a thought on surrealism
Laura
In art history, we learned that many art "movements" or "periods" were named
after the fact in order to make it easier to categorize and arrange the
history of art. Surrealism, as we all know, had a manifesto (probably
several) and therefore had a name before art history could classify it.
For debate's sake, does this not leave the door to surrealism either a) shut
tight against all future works as the definition rose and died with the
movement or b) wide open as surrealism can only be broadly defined by the
works and manifestos that it encompassed so long ago?
What is it that makes surrealism "un-dead"? Is surrealism truly alive today
as a movement or is it simply remembered with similar things?
Are the lines around what is or is not surrealism all that strict or are
they actually rather fuzzy?
Why is it that the debate over what is or is not surrealism is still running
strong after all this time?
orlan, too tired to make any sense.
BATDING - http://www.20-eyes.com/batding/index.html
brandon...@my-deja.com
> For debate's sake, does this not leave the door to surrealism either
> a) shut tight against all future works as the definition rose and
> died with the movement or b) wide open as surrealism can only be
> broadly defined by the works and manifestos that it encompassed so
> long ago?
It depends. Which side of the door are we on?
> What is it that makes surrealism "un-dead"? Is surrealism truly
> alive today as a movement or is it simply remembered with similar
> things?
What makes surrealism "un-dead" is that it is so ALIVE. There seems to
be too many groups to mention:
http://www.users.uswest.net/~cybermaxx/ARTISTS.htm
(I don't quite follow the second part of your question)
> Are the lines around what is or is not surrealism all that strict or
> are they actually rather fuzzy?
I think the one requirement of FREEDOM is actually a very broad
requirement, but this requirement should still, despite its broadness,
be protected.
> Why is it that the debate over what is or is not surrealism is still
> running strong after all this time?
It really isn't. The Surrealist groups have a good idea of what
Surrealism is, and I see no debates within them. It is only here, at
alt.surrealism that you find such a debate. Why? Its rather simple:
Certain individuals can't let go of the bullshit they've been fed, or
can't admit that they are wrong, or just like to get a rise out of
those who do know what they're talking about (do you know who I'm
talking about?).
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Dale Houstman
"Laura" <or...@gurlmail.com> wrote in message
news:Pb%q5.30614$T5.4...@news1.rdc1.ab.home.com...
> A passing tidbit from my brain at this moment:
>
> In art history, we learned that many art "movements" or "periods" were
named
> after the fact in order to make it easier to categorize and arrange the
> history of art. Surrealism, as we all know, had a manifesto (probably
> several) and therefore had a name before art history could classify it.
Art History has a difficult time with surrealism because it is onyl in part
an art movement, being in reality more of a philosophy of liberated
imagination.
>
> For debate's sake, does this not leave the door to surrealism either a)
shut
> tight against all future works as the definition rose and died with the
> movement or b) wide open as surrealism can only be broadly defined by the
> works and manifestos that it encompassed so long ago?
>
> What is it that makes surrealism "un-dead"? Is surrealism truly alive
today
> as a movement or is it simply remembered with similar things?
Well - what renders it 'nosferatu' is the fact that there are many active
surrealist groups all over the world; Prague, Leeds, London, Paris, Chicago,
Minneapolis, etc. How many Impressionist groups are there?
>
> Are the lines around what is or is not surrealism all that strict or are
> they actually rather fuzzy?
It depends: Breton discovered and named it, so it has a definable history
and a large body of associated texts about many different aspects of its
intentions. But it is a fluid subject (within parameters which allow
defintion at all), and was meant to be. Breton took great pains to avoid any
fossilization into a mere system, so surrealists do argue amongst themselves
about strategy, issues, etc.
>
> Why is it that the debate over what is or is not surrealism is still
running
> strong after all this time?
Precisely because it is a process rather than a dead issue.
>
> orlan, too tired to make any sense.
Dale - too sensible to make any tires.
barrett john erickson
>
> In art history, we learned that many art "movements" or "periods" were
named
> after the fact in order to make it easier to categorize and arrange the
> history of art. Surrealism, as we all know, had a manifesto (probably
> several) and therefore had a name before art history could classify it.
>
> For debate's sake, does this not leave the door to surrealism either a)
shut
> tight against all future works as the definition rose and died with the
> movement or b) wide open as surrealism can only be broadly defined by the
> works and manifestos that it encompassed so long ago?
"surrealism" should only be defined as a process (and i describe that
process as a project to integrate the liberated imagination into everyday
living). there are no "surrealist" attributes to be found in people or
objects -- which is one reason art historians have such trouble
understanding it.
it isn't about the art produced its about the process (the project). the
"works" and "manifestoes" are only artifacts of the explorations related to
that process.
> What is it that makes surrealism "un-dead"? Is surrealism truly alive
today
> as a movement or is it simply remembered with similar things?
"surrealism" for a surrealist is all-encompassing, continuous and
enextricably linked to living as a creative endeavor.
> Are the lines around what is or is not surrealism all that strict or are
> they actually rather fuzzy?
think of it rather as a "strange attractor":
there are no borders, but if we are interested, we can easily distinguish
between those who form the "surrealist set" (i.e., part of the system with
the surrealist project as its strange attractor) versus those who do not
(e.g., those who have dada, or post-modernism as their strange attractor)
once we determine what they are actually clustering around.
> Why is it that the debate over what is or is not surrealism is still
running
> strong after all this time?
because "surrealism" is one of the most abused words of our time.
[ http://www.magneticfields.org/barrett/texts/surrusa.html ]
-- barrett
BLUE FEATHERS #3 is now available
http://www.MagneticFields.org/blue/
bar...@MagneticFields.org
http://www.MagneticFields.org/
surrealists in minnesota
Sur...@MagneticFields.org
==============================================
"Everything tends to make us believe that there exists a
certain point of the mind at which life and death, the real and
the imagined, past and future, the communicable and the
incommunicable, high and low, cease to be perceived as
contradictions."
...André Breton
==============================================