Walkabouts and the I Ching as Surreal Tools
Nikolaus Maack
Brandon said:
>In other words, I believe Nik needs to be more concerned with
>what these projects are saying to "him."
One of my favourite "games" is to walk through life, looking for messages
from the universe. What this amounts to is leaving the house, walking
around, examining every event as though it were a piece of information the
universe is directing at me, in an attempt to tell me something. Every
stray doorknob on the street, every branch lying in my path, every flyer,
every scrap of paper, every person walking by, becomes a complex "text" to
be interpreted and understood.
It's useful to have a topic in mind, when doing this, but not absolutely
essential. I refer to these jaunts of mine as "walkabouts".
Doing this, of course, is somewhat insane. A schizophrenic might live in
this state of hyper-selfishness perpetually. I like just visiting every
once in a while. It's like doing a tarot reading using life as the cards.
I find staying in this state for long periods of time exhausting.
The I Ching is a useful tool in this regard as well. Recently, when
contemplating the Ottawa Surrealist get together, I did an I Ching
reading, wondering where these actions of mine would take me. The book
told me that while I was on the right path, nothing would come of my
actions, and I would end up alone and without having achieved anything
concrete, though the error wasn't mine.
Now, did the book tell me this? Or did I use the book to tell me this?
And does the distinction matter?
So oddly enough, as I sat in Cafe Wim, I knew no one was going to show up.
My "walkabouts" are very meaningful to me. When I hear (I think it was)
Dale talk about wandering through the world, picking up "found poems" and
seeing sidewalk cracks and trees as art, I understand completely what he
means. It's a fun, heightened state of awareness, quite close to madness,
but not quite madness.
What actually happens during these "walkabouts"? I feel like I'm
projecting my imagination on to the world. Or, actually, the line between
me and the world dissolves, and I am the world and me at the same time.
Every event becomes super-charged with meaning and significance, making
even the tiniest event tremendously exciting.
Is this surrealism? Is this state, is taking a "walkabout", a way of
releasing the imagination on to the world?
I highly recommend playing this "game". What's especially useful is to
pick a day, and decide that it will be the day when the world will tell
you something significant. Spend the day walking through the streets, or
whatever place suits your mood -- I sometimes wander off into the forest
-- and look for messages. Presumably this could be done with ANY day at
all. A day at the office as a heightened message from yourself to
yourself?
Having said all this, I think I can describe a little more what I want to
do with my surrealist projects.
When I am in this state, in a "walkabout", everything is significant,
meaningful, and quite beautiful. When I leave a message in the world --
be it a dollhead, an onion, or a phone call -- I hope to bring about the
same sensation in another. I want them to feel that the event or object
they stumble across is a personal, significant moment. It's a message
from the universe to them, but it's also a message from themselves to
themselves.
The nature of such an event or object has to be intrusive enough for them
to notice it. It also has to be vague enough so that they can ascribe
their own meaning to it. I don't know how to insert the "mystical"
quality to it. That's difficult. How to make the event seem POWERFUL and
EMPOWERING in and of itself, hiding the outside hand, the person who
placed it?
What I'm trying to describe, and have been trying to describe for the last
little while, is the idea of setting up tarot cards in space. A person
walking down the street sees the card, interprets it, and has a new
understanding. My role is minor. I just place the card. The viewer does
all the work. It's THEIR experience, not mine.
While I have a notion of the emotional state I want to bring about, in
truth, I cannot control the emotional states of others. Nor do I want to.
Maybe someone seeing the card will experience intense rage. Though the
card itself is innocent, they see it as having to do with a violent,
hateful moment in their lives and they feel compelled to destroy.
That would be acceptable to me, although not my ideal. Ideally, I would
want the experience to be a plesant one.
Having said all this, some questions:
1) Does the above make any sense?
2) Is there some way to make an event or an object reek of personal
significance for every passing stranger who walks by it? Or is trying to
make an event significant to EVERYONE only going to weaken the object or
event? Is the best that can be hoped for is an oddity that makes people
stop and wonder?
3) Is it possible to make the object or event a trigger for a pleasant
personal experience, as opposed to a negative one? Or is it only possible
to hope for some kind of personal experience of some emotional type?
4) Can you think of a project that would capture what I'm striving for?
Nik
--
"Everybody lives in fear. We all think we're incredibly weird and
depraved and bonkers, and if people knew the real us they'd squirt acid in
our faces and make us live in a Canadian mental institution."
-- Cynthia Heimel, essayist
Brandon J. Freels
> Now, did the book tell me this? Or did I use the book to tell me this?
> And does the distinction matter?
The distinction matters to avoid mysticism. What you are talking about here
is very Bretonian Surrealism. Breton claimed that he does not believe in
the prophetic word, but often he treated coincidences as being prophetic
(see his analysis of his poem "Sunflower" in Mad Love).
> What actually happens during these "walkabouts"? I feel like I'm
> projecting my imagination on to the world. Or, actually, the line between
> me and the world dissolves, and I am the world and me at the same time.
Dissolving the lines between exterior and interior is at the heart of the
Surrealist project. These flaneur-like activities (or "walkabouts" as you
call them) are what I consider to be the best way to force this unification.
Breton makes use of this activity in Nadja, Aragon does also in Paris
Peasent, and so does Soupault in The Last Nights of Paris.
> Is this surrealism? Is this state, is taking a "walkabout", a way of
> releasing the imagination on to the world?
It is surrealism, but rather than releasing the imagination onto the world,
it is more like making the imagination and the world an equal partnership.
Brandon J. Freels
The more you concern yourself with what "passing strangers" think of an
object the more you are stumbling onto the Symbolist movement. While I enjoy
some of the Symbolist art I find their project, which is similar to your
"mean something to everyone" project, can only end in ambiguity. Much of
their art is a testimony to this ambiguity.
More importantly, I am wonder what kind of effect the experience of
encountering a "passing stranger" (which can either be animate or inanimate)
has upon my "self." What am I saying to my self in the reflection of this
"passer"?
Nikolaus Maack
"Brandon J. Freels" (fre...@teleport.com) writes:
> The more you concern yourself with what "passing strangers" think of an
> object the more you are stumbling onto the Symbolist movement. While I enjoy
> some of the Symbolist art I find their project, which is similar to your
> "mean something to everyone" project, can only end in ambiguity. Much of
> their art is a testimony to this ambiguity.
I have to agree in regards to this ambiguity. I think trying to create
something that is "all things to all people" might be a futile exercise.
All people being complex individuals, the chances of finding a symbol that
means something to everyone seem slim.
One thing I have noticed is that if an artist merely presents their
personal feelings and experiences in as concrete and honest a way as
possible, it has a far better chance of reaching the viewer, than if the
artist strives to create an experience that all viewers can appreciate.
Paint what you see and feel, and other people can empathize. Don't try to
paint something that allows others to see and feel themselves. Let them
reflect off your own art, instead of off some shiny surface you're trying
to create for them.
Don't paint empty mirrors.
Perhaps a better stance for me to take with surrealist projects is to
leave objects and events in reality that describe my current headspace.
Each piece would be a message in a bottle saying, "I am struggling to
understand, and this is what I've figured out so far." Any response to the
art would allow me to further myself in my effort to understand.
This sounds closer to what you and the others are doing, although I would
still rather avoid the politics that you all care for so deeply.
Ironically enough, I get the impression, Brandon, that you're arguing that
I'm not putting enough of myself into these projects. And me declaring
myself a personalist!
> More importantly, I am wonder what kind of effect the experience of
> encountering a "passing stranger" (which can either be animate or inanimate)
> has upon my "self." What am I saying to my self in the reflection of this
> "passer"?
Analyzing the dream of being awake.
elag
> Dissolving the lines between exterior and interior is at the heart of the
> Surrealist project. These flaneur-like activities (or "walkabouts" as you
> call them) are what I consider to be the best way to force this unification.
> Breton makes use of this activity in Nadja, Aragon does also in Paris
> Peasent, and so does Soupault in The Last Nights of Paris.
Yes, during my days and nights of walking around Paris I was struck by
the Beautiful faces (sculpted) which popped up everywhere... startling
me and speaking in a language somewhere between French and English.
Mostly they commanded me to keep walking.
elag
>
> One of my favourite "games" is to walk through life, looking for messages
> from the universe. What this amounts to is leaving the house, walking
> around, examining every event as though it were a piece of information the
> universe is directing at me, in an attempt to tell me something. Every
> stray doorknob on the street, every branch lying in my path, every flyer,
> every scrap of paper, every person walking by, becomes a complex "text" to
> be interpreted and understood.
I often gain inspiration during walks through NYC. Once I wrote a poem
called "The Sea of Sox" because I saw (with blurred vision) a store
window diplaying a "Set of Six" chairs. Today, a frayed blue tarp
fluttering in the breeze against a chain link fence became a blue haired
woman cursing the sun.
>
> It's useful to have a topic in mind, when doing this, but not absolutely
> essential. I refer to these jaunts of mine as "walkabouts".
Sometimes I time-travel to different periods by carefully orchestrating
my walk through old neighborhoods which enhance the illusion that I'm
traversing the years in which the building there were built.
>
> Doing this, of course, is somewhat insane.
Insane, no. Imaginative is how I'd describe it.
(....)
> The I Ching is a useful tool in this regard as well.
Well... anything that results in a book like "The Man In the High
Castle" (P.K. Dick) can't be all bad...
Recently, when
> contemplating the Ottawa Surrealist get together, I did an I Ching
> reading, wondering where these actions of mine would take me. The book
> told me that while I was on the right path, nothing would come of my
> actions, and I would end up alone and without having achieved anything
> concrete, though the error wasn't mine.
>
> Now, did the book tell me this? Or did I use the book to tell me this?
> And does the distinction matter?
It's just random chance... I don't think that it "means" anything. Your
analysis, however, may have meaning to you.
>
> So oddly enough, as I sat in Cafe Wim, I knew no one was going to show up.
>
> My "walkabouts" are very meaningful to me. When I hear (I think it was)
> Dale talk about wandering through the world, picking up "found poems" and
> seeing sidewalk cracks and trees as art, I understand completely what he
> means. It's a fun, heightened state of awareness, quite close to madness,
> but not quite madness.
I don't consider that "madness"... it's simply a heightened state of
awareness. It causes a similar sensation to breathing pure oxygen... stimulation.
>
> What actually happens during these "walkabouts"? I feel like I'm
> projecting my imagination on to the world. Or, actually, the line between
> me and the world dissolves, and I am the world and me at the same time.
> Every event becomes super-charged with meaning and significance, making
> even the tiniest event tremendously exciting.
>
> Is this surrealism? Is this state, is taking a "walkabout", a way of
> releasing the imagination on to the world?
It could be. Sometimes I experience just such a state. It reminds me
of the state of mind I attain when I'm absorbed in creating a painting.
Julie Stein
>
> 1) Does the above make any sense?
Yes!!! It makes perfect sense! It is what I have been experiencing the
past.. oh... year or so, but not intentionally, and I tried to describe it
once (not half as clearly as you) and the listener just rolled her eyes and
asked 'what I've been smoking lately'. So, I didn't mention it again to any
person whose eyes I could see. :)But... I didn't connect it to I-Ching. What
is this?
> 2) Is there some way to make an event or an object reek of personal
> significance for every passing stranger who walks by it? Or is trying to
> make an event significant to EVERYONE only going to weaken the object or
> event? Is the best that can be hoped for is an oddity that makes people
> stop and wonder?
I believe... that each person is encapsulted in a little shell of 'comfortable
numbness'. Some break through, or 'hatch'... others don't. But the hatchings
occur at different times, and different stages of a person's life. For those
who have just broken free... the world seems to be so fresh and new...
sometimes uncomfortable but generally wonderful (!)... those who haven't see
everything still through that membrane of familiarity. I think you can offer
up your soul on a silver platter and they will tell you it looks alright, but
could you please pass the pepper. I think there's no harm in offering beauty
to EVERYONE... but just don't be disappointed if they can't recognize it right
away. They may come back.There are songs that I listened to when I was young
without knowing what they meant, and then 'outgrew'. Now I listen to them,
and they're so much richer. (Or am I?)
:) Don't get discouraged.
> 3) Is it possible to make the object or event a trigger for a pleasant
> personal experience, as opposed to a negative one? Or is it only possible
> to hope for some kind of personal experience of some emotional type?
Could you make it its own pleasant personal experience? Bundled unto itself?
What kinds of objects are you imagining?
> 4) Can you think of a project that would capture what I'm striving for?
What exactly are the rules for 'projects'? I think I did mine wrong.
Lutegirl
>> significance for every passing stranger who walks by it?
Imagine walkabouts or flythroughs in a virtual environment where the objects in
the world reward the stranger with an ever changing visual,thoughtpiece or
musical fragment.
Depending on where the stranger travels, around objects and landmarks seen and
unseen through the world with many options,choices,facets,and sides.I ching is
the tool that will keep it all seemingly fresh,brand new,and whole,almost never
the same thing twice,but always comeplete.
Andrea