Just curious...
Doug Eichenberg
Doug Eichenberg
http://www.getinfo.net/douge
do...@nls.net
Steve McDonald
Surrealism is what's left after you subtract all the things
that you *can* define. -- Steve M, Atlanta-GA-USA
Dale Houstman
"Steve McDonald" <ugow...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:39a5cb13...@news.mindspring.com...
Nope. Surrealism has been defined (correctly and not) in this group many
many times. More importantly, it has an extensive written history, and
dictionary definitions. Andre Breton is - for all intents and purposes - its
originator, but - as a living process (which it was meant to be by its
original members) - it evolves. As a basic definition (personally and
without pretending to the final word) I would say it is a philosophy of the
senses (including imagination as the ultimate sense) that espouses
liberation and the breaking of the chains of oppression in every regard.
dmh
Parry
>
> I'm just curious how some of you define surrealism.
The automatic functioning of thought.
The historical movement of writers and artists inaugurated by
automatism.
The desire for a revolution of the human condition.
The products of the above movements.
-- 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! =-----
Nikolaus Maack
> I'm just curious how some of you define surrealism.
Defining a word kills it, unless you define it extremely carefully. A
definition should be cloud-like, imprecise, describing the ghostly area of
probability around a word instead of nailing it down and making it a
certain fixed point. If I am to define "surrealism", I want to do so in
such a way as to not eliminate any of its beauty by crucifying the word.
Surrealism, to me, is that mysterious something you experience when
nonsense makes sense. In a dream, for example, I might put a puppy into a
toaster-oven. Two minutes later, a dogwood tree bursts forth, clogging up
the kitchen with its enormous, sudden growth. I worry what my mother is
going to say, and frantically begin sawing off branches with a spoon.
In the dream, this all makes perfect sense. Perhaps even after I wake up
and lie in my bed for a while, I wonder if it really happened. When I go
downstairs, will the kitchen be stuffed full of tree? Only after I'm out
of bed and have had a shower, my "rational" mind comes to. A tree growing
out of a toaster oven? That's ridiculous. Never could happen. What was
I thinking?
Surrealist art and writing aims to prolong that moment of believing in the
unbelievable, because somehow the unbelievable, the dream-like, the
nonsensical describes a reality more real than reality. What we wish for
is more true than what we actually receive.
The "belief in the unbelievable" sensation is addictive. If you can cling
to the notion that there is a new universe created every time you blink
your eyes, then the universe becomes all the more beautiful and vital and
alive. And it's true -- the universe is constantly recreating itself.
The connections between seemingly unconnected objects -- my paperback copy
of "The Executioner's Song" sitting next to the monitor, and the pimple on
the neck of a man in South Africa -- becomes clear. There is a
connection, although there is no way for me to know precisely what it is.
I often feel that the world is constantly trying to nail things down. A
dog is a dog. A lightbulb is a lightbulb. Do not confuse the two.
Reality is that which, when I stop believing in it, it doesn't go away.
Two plus two is four. If I mix baking soda and vinegar, I get foam.
While all of the above might be true, these aren't the important things.
These facts ignore the one element that we all possess -- imagination.
Today, for just one moment, let a dog be a lightbulb. Listen to it bark
as it glows in the ceiling. Let adding up two plus two produce wave upon
wave of foam.
That's my definition of "surrealism" for today. If you ask me for another
definition tomorrow, I might describe a cloud of an entirely different
colour. That, I think, is a good thing.
Nik
--
"I dote on myself. There is a lot of me, and all so luscious." -- Whitman
The Nik Maack Art Gallery
http://www.nikart.com
Nikolaus Maack
>> I'm just curious how some of you define surrealism.
>
> The historical movement of writers and artists inaugurated by
> automatism.
> The desire for a revolution of the human condition.
> The products of the above movements.
While this MIGHT be accurate, it is tremendously dull, and therefore has
absolutely nothing to do with surrealism. It is the equivalent of
describing the concept of "dance" using a bar-graph, when it would be much
easier to just get up and do the watusi.
I love you Parry, but I'm afraid I am now forced to damn you to hell for
all eternity.
brandon...@my-deja.com
> I'm just curious how some of you define surrealism.
Here's what I came to a while back:
Surrealism is the actions of the brain’s personnel that conceives,
desires, selects, perceives, and the like, without the interference of
external constraints, such as utilitarianism, rationalism,
aestheticism, and so on, to create an untainted awareness of existence
which is the most complete experience of reality.
Some others:
“Surrealism, which is an instrument of knowledge, and therefore an
instrument of conquest as well as defence, strives to bring to light
man’s profound consciousness. Surrealism strives to demonstrate that
thought is common to all, it strives to reduce the differences existing
between men, and, with this end in view, it refuses to serve an absurd
order based upon inequality, decide and cowardice” (Paul
Éluard, “Poetic Evidence” in Read, p. 180).
“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,” in What is Surrealism? Selected
Writings, p. 5).
“The vice named Surrealism is the immoderate and impassioned use of the
stupefacient image, or rather of the uncontrolled provocation of the
image for its sake and for the element of unpredictable perturbation
and of metamorphosis which it introduces into the domain of
representation: for each image on each occasion forces you to revise
the entire Universe” (Louis Aragon, Paris Peasant, p. 66).
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
ca314159
>
> I'm just curious how some of you define surrealism.
>
Definition: Whatever that can't be defined, is surreal.
kin...@hfwork1.tn.tudelft.nl
> While this MIGHT be accurate, it is tremendously dull, and therefore has
> Nik
#Paul
brandon...@my-deja.com
> Defining a word kills it, unless you define it extremely carefully.
How many words have you killed today, or in your lifetime?
> A definition should be ...
Who says?
> Surrealism, to me, is that mysterious something you experience when
> nonsense makes sense.
But the problem with your definition is that "nonsense" and "sense"
vary greatly from individual to individual because they are based on
each individual's system of rationalization. As an empiricist I have
accepted that there is no nonsense or sense only what happens, and when
something happens that is unexpected it is often very beautiful --- but
to distinguish it with words like "nonsense" and "sense" is, in effect,
attacking the initial spontaneous experience with the knife of
rationalism.
> That's ridiculous. Never could happen. What was I thinking?
Again, a Surrealist doesn't say this, only a rationalist who, after a
period of time, has escaped the after effects of the break of their
belief system, whatever it may be.
> Surrealist art and writing aims to prolong that moment of believing
> in the unbelievable, because somehow the unbelievable, the dream-
> like, the nonsensical describes a reality more real than reality.
> What we wish for is more true than what we actually receive.
Actually, Surrealist art ans writing is not trying to prolong anything,
but to create that which has yet been created in both the physical and
mental spheres. It all comes back to chance and automatism.
> Reality is that which, when I stop believing in it, it doesn't go
> away. Two plus two is four. If I mix baking soda and vinegar, I get
> foam.
This is like I said to you before: you equate "reality"
with "objective." This is incorrect. "Reality" is the combination of
the "objective" and "subjective."
ca314159
>
> In article <39A722...@bestweb.net>,
>
> cythera
> hyperrealism:
the attempt to extract the humorous from a
Good Humor bar by squashing it into lower and
lower dimensions until the "essence of humor"
can be marketed as a colognic aphrodesiac for
the chronically temporal.
surrealism:
the attempt to usurp the existence of the humor
in a Good Humor bar by projecting it into a higher
and higher dimensions until all humorous paradoxes
seem to dissolve into an eternally dry desert
wasteland and everyone exists in the perfect harmonious
spatial equality of being equally boring.
panrealism:
the Good Humor bar snaking its way through the grass
of all dimensions poking it's belly-button up in the
dimension where one happens to be, just long enough to
laugh heartily at any attempts to catch it with fishing
poles or nets, before it dissapears into the depths of
the loch.
brandon...@my-deja.com
cythera <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <39A7EC...@bestweb.net>,
> ca314159 <ca31...@bestweb.net> wrote:
> > cythera wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <39A722...@bestweb.net>,
> > > ca314159 <ca31...@bestweb.net> wrote:
> > > > Doug Eichenberg wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm just curious how some of you define surrealism.
> > > > >
> > > > > Doug Eichenberg
> > > > > http://www.getinfo.net/douge
> > > > > do...@nls.net
> > > >
> > > > Definition: Whatever that can't be defined, is surreal.
> > >
> > > Please read Dale's post in this thread.
> > >
> > > cythera
>
> > the attempt to usurp the existence of the humor
> > in a Good Humor bar by projecting it into a higher
> > and higher dimensions until all humorous paradoxes
> > seem to dissolve into an eternally dry desert
> > wasteland and everyone exists in the perfect harmonious
> > spatial equality of being equally boring.
>
>
> cythera
Yes, troll.
Parry
> Parry (pa...@zxOMITmail.com) writes:
> >> I'm just curious how some of you define surrealism.
> >
> > The historical movement of writers and artists inaugurated by
> > automatism.
> > The desire for a revolution of the human condition.
> > The products of the above movements.
>
> absolutely nothing to do with surrealism. It is the equivalent of
> easier to just get up and do the watusi.
Sure it’s dull, dictionary dull, as definitions tend to be. I hoped its
brevity would dull the edge of the dullness but, in any case, as I am
not selling anything I am under no obligation to be interesting. Why try
to entertain a newbie with noisy hand puppets or mystify him with the
colourful oblique? Just give him a cold hard framework by which he can
make sense of what he reads here.
> I love you Parry,
Thanks, Nik. That’s makes you and my cat at least.
> but I'm afraid I am now forced to damn you to hell for
> all eternity.
Hey -- a mixed message. Where do you get this crazy stuff?
Dale Houstman
"Parry" <pa...@zxOMITmail.com> wrote in message
news:39AB2D...@zxOMITmail.com...
> Nikolaus Maack wrote:
> > Parry (pa...@zxOMITmail.com) writes:
> > >> I'm just curious how some of you define surrealism.
> > >
> > > The automatic functioning of thought.
> > > The historical movement of writers and artists inaugurated by
> > > automatism.
> > > The desire for a revolution of the human condition.
> > > The products of the above movements.
> >
> > While this MIGHT be accurate, it is tremendously dull, and therefore has
> > absolutely nothing to do with surrealism. It is the equivalent of
> > describing the concept of "dance" using a bar-graph, when it would be
much
> > easier to just get up and do the watusi.
>
> Sure it's dull, dictionary dull, as definitions tend to be. I hoped its
> brevity would dull the edge of the dullness but, in any case, as I am
> not selling anything I am under no obligation to be interesting. Why try
> to entertain a newbie with noisy hand puppets or mystify him with the
> colourful oblique? Just give him a cold hard framework by which he can
> make sense of what he reads here.
>
relatively dull toy: a stick for instance! and allowing them to use their
imaginations, rather than the super energetic and yet
active-imagination-free toys of today.
dmh