Does Surrealism/Dada/etc. need to be revised in view of current history
Treeclimbr
last three years, with this new level of child degeneration, has put
a grimer understanding of human nature than even before.
alt.surrealism has not often been a place for serious discussion, and
I'm not hoping for much, but I wanted to put the idea out there.
Are there other sources of post-Bretonian thought that take into
account his greatness as well as his unneeded emphasis on de Sade and human
cruelty?
___________________
Robert Pearson
Creative Virtue: http://www.eskimo.com/~telical/
ParaMind Brainstorming Software http://www.paramind.net/
Dale Houstman
Treeclimbr wrote:
>
> Surrealism was theorized before WWII, and the results of the
> last three years, with this new level of child degeneration, has put
> a grimer understanding of human nature than even before.
I think that this is too dramatic; it is hard for any of us to imagine
the level of misery and social degradation attending the period between
world Wars, and I seriously doubt that now is worse. Or better. As for
"child degeneration" the stories of what children are capable of are
quite neatly scattered through history: read about the Children's
Crusade, the easy brutalities of youth in Victorian London. Though there
is plenty of social "disease" to disparage of now, we should not resort
to sensationalism. That's the media's job...
>
> alt.surrealism has not often been a place for serious discussion, and
> I'm not hoping for much, but I wanted to put the idea out there.
>
Well, it used to be. Of late it has been turned over to rather limp
jokesters, and those who would have you believe surrealism is a thin
parade of non sequitors and forced oddity. So you see, your questioning
is a relief... Many of those who posted here regularly have formed loose
affiliations and are continuing just such discussions via other venues.
> Are there other sources of post-Bretonian thought that take into
> account his greatness as well as his unneeded emphasis on de Sade and human
> cruelty?
DeSade is a strange chapter in Surrealist thought, it is true, and
people are still arguing its merits. Aesthetically (if I may be
permitted that) I find him dull. He is obviously NOT pornographic,
because his depictions of human sexuality are not stimulating to
masturbatory action. At any rate Breton and the other surrealists did
not make a major icon of De Sade, relying as they did much more on
Lautremont and Rimbaud; both of whom (as it happens) also display some
degree of human cruelty. But then again, so do most of us. De Sade is
seen (in light of the stifling social mores of his time and place) to be
an antidote to easy comfort; his very "indigestibility" is of value to
those who would have society choke on its own hidden bile. But I am not
expert either on the Marquis, or upon surrealist attitudes toward him,
which were not homogenous. In particular Bataille has something to say
on these points, and I suppose one might start there. But, all in all,
the surrealists are no more or no less sexually confused than most of
us. If their overarching belief in "total freedom" produces
disconcerting paradoxes, this is no different than the paradoxes that
the US Constitution (or the messy results of democracy at large)
produces every day. Freedom is often chaotic. Out of that brouhaha
collective action emerges as a vector. The human adventure continues.
If you wish to talk more, please e-mail me.
Dale