don't see any solution in navel-gazing.
My definition of a bully is one who persecutes the weak, and assumes no
responsibility for his actions. I don’t see that happening with the
bullies you list.
Except maybe John. He’s a badass.
Martijn Benders
Dale Houstman wrote:
> > I like almost all art forms, in the sense that in each discipline people
> > work who are really
> > good at what they are doing. I do not really understand why some people
> > only seem to fanatically
> > appreciate one sort of thing, however.
>
> This strikes me as irrelevant: surrealism is not an art form, ( you seem
> unable to cope with this fact)
True. I find it an outraguously ridiculous claim, which is made by most
art forms and movements. Symbolism is a lifestyle. Conceptualism is a
philosophy. Onthological anarchism is a fashion brand. To me it all
sounds like they are trying to sell something, and I don't think
surrealism deserves some special place amongst them.
and an appreciation of surrealism does not
> limit one's parameters of appreciation. There is very little outside the
> scope of surrealist interest, and - as is obvious from the work of the
> surrealists (which includes what we would call abstraction) surrealism is
> not a genre of painting.
Then why does my dictionairy suggest otherwise?
I think surrealism is an artistic genre that tries to present itself
as some sort of all-compassing philosophy while it's pretty obvious that
it doesn't have the consistency and broadness required to account for
such. Anything can be a 'lifestyle' and most art genres do make claims
in the same directions. Impressionists like Freud and gardens, Dadaists
are good with newspapers and whatnot.
> > Just observe how much emphasis new age music puts on mind exploration,
> > and
> > the analogy should be rather obvious.
>
> Silly fake parallelism. An analogy based on one characteristic is entirely
> specious.
New age music makes use of natural elements and distorts them, just like
the surrealists do. Those two have a lot in common. Why do you think Max
Ernst married Luise Strauss? ('The Queen of hearts', from the operette
with the same name) - Strauss can be considered to be the 'father' of
new age, since New Age veterans like Robert Stolz pay hommage to this
guy:
http://www.jpc-tipp.de/8717416.htm
And ofcourse, the Donau is the most surrealist river in Europe.
>
> Okay, then if observing is ordering, and we all observe, then why are you so
> upset about ordering? It's inevitable isn't it?
Just some disciplines seem to be more preoccupied with it than others.
If it's so inevitable, why build some gloomy philosophies around it?
> One cannot deal with the unknowable.
That's not true. Read the sixth book of Carlos Casteneda.
> It is very odd that you think merely
> perring into a darkened room is bringing order, but that organizing and
> composing a book isn't.
The brain is more reliable than the mind.
> But actually the Apollonian/Dionysian dichotomy isn't this simple. Children
> are often depicted as Dionysian in their chaotic energies.
Not by far. Apollo is always depicted as a youth, and Dionysus very
rarely is, and when he is it's usually in context of his cultus where
young victims where eaten to his name by the congregation.
> To declare that
> Apollo (a symbol of rationalism) is somehow less "mature" than Dionysis is
> incorrect.
As a psychological phase, apollonism is naive and less mature than
dionysm.
> > I don't see why Dali should not be considered a surrealist.
> >
> >
> I didn't say he wasn't a surrealist (at some point), but his pursuit of
> sensationalism, publicity, money, fascism, and catholicism are at odds with
> what passes for surrealism.
He thought surrealism was boring, so he took a few hobbies aside them.
Can anyone in their right state of mind blame him?
cythera
>Brandon Freels wrote:
>> Nikolaus Maack wrote:
>> > You're not trying to converse when you through the FAQ at someone. You're
>> > preaching, pushing, pounding at people.
>>
>> Actually, I see no reason for typing the same words over and over again. I'm
>> tired. If someone is arguing with me about "what Surrealism is" its much
>> easy for me to throw out the FAQ and leave it at that. At this point I have
>> no interest continuing conversations on the topic with individuals who have
>> no intention of trying to understand my view, but are more interested in
>> flaming.
>
>I think Brandon’s been using the faq appropriately (Nik disagrees
>perfunctorily) by supplying it to users who demonstrate confusion about
>the basics. That’s what a faq is for. That he’s reposted it 3 or however
>many times just indicates how much it was needed. Of course, if one uses
>it to sign off on insulting and condescending (“You seem unaware of what
>the prefix 'sur' actually means”) dullards, that’s fine too
Dullards, assholes, sluts, mother-truckers, people with the wrong car, and (horror of horrors) people who know nothing about surrealism . . . oh god
what is this world coming to
>
>> > You, Brandon, are a bully. Alas, so am I. So is Dale. So is Parry. So
>> > is John. Maybe even Cythera.
I'm trying to figure out who wrote this ^ -- the original post didn't appear. Anyway thanks for the "maybe even": I appreciate the positive strokes, and
for my own role (not for anyone else's) in the stuff of the past, I extend my apology to the appropriate parties. Whether you feel the same, or not, is
fine with me; any r/evolution starts inside the person, with her or his _own_ perceptions, doesn't it.
Does anyone reading this want to answer the question I've asked elsewhere:
Do remarks like "Is Nik an imbecile?", etc. liberate _anyone's_ imagination, either the writer's, or the reader's/readers'?
>>
>> Well, she tries.
>
>I’m certainly not trying to bully anyone.
Well Parry I believe you but you do seem to be bullying people: Martijn and
Nik in particular -- obviously they don't know much about the surrealist project, or agree with you, but is that so "wrong"? (And you are not a
"guest" or newcomer here, you -- unlike me -- are well-educated on the topic and have something to teach, if you want to, and will stay focussed on the bigger picture. Same for the others of you who have been studying surrealism for years. Can you please be more generous and patient.)
>
>-- Parry
>
Thank you,
cythera.
_______________________________________________
Submitted via WebNewsReader of http://www.interbulletin.com
cythera
<3ab2000b$0$48740$65a9...@news.citilink.com> to:
>"Brandon Freels" <b.j.f...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:Kcgs6.1062$M%2.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>[...] Nik doesn't exist without a problem. So it has to be one, or he has
>no online existence.
How many years now have you men been talking about Nik?
When is enough really enough? Someone please email me when that time arrives.
Hoping y'all are done with your measuring contest soon,
cythera.
>
>dmh
Nikolaus Maack
> I find it very useful. As others have said, it's a good thing to throw at
> people that clearly don't understand surrealism, and for newbies that aren't
> entirely certain, or want to understand more. Most NGs have a FAQ, and
> etiquette suggets that it is read before posting to a group; hopefully the
> FAQ will stop the inane posters coming here and assuming that by posting a
> message including the word fish they're somehow being surreal.
That strikes me as a little elitist. You understand surrealism, they
don't. You get to look down on them. You get to mock their "fish".
Meanwhile you have no "fish". You have nothing. Perhaps a handful of
ideas to mull over with the others, like stuffed people at Thanksgiving,
idly pulling scraps of meat off the turkey carcass.
I don't mean to mock you. I'm just saying, better fish than scraps of
foul.
I'd like to see more people come into this newsgroup and post something
with the word "fish" in it. If only so that the thin, blue blood that
snail-crawls through this newsgroup's veins is occasionally woken up.
I would like to see your "fish", Nick the Lemming. Better an awkward
fumbling story told by a an "amateur" than the endless droning of a
"professional" telling us all how he could write a much better story -- if
he wanted to.
Show me your "fish". I eagerly await a description of your "fish".
Nik
--
Licking clouds while my toes
touch the centre of the earth.
Nikolaus Maack
> No, because I’m not kicking you. And when the differences are a simple
> matter of factual record, I don't see any solution in navel-gazing.
No solution in navel gazing? Are you sure you're a surrealist?
Facts. Rationality. Logic. Again, and again. An ignoring of subjective
realities. Not "I never meant to kick you," or, "I don't think I've been
a bully," but, "I'm not kicking you. It's a matter of factual record."
> My definition of a bully is one who persecutes the weak, and assumes no
> responsibility for his actions. I don’t see that happening with the
> bullies you list.
Your definition lacks imagination, flavour, and personal experience. It
is tepid. I urge you to try again, and risk breaking boundries of reason.
A bully is a man who wears his pants backwards, and stares at the mole
growing on your sister's cheek.
A bully is a woman with lips coated in four different shades of lipstick,
who keeps making kissing sounds at dogs.
A bully is a dirty, half-full glass of warm orange sitting on top of a
clean glass-topped table.
A bully is a skunk, descented, crawling across the ceiling, threatening to
bite every crystal on the chandaliere.
Dale Houstman
"cythera" <donot...@interbulletin.bogus> wrote in message
news:3AB2D47C...@interbulletin.com...
> "Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in article
> <3ab2000b$0$48740$65a9...@news.citilink.com> to:
> >"Brandon Freels" <b.j.f...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> >news:Kcgs6.1062$M%2.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> >[...] Nik doesn't exist without a problem. So it has to be one, or he has
> >no online existence.
>
> How many years now have you men been talking about Nik?
And how many years will it have been before you cease talking about us
talking about Nik?
Would you rather we talk about you?
And - anyway - I see more here than that. But Nik - as a participant (and a
very active participant) here, no matter what you or I might think of him -
brings up critical points, even if he usually fails to follow up in
discussions, and frames ideas falsely and clumsily. Why shouldn't we - at
times - discuss him?
It doesn't strike me as a problem - less so than your horrendously over the
top response to Parry's simple picking up of a pertinent thread. Threads
don't "belong" to those to whom they are addressed: you're confusing a forum
with your e-mail.
dmh
Laury
|...
| A bully is a man who wears his pants backwards, and stares at
the mole
| growing on your sister's cheek.
|
| A bully is a woman with lips coated in four different shades
of lipstick,
| who keeps making kissing sounds at dogs.
|
| A bully is a dirty, half-full glass of warm orange sitting on
top of a
| clean glass-topped table.
|
| A bully is a skunk, descented, crawling across the ceiling,
threatening to
| bite every crystal on the chandaliere.
| Licking ... toes
| ...the centre ...
Bully for you, old bean.
--
Laury King at BT Internet dot com
Laury
I'm sorry Nik, but I did my best to enlighten all here present
by weaving in 'new thread', a bit of true, and truly fishy,
surrealism, from uk.games.mornington-crescent. Perhaps it did
not register. There is an example of a ng which not only sticks
to the matter, but refrains from tedious flame wars. True, the
ng suffers from minimalism, but more than makes up for it by
following, in a most gentlemanly manner, the unwritten rules.
cythera
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 00:45:45 -0600
From: "Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com>
Newsgroups: alt.surrealism
"cythera" wrote in message news:3AB2D47C...@interbulletin.com...
> "Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in article
> <3ab2000b$0$48740$65a9...@news.citilink.com> to:
> >"Brandon Freels" <b.j.f...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> >news:Kcgs6.1062$M%2.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> >[...] Nik doesn't exist without a problem. So it has to be one, or he has
> >no online existence.
>
>> How many years now have you men been talking about Nik?
>And how many years will it have been before you cease talking about us
talking about Nik?
Oh now how long is a year on a.s., 3 days or thereabouts?
>Would you rather we talk about you?
Who is "we"?
Anyway, say whatever you like. I would rather you et al did not inform me
what I think, feel, what I have confused with my email, etc. or (please)
answer any of my posts for _me_, but I don't expect that a one of you except perhaps barrett gives a hoot about personal boundaries. At least on usenet. Just (seriously Dale) please don't prove that Smolens person is right about you.
Fond wishes to you,
cythera.
Martijn Benders
Brandon Freels wrote:
> How can this be? Surrealism is the freedom of the mind.
No it isn't.
Not any more than communism, despotism or pope-of-the-day'ism represent
the 'freedom of the mind'; I find this tendency of presenting itself as
the single solution to be utterly irritating of any ideology.
The "philosophy" of
> Absurdism, as you present it (Camus influenced?) relies on the ir/rational
> dychotomy which is a repressive force against the mind.
The mind, in absurdism, is the great enemy. Surrealism collaborates with
it on basis of nothing but blind faith.
If anything
> Absurdism is regression. And magic realism is simply a boring artist's
> "trick" and not really comparable with the other two.
That's simply untrue as magic realism is both an art movement and a
literary movement. I could just as well call surrealism an 'artist
trick', or even a trick of art collectors, which seems a bit more to the
point.
> I'm not sure how you got to this conclusion that surrealism is about "bring
> order". Rather it is about stipping artificial (man-made) order, and getting
> back to the natural order.
As such it's entirely an offspring of romanticism and naturalism; it
presents itself as 'freedom' and it's aims are to show that the naked
man behind the bushes is the model for our liberation, instead of Jesus
Christ. The evangelic factor has always been large with the surrealists
and it's pretentious claims of having the power to strip
anything back to naturalism is often more apologist material.
> It is in
> this state, where the individual has regained the primeval senses, that the
> mind can move forward to an untainted awareness of existence, which is the
> most complete experience of reality---a surreality."
You seem unaware of what the prefix 'sur' actually means.
Hint: it does not mean 'most complete'...
Can you explain why Malevitches Suprematism isn't leading
to the 'most complete experience of reality'?
(which sounds an awful lot like advertising, if you ask me)
Brandon Freels
another asshole around here. How's that for brevity?
"Martijn Benders" wrote
[snip]
***
Surrealism FAQ
Version 1.1 (February 2001)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents
Introduction
What is Surrealism?
1.1 Pure Psychic Automatism
1.2 A Short Introduction to the Surrealist Movement
The Surrealist Revolution
2.1 Politics
2.2 Art and Literature
Surrealist Explorations: Play and Creativity
3.1 Automatism
3.2 Forced Inspiration
3.3 The Surrealist Collage
3.4 The Surrealist Object
3.5 Games
Some Surrealist Concepts
4.1 Black Humor
4.2 The Marvelous
4.3 Mad Love
4.4 Miserablism
The Periphery: Precursors, Fellow Travelers, et al.
5.1 George Bataille
5.2 Dada
5.3 Salvador Dali (Avida Dollars)
5.4 The Occult
5.5 Oulipo
5.6 Pataphysics
5.7 Psychoanalysis
5.8 Situationist International
Appendix
6.1 Further Reading in English
6.2 Online Documents
6.3 Online Surrealist Groups
6.4 Online Surrealist Resources
6.5 FAQ Acknowledgements
INTRODUCTION
Thanks to the common misrepresentations spread throughout the Internet and
academia by individuals hoping to reorient its focus Surrealism is often
misunderstood as an artistic style, a literary movement, a form of mystical
escapism into a world of illusions, convenient weirdness, and a variety of
other banalities. This Frequently Asked Questions was produced to combat the
onslaught of such disinformation. It will be regularly posted to
alt.surrealism, an open forum for discussion and a dumping ground for
anything that falls within the scope of Surrealist interest.
"Perhaps the greatest danger threatening Surrealism today is the fact that
because of its spread throughout the world, which was very sudden and rapid,
the word found favor much faster than the idea." ---André Breton, Surrealist
Situation of the Object
"Surrealism has declared, in every authentic manifestation, its commitment
to revolution; the displacement of the real import of the word by
inhibitions in the writings of college teachers does not alter that
commitment in the slightest. It merely means that there is promulgated the
illusion that critics have something to add." ---The Chicago Surrealist
Group, reply to The New York Review of Books
WHAT IS SURREALISM?
1.1 Pure Psychic Automatism
Pure Psychic Automatism is the primary and natural condition of the mind and
all its faculties free from the interference of external constraints such as
rationalism, aestheticism, utilitarianism, and religious superstition. This
autonomy is achieved only when the socially constructed apparatuses of
repression are dismantled and those ostracized characteristics of the mind
(innovative imagination, uncompromised desire, and so on) are reintegrated
into everyday life, delivering the mind to a state of free development and
spontaneity. It is in this state, where the individual has regained the
primeval senses, that the mind can move forward to an untainted awareness of
existence, which is the most complete experience of reality---a surreality.
Pure Psychic Automatism is synonymous with Surrealism.
"SURREALISM, n. Psychic automatism in its pure state, by which one proposes
to express---verbally, by means of the written word, or in any other
manner---the actual functioning of thought. Dictated by thought, in the
absence of any control exercised by reason, exempt from any aesthetic or
moral concern." ---André Breton, Manifesto of Surrealism
"Surrealism is not a new means of expression, or an easier one, nor even a
metaphysics of poetry. It is a means of total liberation of the mind and of
all that resembles it ... Surrealism is not a poetic form. It is a cry of
the mind turning back on itself, and it is determined to break apart its
fetters, even if it must be by material hammers!" ---Declaration of January
27, 1925
"Surrealism, a unitary project of total revolution, is above all a method of
knowledge and a way of life; it is lived far more than it is written, or
written about, or drawn. Surrealism is the most exhilarating adventure of
the mind, an unparalleled means of pursuing the fervent quest for freedom
and true life beyond the veil of ideological appearances." ---Franklin
Rosemont, Andre Breton and the First Principles of Surrealism
1.2 A Short Introduction to the Surrealist Movement
The Surrealist Movement was founded in Paris in 1924 for the sole purpose of
changing reality through the dissolving of orthodoxy, the liberation of the
mind, and the reintegration of the inner necessities with the exterior life.
Opening the Bureau of Surrealist Research and eventually publishing two
journals (The Surrealist Revolution and Surrealism in the Service of the
Revolution) the original group's initial focus was on uncovering and
exploring the techniques that capture the real functioning of thought. In
their program these investigations (from sleeping trances to automatic
writing) were adjoined to scalding critiques of both the repressive art and
literature of the time and the culture of rationalism in general.
Through the 1930s the movement continued to grow in infamy and influence
with groups appearing in the United Kingdom, Japan, Yugoslavia,
Czechoslovakia, Romania, Belgium, Portugal, Egypt, and a variety of other
countries. This fecund period ended with the Second World War, when the
Paris surrealists were dispersed or detained. Following the war the movement
found itself fragmented. André Breton could only partially reconstitute the
Paris group, as its former members were no longer on a common course.
Opposition to Breton's increasing interest in esotericism led to splinter
groups and competitors, such as Isadore Isou's Lettrist Movement and CoBrA.
In 1966, with the approval of Breton, the first indigenous surrealist group
in the United States was formed in Chicago by Paul Garon and Franklin and
Penelope Rosemont, which has remained the most visible group writing in
English, printing a variety of publications such as their journal Arsenal:
Surrealist Subversion. In September of 1966 Breton died and in March of 1969
the Paris group officially disbanded. However, the majority of the group
reemerged in 1970 with the Bulletin de Liaison Surrealiste.
Today the movement is a decentralized and international constellation of
groups and individuals committed to Surrealism's resilient principles. It
remains a work in progress, and along with the older collectives (in Paris,
Chicago, and Prague), smaller groups of surrealists continue to form around
the globe to work in the margins. Among recent groups are those in
Stockholm, Leeds, Madrid, Argentina, Wisconsin and Minnesota. Whether these
groups will only change the individuals involved or if they can have a
broader impact is a question of little importance. Rather, they are certain
that the drive for liberty is unstoppable, and that a revolution that
redresses the human condition will necessarily be surrealist.
THE SURREALIST REVOLUTION
The two principle expressions of the movement's thrust for complete freedom
are its political nature and its creative output: the first of which
criticizes culture for repressing the internal necessities, and the second
of which seeks to release them.
2.1 Politics
The movement's political stance, which developed out of Dada's spirit of
revolt and vague anarchism, hardened in 1925 as a response to the resurgence
in French patriotism and militarism when France sent an army to put down an
independence movement in Morocco. Resolving that a revolution in
consciousness cannot transpire independent of a revolution in man's material
condition the Paris surrealists began an association with the Communist
Party. During their brief alliance with associates of the hard line Clarté
periodical, who were uniquely sympathetic to surrealist stands and who
shared a common goal in working to subvert bourgeois culture, efforts by the
surrealists to demonstrate their Party loyalty were repaid with belittlement
and interrogations. To the Communist Party their synthesis of Marx and Freud
was an obstacle to total commitment to the Party.
In addition, there was a conflict over the direction of revolutionary art.
The Communist International had developed the concept of "proletarian
literature," which reduced art to the role of propaganda, and later the
Soviet Writers Congress officially adopted the doctrine of "socialist
realism," which the surrealists denounced as an attempt to enclose art's
revolutionary message in the conservative forms of 19th century bourgeois
aesthetics, entirely antithetical to creativity. The surrealists argued that
art's revolutionary value cannot be reduced to its obvious manifest message.
The artist requires absolute freedom to create new means of expression and
deal with such fundamental matters as psychology and sexual freedom,
concerns the Communist Party considered decadent. Through the 1930s the
surrealists grew more distant from the French Left and from Moscow, and in
1935 they broke away from the Communist Party altogether.
By the late 1930s, fascism had risen in Germany, Italy and Spain with the
complicity of the western democracies, themselves having become increasingly
oppressive. The surrealists continued to issue statements denouncing French
policy on the Spanish Civil War, the Moscow trials of the Stalinist purge,
and the Munich talks. In 1938, Breton and Leon Trotsky proposed the creation
of F.I.A.R.I. (Fédération internationale de l'art révolutionnaire
indépendant), an international association of Marxists and anarchists to
pursue a revolutionary art opposed to the decree of fascist dictatorship,
bourgeois democracy, capitalism (art for art's sake), and Stalinism (social
realism). Though hopelessness was setting in among anti-war activists,
F.I.A.R.I. groups were organized in France, Mexico, Argentina, England and
the U.S. The Paris group started a review, Clé, which lasted but two issues,
just long enough to record the deteriorating political climate.
Since the 1940s surrealism has remained non-aligned, often affiliating with
and supporting a variety of revolutionary movements that oppose the existing
conditions of the social, political, and cultural order, and issuing
opinions on contemporary political matters (such as advocating for world
disarmament, denouncing French colonialism in Indochina and Algeria,
protesting the Soviet intervention in Hungary, applauding the outset of the
Cuban Revolution before it was aligned with Russia, and, more recently,
siding with those responsible for the Los Angeles Rebellion of 1992). In its
modern development the political position of Surrealism can be summed up by
the finale of the Chicago Group's Declaration of War (1971):
"Let us speak plainly. Until the last convict is out of prison and the last
'madman' out of the asylum; until the last army has been disbanded and the
last government overthrown; until the last church has been burned and the
last bank pulverized; until the last capitalist and the last cop have been
hanged to death with the guts of the last politician and the last priest;
that is, until men and women are truly free, surrealism will continue
relentlessly to provide miraculous weapons with which to struggle for this
freedom."
2.2 Art and Literature
For the surrealist the use of art and literature is unconditionally directed
at the unleashing and exploring of the imagination, free from such retarding
devices as premeditation and aesthetics, so that the work can be ruled by
desire alone and cover, as Breton stated in Surrealism and Painting, "the
whole psychophysical field (in which consciousness constitutes only a very
small segment)." The surrealist use of art and literature stands opposed to
the notion of talent and the domination of so-called specialists. Following
in the footsteps of Lautréamont's famous maxim that "poetry must be made by
all," surrealists appreciate art and literature for their ability to
manifest the individual's internal and emotional order, and believe that
everyone has the capacity and necessity to create.
"... surrealist painters, who are poets, always think of something else. The
unprecedented is familiar to them, premeditation unknown. They are aware
that the relationships between things fade as soon as they are established,
to give place to other relationships just as fugitive. They know that no
description is adequate, that nothing can be reproduced literally. They are
all animated by the same striving to liberate the vision, to unite
imagination and nature, to consider all possibilities a reality, to prove to
us that no dualism exists between the imagination and reality, that
everything the human spirit can conceive and create springs from the same
vein, is made of the same matter as his flesh and blood, and the world
around him." ---Paul Éluard, Poetic Evidence
"The art of painting, as I conceive of it, consists in representing through
pictorial technique the unforeseen images that might appear to me at certain
moments, whether my eyes are open or shut." ---Rene Magritte, from a letter
to Mr. and Mrs. Barnet Hodes
"Centuries from now, any art that takes new paths toward a greater
emancipation of the mind will be Surrealist." ---Andre Breton, from an
interview with Jose M. Valverde
SURREALIST EXPLORATIONS
3.1 Automatism
Automatism is a behavior of the body whereby subverting the restraint of
consciousness an individual is compelled to perform involuntary motor or
verbal activities. It can be achieved through a variety of techniques, the
best known being the practice of automatic writing which Freud advocated as
a way of getting around self-censorship. This technique originated with the
Spiritualists who were the source of the trance sessions and other devices
employed by the surrealists. The surrealist use of these devices, it is
worth remembering, is not one of Freudian therapy or absurdities like
communicating with the dead, but for liberating the imagination. The results
of automatism can be found in the paintings of Joan Miro and André Masson,
in André Breton and Philippe Soupault's The Magnetic Fields, and in the
sleeping trances of Robert Desnos. It is a common misconception that
surrealists object to any revision of a text that has been written
automatically. In fact, after the initial experiment of The Magnetic Fields
automatic texts have been habitually edited.
"The whole point, for Surrealism, was to convince ourselves that we had got
our hands on the 'prime matter' (in the alchemical sense) of language. After
that, we knew where to get it, and it goes without saying that we had no
interest in reproducing it to the point of satiety; this is said for the
benefit of those who are surprised that among us the practice of automatic
writing was abandoned so quickly." ---André Breton, On Surrealism and Its
Living Works
"I resolved to obtain from myself ... a monologue spoken as rapidly as
possible without any intervention on the part of the critical faculties, a
monologue unencumbered by the slightest inhibition and which was, as closely
as possible, akin to spoken thought." ---André Breton, Manifesto of
Surrealism
3.2 Forced Inspiration
Forced Inspiration is the liberation of imaginative associations through the
suggestive quality of a particular perception that gives way to the
dictation of the internal and emotional order, revealing the veiled-erotic.
This method of creative interpretation, which has been utilized in the
teachings of Leonardo da Vinci, in the everyday activity of cloud watching,
and in psychoanalysis through the Rorschach Ink-Blot Test, was first used
within the realm of Surrealism by Max Ernst who theorized in his Beyond
Painting a technique called Frottage, whereby crayon or graphite is rubbed
on paper which as been placed over an object or texture with the hopes of
revealing or inspiring an image. Since then a number of similar techniques
all focused on revealing or inspiring previously unforeseen images out of
ambiguity have developed, such as: Decalcomania (pressing paper on a
non-absorbent surface of which gouache, ink, or oil paints have been spread,
originated by Oscar Dominquez), Fumage (passing paper over a smoking candle,
originated by Wolfgang Paalen), and Grottage (scrapping paint from the
surface of a painting, originated by Ernst). Salvador Dali's
Paranoiac-Critical Method is also an example of Forced Inspiration, but its
imaginative associations do not come from an ambiguous source, instead they
come from a more defined perception, creating a double image or even a chain
of images. Forced Inspiration is synonymous with Interpretive Delirium.
3.3 The Surrealist Collage
The Surrealist Collage is a method of gluing together the displaced bits and
pieces of originally unrelated images onto a flat surface to create a new
unforeseen image, most notably seen in the works of Max Ernst. This
principle of displacement can also be used with language and other forms of
creativity, such as with Lautréamont's famous line from Maldoror: "As
beautiful as the chance encounter of a sewing machine and an umbrella on a
dissecting table."
"The value of the image depends upon the beauty of the spark obtained ...
the two terms of the image are not deduced from the other by the mind for
the specific purpose of producing the spark, [but rather] they are the
simultaneous products of the activity I call Surrealist, reason's role being
limited to taking note of, and appreciating, the luminous
phenomenon." ---André Breton, Manifesto of Surrealism
3.4 The Surrealist Object
The Surrealist Object is an object, real or imaginary, that has been removed
from its original utilitarian role within the confinement of everyday life
by the dictation of the internal and emotional order. The earliest known
collector of these objects was the German writer Georg Christoph Lichtenberg
who, in 1798, completed a list of imaginary instruments, the most popular
being "a bladeless knife with the handle missing." Since the first group
exhibition of Surrealist Objects in 1936 numerous types of objects have been
invented or theorized, such as: the Found Object, the Natural Object (such
as stones or shells), and the Perturbed Object (deformations), all of which
rely on how the object interacts with the finder's interior necessities.
Other objects include the Interpretive Object (an object physically or
interpretively transformed by the finder) and the Poem-Object (a poem in
which several of the words are replaced with physical objects).
3.5 Games
The surrealist use of games, like that of art and literature, is primarily
focused on the subversion of premeditation and rational constraints, but in
addition it is also a subversion of the artist's ego with the potential for
revealing the Marvelous heavily relying on the release of collective
creativity. The most famous of these games is the Exquisite Corpse, a game
of paper folding whereby each player creates an incomplete image or phrase
that is unseen by the other players who will then complete the image or
phrase. Specific rules are required for the linguistic version of the game:
player one writes a definite or indefinite article and an adjective, player
two writes a noun, player three writes a verb, player four writes another
definite or indefinite article and an adjective, and player five writes
another noun. The first sentence obtained from this method was "The
exquisite corpse shall drink the new wine." Another game is the game of
Question and Answer (also known as the Game of Definitions), whereby a
question or word is provided by one player, and an answer or definition is
provided by another player who has no knowledge of the question or word
provided by the first player. The question and answer (or word and
definition) are put together to reveal the results, such as:
What is the desert? A dove alighting on a flame.
What is evolution? A calligraphic box of anatomical forms.
SOME SURREALIST CONCEPTS
4.1 Black Humor
Black Humor is a type of humor, often ironic and macabre, where the drive
for pleasure surmounts the trauma of the exterior world. An example taken
from Freud would be that of a man sentenced to be executed on a Monday who
exclaims, "What a wonderful way to start the week!" Exemplary in the works
of Jacques Vaché, Jonathan Swift, and the Marquis de Sade.
4.2 The Marvelous
In its central characterization the Marvelous is a revolt against and an
overturning of common sensibility that is guided by desire and governed by
pleasure. In Mad Love Breton recognized three distinct manifestations of the
Marvelous: fixed-explosive (the juxtaposition or unification of two distant
features), magic-circumstantial (a coincidence manipulated by desire;
synonymous with Objective Chance), and veiled-erotic (the alternating
between two or more coherent perceptions). All of these manifestations rely
heavily on the freeing of the individuals own subjectivity and imagination,
and a reorientation to the inner necessities. The Marvelous is synonymous
with Convulsive Beauty.
4.3 Mad Love
Mad Love is an overwhelming and excessive pursuit of love driven by an
irrational momentum that is often compulsive and spontaneous, and has little
to do with choice and more to do with internal necessity.
"Only love in the sense that I understand it---mysterious, improbable,
unique, bewildering, and certain love that can only be foolproof, might have
permitted the fulfillment of a miracle." ---André Breton, Nadja
"The act of love, just as with a painting or a poem, is discredited if he
who surrenders to it does not do so in a trance." ---André Breton, Apertures
4.4 Miserablism
Miserablism is an inurement to misery, occurring when the deficiencies of
existence are accepted as normal or unavoidable. Defined by Breton as "the
depreciation of reality in place of its exaltation" and further elaborated
by the Chicago Surrealist Group as "the rationalization of the unlivable,"
Miserablism is one of the main enemies of Surrealism, cultivated by economic
rationalism and religion.
THE PERIPHERY: Precursors, Fellow Travelers, et al.
This is not an exhaustive list of the periphery, but rather a short list of
groups and individuals from the periphery who have, at times, been relative
to the discussions at alt.surrealism. Further suggestions and participation
within this section is encouraged.
5.1 Georges Bataille
Under construction
5.2 Dada
Under construction
5.3 Salvador Dali (Avida Dollars)
Under construction
5.4 The Occult
Under construction
5.5 Oulipo
Under construction
5.6 Pataphysics
Under construction
5.7 Psychoanalysis
Under construction
5.8 Situationist International
In 1956 two para-surrealist groups, the International Movement for an
Imaginist Bauhaus and the Lettrist International, met at the First World
Congress of Liberated Artists and soon after unified (along with the
fictional London Psychogeographical Association) to form the Situationist
International.
Instead of passively accepting what the commodity system has made of living
(a boring mess of alienation and separation) the Situationist International
chose as their basic premise the construction of a new way of life. Their
social critique of capitalism, as theorized in Guy Debord's Society of the
Spectacle, began with their identification of the spectacle, a web of images
and representations (such as advertisements, television, sports events,
newscasts) that develops from the perspective of those in power. The
spectacle is collectively viewed and constantly renewed, turning the
individual into a passive receptor by replacing leisure (what do I want to
do today?) with entertainment (what do I want to see today?). The individual
is no longer active, but exists in a petrified state of buying and selling
experiences.
For the Situationist International the spectacle could be subverted and a
new way of life could be discovered by the individual's management and
construction of situations, those temporary settings of life that are
characterized by a superior emotional quality. The construction of
situations would be based on the theory of Unitary Urbanism, defined as the
use of an ensemble of arts and techniques that would contribute to an
integral composition of the urban space or environment, recovering that
space from the manipulation of the spectacle. Unitary Urbanism would rely on
the method of detournment, whereby a preexisting artistic element is reused
in a new ensemble, and the field study of Psychogeography, defined as the
gathering of information on how the environment influences the psychology of
the individuals. This information can be discovered through the method of
the dérive, a transient passage through a variety of ambiances, and once the
proper information is obtained it would be applied to the construction of
situations.
The Situationist International remained somewhat obscure until 1966 when
they published Mustapha Khayati's On the Poverty of Student Life at the
request of and funded by the student union of the University of Strasbourg.
The pamphlet, which lambasted universities for institutionalizing ignorance
and ridiculed modern culture and its officials, was denounced as a
misappropriation of public funds. The result was a public scandal and the
closure of the student union. Khayati's highly distributed pamphlet
eventually found its way to the University of Paris at Nanterre in early
1968, and inspired a group known as the Enragés to graffiti the walls of the
campus with Situationist slogans and to sabotage lectures. A general protest
followed in May where students engaged in political discourse and even
questioned the idea of the university itself, which eventually lead to the
closure of the college on May 2nd. Action committees set up by the
Situationist International and the Enragés were struck to spread the protest
to schools and factories throughout France, and by May 21st Paris was
paralyzed by a general strike. For this brief period France appeared to be
on the brink of revolution, but de Gaulle regained power with the assistance
of the military and dissolved the situation.
Despite the growth of interest in their ideas following this period the
Situationist International disbanded in 1972.
APPENDIX
6.1 Further Reading in English
Surrealist Authors: Louis Aragon ("Paris Peasant," "Treatise on Style");
André Breton ("What is Surrealism? Selected Writings [ed. Franklin
Rosemont]," "Manifestoes of Surrealism," "Surrealism and Painting," "Nadja,"
"The Communicating Vessels," "Mad Love," "Arcanum 17," "The Lost Steps,"
"Break of Day," "Free Rein," "Anthology of Black Humor," "Conversations: The
Autobiography of Surrealism," "The Magnetic Fields [with Philippe
Soupault]," "The Immaculate Conception [with Paul Eluard]"); Leonora
Carrington ("Down Below," "The Hearing Trumpet"); Robert Desnos ("Liberty or
Love," "Mourning for Mourning," "Selected Poems"); Max Ernst ("The Hundred
Headless Woman," "A Little Girl Dreams of Taking the Veil"); Michel Leiris
("Aurora," "Brisees: Broken Branches"); Pierre Mabille ("Mirror of the
Marvelous"); Benjamin Péret ("Death to the Pigs," "A Marvelous World").
Anthologies: "The Poetry of Surrealism" (ed. Michael Benedikt), "A Book of
Surrealist Games" (ed. Mel Gooding), "The Shadow and Its Shadow: Surrealist
Writing on the Cinema" (ed. Paul Hammond), "The Autobiography of Surrealism"
(ed. Marcel Jean), "The Custom-House of Desire" (ed. JH Matthews),
"Investigating Sex: Surrealist Discussions 1928-32" (ed. Jose Pierre),
"Surrealism" (ed. Herbert Read), "Refusal of the Shadow: Surrealism and the
Caribbean" (ed. Michael Richardson), "Arsenal: Surrealist Subversion 4" (ed.
Franklin Rosemont), "The Forecast is Hot!" (ed. Franklin Rosemont),
"Surrealism and Its Popular Accomplices" (ed. Franklin Rosemont),
"Surrealist Women" (ed. Penelope Rosemont).
While the best critical overviews of and introductions to Surrealism are
Franklin Rosemont's introduction to "What is Surrealism? Selected Writings
of André Breton," Penelope Rosemont's "Surrealist Women," and the many books
of JH Matthews, the following books merit attention as they were used as
sources for this FAQ: Sarane Alexanderian, "Surrealist Art"; Jacqueline
Chénieux-Gendron, "Surrealism"; David Gascoyne, "A Short Survey of
Surrealism"; Helena Lewis, "The Politics of Surrealism"; Maurice Nadeau,
"The History of Surrealism"; Rene Passeron, "The Concise Encyclopedia of
Surrealism"; Jose Pierre, "An Illustrated Dictionary of Surrealism."
6.2 Online Documents
What is Surrealism? by Andre Breton:
http://pers-www.wlv.ac.uk/~fa1871/whatsurr.html
What is Surrealism? by Andre Breton (alternative link):
http://www-e815.fnal.gov/~romosan/surrealism.html
Declaration of January 27, 1925:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1925surrealism.html
Murderous Humanitarianism:
http://www.postfun.com/racetraitor/features/murderous.html
6.3 Online Surrealist Groups
The Chicago Group: http://www.surrealism-usa.org/
The Czech & Slovak Group: http://home.ti.cz/~surreal/surrealindex.html
The Netherlands Group: http://www.geocities.com/surrealisme_in_nederland/
The Paris Group: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jjmeric/
The Portugal Group: http://members.tripod.co.uk/surrealismo/
The Stockholm Group: http://www.users.wineasy.se/vertsurr/
Surrealists in Minnesota: http://www.magneticfields.org/
The Wisconsin Group: http://www.execpc.com/~bogartte/Counterclockwise.html
6.4 Online Surrealist Resources
The Library: http://www.kalin.lm.com/author.html
No More Words:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~rmutt/dictionary/NoMoreWords.html
Surrealist Writers: http://www.creative.net/~alang/lit/surreal/writers.sht
6.5 FAQ Acknowledgements
Brandon Freels (brandon...@netzero.net): principal author, editor.
Parry Harnden (ame...@norlink.net): contributing author.
February 10, 2001
Parry
>
> Brandon Freels wrote:
>
> > How can this be? Surrealism is the freedom of the mind.
>
> No it isn't.
> Not any more than communism, despotism or pope-of-the-day'ism represent
> the 'freedom of the mind'; I find this tendency of presenting itself as
> the single solution to be utterly irritating of any ideology.
Brandon is suggesting that “freedom of the mind” is the definition of
surrealism, not that surrealism promises the path to freedom as if were
some Dianetics con.
> The "philosophy" of
> > Absurdism, as you present it (Camus influenced?) relies on the ir/rational
> > dychotomy which is a repressive force against the mind.
>
> The mind, in absurdism, is the great enemy. Surrealism collaborates with
> it on basis of nothing but blind faith.
>
> If anything
> > Absurdism is regression. And magic realism is simply a boring artist's
> > "trick" and not really comparable with the other two.
>
> That's simply untrue as magic realism is both an art movement and a
> literary movement. I could just as well call surrealism an 'artist
> trick', or even a trick of art collectors, which seems a bit more to the
> point.
>
> > I'm not sure how you got to this conclusion that surrealism is about "bring
> > order". Rather it is about stipping artificial (man-made) order, and getting
> > back to the natural order.
>
> As such it's entirely an offspring of romanticism and naturalism; it
> presents itself as 'freedom' and it's aims are to show that the naked
> man behind the bushes is the model for our liberation,
Yes, surrealism is the offspring of romanticism; everything else in this
paragraph was pulled from a hat.
> instead of Jesus
> Christ. The evangelic factor has always been large with the surrealists
This notion of surrealist “evangelism” is nonsense, on a par with
calling Breton “the Black Pope.” The surrealists have been known for
their unwillingness to dumb-down and for a lack of duplicity -- rather
the opposite of evangelism.
> and it's pretentious claims of having the power to strip
> anything back to naturalism is often more apologist material.
What you call pretentious others call ambitious. And probably what you
call unpretentious others call trivial. Further, I’m not even sure you
know what you’re talking about. Please provide an example from
surrealist writings of “claims of having power,” which you say happen
“often.”
-- Parry
> > It is in
> > this state, where the individual has regained the primeval senses, that the
> > mind can move forward to an untainted awareness of existence, which is the
> > most complete experience of reality---a surreality."
>
> You seem unaware of what the prefix 'sur' actually means.
> Hint: it does not mean 'most complete'...
> Can you explain why Malevitches Suprematism isn't leading
> to the 'most complete experience of reality'?
> (which sounds an awful lot like advertising, if you ask me)
>
> Martijn
>
> ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
> De Zeekannibaal online:
> http://members.brabant.chello.nl/~m.benders/sea/zeekannibaal.htm
> DE nederlandsche CACAOFABRIEK
> http://www.cacaofabriek.com/
>
> "Nu mag beugeltje zelf zijn druppeltjes praatolie in de koffie doen"
> Uit 'Wipneus en Pim op de Kleiberg'
>
> ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
Brandon Freels
explain my post. And really, I don't have the patience too.
As for you, are you ever going to stop spanking people?
If not, then fuck off.
"cythera" wrote
> Please let Brandon et al explain their own posts. It is rather ironic
that
> you had to jump in and explain his own words re "freedom of the mind" for
him,
> do you know what I mean?
[snip...]
Nikolaus Maack
> Yawn. Please stay in alt.arts.poetry.comments. The last thing we need is
> another asshole around here. How's that for brevity?
Martin, as a surrealist with a brain and a sense of humour, I'd like to
apologize for Brandon. He's an idiot. He always dismisses any thought
that doesn't appeal to him by calling the person who created it "stupid"
or an "asshole". And lately he throws his FAQ around like a medicine
ball.
And Parry asking for PROOF of your understanding of surrealism, asking you
to quote material like asking you to flash a badge -- that's pretty
embarrassing too. I always marvel at how extremely hyper-rational the
surrealists of alt.surrealism are, given that their chosen philosophy is
all about embracing intuition, illogic, the irrational, and the
unconscious. (Uniting conscious and unconscious is, after all, the
surrealist ideal.)
Of course, what we have here are men who have been converted to the
"church" of surrealism, and are unwilling to admit it. You're quite right
when you say that there are religious aspects to surrealism. That certain
surrealists respond to the notion with such rage makes this quite clear.
Brandon would probably burn you as a heretic, if he could get away with
it.
Surrealism DOES promise "freedom of the mind" -- if not by outright
promising it, then by defining surrealism as the key to human liberation.
And you're right to be suspect of this. I am suspicious whenever anyone
promises me the moon and the stars. That's why, while I enjoy the taste
of surrealist philosophy and ideas, I'm also critical of them, and willing
to embrace other philosophies -- like psychoanalysis, Jungian theory,
nihilism, Christianity, buddhism, taoism, etc, etc.
Never put your brain in one basket. Instead, cut it into pieces and
scatter it in a number of baskets, suitcases, purses, and paper bags.
The other surrealists are constantly giving me a hard time about this.
They say, "You cannot carry a suitcase AND a paper bag at the same time!
They contradict each other!"
I say, "Just watch me." And I walk down the street with an armload of
bags.
As you can see, this is just another example of their inability to be true
surrealists -- they see contradictions and get mad about them, whereas
they should be the first to understand that contradictions are not
contradictions at all. Black and white are not opposites.
I guess this is the difference between someone who embraces the spirit of
an idea, and a person who embraces the surface rules of an idea. The
former is willing to bend and break the rules. The latter spends all his
time enforcing the rules.
Which explains why Brandon brandishes the FAQ like an enormous cock,
thrusting it into the faces of anyone who says anything he doesn't like.
In any case, yes.
Martijn Benders
Dale Houstman wrote:
> > But it seems to me your work has much more in common with the absurdists
> > than the surrealists.
>
> This is all just subjective aesthetics. My work may or may not have much to
> do (superficially) with absurdism, but the fact is I am rather immersed in
> surrealism, active in a local group and so on.
Picasso was a member of some communist party. Does that make his work
communist?
>
> >And in those parts where no conflict is present it
> > (so it seems to me) bends over to magic realism. Then again I might have
> > some subconscious dislike of the term 'surrealism' since it's the flag
> > that often covers the most crappy art nowadays, or at least the art I
> > dislike most since it's influences are often so obvious.
>
> Yes, but part of the surrealist struggle is to reclaim the very term
> "surrealism" from all the crud that's built up about it over the years; its
> reduction to a synonym for "merely strange" for instance.
To tell the truth, I don't really have a clue what should be considered
surrealist or not,
and the faq that was posted here doesn't make it any better. I do not
personally consider Lautremont
to be very surrealist, which makes it even worse since things pretty
much started with that guy.
I like almost all art forms, in the sense that in each discipline people
work who are really
good at what they are doing. I do not really understand why some people
only seem to fanatically
appreciate one sort of thing, however. Surrealism seems to me a rather
psychologically biased, in the
sense that its supposed 'mind exploring' qualities are often much more
unclear and escher-like than
the same qualities I see in the symbolists or conceptualists. It too
often presents itself as the only
ideology that stretches in those directions, which i think is very
false.
>
> > philosophically it seems to me that absurdism is a more mature form of
> > surrealism, and magic realism (if performed adequately) the annihilation
> > of both.
>
> This makes little sense to me, since absurdity is rather more nihilist turn
> of mind, and surrealism is not about nihilism.
Why does the Universe in the surrealist option have to make sense?
The artistic possibilities of a nonsensic cosmos are infinitly larger.
I am not certain that
> "maturity" (whatever that term might mean) must inevitably bring nihilism
> and discouragement, leaving only smothered black laughter.
Why is nonsense always associated with depression?
As for magic
> realism, to me it seems a vastly bloated "utilization" of the more
> superficial qualities of surrealism as a sort of "image bank." I am not
> passing literary judgement here, having enjoyed both absurdist and magic
> realist work, but I don't find that either borders on being as "extensive"
> in either their activites or points of investigation: both are - in fact -
> mainly literary movements, as surrealism is demonstrably not.
I have a hard time thinking of three surrealist artists i like, though.
I like Ernst, but he was a bit on the absurdist side too, for me.
A good example of a 'magic realism' work is this painting of Filonov:
http://www.rollins.edu/Foreign_Lang/Russian/filon1.jpg
I disagree about your observations on magic realism, which
can be turned around easily. Lorca was a magic realist, and
he was pretty early on the scene.
> >
> > Surrealism is somewhat the 'new age' of art movements, it easily gets on
> > ones nerves. This is clear by investigating the (somewhat arbitrary)
> > definitions of the three art catagories I've used:
>
> New Ageism is strictly mystical and self-important. There is no cross-over
> with Surrealism in the least as far as I can see, except in the level of
> your aggravation with both.
Just observe how much emphasis new age music puts on mind exploration,
and
the analogy should be rather obvious.
> >
> >
> > Above definitions make it clear that, since magic realism is almost
> > entirely without conflict, it creates disorder. Surrealism, on the other
> > hand, is entirely focused on bringing order to the known universe and
> > thus it's easily classified as rather appolonian.
>
> I don't see how attempting to see what is "there" - in all its aspects, is
> necessarily a matter of bringing order, but merely one of noticing.
That seems silly to me. Observing things is ordering them, as molecular
theories show aptly. If I try to see more far into a dark room, I bring
more order into the room
since the unknown parts of it get structured. Both absurdism and magic
realism
deal more with the unknowable instead of the unknown, and are therefore
not that much concerned with bringing order.
> At any
> rate, even if it were Apollonian as opposed to the Dionysian, I still don't
> see how this pertains to any continuum of maturity.
The exploration stage of a human being usually takes place in its early
years.
> > Lorca's complaints about Dali where usually focussed on Dali's 'hiegenic
> > nature' which expressed itself as an almost obsessive urge to want to
> > see birds in the air, and fish in the sea, and wanting to see grass
> > green and air blue but all with as much conflict as possible.
>
> Well, who cares about Dali at any rate?
I don't see why Dali should not be considered a surrealist.
Brandon Freels
If I don't want Parry to "speak for me" then I will tell him not to. What
privilege is it of yours to tell him not to "speak for me"? Aren't you
attempting to "speak for me" by telling him not to speak for me? I really
have no problem with anyone (with the exception of you and Nik) attempting
to clarify my opinion. If they haven't clarified my opinion I will let them
know.
So, once again, fuck off.
Parry
>
> Parry <pa...@perfectOMITmail.com> wrote in article
> >Martijn Benders wrote:
> >>
> >> Brandon Freels wrote:
> >>
> >> > How can this be? Surrealism is the freedom of the mind.
> >>
> >> No it isn't.
> >> Not any more than communism, despotism or pope-of-the-day'ism represent
> >> the 'freedom of the mind'; I find this tendency of presenting itself as
> >> the single solution to be utterly irritating of any ideology.
> >
> >Brandon is suggesting that “freedom of the mind” is the definition of
> >surrealism, not that surrealism promises the path to freedom as if were
> >some Dianetics con.
>
> you had to jump in and explain his own words re “freedom of the mind” for him,
> do you know what I mean?
>
>
> >> and it's pretentious claims of having the power to strip
> >> anything back to naturalism is often more apologist material.
> >
> >What you call pretentious others call ambitious.
>
> >And probably what you call unpretentious others call trivial.
>
You snipped my direct question to him.
> Parry, do you know Martijn _at all_? If no, maybe you might want to stop telling him and other people what he "probably" says.
> How do your unsubstantiated claims liberate your imagination or anyone else's (and no this is not a rhetorical question.)
I made no unsubstantiated claims.
As to your first case -- this is not an unsubstantiated claim but a
question of plain English: Brandon wrote “surrealism is the freedom of
the mind,” not “surrealism leads to the freedom of the mind.” And I’ve
argued with Brandon over definitional matters enough to be confident
that he meant what he wrote (which would have been my assumption
anyway).
As to the second case -- not a claim but a surmise (“probably”). All I
know about Martijn is his prior assertion that absurdism is a refinement
of surrealism (or something to that effect) and the straw men he erected
in his last post. Which is beside the point, in any case, as the point
was not to tell “him and other people what he ‘probably’ says” -- as you
are telling me what I meant -- but rather to interrogate the word
“pretentious.”
I would have thought all this was elemental.
-- Parry
> cythera.
>
> >-- Parry
> >
> >> > It is in
> >> > this state, where the individual has regained the primeval senses, that the
> >> > mind can move forward to an untainted awareness of existence, which is the
> >> > most complete experience of reality---a surreality."
> >>
> >> You seem unaware of what the prefix 'sur' actually means.
> >> Hint: it does not mean 'most complete'...
> >> Can you explain why Malevitches Suprematism isn't leading
> >> to the 'most complete experience of reality'?
> >> (which sounds an awful lot like advertising, if you ask me)
> >>
> >> Martijn
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
cythera
>After working on the FAQ together I think Parry knows my views well enough
>explain my post.
And you his? But maybe _he_ will answer mine to him nonetheless.
>As for you, are you ever going to stop spanking people? If not, then fuck
>off.
"Brandon Freels" wrote to Martijn Benders:
>Yawn. Please stay in alt.arts.poetry.comments. The last thing we need is
>another asshole around here.
Umm, ever listen to yourself? Or are the above more of your talks about _freedom_, or diatribes against POWER?!
As for "fucking off": This is usenet, dearie. Welcome! I do as I please 24/7, as may we all. Deal with it -- or not, whichever, and however, you choose.
cythera.
>***
>Surrealism FAQ
>What is Surrealism?
_______________________________________________
Nikolaus Maack
[ignores the flower in my outstretched hand]
Is this how surrealists respond to gestures that involve imagination? I
shall continue to hold this flower out to you, Brandon. I will
occasionally remind you of its existence. It seems odd to me that you're
unwilling to ackowledge it, let alone accept it.
> Do it.
"Just do it"?
> Actually, I see no reason for typing the same words over and over again. I'm
> tired.
I suggest an entire new approach. Symbolic role-playing with imaginative
features. Or, to put it another way, active imagination with multiple
players. Or, to put it yet another way, a hand with a purple and yellow
flower, a flower which smells of chocolate and honey, held out for another
to grasp.
> If someone is arguing with me about "what Surrealism is" its much
> easy for me to throw out the FAQ and leave it at that.
Perhaps I am alone in wishing you would "throw out" the FAQ, and leave it
at that.
>> You, Brandon, are a bully. Alas, so am I. So is Dale. So is Parry. So
>> is John. Maybe even Cythera.
>
> Well, she tries.
Every person, without exception, tries, in some manner or another.
Brandon Freels
> Being a jerk yourself seems perfectly acceptable to you. Is there irony
> in this? Following your standards, I should be ignoring you and hating
> you for wasting my time.
Do it.
> You're not trying to converse when you through the FAQ at someone. You're
> preaching, pushing, pounding at people.
Actually, I see no reason for typing the same words over and over again. I'm
tired. If someone is arguing with me about "what Surrealism is" its much
easy for me to throw out the FAQ and leave it at that. At this point I have
no interest continuing conversations on the topic with individuals who have
no intention of trying to understand my view, but are more interested in
flaming.
> You, Brandon, are a bully. Alas, so am I. So is Dale. So is Parry. So
Dale Houstman
"Martijn Benders" <interga...@brabant.nl> wrote in message
news:3AB12507...@brabant.nl...
>
>
> > > But it seems to me your work has much more in common with the
absurdists
> > > than the surrealists.
> >
> > This is all just subjective aesthetics. My work may or may not have much
to
> > do (superficially) with absurdism, but the fact is I am rather immersed
in
> > surrealism, active in a local group and so on.
>
> Picasso was a member of some communist party. Does that make his work
> communist?
If you can't see the difference, I may have difficult explaining it to you.
Communism doesn't make great claims about being an exploration of the
imagination, so surrealism and communism (despite the presence of the
"isms") are not equivalent in regard to art: in other words, it is different
than saying "Monet was a member of the Impressionists. Does that make his
work Impressionist?" Yet, IF Picasso said his work was communist, it might
be different. I am saying my work is surrealist, that it is informed by
surrealiist attitudes, and - frankly - I know my personal history a trifle
better than you do. >
> >
>
> To tell the truth, I don't really have a clue what should be considered
> surrealist or not,
> and the faq that was posted here doesn't make it any better. I do not
> personally consider Lautremont
> to be very surrealist, which makes it even worse since things pretty
> much started with that guy.
Why do you not consider Lautremont to be "very surrealist"? Of course, he
predates the movement. But he is admired by the surrealists for his
dedication (like De Sade) to a liberation from current sexual and religious
constrictions, and for the violence of his imagination. Since all the early
surrealists admired him, and I admire those qualities in him, why do you
think your opinion as to his "mantle of surrealist interest" is particularly
relevant?
> I like almost all art forms, in the sense that in each discipline people
> work who are really
> good at what they are doing. I do not really understand why some people
> only seem to fanatically
> appreciate one sort of thing, however.
This strikes me as irrelevant: surrealism is not an art form, ( you seem
unable to cope with this fact) and an appreciation of surrealism does not
limit one's parameters of appreciation. There is very little outside the
scope of surrealist interest, and - as is obvious from the work of the
surrealists (which includes what we would call abstraction) surrealism is
not a genre of painting.
Surrealism seems to me a rather
> psychologically biased, in the
> sense that its supposed 'mind exploring' qualities are often much more
> unclear and escher-like than
> the same qualities I see in the symbolists or conceptualists. It too
> often presents itself as the only
> ideology that stretches in those directions, which i think is very
> false.
Your statement is false, that's true.
Surrealism does not present itself as some "lone crusader."
>
> >
>
> Why does the Universe in the surrealist option have to make sense?
> The artistic possibilities of a nonsensic cosmos are infinitly larger.
Read Peret and Arp, and tell me the surrealist Universe has to make sense.
>
>
> I am not certain that
> > "maturity" (whatever that term might mean) must inevitably bring
nihilism
> > and discouragement, leaving only smothered black laughter.
>
> Why is nonsense always associated with depression?
Absurdity and nonsense - in literature - are two entirely different
concepts. Nonsense is mainly a humorous pursuit - the surrealists admired
Lear and Carroll, etc. Absurdity can be humorous, but it tends to be
dark-toned and - in your word - psychological.
>
>
>
> Just observe how much emphasis new age music puts on mind exploration,
> and
> the analogy should be rather obvious.
Silly fake parallelism. An analogy based on one characteristic is entirely
specious.
>
>
> > > Above definitions make it clear that, since magic realism is almost
> > > entirely without conflict, it creates disorder. Surrealism, on the
other
> > > hand, is entirely focused on bringing order to the known universe and
> > > thus it's easily classified as rather appolonian.
> >
> > I don't see how attempting to see what is "there" - in all its aspects,
is
> > necessarily a matter of bringing order, but merely one of noticing.
>
> That seems silly to me. Observing things is ordering them, as molecular
> theories show aptly.
Okay, then if observing is ordering, and we all observe, then why are you so
upset about ordering? It's inevitable isn't it?
>Both absurdism and magic
> realism
> deal more with the unknowable instead of the unknown, and are therefore
> not that much concerned with bringing order.
One cannot deal with the unknowable. It is very odd that you think merely
perring into a darkened room is bringing order, but that organizing and
composing a book isn't. Magic realism is thus - in your view - about order.
Where's the beef?
>
> > At any
> > rate, even if it were Apollonian as opposed to the Dionysian, I still
don't
> > see how this pertains to any continuum of maturity.
>
> The exploration stage of a human being usually takes place in its early
> years.
But actually the Apollonian/Dionysian dichotomy isn't this simple. Children
are often depicted as Dionysian in their chaotic energies. To declare that
Apollo (a symbol of rationalism) is somehow less "mature" than Dionysis is
incorrect.
>
>
> >
> > Well, who cares about Dali at any rate?
>
> I don't see why Dali should not be considered a surrealist.
>
>
I didn't say he wasn't a surrealist (at some point), but his pursuit of
sensationalism, publicity, money, fascism, and catholicism are at odds with
what passes for surrealism. If you have read anything about surrealism this
should be obvious.
dmh
Nikolaus Maack
> I’m certainly not trying to bully anyone.
Alas, you are bullying people. As are we all. In our intellectual
arrogance and certainty we are right, we raise our mighty fists and smash
anything that disagrees with us. The amusing thing is, our differences
could be settled simply by not fighting.
We are all weak, inside. I believe differences can be settled when we can
all admit that each of us, inside, has weakness. Unfortunately, it is
difficult to admit such a thing, as it (ironically enough) makes us look
weak, and gives the "opponent" an opportunity to kick us one more time in
the belly.
I have weakness in me. When I kick you, I do so not out of strength, but
weakness. When you kick me, you do so for the same reason. Do you agree?
Nik
cythera
>>
>> Parry <pa...@perfectOMITmail.com> wrote in article
>> <3AB0DC...@perfectOMITmail.com> :
>> >Martijn Benders wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Brandon Freels wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > How can this be? Surrealism is the freedom of the mind.
>> >>
>> >> No it isn't.
>> >> Not any more than communism, despotism or pope-of-the-day'ism represent
>> >> the 'freedom of the mind'; I find this tendency of presenting itself as
>> >> the single solution to be utterly irritating of any ideology.
>> >
>> >Brandon is suggesting that “freedom of the mind” is the definition of
>> >surrealism, not that surrealism promises the path to freedom as if were
>> >some Dianetics con.
>>
>> Please let Brandon et al explain their own posts. It is rather ironic that
>> you had to jump in and explain his own words re “freedom of the mind” for
>> him, do you know what I mean?
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> >> and it's pretentious claims of having the power to strip
>> >> anything back to naturalism is often more apologist material.
>> >
>> >What you call pretentious others call ambitious.
>>
>> >And probably what you call unpretentious others call trivial.
>>
>> And probably you could simply give him room to explain.
>
>You snipped my direct question to him.
Yes, it had already been asked and was not relevant to my post.
Would you mind answering my direct question about liberating the imagination? I wrote:
"How do your unsubstantiated claims liberate your imagination or anyone else's (and no this is not a rhetorical question.)."
If you would like to change the word in question to "assumption", "inference",
"surmise", etc. that is certainly fair.
If, on the other hand, you want to continue in the same vein as below: "I
would have thought all this was elemental" (implying what exactly? please
feel free to be direct with me); or if you choose to follow Brandon and tell
me to "fuck off" and/or, as he did Martijn, call me asshole (or slut, stupid, ugly, hypocrite, liar, etc., as he did recently; and then there is always Kristina's "you're an abomination to surrealism" quote, right?), then like her and Brandon you get that one go at me gratis, and any further discussion on this matter from me to you will not be forthcoming. I feel sure that I am making myself clear. Frankly Parry I wonder that you let such remarks go un-"interrogated", to use your word below (not that I need someone to defend me, but rather _do_ these remarks, e.g. your recent "Is Nik an imbecile?" liberate _anyone's_ imagination, either the writer's or the reader's?). It's my opinion that they most likely do not: as you are probably aware, like you I've been on both ends of them. But as far as any liberation goes, the proof is in the pudding, don't you think?! I am wondering why people who desire freedom would be so willing to step on other people and to watch this time
and again. Doesn't it remind you of good Germans?
As for Brandon, I have had enough of your invective directed at me, and I
refuse to either get down on your level or respond to you. You are abusive.
And john, if you are reading this: I'm not going to open your posts any time soon because of last time, but if you have something you want to say to me, I'll read email.
>> Parry, do you know Martijn _at all_? If no, maybe you might want to stop telling him and other people what he "probably" says.
>> How do your unsubstantiated claims liberate your imagination or anyone else's (and no this is not a rhetorical question.)
>
>I made no unsubstantiated claims.
>
>As to your first case -- this is not an unsubstantiated claim but a
>question of plain English: Brandon wrote “surrealism is the freedom of
>the mind,” not “surrealism leads to the freedom of the mind.” And I’ve
>argued with Brandon over definitional matters enough to be confident
>that he meant what he wrote (which would have been my assumption
>anyway).
>
>As to the second case -- not a claim but a surmise (“probably”). All I
>know about Martijn is his prior assertion that absurdism is a refinement
>of surrealism (or something to that effect) and the straw men he erected
>in his last post. Which is beside the point, in any case, as the point
>was not to tell “him and other people what he ‘probably’ says” -- as you
>are telling me what I meant --
No, I am simply pointing out to you what you wrote. I feel it is for the writer (in this case, _you_), and not me or anyone else whose words they were not to explain what is or was meant. That was part of my point. If that was not well-expressed on my part then I apologize for it.
> but rather to interrogate the word “pretentious.”
Perhaps guests could be treated a bit more cordially?
>
>I would have thought all this was elemental.
>
>-- Parry
cythera.
>>
>> >-- Parry
>> >
>> >> > It is in
>> >> > this state, where the individual has regained the primeval senses, that the
>> >> > mind can move forward to an untainted awareness of existence, which is the
>> >> > most complete experience of reality---a surreality."
>> >>
>> >> You seem unaware of what the prefix 'sur' actually means.
>> >> Hint: it does not mean 'most complete'...
>> >> Can you explain why Malevitches Suprematism isn't leading
>> >> to the 'most complete experience of reality'?
>> >> (which sounds an awful lot like advertising, if you ask me)
>> >>
>> >> Martijn
>
>
>
>-----= 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! =-----
_______________________________________________
Nikolaus Maack
> It really has more to do with tolerance, and I don't feel like being
> tolerant.
Would it be accurate to say that you're being intolerant?
>I was optimistic about what his posts could
> provoke as far as content for the newsgroup. I was wrong, and I really don't
> want to waste my time dealing with jerks.
Being a jerk yourself seems perfectly acceptable to you. Is there irony
in this? Following your standards, I should be ignoring you and hating
you for wasting my time.
> The FAQ has provided me with a
> good substitute for a boring conversation. Why is that a problem?
You're not trying to converse when you through the FAQ at someone. You're
preaching, pushing, pounding at people.
All bullies are scared. The biggest, burliest, swaggering man, who kicks
sand in the face of scrawny weaklings, does so out of fear. By attacking
the world, he keeps it at a distance. By smashing in the face of anyone
who seems a threat, he keeps his world safe. Inside he is constantly
terrified that someone will see the huge stripe of weakness that runs
through his soul.
You, Brandon, are a bully. Alas, so am I. So is Dale. So is Parry. So
is John. Maybe even Cythera. We all are weak, shitty little cowards who
push other people around to assuage our insecurities. My God, we truly
suck.
It doesn't have to be this way, of course. But it probably always will
be. I hope to change my spots. I'm actively working on it. I don't know
about the rest of you -- you all seem pretty content to stay where you
are, despite all the talk about exploring the human mind and the
unconscious and all that.
Last night, engaged in active imagination, I made my inner-bully cry. It
was a bizarre moment. I only hope that you can make your own inner-bully
cry, and grant yourself (at last) some inner peace.
I am handing you a flower. It is purple and yellow, and it smells of
chocolate and honey. The flower has four petals, and each one vibrates
slightly, and is coated with beads of water. The stem is a neon green and
has two or three soft leaves growing from it. A low, soft note seems to
come from the center of the flower -- a deep, satisfying, blur -- a note
of tranquility. I hold the flower out to you.
Take it. Resist the urge to do something stupid and violent and childish
with it. That's not what this is about. That's the bully's way. The
insulting way. The un-surreal way. Instead, I humbly suggest you simply
take the flower.
Dale Houstman
"Brandon Freels" <b.j.f...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:Kcgs6.1062$M%2.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > Which explains why Brandon brandishes the FAQ like an enormous cock,
> > thrusting it into the faces of anyone who says anything he doesn't like.
>
> responding to Nik's post. I was optimistic about what his posts could
> provoke as far as content for the newsgroup. I was wrong, and I really
don't
> good substitute for a boring conversation. Why is that a problem?
>
no online existence.
dmh
john adams
Parry wrote in message <3AB2B9...@perfectOMITmail.com>...
I don’t see that happening with the
>bullies you list.
>
>
>-- Parry
>
That's true. Down at the rock smashing outfit I work with,
my pet sledge hammer named xevious has many an unlucky
strikes carved into its handle. Yet I still get a naive challenge about
every other day. And when I need to let off a little steam I stop
off at the pier, go for a swim, and thrash some blue whales up
with my fists or grapple with the sharks. Life can be so fun!
john
The Lemming
Nikolaus Maack <ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:98uthd$s6k$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> > I find it very useful. As others have said, it's a good thing to throw
at
> > people that clearly don't understand surrealism, and for newbies that
aren't
> > entirely certain, or want to understand more. Most NGs have a FAQ, and
> > etiquette suggets that it is read before posting to a group; hopefully
the
> > FAQ will stop the inane posters coming here and assuming that by posting
a
> > message including the word fish they're somehow being surreal.
>
> That strikes me as a little elitist. You understand surrealism, they
> don't. You get to look down on them.
So, when someone comes in here and says "I don't understand what surrealism
is, can anyone tell me?" we shouldn't post the FAQ and say "read this"?
> I don't mean to mock you. I'm just saying, better fish than scraps of
> foul.
>
fish are disreputable things, they have no place in impolite society.
> I would like to see your "fish", Nick the Lemming. Better an awkward
> fumbling story told by a an "amateur" than the endless droning of a
> "professional" telling us all how he could write a much better story -- if
> he wanted to.
>
Why should I show you my fish, if I had one? You'd only hold up a tortoise
and say "this is my fish, Dali wrote about it in his autoboigraphy, so it
*is* a fish, and that salmon there that Breton showed us isn't really what a
fish should be. Any anyway, what is a fish?"
> Show me your "fish". I eagerly await a description of your "fish".
>
no. You don't deserve it.
Nick the Lemming
--
Happy VHEMT Volunteer
May we live long and die out
In Your Face, Space Coyote!
Parry
> Facts. Rationality. Logic. Again, and again. An ignoring of subjective
> realities. Not "I never meant to kick you," or, "I don't think I've been
> a bully," but, "I'm not kicking you. It's a matter of factual record."
Fine: I’m a bully. Next time I’m in Ottawa I’ll give you a wedgie then
pour soft beans down your shirt as a tribute to Dali.
-- Parry
Nikolaus Maack
> So, when someone comes in here and says "I don't understand what surrealism
> is, can anyone tell me?" we shouldn't post the FAQ and say "read this"?
If they ask, show them. If they don't ask, don't. Many have not asked,
and Brandon has thrust the FAQ at them anyway. I think that's rude.
> Why should I show you my fish, if I had one? You'd only hold up a tortoise
> and say "this is my fish, Dali wrote about it in his autoboigraphy, so it
> *is* a fish, and that salmon there that Breton showed us isn't really what a
> fish should be. Any anyway, what is a fish?"
Take my word for it, I will not mock your fish. Post a fish. Post
anything. Being defensive about your fish, even before your fish arrives
from downstream, is a little insecure of you. We are all insecure about
our fish, of course. Aren't we?
And as I said to you in a previous post, I do not worship Salvadore Dali.
In an effort to prove this to you, I pointed out some of his flaws. Like:
1) He was a showman extraordinare, and this often reduce him to little
more than a joke. A circus master, not an artist.
2) While amusing, he was often incredibly unclear. His definition of the
paranoiac critical method is laughable. In a way, he seems to be
deliberately mystifying his methods in order to boost his own image.
3) Almost all of his work has been mass-produced to the point where no
one can see one of his formerly odd paintings without feeling that it's
akin to a Big Mac.
[Show me the fish?]
> no. You don't deserve it.
I am not the sum total of this newsgroup. When I ask that you show me
your fish here, what I am actually asking for is that you show your fish
to the world -- the world of this newsgroup, anyway. Whether or not I
deserve your fish, the world probably does deserve it.
By the way, this is a pattern that has repeated many times in this
newsgroup.
Nik: "Tell me something?"
Other: "No. Why should I? I don't trust you."
Alas, I'm never entirely convinced that they fail to trust me. I suspect
that they fail to trust themselves.
* * *
Mostly unrelated anecdote:
I went and saw "Pollack" yesterday. It was a very long film with
stretches that were extremely boring. Ed Harris acted well, and the film
was mostly good. I recommend waiting for it on video.
What I liked most about Pollack was his stupid sincerity. The best scene
of the film is when his wife comes in to the room, sees him painting, and
wonders aloud what it is that Pollack is doing.
"It's not cubism, because it's all seen from one perspective. And it's
not really surrealism. Did you see it in a dream, Jackson? Because if
it's a dream, it's still reality and nature, although not in the standard
logical sense."
And she drones on and on about what the painting means until Jackson
mutters, "Why don't you paint the fucking picture?" and walks out of the
room.
At one point Ed Harris as Pollack says how when we see a field of grass,
or a fox, or some trees, we don't break our backs trying to figure out
what it means. Why should we do so then when looking at modern art?
I like this idea, although it drives me a little crazy. When I experiment
with weird symbols or feelings or images, I can't help but stop every once
in a while and wonder what it all means. Taking my own writing and trying
to break it apart, understand the symbolism of it, tends to distance me
from it. Instead I should just write and live the symbols and not worry
so much about "meaning".
In a world of cynicism, science, and certainty, it seems we're all a
little prone to asking for summaries and explanations. What does it all
mean? What's the point? Give me a synopsis of it before I read it or
watch it or look at it so I'll know what I'm in for.
* * *
I have a demon named Pane who is green and has a fish's tail. His scales
have tiny green stalk-like hairs growing from them. His face is
monkey-like and his eyes are a clear wet blue, like ocean water. He
offered me a red stone from his chest, insisting it was the cause of my
problems. It looked like a burning red ember.
I decided to enshrine it. I set about builing a container for it. A
pillar with a glass sphere on top, where I would set the stone. It would
glow like a beacon for all to see. At the last minute, I changed my mind
and decided to destroy the stone.
I picked up an enormous square brick, lifted it into the air, and dropped
it on this ember, this crystal, this rock. Instead of shattering or
crunching or exploding, it squished like a tomato. In fact, it was a
tomato the entire time. I believe the demon tricked me.
Or perhaps not. Perhaps all my problems stem from a flaming tomato.
Brandon Freels
> If they ask, show them. If they don't ask, don't. Many have not asked,
> and Brandon has thrust the FAQ at them anyway. I think that's rude.
I only thrust the FAQ when the subject of "What is Surrealism?" comes up.
Both Bret and that other guy, er, questioned what surrealism is, so I showed
them my fish.
cythera
<993cik$aub$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk> :
>Nikolaus Maack <ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
>news:98uthd$s6k$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>> "The Lemming" (Ni...@justonelife.freeserve.nospam.co.uk) writes:
>> > I find it very useful. As others have said, it's a good thing to throw
>at
>> > people that clearly don't understand surrealism, and for newbies that
>aren't
>> > entirely certain, or want to understand more. Most NGs have a FAQ, and
>> > etiquette suggets that it is read before posting to a group; hopefully
>the
>> > FAQ will stop the inane posters coming here and assuming that by posting
>a
>> > message including the word fish they're somehow being surreal.
>>
>> That strikes me as a little elitist. You understand surrealism, they
>> don't. You get to look down on them.
>
>So, when someone comes in here and says "I don't understand what surrealism
>is, can anyone tell me?" we shouldn't post the FAQ
Who is "we"? And seriously people -- what is all this jive about "should"?
Didn't you once say you were an admirer Antonin Artaud's?
"Excuse my absolute freedom."
>and say "read this"?
Not everyone is going to learn from reading a FAQ, especially if you also insist on telling them they are dull and stupid.
[...]
>> Show me your "fish". I eagerly await a description of your "fish".
>>
>
>no.
>You don't deserve it.
!!!
Well thank you for reminding me why the Buddhist sangha I met began to seem
so very much like Christians.
cythera.
>
>Nick the Lemming
>
>
>
>--
>Happy VHEMT Volunteer
>
>May we live long and die out
>
>www.vhemt.org
>
>In Your Face, Space Coyote!
Parry
-- Parry
Nikolaus Maack
> I only thrust the FAQ when the subject of "What is Surrealism?" comes up.
> Both Bret and that other guy, er, questioned what surrealism is, so I showed
> them my fish.
Minor quibble: They didn't question it, per se. They suggested it was
something you think it's not. I believe Martijn compared surrealism to
any other mystical religion promising absolute freedom. While I don't
entirely agree with this position, I think a case could be made that some
surrealists do think this way -- possibly even all of them.
One valid response to this argument of his is to ask, "And this is a bad
thing becase...?" One invalid response would be to call him a
trouble-making moron, and thrust the FAQ at him.
But, really, who cares? Etiquette is for old ladies and afternoon tea.
I'm typing this message while sitting completely nude, eating "Cheerios
Snack Mix: Lightly Dressed." (Which is sort of funny.) Does etiquette
really matter in this internet world of ours?
Probably not.
A purple and yellow flower that smells of chocolate and honey.
The Lemming
cythera <donot...@interbulletin.bogus> wrote in message
news:3AB68A6A...@interbulletin.com...
> >So, when someone comes in here and says "I don't understand what
surrealism
> >is, can anyone tell me?" we shouldn't post the FAQ
>
> Who is "we"? And seriously people -- what is all this jive about
"should"?
> Didn't you once say you were an admirer Antonin Artaud's?
>
"we" is the regular denizens of this NewsGroup, yourself included. And yes,
I admire AA's work. IT was "shouldn't" that I was referring to - if the FAQ
is helpful to newbies, then why shouldn't we post it for them? It happens
elsewhere. I'm not saying we be made to post it, just that for people new to
surrealism, and who don't haev much of an understanding, it would be useful.
> "Excuse my absolute freedom."
>
> >and say "read this"?
>
> Not everyone is going to learn from reading a FAQ, especially if you also
insist on telling them they are dull and stupid.
>
I haven't said they're all dull and stupid. Some obviously either are dull
and stupid or do a very good impersonation of dull and stupid people, others
are comparatively more intelligent. And maybe not everyone will benefit from
the FAQ, but some undoubtedly will. DO you suggest we don't post any FAQ
just because some people won't get anything out of it?
> [...]
>
> >> Show me your "fish". I eagerly await a description of your "fish".
> >>
> >
> >no.
>
> >You don't deserve it.
>
> !!!
> Well thank you for reminding me why the Buddhist sangha I met began to
seem
> so very much like Christians.
>
Next time I'll add a ;-).
;-)
The Lemming
Parry <pa...@perfectOMITmail.com> wrote in message
news:3AB712...@perfectOMITmail.com...
> When vexing Nick, it's proper form to say: "Watch your step, Lemming!"
>
> -- Parry
>
:-)
Will that be in the FAQ?
The Lemming
>
> If they ask, show them. If they don't ask, don't. Many have not asked,
> and Brandon has thrust the FAQ at them anyway. I think that's rude.
>
And if they don't realise there's a FAQ?
> Take my word for it, I will not mock your fish. Post a fish. Post
> anything.
I've posted quite a few things. You've replied to quite a few of them. ;-)
>Being defensive about your fish, even before your fish arrives
> from downstream, is a little insecure of you. We are all insecure about
> our fish, of course. Aren't we?
>
Nope. Not even as a metaphor for penis size.
>
> [Show me the fish?]
> > no. You don't deserve it.
>
> I am not the sum total of this newsgroup. When I ask that you show me
> your fish here, what I am actually asking for is that you show your fish
> to the world -- the world of this newsgroup, anyway. Whether or not I
> deserve your fish, the world probably does deserve it.
>
Why would anything deserve anything else? It could request it, but wouldn't
necessarily deserve anything.
> By the way, this is a pattern that has repeated many times in this
> newsgroup.
>
> Nik: "Tell me something?"
>
> Other: "No. Why should I? I don't trust you."
>
> Alas, I'm never entirely convinced that they fail to trust me. I suspect
> that they fail to trust themselves.
>
I don't think that trust is the reason....
<Nik's fishes snipped>
Blippie
>thing to throw at
>| > people that clearly don't understand surrealism, and for
>newbies that aren't
>| > entirely certain, or want to understand more. Most NGs have
>a FAQ, and
>| > etiquette suggets that it is read before posting to a group;
>hopefully the
>| > FAQ will stop the inane posters coming here and assuming
>that by posting a
>| > message including the word fish they're somehow being
>surreal.
>| That strikes me as a little elitist. You understand
>surrealism, they
>| don't. You get to look down on them. You get to mock their
>"fish".
>| Meanwhile you have no "fish". You have nothing. Perhaps a
>handful of
>| ideas to mull over with the others, like stuffed people at
>Thanksgiving,
>| idly pulling scraps of meat off the turkey carcass.
>|
>| I don't mean to mock you. I'm just saying, better fish than
>scraps of foul.
>|
>| I'd like to see more people come into this newsgroup and post
>something
>| with the word "fish" in it. If only so that the thin, blue
>blood that
>| snail-crawls through this newsgroup's veins is occasionally
>woken up.
>|
>| I would like to see your "fish", Nick the Lemming. Better an
>awkward
>| fumbling story told by a an "amateur" than the endless droning
>of a
>| "professional" telling us all how he could write a much better
>story -- if he wanted to.
>|
>| Show me your "fish". I eagerly await a description of your
>"fish".
>|
>| Nik
>| --
>| Licking clouds while my toes
>| touch the centre of the earth.
>I'm sorry Nik, but I did my best to enlighten all here present
>by weaving in 'new thread', a bit of true, and truly fishy,
>surrealism, from uk.games.mornington-crescent. Perhaps it did
>not register. There is an example of a ng which not only sticks
>to the matter, but refrains from tedious flame wars. True, the
>ng suffers from minimalism, but more than makes up for it by
>following, in a most gentlemanly manner, the unwritten rules.
><O)))'>
Cheers
Blippie
--
Visit the alt.aviation.safety FAQ online at www.blippie.org.uk
Nikolaus Maack
>
>
> ><O)))'>
>
Thank you.
Unrelated anecdote:
My girlfriend Michelle and I went and renewed our apartment insurance
yesterday. In the unlikely even that everything we own is destroyed
and/or stolen, we get $20,000 or so. (Please note that, Church of
Scientology. Thank you.) While we were sitting in the office, in front of
a woman filling out a form for us, Michelle and I made idle chit-chat.
"I could never work in an office like this," Michelle said. "Nothing
exciting every happens here. At my job, things happen."
"Like dogs peeing on you," I said. Michelle works for the Humane
Society.
"Not things that. Real exciting things."
"Oh, I don't know. Maybe exciting things happen in offices... I looked
around, unconvinced. They even had one of those horrible "inspirational"
posters.
I noticed that, as we spoke, the woman filling out our form lost her
spirit. Her shoulder sagged, she let out a long low breath, and her hair
-- which had seemed sort of perky -- went all limp. It was like the woman
deflated. I don't think she liked her job very much. Alas.
Laury
|
| ><O)))'>
Call that a fish? That fish is dead, long live the bicycle.
--__~
_/\ /\_
(_) *=(_)
Sean
Laury wrote in message ...
Cheers Laurie, the fish needed that.