Is surrealism dead?
Nikolaus Maack
> Can a movement truly thrive or even survive once the zeitgeist which
> created it has finished?
If we're going to be totally honest, what most people call surrealism
bears little or no resemblence to the original surrealism. For example,
many of the more vocal people here insist that surrealist works MUST
involve complete spontaneity. This was not the case in the original
surrealist movement, where Dali, Magritte and other artists were far from
spontaneous. They planned their works, yet they were still "allowed" in
the movement. Presumably, were they around today, they would be kicked
out on their ass by the people in this newsgroup.
Certain surrealists here actually go so far as to say Dali never was a
surrealist. Which is nuts. Of course he was -- it's a historical fact.
I'm not sure if these same people are going to rewrite history a second
time, and kick out Magritte too. While his works were obviously planned,
he was nowhere near as contraversial as Dali.
Another new twist -- the original founding of surrealism was described as
an attempt to liberate the subconscious, erasing the barrier between
conscious and subconscious. Most of the people in this newsgroup -- we
had a debate about this a long time back -- no longer believe in the
sub/CON model. So why are they still calling themselves surrealists?
Presumably these people would argue that surrealism has evolved, over
time, thanks to a progress towards some ever distant, super shiny future
-- so of course today's model bears little resemblence to its original
form.
> Are we not simply masterbating our egos in a public attempt at some absurd
> therapy?
I think an argument could be made that this was what the original
surrealists were up to as well. Consider the fact that each member of the
group was supposed to be unearthing his subconscious and becoming a whole
person, totally liberated. Then check out the lengthy list of rules
Breton insisted you live up to -- you had to be an atheist, you weren't
allowed to make any money with your art, you had to be a communist, etc.
How is anyone supposed to liberate their subconscious if they MUST conform
to these specific beliefs at the same time?
What's interesting is, while Breton was kicking people out of the group
left and right for not living up to "appropriate" standards, he'd overlook
certain sinners. Dali was allowed to stay for quite some time, despite
his lack of spontaneity and his fondness for religious symbols. If you
benefited the group, Breton would turn a blind eye to your "failings".
Arthur Rimbaud, who predates surrealism, was far more surreal in his own
behavior. Totally self-absorbed, he attempted to experience everything,
saying he would risk going mad in order to taste the truth in life. This
decision resulted in him being quite an asshole, irritation and destroying
a number of people. He had to pursue his truth, and that often meant
fucking over other people.
In the end, Rimbaud gave up writing, finding it took away from living.
How can you LIVE if you're always sitting down to write about it? Makes
sense. Unfortunately, a thing doesn't seem real to me unless I write it
down.
The surrealists in this group emphasize the collaborative nature of
surrealism. That seems to be where the masturbating comes in. Talk,
talk, talk -- all we do is talk and toss around ideas. Actually doing
things might be a little more progressive.
> Misfits HAVE to believe that they are misunderstood geniuses if they are
> to avoid the madness which comes from the total undermining of the
> terrified ego.
I doubt that anyone in this newsgroup would call themselves a
misunderstood genius. Except me. I'd say it as a joke. It would make a
lot of people very angry, and then I could giggle to myself. In fact, you
know, come to think of it, I am a misunderstood genius.
Just like Andy Kauffman. In fact, I am Andy Kauffman.
> Porn is the new surrealism.
It can be. Having written and sold porn stories to Fox, Voluptuous,
Naughty Neighbors, Score, and other porn mags, I know that porn can
express a lot more than just sex. On more than one occasion, I have
written what I intended to be scathing satire with sex in it that, if read
with a "I want to wank" perspective, comes across as perfectly ordinary
porno.
The characters in porn are great for satire. The woman character is
always perpetually horny, wanting to fuck anyone and anything, her animal
nature totally beyond her control. In a tongue-in-cheek sense, she is
completely "liberated", giving voice to all her desires. Same goes for
the male character, who is always looking for that perfect opportunity to
spray cum. These people are FREE, in the sense that nothing will hold
them back from their TRUE desires.
Of course, their TRUE desires are always for sex. That's where the satire
comes in.
Nik
--
Every good piece of art kills something soft and small.
The Nik Maack Art Gallery
http://www.nikart.com
johnqadamsiii
nothingness...
In article <8i2l9c$6ik$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>,
ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Nikolaus Maack) wrote:
>> Can a movement truly thrive or even survive once the zeitgeist
which
>> created it has finished?
>
>If we're going to be totally honest, what most people call
surrealism
>bears little or no resemblence to the original surrealism. For
example,
>many of the more vocal people here insist that surrealist works
MUST
>involve complete spontaneity. This was not the case in the
original
>surrealist movement,
>where Dali, Magritte and other artists were
>far from
>spontaneous. They planned their works, yet they were still
"allowed" in
>the movement. Presumably, were they around today, they would be
kicked
>out on their ass by the people in this newsgroup.
That's baloney, first of all Dali wasn't part of the group until
5 or 6 years into its 'official forming', as was magritte a few
years himself. Also, although magritte and some other's work was
technically precise, it was often derived through dream or of
spontaneous origin. Also, as the group began there was little
emphasis on painting; it was primarily to do with automatism and
writing and yes liberating the mind, unveiling it through the
unconcious. ALSO, after many discussions regarding surrealism,
being the process of discovery and freedom of the mind it is, one
would think you would realize that painting would be but one
aspect of such a process, and not what molds a whole movement.
>Certain surrealists here actually go so far as to say Dali never
was a
>surrealist. Which is nuts. Of course he was -- it's a
historical fact.
This is a lie - i don't recall anyone saying this.
We all acknowledge his being involved in the group for a few
years.
>I'm not sure if these same people are going to rewrite history a
second
>time, and kick out Magritte too. While his works were obviously
planned,
>he was nowhere near as contraversial as Dali.
How planned do you presume his work was?
>Another new twist -- the original founding of surrealism was
described as
>an attempt to liberate the subconscious, erasing the barrier
between
>conscious and subconscious. Most of the people in this
newsgroup -- we
>had a debate about this a long time back -- no longer believe in
the
>sub/CON model. So why are they still calling themselves
>surrealists?
Most of the people in this newsgroup?
Technically it was originally referred to as the unconscious,
sometimes the psychic unconcious. I personally do not reject a
pre-concious model of sorts because a) it is still the most
explanatory and b) there is plenty of study and common sense
experience to back up the unconscious, or automatic, processes
that always occur. Whether there is a "subconscious" residing in
one particular cross section of the brain may be the debatable
issue to me.
That's because this is a NEWSGROUP. That, and file attachments,
are the only things that can occur HERE! Of course you don't know
interact with anyone from it personally, so you can't presume to
know what takes place in their daily life.
I figured you would dive all over this one. Now someone owes me a
crisp 20 dollar bill.
john
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Nikolaus Maack
> That's baloney, first of all Dali wasn't part of the group until
> 5 or 6 years into its 'official forming', as was magritte a few
> years himself.
Dale has said, and has been backed up by Brandon, that Dali isn't a
surrealist. Their grounds -- he's not using automatism.
I disagree with their evaluation. You seem to disagree. Hurray for those
who disagree. I don't personally think automatism/spontaneity is the end
all and be all of surrealism. That seems a little narrow minded. You
seem to agree with me -- using dream imagery is a variant on spontanaeity.
Dale and Brandon (and Cythera?) disagree, it seems.
Of course, if we were in a world outside of this newsgroup, presumably we
would get a billion different takes on surrealism. There is no one static
opinion on the subject. Surrealism is a broad spectrum of different takes
on the original form. This, I think, is a good thing. Dale refers to
people who differ from HIS position as charlatans trying to abuse the
surrealist name for their own purposes. That strikes me as a little lost.
[Has the sub/CON model been abandonned by surrealists here?]
> Most of the people in this newsgroup?
> Technically it was originally referred to as the unconscious,
> sometimes the psychic unconcious. I personally do not reject a
> pre-concious model of sorts because a) it is still the most
> explanatory and b) there is plenty of study and common sense
> experience to back up the unconscious, or automatic, processes
> that always occur. Whether there is a "subconscious" residing in
> one particular cross section of the brain may be the debatable
> issue to me.
I've heard "unconscious" and "subconscious" used interchangeably. To me,
personally, unconscious means I've been hit on the head and I'm lying in a
gutter, my tongue hanging out of my mouth. Subconscious means a mental
process beneath the level of my conscious awareness. That material CAN be
brought to the conscious level, so it is SUBconscious, not UNconscious.
The subconscious/uncon In one particular cross-section of the brain? I'm
reading an interesting book, mentioned in another post, called "A General
Theory of Love", which discusses (among other things) communications
between the neocortex (the rational brain) with the limbic brain
(emotional, inner life / outer life balancer) and the reptile brain
(primitive emotions and biological control). These divisions could
explain the sensation that some material is not readilly accessable.
> That's because this is a NEWSGROUP. That, and file attachments,
> are the only things that can occur HERE!
Wrongo. We can always report on the various activities and explorations
we engage in in the real world. Something I try to do.
Ironically enough, my internet provider doesn't allow for file
attachments. They filter those messages out of our system, seeing them as
taking up way too much space. Sigh.
> I figured you would dive all over this one.
Well, what a surprise. When someone asks a critical question, I'm there.
It's boring when we all agree. Whoever made a bet with you on the subject
should have their head examined for huge gaping holes leaking brain.
johnqadamsiii
ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Nikolaus Maack) wrote:
>johnqadamsiii (johnqadams...@yahoo.com.invalid) writes:
>> That's baloney, first of all Dali wasn't part of the group
until
>> 5 or 6 years into its 'official forming', as was magritte a
few
>> years himself.
>
isn't a
>surrealist. Their grounds -- he's not using automatism.
>
>I disagree with their evaluation. You seem to disagree. Hurray
for those
>who disagree. I don't personally think automatism/spontaneity
is the end
>all and be all of surrealism. That seems a little narrow
minded. You
>seem to agree with me -- using dream imagery is a variant on
spontanaeity.
>Dale and Brandon (and Cythera?) disagree, it seems.
I dont have time to respond now, my opinion is that he was at one
time a part of the group, and that's about it.
>Of course, if we were in a world outside of this newsgroup,
presumably we
>would get a billion different takes on surrealism. There is no
one static
>opinion on the subject. Surrealism is a broad spectrum of
different takes
>on the original form. This, I think, is a good thing. Dale
refers to
>people who differ from HIS position as charlatans trying to
abuse the
>surrealist name for their own purposes. That strikes me as a
little lost.
>
>[Has the sub/CON model been abandonned by surrealists here?]
>
>> Most of the people in this newsgroup?
>> Technically it was originally referred to as the unconscious,
>> sometimes the psychic unconcious. I personally do not reject a
>> pre-concious model of sorts because a) it is still the most
>> explanatory and b) there is plenty of study and common sense
>> experience to back up the unconscious, or automatic, processes
>> that always occur. Whether there is a "subconscious" residing
in
>> one particular cross section of the brain may be the debatable
>> issue to me.
>
>I've heard "unconscious" and "subconscious" used
interchangeably. To me,
>personally, unconscious means I've been hit on the head and I'm
lying in a
>gutter, my tongue hanging out of my mouth. Subconscious means a
mental
>process beneath the level of my conscious awareness. That
material CAN be
>brought to the conscious level, so it is SUBconscious, not
>UNconscious.
Thats your own opinion. Since the mental functionings are
unconcious, i think the term still suits it and is not merely
confinable to a boy on a bike with a concusion.
>The subconscious/uncon In one particular cross-section of the
brain? I'm
>reading an interesting book, mentioned in another post, called
"A General
>Theory of Love", which discusses (among other things)
communications
>between the neocortex (the rational brain) with the limbic brain
>(emotional, inner life / outer life balancer) and the reptile
brain
>(primitive emotions and biological control). These divisions
could
>explain the sensation that some material is not readilly
accessable.
>
>> That's because this is a NEWSGROUP. That, and file
attachments,
>> are the only things that can occur HERE!
>
>Wrongo. We can always report on the various activities and
explorations
>we engage in in the real world. Something I try to do.
You said specifically all they do is 'talk talk talk, and toss
around ideas'. So again, what more can be done than that?
"reporting" every day about our daily lives sounds boring and
superficial to me. But post as you wish, this is a free
newsgroup.
>Ironically enough, my internet provider doesn't allow for file
>attachments. They filter those messages out of our system,
seeing them as
>taking up way too much space. Sigh.
>
>> I figured you would dive all over this one.
>
>Well, what a surprise. When someone asks a critical question,
I'm there.
>It's boring when we all agree. Whoever made a bet with you on
the subject
>should have their head examined for huge gaping holes leaking
brain.
>
Dale Houstman
"johnqadamsiii" <johnqadams...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:081d998c...@usw-ex0106-046.remarq.com...
>
> That's baloney, first of all Dali wasn't part of the group until
> 5 or 6 years into its 'official forming', as was magritte a few
> years himself. Also, although magritte and some other's work was
> technically precise, it was often derived through dream or of
> spontaneous origin. Also, as the group began there was little
> emphasis on painting; it was primarily to do with automatism and
> writing and yes liberating the mind, unveiling it through the
> unconcious. ALSO, after many discussions regarding surrealism,
> being the process of discovery and freedom of the mind it is, one
> would think you would realize that painting would be but one
> aspect of such a process, and not what molds a whole movement.
Also, as has been discussed here quite endlessly by this point - all the
effort wasted on N I see - this issue of what constitutes automatism in
painting is an olkd struggle, one that Breton and others have alreadyt
discussed, coming to the conclusion that there are other routes to
"unconscious" work than pure automatism. N doesn't read well. As for
Magritte - my personal favorite amongst the painters - Brandon and I have
had a good conversation precisely on this point. Magritte was - in no
obvious way - a painter of chance. But his work is worked out obsessively
and with full regard to the accidental grace note. I described him as a sort
of painterly collage artist, combining disparate elements into an ambiguous
and yet evocative poetic image. Since the Poetic is always "trump" in
surrealism, there is no problem including Rene in the group. As N is quite
aware, Breton himself is rather famous for spending many hours to create his
"effects." The emphasis on the purely automatic was ameliorated quite early
on by Breton, and becomes only one aspect of a growing philosophy. N wishes
to reduce surrealism to the status of a static "thing in the past" when it
is purposely engineered precisely to avoid this sort of fossilization.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >The surrealists in this group emphasize the collaborative nature
> of
> >surrealism. That seems to be where the masturbating comes in.
> Talk,
> >talk, talk -- all we do is talk and toss around ideas. Actually
> doing
> >things might be a little more progressive.
>
> That's because this is a NEWSGROUP. That, and file attachments,
> are the only things that can occur HERE! Of course you don't know
> interact with anyone from it personally, so you can't presume to
> know what takes place in their daily life.
N cannot understand that no ACTION can take place here. He takes this -
always - to mean that we do outside the group is talk. Yet I write, create
images, and interact with the world like anyone else. This seems obvious to
me.
> >
> >I doubt that anyone in this newsgroup would call themselves a
> >misunderstood genius. Except me. I'd say it as a joke. It
> would make a
> >lot of people very angry, and then I could giggle to myself. In
> fact, you
> >know, come to think of it, I am a misunderstood genius.
I'm a misunderstood idiot.
dmh
Dale Houstman
"johnqadamsiii" <johnqadams...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
> In article <8i3cre$e85$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>,
> ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Nikolaus Maack) wrote:
> >johnqadamsiii (johnqadams...@yahoo.com.invalid) writes:
> >> That's baloney, first of all Dali wasn't part of the group
> until
> >> 5 or 6 years into its 'official forming', as was magritte a
> few
> >> years himself.
> >
> isn't a
> >surrealist. Their grounds -- he's not using automatism.
This is the point: there is a difference between being designated as a part
of a group and being actually an adherent. Thus a man may be called a
communist because he belongs to the party, but may in fact be an agent for
RCA. In which case he is NOT a communist.There is no doubt Dali belonged to
the surrealist group, but he quickly revealed himself not to be a "member in
good faith." This has been gone over before to little avail. N refuses to
listen to subtle arguments, and only hears coarse outlines.
dmh
Dale Houstman
"Nikolaus Maack" <ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:8i3cre$e85$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> johnqadamsiii (johnqadams...@yahoo.com.invalid) writes:
> > That's baloney, first of all Dali wasn't part of the group until
> > 5 or 6 years into its 'official forming', as was magritte a few
> > years himself.
>
> surrealist. Their grounds -- he's not using automatism.
>
a short time. In effect I am saying he was not a very good surrealist. This
is a differentation between the "mere" fact of historical membership and the
more subtle ideas of what constitutes surrealism. A black man - using a good
disguise - could join the KKK tomorrow. Would he thus be considered a
Klansman in good standing? One doubts it. In essence, Dali was a
double-agent for the Vatican and Hollywood and Wall Street. This is where my
quareel lies with him.
The truly fascinating thing here though is waiting to see how many more
times you will repeat the same dense statements, in spite of any discussion
to the contrary.
Repeat (to make it easy for you): automatism is NOT the only path to
surrealism, and this is a fact Breton himself uncovered very early on. This
has been said before: are you stupid or merely purposely acting stupid? One
or the other: either way you make an ass of yourself almost gleefully.
But: why does the "nihilist" care one way or the other?
Secondly it is simply not true that my "grounds" (or Breton's for that
matter) for dismissing Dali from surrealism are that he didn't use
automatism. Automatic painting - as Breton knew - is a problematic idea at
best. My argument with Dali - which does not keep me from admiring many of
his works - is that he was a money-grubbing and celebrity hungry Papist.
As usual, you prove you can neither read nor remember.
dmh
Nikolaus Maack
> Nik, I wasn't here then, and would appreciate it if you repost the key
> arguments. I'm supposing that you have them accessible (?)
I could spend the next hour or so culling the conversation from DejaNews
-- or not. I don't have the time. Perhaps Dale will post a summary of
his position. As I recall, it amounted to the fact that the biology of
the brain has no such place as an "unconscious" or "subconscious".
One thing I can agree with -- Freud's model of "repressed memories" is
totally buggered.
barrett john erickson
"Nikolaus Maack" <ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:8i3cre$e85$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> [..]
> Of course, if we were in a world outside of this newsgroup, presumably we
> would get a billion different takes on surrealism.
we'd get a billion different takes on quantum mechanics also, but that
doesn't say anything about quantum mechanics.
some people understand. some don't.
> There is no one static opinion on the subject.
it's not a matter of opinion.
> Surrealism is a broad spectrum of different takes on the original form.
"surrealism" is one of the most abused terms of our time. among
surrealists, there is a fairly stable concensus as to its meaning.
-- 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
==============================================
johnqadamsiii
>
>"johnqadamsiii" <johnqadams...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote
in message
>>
>> That's baloney, first of all Dali wasn't part of the group
until
>> 5 or 6 years into its 'official forming', as was magritte a
few
>> years himself. Also, although magritte and some other's work
was
>> technically precise, it was often derived through dream or of
>> spontaneous origin. Also, as the group began there was little
>> emphasis on painting; it was primarily to do with automatism
and
>> writing and yes liberating the mind, unveiling it through the
>> unconcious. ALSO, after many discussions regarding surrealism,
>> being the process of discovery and freedom of the mind it is,
one
>> would think you would realize that painting would be but one
>> aspect of such a process, and not what molds a whole movement.
>
nature
>> of
>> >surrealism. That seems to be where the masturbating comes
in.
>> Talk,
>> >talk, talk -- all we do is talk and toss around ideas.
Actually
>> doing
>> >things might be a little more progressive.
>>
>> That's because this is a NEWSGROUP. That, and file
attachments,
>> are the only things that can occur HERE! Of course you don't
know
>> interact with anyone from it personally, so you can't
presume to
>> know what takes place in their daily life.
>
takes this -
>always - to mean that we do outside the group is talk. Yet I
write, create
>images, and interact with the world like anyone else. This
seems obvious to
>me.
>
>> >
>> >misunderstood genius. Except me. I'd say it as a joke. It
>> would make a
>> >lot of people very angry, and then I could giggle to
myself. In
>> fact, you
>> >know, come to think of it, I am a misunderstood genius.
>
>
>dmh
>
With his posts , small attempts to 'affect' reaction or amuse
himself that they are one usenet, it's little wonder why people
resort to referring to him as "N", since he is afterall
incommunicado.
john
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
Dale Houstman
"johnqadamsiii" <johnqadams...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
> >
>
> With his posts , small attempts to 'affect' reaction or amuse
> himself that they are one usenet, it's little wonder why people
> resort to referring to him as "N", since he is afterall
> incommunicado.
>
"the N word." I later felt this took entirely too much time considering the
object of the sobriquet and shortened it to "N."
N = Nil
N = Noodle
N= Numbskull
N= Non-communicating
N = Nether regions
etc.
dmh
kin...@hfwork1.tn.tudelft.nl
> Deja.com is only releasing posts from the last 90 days. I wrote
> this to Kinsler a few days ago. Guess you missed that.
I sign myself as #Paul, y'know. Referring to people by just
their surnames always seemed kind of impolite to me --
especially if they're present.
#Paul
ac...@freenet.carleton.ca
>> Of course, if we were in a world outside of this newsgroup,
>> presumably we would get a billion different takes on surrealism.
>
> we'd get a billion different takes on quantum mechanics also, but that
> doesn't say anything about quantum mechanics.
Even in the scientific field of quantuum mechanics, there is a lot of
debate. No one person fully understands the implications of this field
of study. Arguments rage and there are several different schools of
competing thought.
Surrealism is nowhere near a science. Being a philosophical approach
to life as well as a theory in regards to art, surrealism is loose and
open to interpretation. To suggest that there is only one possible
understanding of surrealism is simply ridiculous.
> some people understand. some don't.
No. Each individual person might have a grasp of a particular aspect
of surrealism. No one person understands it in its entirety. Think of
the joke about the blind men and the elephant.
"An elephant is long and curly, like a snake," says the man holding the
trunk.
"An elephant has large leathery wings," says the man touching the ears.
"An elephant is sharp and pointy," says the man stroking the tusks.
"An elephant is like a rope," says the man clinging to the tail.
"An elephant is soft and mushy," says the man touching the elephant
turd.
Surrealism is an elephant, and we are all blind to its entirety. To
imply that you have access to the full story of the surreal elephant is
utter hubris. The entire point to the collaborative process, I would
imagine, would be that each person brings their own particular
perspective that renders the picture complete.
"Some people understand, some dont"? You're guilty of holding the
elephant turd in your hands and saying you've got the entire animal to
yourself. Don't be ridiculous. No one person can understand
surrealism in its entirety.
> > There is no one static opinion on the subject.
>
> it's not a matter of opinion.
Sure it is. We each have our own approach, our own take, our own
beliefs, our own baggage as we come to surrealism. This will result in
differing opinions as to how surrealists should act, what the main goal
should be, what particular aspect of surrealism is most important. To
suggest that there is only one understanding, one opinion, one approach
might keep the group united, but in the end it is just a convenient lie.
Formally trained psychotherapists, for example, like to think they all
agree on Freud's theories. This is completely untrue. Each therapists
has their own particular approach to Freudian theory, and their own
particular method of acting it out when councelling a client. Some of
them have even -- GASP! -- discarded certain Freudian principles! They
all have differing opinions. They might want to present themselves as
utterly homogeneous to the outside world, but this is a front.
Much like the front you seem to be suggesting exists with surrealism.
>> Surrealism is a broad spectrum of different takes on the original
>> form.
>
> "surrealism" is one of the most abused terms of our time. among
> surrealists, there is a fairly stable concensus as to its meaning.
Please explain to me how you would determine whether an approach to
surrealism is merely a different perspective of the same elephant, or
people looking at an entirely different animal. I don't think such a
determination can be made at all. Even if they see a pink fluffy tail
like the one on a dyed poodle, it's possible that this tail does belong
on the surreal elephant. It's possible that, up until now, all us
blind folk simply overlooked it.
You may find it inconvenient to deal with this pink fluffy tail, and
will scoff anyone who discusses it. In the end, you are forced to
express a mere "opinion". From your perspective, in your opinion,
there are no pink tails on your particular elephant. If you have five
hundred friends who all agree with you, it's still just an opinion.
Can you tell I watched the delightful movie "The Adventures of Baron
Munchausen" last night?
Nik
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
barrett john erickson
"cythera" <lukeydN...@earthlink.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:09d38541...@usw-ex0102-016.remarq.com...
>
> Why should he have to? If someone will post urls on enactive
> cognition (also autopoiesis) that would help me save time, but
> it isn't necessary. I leave the imposing on others to you, Nik.
>
a good start point:
http://www.informatik.umu.se/~rwhit/AT.html
especially the sub pages:
http://www.informatik.umu.se/~rwhit/Guide.html#WWWsites
http://www.informatik.umu.se/~rwhit/Tutorial.html
Nikolaus Maack
>> Of course, if we were in a world outside of this newsgroup, presumably we
>> would get a billion different takes on surrealism.
>
> we'd get a billion different takes on quantum mechanics also, but that
> doesn't say anything about quantum mechanics.
Quantuum mechanics is no more static than surrealism -- scientists debate
and argue over the principles of QM just as much as surrealists quibble
over surrealism. There is no one consensus. Are you suggesting that
there is?
> some people understand. some don't.
Some blind people understand an elephant. Elag says it's snake like.
Dale says it's like a tree trunk. Cythera says it has giant wings like a
bat. Fascinan says it is sharp and pointy. Nik says it is like a rope
that hangs down from the sky. Brandon says it is soft and mushy.
Who understands the elephant?
>> There is no one static opinion on the subject.
>
> it's not a matter of opinion.
It is a matter of different approaches based on individual experiences.
This can be translated, roughly, into different "opinions". Each of us
has a different grasp on a different portion of the "surrealism beast".
You have a firm hold of the elephant's genitals. Twist all you like. Its
screams don't necessarily make you the elephant king.
>> Surrealism is a broad spectrum of different takes on the original form.
>
> "surrealism" is one of the most abused terms of our time. among
> surrealists, there is a fairly stable concensus as to its meaning.
How can you tell the difference between a different approach and
surrealism "abuse"?
kin...@hfwork1.tn.tudelft.nl
> What does politeness have to do with surrealism?
Nothing at all. However, it is quite helpful when talking
to people.
> Now stop trying to put me into a little miss sweetheart
> box before I fucking break it.
I don't believe making a mild hint about how I would like to
be referred to constitutes trying to put you in a "little miss
sweetheart box". However, I am contemplating putting you
in a "pointlessly aggressive" box.
#Paul
David Searle
newsgroup with a sense of humour, which is a shame when you consider that
comedy is the new surrealism (not forgetting that surrealism is the new
comedy)
cat fish dog anti-diluted fnar fnar (as a true surrealist I am sure you
understand what I'm getting at).
For those pretend surrealists who don't get it but think it would be really
cool to pretend to get it I will explain that at higher levels of conscious
awareness ANY word/idea can be substituted for ANY other word /idea. This is
not surrealist theory - it is the nature of reality!
So her'es toigorstr anvinghksky
Dave
"Nikolaus Maack" <ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:8i2l9c$6ik$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
Dale Houstman
"David Searle" <David....@care4free.net> wrote in message
news:8in6sn$luv$1...@lure.pipex.net...
> Thanx for the interest Nik, you seem to me about the only person on this
> newsgroup with a sense of humour, which is a shame when you consider that
> comedy is the new surrealism (not forgetting that surrealism is the new
> comedy)
>
> cat fish dog anti-diluted fnar fnar (as a true surrealist I am sure you
> understand what I'm getting at).
This very sequence of childish nonsense reveals that you have literally NO
idea what surrealism is. This limp line of non-sequitors is pathetically
devoid of anything marvelous or (for that matter) humorous, unless you find
dyslexia hilarious.
>
> For those pretend surrealists who don't get it but think it would be
really
> cool to pretend to get it I will explain that at higher levels of
conscious
> awareness ANY word/idea can be substituted for ANY other word /idea. This
is
> not surrealist theory - it is the nature of reality!
"Higher levels of conscious awareness"? Do you speak in this mystical
blather all the time, or only when you are attempting to flog one of your
overpriced books?
Surrealist therory is about the nature of reality: but you wouldn't know
that, being such a tweozzlitick yourself.
>
> So her'es toigorstr anvinghksky
And so the dyslexic waves oogbyde and fades into the netssu.
dmh
Nikolaus Maack
again, with this newsgroup. Follow the bouncing ball of my reasoning...
Dave says:
>> Thanx for the interest Nik, you seem to me about the only person on this
>> newsgroup with a sense of humour
[He follows up with some playful nonsense.]
Then the obvious happens.
Cythera writes some angry shit about labels, etc, that I won't bother to
quote.
Dale chimes in, as always, in aggression mode:
> This very sequence of childish nonsense reveals that you have literally NO
> idea what surrealism is. This limp line of non-sequitors is pathetically
> devoid of anything marvelous or (for that matter) humorous, unless you find
> dyslexia hilarious.
Evidently they are both aware that they have no sense of humour. Why else
would they both have this kneejerk reaction?
Dale, Cythera, with your growling, you both have just written up a
document that says "Dale Houstman and Cythera each have no sense of humour
whatsoever," and you signed it in blood, while all of us watched. And you
do it every goddamn day.
You are both so very, very, very serious. I think Dale thinks his anger
is funny -- I have a friend who writes the same way. Vicious little barks
does not comedy make. You also have to be able to make fun of yourself.
You have to make light of all things. Water off a duck's back. People
who can only attack others, but never attack their own ridiculousness, I
suspect are extremely insecure.
But what do I know? I'm an immensely overweight thirty year old man who
babysits for a living. I paint the same face over and over again, and I
like to pretend I'm an intellectual but I'm actually a fool. Come to
think of it, I'm well aware that I'm a fool. In fact, I'm proud of my
fool-nature. So, uh, never mind.
Dale:
> Surrealist theory is about the nature of reality
A group of writers and artists invented "reality" one weekend so they'd
have somewhere to hang their make-believe.
brandon...@my-deja.com
> Can you tell I watched the delightful movie "The Adventures of Baron
> Munchausen" last night?
Terry Gilliam is a wonderful director. "Brazil" is one of my favorite
movies. "Munchausen" is okay, but for some odd reason I want to think
of it as a sequel to "Time Bandits" which I know its not. I think it
has something to do with the clothing and sets.
brandon...@my-deja.com
Nikolaus Maack wrote:
> The following is one of the reasons I find myself so painfully bored,
> once again, with this newsgroup. Follow the bouncing ball of my
> reasoning...