Remembering Dali>>
CHENNO
what Surrealism really is.-"Brandon J. Freels" <Fre...@ethergate.com>
but then again it seems as though America understood Dali and Surrealists
didn't ... at any rate its no big deal...America never understands things the
way Europeans do anyway and vise versa. I seriously doubt that some French
fashion designer sashaying around galleries throughout Italy with his nose up
in the air could have a clue as to the feeling of the open air desert and sand
paintings of the American Western Indians that influenced Jackson Pollocks
work, yet I'm sure he would stand before a Pollock and praise it without
understanding what was behind it. That doesn't mean that Pollock distorted the
way homosexual Frenchmen view Arizona.
I dont agree with the statement by Houstman that "... Dali had almost no effect
on serious artists of the coming American Age ..." of course that all depends
on his definition of "serious artist" but I would have to say there are
remarkable similarities between how Dali used his artistic fame and the way
Andy Warhol would a few decades later. You could argue that Warhol could have
been the first commercial clown of Art all on his own but I think at least a
little of his acceptance owes itself to Dali's bravado in front of the
flashbulbs and what it did to effect the way the American general public viewed
artists. For good or bad, how the public views artists to this day affects
artists.
ôżô
CHENNO
barrett john erickson
CHENNO wrote in message <19990106085154...@ng115.aol.com>...
>With his capitalistic ways Dali distorted the North American understanding
of
>what Surrealism really is.-"Brandon J. Freels" <Fre...@ethergate.com>
>
>but then again it seems as though America understood Dali and Surrealists
>didn't ... at any rate its no big deal...
whether or not america understood dali misses the point being made.
because of dali america received a distorted impression of "surrealism".
even as dali presented himself to america as the very incarnation of
"surrealism", most surrealists (of the time) already considered him suspect
at best.
this _is_ a big deal to a surrealist (today) in america because that
distorted impression still prevails [as is evident in many of the postings
to this newsgroup -- where one should be able to presume a greater degree of
familiarity with the subject]. in fact, i would argue that you can closely
determine the degree to which someone understands "surrealism" simply by
asking what they think of dali as a surrealist. the greater the praise the
greater the misunderstanding.
note: this has nothing to do with dali's art. nor does praising dali render
someone incapable of understanding "surrealism". but considering dali a
model surrealist is a de facto admission that "surrealism" is not understood
by that person.
the curse of dali is that, to this day, americans who haven't taken the time
and made the effort to understand its large body of theoretical research,
think "surrealism" is a personal characteristic that one can adopt by
affecting individualist eccentricities, an attitude full of hostile
posturing and a preoccupation with painting their personal equivalent of
melted clocks.
"surrealist" is not an attribute or a characteristic that can be possessed
by individuals or objects.
>America never understands things the
>way Europeans do anyway and vise versa. I seriously doubt that some French
>fashion designer sashaying around galleries throughout Italy with his nose
up
>in the air could have a clue as to the feeling of the open air desert and
sand
>paintings of the American Western Indians that influenced Jackson Pollocks
>work, yet I'm sure he would stand before a Pollock and praise it without
>understanding what was behind it. That doesn't mean that Pollock distorted
the
>way homosexual Frenchmen view Arizona.
this whole paragraph reeks of nationalism and xenophobia.
>I dont agree with the statement by Houstman that "... Dali had almost no
effect
>on serious artists of the coming American Age ..." of course that all
depends
>on his definition of "serious artist" but I would have to say there are
>remarkable similarities between how Dali used his artistic fame and the way
>Andy Warhol would a few decades later. You could argue that Warhol could
have
>been the first commercial clown of Art all on his own but I think at least
a
>little of his acceptance owes itself to Dali's bravado in front of the
>flashbulbs and what it did to effect the way the American general public
viewed
>artists.
the point is: the very way -- even the very fact -- that dali "used" his
"artistic fame" is what renders him forever the anti-surrealist.
warhol, on the other hand, was just a derivative joke played against the
"art world".
>For good or bad, how the public views artists to this day affects artists.
this isn't about art.
-- barrett
bar...@MagneticFields.org
http://www.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
barrett john erickson
CHENNO
Barrett wrote>>>>
whether or not america understood dali misses the point being
made........................
surrealism" is not understood
by that person.<<<<<<<
Who's point, yours? mine? theirs?
As for not being understood by that person????hmmmm, another opinion,not to
uncommon for one opinion to clash with another!
Equally arguable is the fact that you can truely determine the degree by which
someone understands or misunderstands surrealism by asking them if they
consider themselves a surrealist...in America......in the 1999 or better yet
...if they even consider it a topic of discussion?
barrett wrote>>>>this whole paragraph reeks of nationalism and xenophobia.<<<
The truth stinks....buy a clothes pin!
barrett>>>>the very fact -- that dali "used" his
"artistic fame" is what renders him forever the anti-surrealist<
HMMMM , well,If fame is not to be utilized to some end then what is the purpose
of fame?.....and why show manifesto, poem, or painting publicly at all?......If
we curse an artist for using his/her fame we are in fact saying that the only
true artists are those unknowns who spend the whole of their lives creating in
obscurity only to die without ever once presenting their creativity to another
..... a deliciously romantic notion but, much like that of considering oneself
a Surrealist in 1999, extremely idealistic and out of touch with the reality of
the age.
Ironically by discussing this subject at all one justifies all actions taken by
Dali in the name of "using" his fame....after all we're still discussing him
long after he is dead and no one, outside of a few relatives, will be
discussing our rotting corpses twenty years after we're posthumous.
Now if you will excuse me I am off to giggle in the amusement of it all...
ôżô
CHENNO
barrett john erickson
CHENNO wrote:
>
> From: "barrett john erickson" <bar...@magneticfields.org>
>
> Barrett wrote>>>>
>
> whether or not america understood dali misses the point being
> made........................
> surrealism" is not understood
> by that person.<<<<<<<
>
> Who's point, yours? mine? theirs?
the point you were claiming to answer: the point made by Brandon.
> Equally arguable is the fact that you can truely determine the degree by which
> someone understands or misunderstands surrealism by asking them if they
> consider themselves a surrealist...in America......in the 1999 or better yet
> ...if they even consider it a topic of discussion?
hardly. since there _are_ surrealists in america, in 1999, it _is_ discussed, and
there _are_ also those who obviously (to surrealists) have a very shallow
understanding of the subject yet insist on speaking in their name.
perhaps you are claiming there are no surrealists today, or that "surrealism" is
simply irrelevant to our time?
this would certainly place you among those with either a shallow understanding or
deliberate antagonism toward "surrealism". either way it degrades your opinions
about "surrealism" and/or surrealists.
[i don't really care who is or isn't a "surrealist" -- it's the living that matters
-- but i'm trying to move beyond the endlessly circular arguments with those who will
never "get it".]
> barrett wrote>>>>this whole paragraph reeks of nationalism and xenophobia.<<<
>
> The truth stinks....buy a clothes pin!
if your "truth" stinks, you're welcome to it -- i'm certainly not trying to take it
from you. "truth" is far less interesting than reality, anyway. but don't expect me
to passively clip my nose while you coat the floor with such dung.
> barrett>>>>the very fact -- that dali "used" his
> "artistic fame" is what renders him forever the anti-surrealist<
>
> HMMMM , well,If fame is not to be utilized to some end then what is the purpose
> of fame?
fame has no "purpose"[*]. and "fame" is certainly not an acceptable "purpose" to a
surrealist.
[* "purpose" or "utility" is a value humans create and assign relative to a specific
action at a specific time -- a product of the imagination, not the property or
characteristic of some inanimate object or abstract concept. a hammer has no
inherent "purpose" or "utility" to a human without nails or an intention to pound
them. "fame" has no inherent "purpose" or "utility" to a human who neither seeks it
or exploits it.]
>.....and why show manifesto, poem, or painting publicly at all?......
there are as many answers to this as there are manifestoes, poems and paintings. but
for a surrealist (as far as i'm aware), personal "fame" was never among them.
>If
> we curse an artist for using his/her fame we are in fact saying that the only
> true artists are those unknowns who spend the whole of their lives creating in
> obscurity only to die without ever once presenting their creativity to another
my comments were not about art or fame, but i now see that this was the limited reach
of yours.
> ..... a deliciously romantic notion but, much like that of considering oneself
> a Surrealist in 1999, extremely idealistic and out of touch with the reality of
> the age.
and you posted to alt.surrealism, why?
> Ironically by discussing this subject at all one justifies all actions taken by
> Dali in the name of "using" his fame....after all we're still discussing him
> long after he is dead
a revealing convolution. are you saying the pursuit and exploitation of "fame" is a
goal worth seeking, that it justifies any action, and/or that it is a measure of a
life's value?
>and no one, outside of a few relatives, will be
> discussing our rotting corpses twenty years after we're posthumous.
personally, i don't much care what people may be talking about twenty years after i'm
dead.
have you subscribed to _interview_? do you have some kind of thing for celebrity?
barrett john erickson
CHENNO wrote:
> although,are feelings are different , I wish not to partake in wars of
> indiference as there are no winners!
OK, i have no problem leaving it like that.
when someone posts something i think needs to be challenged, i'll do so. i expect
the same from others. because it's not about winning or losing, it's about trying to
come to an understanding.
CHENNO
We could go on like this for days,It is my intent to express how I feel, not
intended for you oranyone to agree with or like, as I do not agree with all
opinions as well, But, respect that all views are different and not alike.
I can appriecaite all you have said.
although,are feelings are different , I wish not to partake in wars of
indiference as there are no winners!
CHENNO ôżô
Painting is silent poetry, and poetry painting that speaks. - Simonides
CHENNO
when someone posts something i think needs to be challenged, i'll do so. i
expect
the same from others. because it's not about winning or losing, it's about
trying to
come to an understanding.
-- barrett
Barrett:
I agree it is not about winning or losing, but, to try and come to an
understanding of many subjects as we discussed is very difficult.
When people are strong in their beliefs as you and I are, and many others ,
coming to an "Understanding" is not an easy task, But, the grand format itself
in which we format our opinions allows others to see our own opinions.
arguing or commenting with snide remarks, only adds to the problem of trying to
share information or provide knowledge.
I find a few great points and areas of interest in this group, So, I look
forward to more conversations with you and others......
ok, enough from me.....next subject please...:)
"Things that matter most must never be at the mercy of things which matter
least"
Goethe