Two Types of Surrealism?
ac...@freenet.carleton.ca
an automatic nature. There is another kind of surrealism that doesn't
place so much emphasis on simply letting go of control.
From:
http://www.bway.net/~monique/history.htm
-----
Two Distinct Groups Emerge
Michael S. Bell, through his research, realized that these two forms of
expression formed two distinct trends of surrealism with marked
differences. One could be qualified as Automatism, the other, as
Veristic Surrealism. "Automatism" explains Mr. Bell, "is a form of
abstraction. It has been the only type of surrealism accepted by
critical reviewers after the war."
Basically, two different interpretations of the works of Freud and Jung
divided the two groups. For the purpose of personal analysis, Jung had
talked about not judging the images of the subconscious, but simply
accepting them as they came into consciousness so they could be
analyzed. This was termed Automatism.
The Automatists
When psychology talked about Automatism, these artists interpreted it
as referring to a suppression of consciousness in favor of the
subconscious. This group, being more focused on feeling and less
analytical, understood Automatism to be the automatic way in which the
images of the subconscious reach the conscience. They believed these
images should not be burdened with "meaning."
Faithful to this interpretation, the Automatists saw the academic
discipline of art as intolerant of the free expression of feeling, and
felt form, which had dominated the history of art, was a culprit in
that intolerance. They believed abstractionism was the only way to
bring to life the images of the subconscious. Coming from the Dada
tradition, these artists also linked scandal, insult and irreverence
toward the elite's with freedom. They continued to believe that lack of
form was a way to rebel against them.
The Veristic Surrealists
This group, on the other hand, interpreted Automatism to mean allowing
the images of the subconscious to surface undisturbed so that their
meaning could then be deciphered through analysis. They wanted to
faithfully represent these images as a link between the abstract
spiritual realities, and the real forms of the material world. To them,
the object stood as a metaphor for an inner reality. Through metaphor
the concrete world could be understood, not by looking at the objects,
but by looking into them.
Veristic Surrealists, saw academic discipline and form as the means to
represent the images of the subconscious with veracity; as a way to
freeze images that, if unrecorded, would easily dissolve once again
into the unknown. They hoped to find a way to follow the images of the
subconscious until the conscience could understand their meaning. The
language of the subconscious is the image, and the consciousness had to
learn to decode that language so it could translate it into its own
language of words.
----
It seems that one group believes in letting automatic processes run
free, while the other believes in a realistic depiction of these
images. In other words, not all surrealists are "automatic".
Of course this split is foolish. No need to divide the world in half.
Do an automatic painting one day, do a planned capture of imagery the
next. Why not even combine the two?
The reason I bring this to the attention of this newsgroup is that many
have said, in the past, that it's the automatic quality of surrealism
that is, above all, important. I've argued that it's not, and I
thought this bone might make something interesting to chew on.
Nik
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
brandon...@my-deja.com
> Emphasis in this newsgroup is, far too often, placed on surrealism of
> an automatic nature. There is another kind of surrealism that doesn't
> place so much emphasis on simply letting go of control.
Yeah, I found this site a long time ago. But I don't need "Mr. Bell" to
tell me what automatism is. The truth is that the so-called "Veristic
Surrealists" are actually just using chance, as collage artists do.
They did not "interpreted Automatism to mean allowing the images of the
subconscious to surface undisturbed so that their meaning could then be
deciphered through analysis."
For example, Magritte, who "Mr. Bell" would put in this "Veristic"
group, was actually against psychoanalysis, so anyone thinking that he
is going to try and "allow images from his subconscious to surface" is
simply full of it. Magritte was interested in the process of collage
and the spark of analogy.
> It seems that one group believes in letting automatic processes run
> free, while the other believes in a realistic depiction of these
> images. In other words, not all surrealists are "automatic".
> Of course this split is foolish. No need to divide the world in half.
> Do an automatic painting one day, do a planned capture of imagery the
> next. Why not even combine the two?
I think the main problem with Mr. Bell's theory is that no Surrealist
can be classified in any catagory. Even Miro couldn't always be called
an Automatist. The point is that these false divisions really don't
exists, and Mr. Bell is divided the artists into two groups because he
can't deal with having a chaotic mess of unclassifiable painters. First
he generalizes them, and then he divides them. Its kind of like racists
do. They generalize two or more large groups of people, and then
attempt to divide them.
> The reason I bring this to the attention of this newsgroup is that
> many have said, in the past, that it's the automatic quality of
> surrealism that is, above all, important. I've argued that it's not,
> and I thought this bone might make something interesting to chew on.
I think you're making a false statement. In the past we have said that
FREEDOM is the underlining quality of a surrealist art. Freedom, while
it appears in automatism, also comes in collage, visions,
hallucinations, and anything that isn't consciously controlled.
barrett john erickson
<brandon...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8ohgni$hnf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> ac002 wrote:
> > Emphasis in this newsgroup is, far too often, placed on surrealism of
> > an automatic nature. There is another kind of surrealism that doesn't
> > place so much emphasis on simply letting go of control.
> > http://www.bway.net/~monique/history.htm
>
> Yeah, I found this site a long time ago. But I don't need "Mr. Bell" to
> tell me what automatism is. The truth is that the so-called "Veristic
> Surrealists" are actually just using chance, as collage artists do.
> They did not "interpreted Automatism to mean allowing the images of the
> subconscious to surface undisturbed so that their meaning could then be
> deciphered through analysis."
>
> For example, Magritte, who "Mr. Bell" would put in this "Veristic"
> group, was actually against psychoanalysis, so anyone thinking that he
> is going to try and "allow images from his subconscious to surface" is
> simply full of it. Magritte was interested in the process of collage
> and the spark of analogy.
yes, i think the fundamental problem with this essay can be found in the
following lines:
"Surrealism as we know it today is closely related to some forms of abstract
art. In fact, they shared similar origins, but they diverged on their
interpretation of what those origins meant to the aesthetic of art."
and,
"Michael S. Bell, through his research, realized that these two forms of
expression formed two distinct trends of surrealism with marked differences.
One could be qualified as Automatism, the other, as Veristic Surrealism."
the author and Mr. Bell, as is typical of art historians, begin by focusing
myopically on a _subgroup_ of surrealists: "surrealist artists" -- the only
"surrealism as [they] know it" (we doubt they are even including the poets
in this) and then make generalizations about the "two distinct trends of
surrealism" that they think they observe in the artists.
the problem with such an approach is that before you can identify a group of
"surrealist artists" (as in "visual artists"), you are already well along in
surrealist history (more than several years along -- into the expanded group
of the mid to late twenties), and talking about a group of surrealists who
have, so to speak, taken on a "specialty", which they have then pursued
along paths of personal interest. if you attempt to make generalizations
about the "trends of surrealism" by examining only them you will be the
blind man describing the proverbial pachyderm.
ah!!!!! and then there's that Donald Kuspit quote again (_please_, can
someone give me the original source for this?):
"Must first show..." etc. (a fuller passage is in the text below).
when i first came across this (a larger portion in my response text below),
i drafted a tract responding to him and his publisher which i was going to
submit to active surrealists for signatures (but i do want to have the
complete context first so as not to carelessly do him some injustice --
whether it be by being too harsh or too mild -- but i need to know where it
came from):
>>>
The "Death of Surrealism" as pronounced by Kuspit
"Given that Surrealism was pronounced dead by its own creators in the
1940's, those who believe that Surrealism has evolved and suddenly
become a new movement again, must first show that it has democratic
appeal-appeal to those generally unschooled or not professionally
interested in it. Then it must suffer a period of aristocratic rejection-by
those schooled in an accepted and thereby 'traditional' movement, those
with a vested interest in the status quo, and concerned with protecting
it at all cost. So far the mention of any Surrealist movement after the
1940's does not include either of these necessities."
- Donald Kuspit
It is true that Mr. Kuspit has been diagnosed as an "art critic". And while
this disability might ordinarily entitle him to certain allowances, we find
the magnitude of his violence against reality overrides any such allowances
and cannot be ignored.
[However, we will still defend him against any accusations of being an "art
historian".]
We strongly suspect that anyone who could say that "Surrealism was
pronounced dead by its own creators in the 1940's" has no idea who "created"
surrealism and even less idea what kind of entity surrealism actually is.
Perhaps he mistakes surrealism for the kind of thing that an individual or
group of individuals might plant in clay pots, tend for a while, and then
discard. Like a houseplant. But even the worst indoor gardener wouldn't
proclaim an entire species dead simply because he or she has failed
miserably at cultivating its seeds. And even the most reckless of
horticulturists wouldn't accept such declaration as true.
But rather than expend any more energy in attempting to correct a display of
such profound ignorance, we'll move on.
Mr. Kuspit asserts that "those who believe that Surrealism has evolved and
suddenly become a new movement again, must first show that it has democratic
appeal..." We answer that the continuing evolution of surrealism in no way
requires it to become a "new movement" but simply that it continue to place
the highest priority on its exploration of the imagination's place in our
daily living.
And since when is the validity of actions or concepts to be judged according
to their popular appeal or their rejection by an aristocracy? Even an "art
critic" must realize that value is not something bestowed by crowds.
The reason "the mention of any Surrealist movement after the 1940's does not
include either of these necessities" is because surrealists reject the
"necessity" of hopeless myopia.
we end with a quote from an earlier text:
"to refer to 'new' surrealism is like referring to 'new' weather. it can
only seem 'new' if you stand too still and small, too stuck in place to see
the larger context. it's only 'new' if you mistake the perpetual change and
development of a single complex life form, as it passes by, for a series of
deaths and rebirths of something much simpler."
<<<
-- 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
==============================================