How surreal is your life...?
Sven
suppose, ordinary existence is necessarily very mundane. I sometimes wish
that I could leave for work in the morning (as I should have done an hour
ago) and find something totally unexpected happening in the street, such as
a spontaneous re-enactment of famous parliamentary speeches, walrus washing,
the inflation of a telegraphy system made of varnished rubber, or the pretty
dance of luminous columns of steam.
Maybe surrealists would be out of a job if such things were commonplace.
Has anyone ever experienced something they would describe as "surreal", or
heard any of those famous friend-of-a-friend tales?
Outrageous coincidences will be accepted.
Nikolaus Maack
> Maybe surrealists would be out of a job if such things were commonplace.
> Has anyone ever experienced something they would describe as "surreal", or
> heard any of those famous friend-of-a-friend tales?
I've always had a fondness for odd objects and odd experiences like you've
described. Once, while walking home from a late night party at a friend's
place, my girlfriend and I came across two plaster moulds sitting on the
railing of a bridge. When put together, the two moulds created the shape
of an enormous dildo. This plaster dildo mould was just sitting there,
out in the open, for anyone to see.
"Wow!" I said. My girlfriend and I admired it for a while, then she
continued to walk.
"Where are you going?" I exclaimed. "We have to take this home with us!"
So we did. Unfortunate a cat broke one mould half, and then the other
half was misplaced.
When I first entered alt.surrealism, I talked about how it would be
interesting if we all went out and left odd objects or did odd acts that
left people scratching their heads in wonder. One rather simple idea I
came up with was leaving onions in phonebooths. Seeing an onion in that
environment would leave people wondering -- especially if they saw onions
in several different phone booths across the city. Or even better, across
SEVERAL cities.
I was told by some of the surrealists in here -- and I'm sure they'll tell
me again shortly -- that this sort of activity has nothing to do with
surrealism. For one thing, they say, this behavior is manipulative and
therefore wrong. Surrealism is about exploring your own head, not
creating interesting experiences in the heads of others.
I suppose that's one particular approach to surrealism. I think it's the
wrong one. Surrealism shouldn't just be a personal, individual idea,
concerned only with individual growth. It should also be an approach to
the world. Waking up others, startling them, surprising them -- all of
this seems like an interesting, worthwhile and interesting aspect to
surrealism.
After all, an artist does not just create art for themselves. If this
were the case, none of us would post our poetry, our short stories, or
show our art. We'd keep it all inside out homes, for us alone.
Thanks for reminding me of this idea, Sven. I should go out and buy a bag
of onions and hit the town.
Nik
--
"Reason is and ought to be the slave of passions." -- David Hume
The Nik Maack Art Gallery
http://www.nikart.com
Nikolaus Maack
> all of
> this seems like an interesting, worthwhile and interesting aspect to
Goddamn kittens.
Nik
PS.
Please note my new signature file. I found the quote in an extremely
hokey self-help book on spirituality. It's called "Something More", and
it's by Sarah Ban Breathnatch. It was especially weird to pick this up
and start reading it, as Ms. B says things like, "As women, we want to..."
and "You want to become an authentic woman." Actually, I don't. Sorry.
--
"I dote on myself. There is a lot of me, and all so luscious." -- Whitman
Sven
> interesting if we all went out and left odd objects or did odd acts that
> left people scratching their heads in wonder. One rather simple idea I
> came up with was leaving onions in phonebooths. Seeing an onion in that
> environment would leave people wondering -- especially if they saw onions
> in several different phone booths across the city. Or even better, across
> SEVERAL cities.
>
> I was told by some of the surrealists in here -- and I'm sure they'll tell
> me again shortly -- that this sort of activity has nothing to do with
> surrealism. For one thing, they say, this behavior is manipulative and
> therefore wrong. Surrealism is about exploring your own head, not
> creating interesting experiences in the heads of others.
>
> I suppose that's one particular approach to surrealism. I think it's the
> wrong one. Surrealism shouldn't just be a personal, individual idea,
> concerned only with individual growth. It should also be an approach to
> this seems like an interesting, worthwhile and interesting aspect to
>
> After all, an artist does not just create art for themselves. If this
> were the case, none of us would post our poetry, our short stories, or
> show our art. We'd keep it all inside out homes, for us alone.
I must admit I don't have any rigid idea of what surrealism is. My
definition is, "the creation of a bunch of stuff that's kinda weird".
That's what I try to do. As long as it's interesting. If anyone has major
quarrels with my definition, come closer and I'll bop you on the nose. I'm
quite happy to be wrong, as long as I get to bop you on the nose.
The correct response to an onion in a phone booth is to stare at it and say,
"Hey! Who built a phone booth around my onion?"
john adams
Sven wrote:
It's quite fine to be wrong about something. But, if you are going to expect to
carry on an intelligent, meaningful conversation within a newsgroup for very
long whose topic is about surrealism, unless you make certain to avoid the topic
-- well then, you mine as well fill yourself in about what it may concern itself
with (which only sounds logical)-- if, for any reason, not to sound ignorant.
As nik knows, his portrayal of surrealism as some have described it here is off
key.
In fact, it has been repeated a few times that surrealism is not just a personal
affair. I guess it's just his selective memory kicking in though.
john
Nikolaus Maack
> I must admit I don't have any rigid idea of what surrealism is. My
> definition is, "the creation of a bunch of stuff that's kinda weird".
Sounds good to me. Many people are extremely concerned that words be
defined very precisely. The alternative, I am told, is that no one will
understand anything anyone says. As far as I can tell, we are in that
situation no matter how ordered our dictionaries might be.
> If anyone has major quarrels with my definition, come closer and I'll
>bop you on the nose. I'm quite happy to be wrong, as long as I get to bop
>you on the nose.
Before plastic surgeons can work on your nose, they have to break it.
This gives you two black eyes, making you extremely "ugly" for several
months. At the end of these months, you have the nose you chose. Now you
are "beautiful". I would gladly break your nose, and have you break mine,
if only for the pleasure of us getting together several months from now to
remove the bandages.
> The correct response to an onion in a phone booth is to stare at it and
> say, "Hey! Who built a phone booth around my onion?"
This is wise.
Nik
Nikolaus Maack
> But, if you are going to expect to
> carry on an intelligent, meaningful conversation within a newsgroup
(I'm sorry but I'm feeling very zen today.)
If you post to alt.surrealism and expect nothing in return, whatever you
receive will please you. If you post to alt.surrealism and expect
something in return, you will inevitably be disappointed.
No true friend buys you a strawberry cheese danish today, expecting a
strawberry cheese danish from you tomorrow. Should you die between now
and then, he would be an imbecile to curse you at your funeral.
"How dare you die! Get up out of your coffin and buy me a freakin'
danish!"
> As nik knows, his portrayal of surrealism as some have described it here
> is off key.
I play the definition of surrealism as a piece of music that is always in
progress. Today's notes are not the same as yesterday's. One cannot tell
if a note is off key or not until the entire balance of the composition
has been heard. I emphasize the personal, but ackowledge the need for
collaboration. I admit we all seek the same thing, but that the quest
will lead us all in different directions. My "pure reality" is not the
same as your "pure reality". You can use a piece of paper to make your
surrealist work, or the entire population of a newsgroup -- the choice is
yours.
>In fact, it has been repeated a few times that surrealism is not just a
>personal affair. I guess it's just his selective memory kicking in
>though.
Like the monkey who sees bananas high in the tree and dreams of tasting
them, you imagine you have the banana in your mouth. What you are in fact
tasting is your own tongue. The bananas are still high over your head,
rotting in the sky.
Sensei Nik
john adams
Nikolaus Maack wrote:
> john adams (johnqa...@yahoo.com) writes:
> > But, if you are going to expect to
> > carry on an intelligent, meaningful conversation within a newsgroup
>
> (I'm sorry but I'm feeling very zen today.)
>
> If you post to alt.surrealism and expect nothing in return, whatever you
> receive will please you. If you post to alt.surrealism and expect
> something in return, you will inevitably be disappointed.
>
> No true friend buys you a strawberry cheese danish today, expecting a
> strawberry cheese danish from you tomorrow. Should you die between now
> and then, he would be an imbecile to curse you at your funeral.
>
> "How dare you die! Get up out of your coffin and buy me a freakin'
> danish!"
>
Well, this is all well and good, but you are avoiding the point, which lies
sitting calmly, still now, within the paragraph above. I don't really "expect"
too much from this group - it is a public usenet newsgroup, and just like
about every other one you run into it's going to be apt to have really dreary
days and really bright moments at times too. I don't have irrationally high
hopes, but i do like to contribute and share.
>
> > As nik knows, his portrayal of surrealism as some have described it here
> > is off key.
>
> I play the definition of surrealism as a piece of music that is always in
> progress. Today's notes are not the same as yesterday's. One cannot tell
> if a note is off key or not until the entire balance of the composition
> has been heard. I emphasize the personal, but ackowledge the need for
> collaboration. I admit we all seek the same thing, but that the quest
> will lead us all in different directions. My "pure reality" is not the
> same as your "pure reality". You can use a piece of paper to make your
> surrealist work, or the entire population of a newsgroup -- the choice is
> yours.
>
Yes, and when you are never serious, no one will ever take you seriously.
There is always plenty of time for "play", and it's usually highly welcomed to
me, but then it is also well to try to give back with sincerity and genuine
intention during the course of a conversation, for it to be collaborative and
constructive, regardless of the topic - just as I am doing now. It's nothing
particularly interesting to me - just as you find intellectual conversation
uninteresting - but I am atleast making it a point NOW to give it a listen and
then reply with the notion, stolidly or not, that something might result - be
it comprehension, realization, or the construction towards something further.
Whether you believe it or not, there are fundamentals of communication which
can either amend to or cause to descend the quality of the outcome.
>
> >In fact, it has been repeated a few times that surrealism is not just a
> >personal affair. I guess it's just his selective memory kicking in
> >though.
>
> Like the monkey who sees bananas high in the tree and dreams of tasting
> them, you imagine you have the banana in your mouth. What you are in fact
> tasting is your own tongue. The bananas are still high over your head,
> rotting in the sky.
>
> Sensei Nik
>
And are you perceiving yourself like the banana, high above the spectators in
the trees?
john
Sven
>> I must admit I don't have any rigid idea of what surrealism is. My
>> definition is, "the creation of a bunch of stuff that's kinda weird".
>> quarrels with my definition, come closer and I'll bop you on the nose. I'm
>> quite happy to be wrong, as long as I get to bop you on the nose.
>>
>
> to
> carry on an intelligent, meaningful conversation within a newsgroup for very
> long whose topic is about surrealism, unless you make certain to avoid the
> topic
> -- well then, you mine as well fill yourself in about what it may concern
> itself
> with (which only sounds logical)-- if, for any reason, not to sound ignorant.
>
> off
> key.
> personal
> affair. I guess it's just his selective memory kicking in though.
>
>
What I said above was meant in a jokey fashion; that's why I talked about
bopping people on the nose. I don't actually bop people on the nose during
meaningful conversations. Well, most of the time, I don't.
I am interested in surrealism. I *am* ignorant; by this I mean that I am an
intelligent, educated person who just happens to have no background of
knowledge in this area. I haven't tried to tell you what surrealism is, and
I haven't argued with anyone, because I don't know enough about it. "My
definition of surrealism" as applied above is how I regard what I post. I
enjoy writing the things I do, and I believe this is an appropriate forum in
which to post them.
By hanging around here, it was my intention to learn something about the
subject. So: there's an open invitation. If anyone wants to tell me some
salient points about surrealism, reply now! Just *please* *please* *please*
don't use the thread as another excuse to tear each other's throats out...
Nikolaus Maack
> I don't have irrationally high
> hopes, but i do like to contribute and share.
I think any hope is irrationally high hope. But other than that, I think
we're in agreement here: contribute, share. Doing so while expecting
others to do the same might be a bad idea. This is difficult to accept,
I'll admit.
> Yes, and when you are never serious, no one will ever take you seriously.
Such is my curse. But as someone recently pointed out, all jokes are
serious. Unfortunately, few people seem to recognize that serious
statements are always funny. I find Camus' "The Stranger" to be an
incredibly hilarious book, for example. Apparently it isn't meant to be
taken that way. Oh well.
A man recently threw a pie in the face of the Canadian Prime Minister.
Some people are up in arms, saying that the dignity and security of his
office must not be breached in this manner. Others just laugh at the
pie'd PM. Was this a joke, or something serious? Often it's difficult to
tell which is which. I suspect that's a good thing.
>> Like the monkey who sees bananas high in the tree and dreams of tasting
>> them, you imagine you have the banana in your mouth. What you are in fact
>> tasting is your own tongue. The bananas are still high over your head,
>> rotting in the sky.
>
>And are you perceiving yourself like the banana, high above the spectators
>in the trees?
Well, yes. But please note that the untasted bananas that I am are
rotten.
Steve McDonald
>> When I first entered alt.surrealism, I talked about how it would be
>> interesting if we all went out and left odd objects or did odd acts that
>> left people scratching their heads in wonder. One rather simple idea I
>> came up with was leaving onions in phonebooths. Seeing an onion in that
>> environment would leave people wondering -- especially if they saw onions
>> in several different phone booths across the city. Or even better, across
>> SEVERAL cities.
>>
>> I was told by some of the surrealists in here -- and I'm sure they'll tell
>> me again shortly -- that this sort of activity has nothing to do with
>> surrealism. For one thing, they say, this behavior is manipulative and
>> therefore wrong. Surrealism is about exploring your own head, not
>> creating interesting experiences in the heads of others.
>>
>> I suppose that's one particular approach to surrealism. I think it's the
>> wrong one. Surrealism shouldn't just be a personal, individual idea,
>> concerned only with individual growth. It should also be an approach to
>> the world. Waking up others, startling them, surprising them -- all of
>> this seems like an interesting, worthwhile and interesting aspect to
>> surrealism.
>>
>> After all, an artist does not just create art for themselves. If this
>> were the case, none of us would post our poetry, our short stories, or
>> show our art. We'd keep it all inside out homes, for us alone.
>
>I must admit I don't have any rigid idea of what surrealism is. My
>definition is, "the creation of a bunch of stuff that's kinda weird".
>That's what I try to do. As long as it's interesting. If anyone has major
>quarrels with my definition, come closer and I'll bop you on the nose. I'm
>quite happy to be wrong, as long as I get to bop you on the nose.
>
>The correct response to an onion in a phone booth is to stare at it and say,
>"Hey! Who built a phone booth around my onion?"
>
They still make phone booths? I hope so because I've always wanted
to squeeze into one with an attractive woman, help her struggle out of
her clothing and then marvel at the dazzling song of sibilance
issuing from her raging urine stream...while swallowing a
goldfish hidden in a Rubik's Cube, of course.
-- Steve M, Atlanta-GA-USA
Steve McDonald
>I am constantly disappointed by how non-surreal life is. By definition, I
>suppose, ordinary existence is necessarily very mundane. I sometimes wish
>that I could leave for work in the morning (as I should have done an hour
>ago) and find something totally unexpected happening in the street, such as
>a spontaneous re-enactment of famous parliamentary speeches, walrus washing,
>the inflation of a telegraphy system made of varnished rubber, or the pretty
>dance of luminous columns of steam.
>
>Maybe surrealists would be out of a job if such things were commonplace.
>Has anyone ever experienced something they would describe as "surreal", or
>heard any of those famous friend-of-a-friend tales?
>
>Outrageous coincidences will be accepted.
>
VERY true story: Back in 1987, as I was heading for work one morning,
there was a totally naked woman wandering around in the street...not
a quiet street, but a six-laner. Maybe it was performance art???
-- Steve M, Atlanta-GA-USA
john adams
Sven wrote:
> >> I must admit I don't have any rigid idea of what surrealism is. My
> >> definition is, "the creation of a bunch of stuff that's kinda weird".
> >> That's what I try to do. As long as it's interesting. If anyone has major
> >> quarrels with my definition, come closer and I'll bop you on the nose. I'm
> >> quite happy to be wrong, as long as I get to bop you on the nose.
> >>
> >
There will be no jokey fashions allowed in this newsgroup, hear it once and for
all, now and again. Though, i figured you weren't serious about punching people in
the nose - realize it must be done in order to forumulate and help test our
theories.
I'm glad to see you are interested in surrealism. But if you weren't, of course,
you wouldn't be expected to leave, atleast not without a punch to your nose.
Here are but a few links; they may get you started in the right direction. Maybe
others could post some as well...
http://www.oas.org/MUSEUM/Exp.2000/Museo/Matta/otrossurrealistas/Default.asp
http://www.kalin.lm.com/author.html
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~rmutt/dictionary/breton.html
http://www.lyrik.ch/lyrik/lyrisurf/breton2.htm
john
john adams
Nikolaus Maack wrote:
> john adams (johnqa...@yahoo.com) writes:
> > I don't have irrationally high
> > hopes, but i do like to contribute and share.
>
> I think any hope is irrationally high hope. But other than that, I think
> we're in agreement here: contribute, share. Doing so while expecting
> others to do the same might be a bad idea. This is difficult to accept,
> I'll admit.
>
I will expect anyone to do anything they don't want to not do.
> > Yes, and when you are never serious, no one will ever take you seriously.
>
> Such is my curse. But as someone recently pointed out, all jokes are
> serious. Unfortunately, few people seem to recognize that serious
> statements are always funny. I find Camus' "The Stranger" to be an
> incredibly hilarious book, for example. Apparently it isn't meant to be
> taken that way. Oh well.
>
Well, never read it. But you are obviously not correct - serious statements are
always not funny. And, funny statements are always cloud drifts that never rain.
Everything is never sane.
>
> A man recently threw a pie in the face of the Canadian Prime Minister.
> Some people are up in arms, saying that the dignity and security of his
> office must not be breached in this manner. Others just laugh at the
> pie'd PM. Was this a joke, or something serious? Often it's difficult to
> tell which is which. I suspect that's a good thing.
>
Or are they both? Or are they neither? Is it a peacock feather or a noose, or a
handful of reticulum?
>
> >> Like the monkey who sees bananas high in the tree and dreams of tasting
> >> them, you imagine you have the banana in your mouth. What you are in fact
> >> tasting is your own tongue. The bananas are still high over your head,
> >> rotting in the sky.
> >
> >And are you perceiving yourself like the banana, high above the spectators
> >in the trees?
>
> Well, yes. But please note that the untasted bananas that I am are
> rotten.
>
Well, shiver my tenders. I had to force myself to eat them with both tar and
ropes, though undecidedly. And the piglets all sat in jam to watch and listen
intently. And what a fine white dress I am. And what is this book of sin. It's
the same as it ever was, same as it ever was.
john
brandon...@my-deja.com
> By hanging around here, it was my intention to learn something about
> the subject. So: there's an open invitation. If anyone wants to
> tell me some salient points about surrealism, reply now!
Let's start with:
THE DECLARATION OF JANUARY 27, 1925
With regard to a false interpretation to our enterprise, stupidly
circulated among the public; We declare as follows to the entire raying
literary, dramatic, philosophical, exegetical and even theological body
of contemporary criticism:
1. We have nothing to do with literature; But we are quite capable,
when necessary, of making use of it like anyone else.
2. Surrealism is not a new means of expression, or an easier one, nor
even a metaphysic of poetry. It is a means of total liberation of the
mind and all that resembles it.
3. We are determined to make a Revolution.
4. We have joined the word surrealism to the word revolution solely to
show the disinterested, detached, and even entirely desperate character
of this revolution.
5. We make no claim to change the mores of mankind, but we intend to
show the fragility of thought, and on what shifting foundations, what
caverns we have built our trembling houses.
6. We hurl this formal warning to Society; Beware of your deviations
and faux-pas, we shall not miss a single one.
7. At each turn of its thought, Society will find us waiting.
8. We are specialists in Revolt. There is no means of action which we
are not capable, when necessary, of employing.
We say in particular to the Western world: surrealism exists. And what
is this new ism that is fastened to us? Surrealism is not a poetic
form. It is a cry of the mind turning back on itself, and it is
determined to break apart its fetters, even if it must be by material
hammers!
Bureaus de Recherches Surréalistes, 15 Rue de Grenelle
Signed: Louis Aragon, Antonin Artaud, Jacques Baron, Joë Bousquet, J.-
A. Boiffard, André Breton, Jean Carrive, René Crevel, Robert Desnos,
Paul Elaurd, Max Ernst, et al.
***
SOME SURREALIST LINKS:
Chicago Group's website
http://www.surrealism-usa.org/index.html
Barrett's Magnetic Fields website
http://www.magneticfields.org/index2.html
What is Surrealism? by Andre Breton
http://www-e815.fnal.gov/~romosan/surrealism.html
Surrealist Writers
http://www.creative.net/~alang/lit/surreal/writers.sht
The Library
http://www.kalin.lm.com/author.html
Paris Group's website
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jjmeric/
***
SOME RELATED LINKS:
Situationist International
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~rkeehan/
http://www.nothingness.org/SI/
Georges Bataille
http://www.phreebyrd.com/~sisyphus/bataille/
http://www.13am.net/iconoclast/bataille/
Jarry & Pataphysics
http://www.pataphysics.com/
http://fcolcc.hampshire.edu/~ngzF92/jarrypub/commence.html
Oulipo
http://www.raintaxi.com/oulipo.htm
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Sven
> There will be no jokey fashions allowed in this newsgroup, hear it once and
> for
> all, now and again. Though, i figured you weren't serious about punching
> people in
> the nose - realize it must be done in order to forumulate and help test our
> theories.
> I'm glad to see you are interested in surrealism. But if you weren't, of
> course,
> you wouldn't be expected to leave, atleast not without a punch to your nose.
My nose is pickled in vinegar in an oyster carton under my bed.
> Here are but a few links; they may get you started in the right direction.
> Maybe
> others could post some as well...
Thanks! I shall investigate, but slowly, and only during work hours (that
way I get paid for it).
Sven
>> By hanging around here, it was my intention to learn something about
>> the subject. So: there's an open invitation. If anyone wants to
>> tell me some salient points about surrealism, reply now!
>
> Let's start with:
<snip useful stuff>
Thanks!
Nikolaus Maack
Why on earth start there? There was a manifesto out a year before that
that says a heck of a lot more. It's one thing to know one is revolting
-- it's another to know why. Here's the first manifesto, which at least
explains what the focus of surrealism is all about.
http://www.tcf.ua.edu/Classes/Jbutler/T340/F98/SurrealistManifesto.htm
Check out this slice of the opening paragraph:
-----
We are still living under the reign of logic, but the logical processes of
our time apply only to the solution of problems of secondary interest. The
absolute rationalism which remains in fashion allows for the consideration
of only those facts narrowly relevant to our experience. Logical
conclusions, on the other hand, escape us. Needless to say, boundaries
have been assigned even to experience. It revolves in a cage from which
release is becoming increasingly difficult. It too depends upon immediate
utility and is guarded by common sense. In the guise of civilization,
under the pretext of progress, we have succeeded in dismissing from our
minds anything that, rightly or wrongly, could be regarded as superstition
or myth; and we have proscribed every way of seeking the truth which does
not conform to convention.
-----
These words are just as meaningful today as they were in 1924. The reign
of logic continues, shoving all the truly interesting issues into the
dirt. We design better widgets each year, but we still have no idea why
we might want to own them.
This slice quoted above, in a nutshell, describes a lot of what surrealism
is about to me. People insist on logic, reason, sanity, stability,
conformity, dictionary definitions, common sense, etc, etc. Our social
conventions agree entirely. Stick to sanity and rationality, and you too
shall be a happy camper.
The problem is, human beings are not rational creatures. We just manage
to fake it fairly well. However, we cannot stick to the realm of reason
-- we keep sliding out of it. We pretend we are sane, when clearly we are
not.
The force behind the surrealist movement was the Dadaist movement, and the
force behind that was the utter insanity of World War One.
"Look! We're insane! Look how unreasonable we are! Look at our madness!
Watch us kill each other, and for what?"
It's difficult to believe in the "march of progress" when you're locked
inside a human slaughterhouse. WWI picked the world up in its mouth and
shook it. And just in case you didn't learn just how irrational humans
can be, WWII came along and underlined the fact -- we are not rational
creatures, you and I.
Breton argues in this manifesto that we humans should investigate material
that exists outside the real of reason. Superstition and magic have been
eliminated from our lives. Why? Is this progress? Draw those things
back into the fold. Subject them to reason as well, but investigate them
-- do not dismiss them.
This idea had come to the surrealists thanks to Freud, who Breton praises
a great deal. Freud was subjecting dream -- a realm traditionally thought
to be irrational, foolish, useless nonsense -- to reason and analysis.
And like magic, Freud discovered that dream has uses, it has meaning, it
has pattern. Embrace it. Investigate it.
Some would argue that we have embraced enough superstition and magic for
now. Time to drag surrealism kicking and screaming into the realm of
reason. I suspect those who feel this way are feeling the ever increasing
pressure to conform to that which society calls "sanity".
Science has given us so much, people are ready to worship it.
Unfortunately, the great god of science continues to ignore broad
stretches of human experience. As a surrealist, I think our focus should
be on whatever science chooses to ignore. What are those things?
Magic, religion, personal experience, anecdotes, poetry, literature, the
contents of dreams, the contents of delusions. Not the brain, but the
mind, the me, the shine on the ice that clings to the mountain.
Enough ranting. I want my breakfast.
barrett john erickson
"john adams" <johnqa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:39A21328...@yahoo.com...
>
> Here are but a few links; they may get you started in the right direction.
Maybe
> others could post some as well...
>
http://www.magneticfields.org/affinities/fellow.html
-- 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
==============================================
barrett john erickson
"Sven" <svenhthisb...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:B5C6A700.F114%svenhthisb...@blueyonder.co.uk...
> I am constantly disappointed by how non-surreal life is. By definition,
> I suppose, ordinary existence is necessarily very mundane.
but it is _you_ doing the living.
the task for a surrealist is to enhance the reality of everyday living.
barrett john erickson
"Nikolaus Maack" <ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:8nttha$8ah$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> [..]
> The force behind the surrealist movement was the Dadaist movement, and the
> force behind that was the utter insanity of World War One.
dada was not the "force behind the surrealist movement". the surrealist
movement emerged from dada in reaction to and _against_ its central
emptiness -- its inherent nihilism.
the failure to understand this critical difference is what prevents so many
from understanding "surrealism".
> [...]
> Breton argues in this manifesto that we humans should investigate material
> that exists outside the real of reason. Superstition and magic have been
> eliminated from our lives. Why? Is this progress? Draw those things
> back into the fold. Subject them to reason as well, but investigate them
> -- do not dismiss them.
it has been 76 years since the first manifesto.
as some of us have explained many times, there's been more than adequate
surrealist investigation of superstition and magic for us to recognize them
as dead ends and move on to roads that still have potential.
and this does not limit us to the realm of reason.
> This idea had come to the surrealists thanks to Freud, who Breton praises
> a great deal. Freud was subjecting dream -- a realm traditionally thought
> to be irrational, foolish, useless nonsense -- to reason and analysis.
> And like magic, Freud discovered that dream has uses, it has meaning, it
> has pattern. Embrace it. Investigate it.
i don't recall anyone arguing that we abandon the investigation of dreams.
Freud, however, is a dead end.
> Some would argue that we have embraced enough superstition and magic for
> now. Time to drag surrealism kicking and screaming into the realm of
> reason. I suspect those who feel this way are feeling the ever increasing
> pressure to conform to that which society calls "sanity".
your erroneous extrapolation of our position implies that you think that
rejecting superstition and magic will confine us to reason. you must see
the imagination as a far more limited and segregated process than we.
but that aside, you suspect wrong (which is where such psychologizing
invariably leaves you in this forum).
> Science has given us so much, people are ready to worship it.
> Unfortunately, the great god of science continues to ignore broad
> stretches of human experience. As a surrealist, I think our focus should
> be on whatever science chooses to ignore. What are those things?
we have certainly not conveyed, in any of these discussions, any inclination
to worship science, nor have we given you any legitimate ground for such an
insulting insinuation.
and you are, of course, free to focus _your_ lens wherever you choose.
however, you will find _surrealists_ invariably focused on enhancing the
reality of everyday living through the integration of the liberated
imagination, to its fullest achievable potential. science, and yes,
superstition, magic, mysticism, spiritualism and religions of whatever
stench are relevant only to the extent they assist or resist that project.
there are many areas of recent scientific investigation of great (and
growing) importance to (while simultaneously appearing to confirm the
importance of) that surrealist project. [e.g.: quantum mechanics,
autopoiesis and enactive cognitive science as they relate to the nature of
reality, action and the role of the imagination; chaos theory and
autopoiesis as they relate to organized systems, stabolizing feedback
processes, chance, evolution and revolution.]
ignoring this won't set you in opposition to the current direction of the
surrealist movement (although exploring this may greatly enhance your
appreciation of it).
but by contrast, superstition and magic and mysticism and religion and all
the other anachronistic attempts to explain the very same phenomena as are
the subjects of this recent science, can be shown to _undermine_ the
surrealist project, while they are at the same time -- and for the same
reasons -- very useful to those who manipulate, distort and degrade the
reality of daily living.
ignoring this _will_ set you in opposition to the current direction of the
surrealist movement.
john adams
Sven wrote:
> john adams wrote:
>
> > There will be no jokey fashions allowed in this newsgroup, hear it once and
> > for
> > all, now and again. Though, i figured you weren't serious about punching
> > people in
> > the nose - realize it must be done in order to forumulate and help test our
> > theories.
> > I'm glad to see you are interested in surrealism. But if you weren't, of
> > course,
> > you wouldn't be expected to leave, atleast not without a punch to your nose.
>
> My nose is pickled in vinegar in an oyster carton under my bed.
>
> > Here are but a few links; they may get you started in the right direction.
> > Maybe
> > others could post some as well...
>
> Thanks! I shall investigate, but slowly, and only during work hours (that
> way I get paid for it).
That's not a bad idea. And if you have the inclination or additional time at work,
here's a link to a few books.
http://www.komabookstore.com/surrealism.html
john
Nikolaus Maack
> it has been 76 years since the first manifesto.
>
> as some of us have explained many times, there's been more than adequate
> surrealist investigation of superstition and magic for us to recognize them
> as dead ends and move on to roads that still have potential.
>
> and this does not limit us to the realm of reason.
Choosing to disregard an area (calling it a 'dead end') does limit you,
you must admit. Once you decide that a section of reality has been
adequately explored, and disregard it once and for all, it's gone, and
your experience is limited. To your detriment, I would say.
I would argue that there is still plenty to learn from the realm of magic
and superstition. Once you eliminate these categories, what is left but
reason? (Poetry is magic, I'll have you know.) You say that eliminating
these areas doesn't strand you in logic. Care to describe how you carve
up the world? From where I sit, once you eliminate magic and
superstition, you are left with reason.
Other areas you choose to ignore also hold much of use, in my opinion.
Jungian principles, for example, strike me as full of useful information.
And even Freud, I would argue, still has much to teach us. We disagree,
it seems. Oh well.
As you so kindly told me, I am free to aim my lens wherever I choose.
Presumably you are free to aim your lens wherever you choose. However, I
won't be so vulgar as to suggest that if you fail to aim your lens the
same way I aim my lense that you are "in opposition to the current
direction of the surrealist movement."
That you so closely link your particular areas of interest with what all
surrealists everywhere are investigating clearly reveals how much you
over-estimate your own importance. You see the rudder of surrealism
firmly clenched in your hands. I say that the boat of surrealism is
actually an armada of boats. You say there's no room for any other
surrealist boats in the sea, which, I think, makes you all the more
ridiculous. It's a big sea, Barrett.
> we have certainly not conveyed, in any of these discussions, any inclination
> to worship science, nor have we given you any legitimate ground for such an
> insulting insinuation.
Who is this "we"? I know that the others let you speak for them, as they
have set you up to be their captain, but it still seems so silly to hear
you speak in the royal third person.
I'd say your mannerisms speak of your worship of science. Your
dispassion, your excess objectivity, your complete inability to express
anything personal or private, your total immersion in jargon, your
inability to express an opinion as anything but FACT... "Freud is a dead
end." All those areas you focus your lens on have the taint of science to
them, do they not? Enactive cognition, your particular demystified
flavour of quantuum physics, your love of brain anatomy, etcetera.
If there is a realm that interests you that does not fall into the
category of science, I have yet to hear of it. Please, enlighten me.
What are you, personally, looking into that would qualify as
non-science? I suspect that even your "love" of literature is a dusty,
deconstructing, word-count, insects-pinned-to-a-page sort of "love".
> however, you will find _surrealists_ invariably focused on enhancing the
> reality of everyday living through the integration of the liberated
> imagination, to its fullest achievable potential.
That's quite a mouthful. What does it mean? What are you, personally,
doing to further this cause besides cluttering up a web page with
manifestos? Does all your talk enhance everyday living, or kill it?
> but by contrast, superstition and magic and mysticism and religion and all
> the other anachronistic attempts to explain the very same phenomena as are
> the subjects of this recent science, can be shown to _undermine_ the
> surrealist project, while they are at the same time -- and for the same
> reasons -- very useful to those who manipulate, distort and degrade the
> reality of daily living.
If I don't steer my boat in the same direction as yours, I'm pulling you
backwards? Bullshit. It's a big sea, Barrett, and your boat is not
shackled to mine, nor vice-versa. That we fly the same flag means very
little.
brandon...@my-deja.com
> Why on earth start there?
Breton's First Manifesto only pre-dates this declaration by three or
four months. You could also take into consideration that his manifesto
is only signed by him alone, while the declaration was signed by the
entire group and stated their main points of interest rather clearly.
> The force behind the surrealist movement was the Dadaist movement,
> and the force behind that was the utter insanity of World War One.
I find this to be a rather untrue cliche. If your knowledge of Dada is
as good as it is of Surrealism than I can understand why your mind
crashed into such an snotfilled road block.
> Some would argue that we have embraced enough superstition and magic
> for now. Time to drag surrealism kicking and screaming into the
> realm of reason.
Are you implying that psychology and psychoanalysis aren't rational?
Please respond. I want to see how much bullshit I can pump out of your
brain this time.
> Magic, religion ...
Are both facades used to hide your fragile mind from the realities of
chance, which, when dealt with head on, leaves you in a state of
existential anguish.
brandon...@my-deja.com
> Once you decide that a section of reality has been adequately
> explored, and disregard it once and for all, it's gone, and
> your experience is limited. To your detriment, I would say.
Exactly, and this is what I've been telling you all along. Once you
decide, as mysticism and religion does, that the ouiji board or any
other device used for divinations, is recieving messages "from the
other side" you are limiting the possibilities of where it truly can be
coming from. The only answer is that it is impossible to know (which
doesn't limit but unlimits the possibilities). Some people, like with
chance, must hide from the impossible because it makes them feel all
icky inside. When faced with the impossible, the only truth we will
ever know, people who can't handle it (yourself, the Pope, religious
folk in general, etc) get depressed, homicidal, suicidal, and basically
go insane. They can't deal with living in a world that will never be
understood, a world without an answer. This is why people invent gods,
imaginary friends, etc.
> I would argue that there is still plenty to learn from the realm of
> magic and superstition.
How very rational of you. Skeptics and scientists would claim this too.
> Other areas you choose to ignore also hold much of use, in my
> opinion. Jungian principles, for example, strike me as full of
> useful information. And even Freud, I would argue, still has much to
> teach us. We disagree, it seems. Oh well.
Wait Nik, your breaking your own commandment. Jung and Freud are
rationalists. I have addressed this before but you ignore my
statements. Why is this?
> It's a big sea, Barrett.
How do you know this? You must have seen the sea, and then made a very
rational conclusion that if it looks big it must be big. I would argue
that if it look big it must be made of the sun's ejaculatory juices. I
feel my arguement is more irrational than yours.
> Who is this "we"?
Those you have formed in opposition of your stupidity. I think there is
a psychological reason for your belief that Barrett is the "leader." In
some ways it is connected to your idea that advertisements manipulate
people. See, I believe that Barrett has a very cool name, and that
coolness in itself is what manipulates people into believing that he is
some sort of "leader." Its really not his fault.
> I'd say your mannerisms speak of your worship of science.
Being rational again? It would be more irrational to say something like
this: "I'd say your mammals speak of your worship of broken arms"
or "I'd say that you car tires would look best on that cow."
> That's quite a mouthful. What does it mean?
Perhaps you're not using the right dictionary, but I guess that's the
trouble with living in a world were so many people invent their own
definitions.
john adams
brandon...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > The force behind the surrealist movement was the Dadaist movement,
> > and the force behind that was the utter insanity of World War One.
>
> I find this to be a rather untrue cliche. If your knowledge of Dada is
> as good as it is of Surrealism than I can understand why your mind
> crashed into such an snotfilled road block.
>
Actually there is some truth to this. But, maybe it is closer to say that
behind surrealism was part of the momentum of Dada - especially since most
of the (pre)surrealists then were involved with Dada. One aspect to it was
the revolting against the atrocities witnessed in WWI. This does not mean
it was the primary moving force, however.
>
> > Some would argue that we have embraced enough superstition and magic
> > for now. Time to drag surrealism kicking and screaming into the
> > realm of reason.
>
> Are you implying that psychology and psychoanalysis aren't rational?
> Please respond. I want to see how much bullshit I can pump out of your
> brain this time.
>
> > Magic, religion ...
>
> Are both facades used to hide your fragile mind from the realities of
> chance, which, when dealt with head on, leaves you in a state of
> existential anguish.
>
But it is true that Breton refered to the' magic in everday life' and in
poetry and art.
Even though he dabbled with astrology, tarot, etc it is important to note
now there was no intentional preoccupation with the kind of superstition
that is determined by belief due to fear or ignorance.
john
Nikolaus Maack
> Are you implying that psychology and psychoanalysis aren't rational?
No. Psychology and psychoanalysis study human behavior, and demonstrate
that more often than not such beahvior is irrational.
>> Magic, religion ...
>
> Are both facades used to hide your fragile mind from the realities of
> chance, which, when dealt with head on, leaves you in a state of
> existential anguish.
Perhaps you have chosen to believe in the "realities of chance" --
ignoring grand patterns and magic and religion -- because the notion of a
universe with a purpose fills you with piss-your-pants terror?
Nikolaus Maack
> Exactly, and this is what I've been telling you all along. Once you
> decide, as mysticism and religion does, that the ouiji board or any
> other device used for divinations, is recieving messages "from the
> other side" you are limiting the possibilities of where it truly can be
> coming from.
Brandon, your approach seems narrow-minded to me. Religion does not
always provide an answer. If you are open to more than one religion at
the same time -- which is a possibility, despite what the religions
themselves might say -- then religions provide more questions than
anything else. More exploration, more ideas.
> Wait Nik, your breaking your own commandment. Jung and Freud are
> rationalists. I have addressed this before but you ignore my
> statements. Why is this?
I have no commandments.
Jung is a rationalist? He seems openly mystical to me.
I am not against the use of rationality. Neither was Breton, for that
matter. What he argued was we be more open to so-called "non-rational"
ideas. Magic, the supernatural, mysticism -- these realms contain things
of use. Intuition, emotion, the personal -- these experiences contain
vital information. To limit oneself to the rational, as our culture often
pretends to, is foolish. Because we ourselves are not rational.
From what you and Barrett say, I hear, "Enough dabbling in magic and
spirituality. We've tapped this world for all it's worth. Let's head
back to the realm of reason, where we belong."
This, to me, goes against the spirit of surrealism. The whole point of
surrealism seemed to be pointing to the possibility of these "other"
realms. Saying these realms have been tapped adequately should mean the
death of surrealism, shouldn't it?
"Science wins. We looked at magic and spirituality and religion and
there's nothing where. Back to your microscopes, everybody! False
alarm!"
>> Who is this "we"?
>
> Those you have formed in opposition of your stupidity.
Alas -- if only you could recognize your own stupidity. Or even admit its
possibility. The facade of certainty and arrogance and power -- don't you
ever get bored of your two note song?
"I'm right, you're wrong. I'm right, you're wrong."
While this must be very comforting to you, it can't be at all interesting.
> I think there is
> a psychological reason for your belief that Barrett is the "leader."
Tell me -- are there any topics you and Barrett disagree upon? If so,
name some. If he is not your leader, you at the very least seem very
eager to ignore any areas of disagreement. Group think, perhaps? It's
more important to keep the group free of conflict -- except where I'm
concerned, of course -- than engage new ideas? Is that not the case?
brandon...@my-deja.com
> Actually there is some truth to this. But, maybe it is closer to say
> that behind surrealism was part of the momentum of Dada - especially
> since most of the (pre)surrealists then were involved with Dada. One
> aspect to it was the revolting against the atrocities witnessed in
> WWI. This does not mean it was the primary moving force, however.
Surrealism gained its momentum from Rimbaud and Lautreamont, via the
Symbolists and Apollinaire. I am quite certain that if Dada never
happened Breton and Soupault would have still wrote The Magnetic
Fields, and so forth. I truly believe that all Dada did was delay the
birth of the Surrealist Movement, but of course this delay added pounds
to the new born babe. The assumption that Surrealism was born out of
Dada is a prime example of the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" (after this
therefore because of this) fallacy.
brandon...@my-deja.com
> Actually there is some truth to this. But, maybe it is closer to say
> that behind surrealism was part of the momentum of Dada - especially
> since most of the (pre)surrealists then were involved with Dada. One
> aspect to it was the revolting against the atrocities witnessed in
> WWI. This does not mean it was the primary moving force, however.
Surrealism gained its momentum from Rimbaud and Lautreamont, via the
Symbolists and Apollinaire. I am quite certain that if Dada never
happened Breton and Soupault would have still wrote The Magnetic
Fields, and so forth. I truly believe that all Dada did was delay the
birth of the Surrealist Movement, but of course this delay added pounds
to the new born babe. The assumption that Surrealism was born out of
Dada is a prime example of the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" (after this
therefore because of this) fallacy.
brandon...@my-deja.com
> No. Psychology and psychoanalysis study human behavior, and
> demonstrate that more often than not such beahvior is irrational.
If this is a rational statement there must be some sort of evidence.
Please post it. And also, how does a psychologist determine what is
rational and what is irrational thinking?
> Perhaps you have chosen to believe in the "realities of chance" --
> ignoring grand patterns and magic and religion -- because the notion
> of a universe with a purpose fills you with piss-your-pants terror?
HA!
brandon...@my-deja.com
> The whole point of surrealism seemed to be pointing to the
> possibility of these "other" realms. Saying these realms have been
> tapped adequately should mean the death of surrealism, shouldn't it?
"It goes without saying that at no time, starting with the day we
agreed to try these experiments, have we ever adopted the spiritualist
viewpoint. As far as I'm concerned, I absolutely refuse to admit that
any communication whatsoever can exist between the living and the dead."
---Andre Breton, "The Medium Enters" in The Lost Steps (trans.
Polizzotti, University of Nebraska Press) p. 93.
Dale Houstman
<brandon...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8o03cn$s9v$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Nikolaus Maack wrote:
> > The whole point of surrealism seemed to be pointing to the
> > possibility of these "other" realms. Saying these realms have been
> > tapped adequately should mean the death of surrealism, shouldn't it?
>
> agreed to try these experiments, have we ever adopted the spiritualist
> viewpoint. As far as I'm concerned, I absolutely refuse to admit that
> any communication whatsoever can exist between the living and the dead."
> ---Andre Breton, "The Medium Enters" in The Lost Steps (trans.
> Polizzotti, University of Nebraska Press) p. 93.
>
the intro to Arcane 17) - have been endlessly projected toward that cloudy
timorous mass in Ottawa, to no apparent effect. He is stuck in a "wisdom
wheel" in which he has built a linguistic system that supports all he spouts
despite any information to the contrary. Even the dullest child would have
picked up something by now. That this wheel has become a leg trap makes no
difference, can make no difference to him. The inanity of his responses, the
unrelenting vapidity of his comprehensions should be apparent by now. The
truly funny thing about this is that he most probably believes his
obstructionist stance makes him important. I am content - at this point - to
allow him this puffery. Enough verbiage has been thrown at this bad
performer, and I think we should pick up our rotten produce and just stop
attending his little burlesks.
dmh
Nikolaus Maack
> Nikolaus Maack wrote:
>> The whole point of surrealism seemed to be pointing to the
>> possibility of these "other" realms. Saying these realms have been
>> tapped adequately should mean the death of surrealism, shouldn't it?
>
> agreed to try these experiments, have we ever adopted the spiritualist
> viewpoint. As far as I'm concerned, I absolutely refuse to admit that
> any communication whatsoever can exist between the living and the dead."
> ---Andre Breton
I am not saying that these other "realms" exist as real spiritual worlds
full of ghosts. What I am saying is that surrealism points at the
"realms" of thought that are sneered at by "reasonable people" and says,
"There are things here worth investigating." Not that there are actual
ghosts worth talking to, but that the processes involved in magic,
spiritualism, etc, are in themselves useful.
For example, I agree that ouija boards do not talk to dead people. I'd
say they talk to the subconscious. Dream-like beings come forward and
want to talk. That has been my experience with ouija boards, anyway.
However, often material comes out of this ouija board play that, even if
it isn't "supernatural", possesses a particular sort of feeling and power
that so-called "natural" phenomena cannot possess.
How do you react to the statement, for example, that poetry is magic? To
me it seems clear -- good poetry and literature tap into the same
sensations that a (non-supernatural) ouija board session taps into. Each
hits something bigger than what we can "naturally" know.
brandon...@my-deja.com
> How do you react to the statement, for example, that poetry is magic?
“Poetic analogy has this in common with mystical analogy: it
transgresses the rules of deduction to let the mind apprehend the
interdependence of two objects of thought located on different planes.
Logical thinking is incapable of establishing such a connection, which
it deems a priori impossible. Poetic analogy is fundamentally different
from mystical analogy in that it in no way presupposes the existence of
an invisible universe that, from beyond the veil of the visible world,
is trying to reveal itself” (Breton, “Ascendant Sign,” in Free Rein, p.
105).
barrett john erickson
> >
> > as some of us have explained many times, there's been more than adequate
> > surrealist investigation of superstition and magic for us to recognize
them
> > as dead ends and move on to roads that still have potential.
> >
> > and this does not limit us to the realm of reason.
>
> you must admit.
no nik, quite the opposite.
trying to carry the same empty boxes around with you, just because you can't
bring yourself to admit they're empty, is limiting.
john adams
brandon...@my-deja.com wrote:
That is a bit of an over-simplication. It was a larger sphere of momentum
than those 4 examples you've listed, but certainly a large part of it. Now
i simply mean to state that Dada was part of it as well. Why? Because
Breton, Aragon, Peret, and Souppalt were involved with it, among many other
influentials like Duchamp, Tzara, Ernst, and many more. There was no
assumption surrealism was born directly out of Dada, but it did play its
part helping things to fall into place.
john
Nikolaus Maack
> trying to carry the same empty boxes around with you, just because you
> can't bring yourself to admit they're empty, is limiting.
There is no such thing as an empty box.
Freud picked up dream -- an empty box -- and suggested that it wasn't
empty. Many have picked up tarot cards (and its symbolism) -- an empty
box -- and shown the contents to be solid and useful. Looking at
seemingly empty things like Scientology, racism, religion, cults, magic,
witchcraft, ritual, play, sex, WHATEVER -- look inside the seemingly empty
box, and you'll find it isn't empty.
There is no such thing as an object, event, or thought without meaning and
significance. Whatever you choose to look at, to believe in, to
concentrate upon -- you'll find meaning there. By all means, choose the
boxes you carry carefully. But don't be so foolish as to say that the
boxes you've ignored are empty.
Dale Houstman
surrealism as a process that pre-existed, and thus was rediscovered and
given a name. Thought of in this way, one could say that Dadaism "missed the
full point" rather than "gave birth." I hardly think it is worth the effort
to distniguish between these two viewpoints, since both have some validity.
As a "practical" matter, surrealism emerged from the very ranks of the
Dadaists, and slowly evolved away from the rudimentary public outrages and
mainly aesthetic (or anti-aesthetic) program. Whether or not the surrealist
movement (as opposed to the surrealist process, whatever its name) would
have blossomed if the Dadaist had never existed: this is in the realm of
fantasy and alternative reality ("if pigs had wings" "what if Adolph Hitler
had become a watercolourist?"), and is the stuff of speculative fiction.
dmh
Dale Houstman
"barrett john erickson" <bar...@magneticfields.org> wrote in message
news:39a49d36$0$72528$7f89...@newsreader.visi.com...> news:8numsd$g6j$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> > >
> > > as some of us have explained many times, there's been more than
adequate
> > > surrealist investigation of superstition and magic for us to recognize
> them
> > > as dead ends and move on to roads that still have potential.
> > >
> > > and this does not limit us to the realm of reason.
> >
> > you must admit.
>
> no nik, quite the opposite.
>
can't
> bring yourself to admit they're empty, is limiting.
>
fill with onions if you believe hard enough and sprinkle them with fairy
dust.
dmh
john adams
Dale Houstman wrote:
> "john adams" <johnqa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:39A49BA2...@yahoo.com...
> >
> >
> I don't think this can be denied, unless one thinks (as many do think) of
> surrealism as a process that pre-existed, and thus was rediscovered and
> given a name. Thought of in this way, one could say that Dadaism "missed the
> full point" rather than "gave birth." I hardly think it is worth the effort
> to distniguish between these two viewpoints, since both have some validity.
> As a "practical" matter, surrealism emerged from the very ranks of the
> Dadaists, and slowly evolved away from the rudimentary public outrages and
> mainly aesthetic (or anti-aesthetic) program. Whether or not the surrealist
> movement (as opposed to the surrealist process, whatever its name) would
> have blossomed if the Dadaist had never existed: this is in the realm of
> fantasy and alternative reality ("if pigs had wings" "what if Adolph Hitler
> had become a watercolourist?"), and is the stuff of speculative fiction.
>
Exactly. Although that never was brought up.
john
brandon...@my-deja.com
> Now i simply mean to state that Dada was part of it as
> well. Why? Because Breton, Aragon, Peret, and Souppalt were involved
> with it, among many other influentials like Duchamp, Tzara, Ernst,
> and many more.
Dale Houstman wrote:
> As a "practical" matter, surrealism emerged from the very ranks of
> the Dadaists, and slowly evolved away from the rudimentary public
> outrages and mainly aesthetic (or anti-aesthetic) program. Whether or
> not the surrealist movement ... would have blossomed if the Dadaist
> had never existed ... is the stuff of speculative fiction.
What the future Surrealists gained from Dada was simply a love of
scandal, such as that at the Roux banquet, or that caused by the Paul
Claudel pamphlet, but I don't really see any central idea that is
transposed from one to the other. Surely that without Dada the future
Surrealist movement could have been much different, but as Dale says,
that's just speculative fiction.
When I read about Dada and the different types of Dada (Zurich Dada,
Paris Dada, Berlin Dada) it always strikes me how "Paris Dada" is
really not nearly the same as the other two. Tzara comes to Paris and
the future Surrealists do what they were doing before, and also do what
he says as far as public demonstrations go until they get sick of him.
Eventually, once they start thinking for themselves again, Aragon,
Breton and Soupault realize their ambitions are different from that of
Dada, so they abandon it. Right?
So, in all seriousness and for future reference, what part of the
Surrealist movement, besides the notion of scandal which I have already
stated, was adopted from Dada?
Dale Houstman
<brandon...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8o50bk$imo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> John Adams wrote:
> > Now i simply mean to state that Dada was part of it as
> > well. Why? Because Breton, Aragon, Peret, and Souppalt were involved
> > with it, among many other influentials like Duchamp, Tzara, Ernst,
> > and many more.
>
> Dale Houstman wrote:
> > As a "practical" matter, surrealism emerged from the very ranks of
> > the Dadaists, and slowly evolved away from the rudimentary public
> > outrages and mainly aesthetic (or anti-aesthetic) program. Whether or
> > not the surrealist movement ... would have blossomed if the Dadaist
> > had never existed ... is the stuff of speculative fiction.
>
> What the future Surrealists gained from Dada was simply a love of
> scandal, such as that at the Roux banquet, or that caused by the Paul
> Claudel pamphlet, but I don't really see any central idea that is
> transposed from one to the other.
This is probably - in the main - true but there is no use denying that the
two groups have a connectiveness, even if that link is rebellion. I would
also say that much of the revolutionary character of Dada was invested in
the personalities of the individuals involved and not necessarily written
down. This vector of revolt pushes through both groups, obviously changing.
The outward character of Dada was carefully staged to avoid any semblance of
seriousness and direction, but its individual members were intellectuals and
artists despite themselves. Huelsenbeck's memoirs reveal a man strongly at
odds with the nihilist faction of Dada, and in search of metamorphosis.
Schwitters spent his time challenging the worth of common street trash, and
re-seeing the very notions of art. Duchamp's linguistic humor is surely
central to both movements. etc. So I think the character of surrealism can
be said to have partly evolved from the characters of Dada.
But - even if only considered as a revolt - surrealism is linked to Dada I
would think. And I seriously don't see the problem in this. I rather like
Dada's lack of program, its effronteries, its anarchistic flair. Breton is
just a different personality than Tzara (though both were known as schemers
and arrogant controllers), so surrealism took on a vastly distinct role.
dmh
David Mackenzie
>"barrett john erickson" (bar...@magneticfields.org) writes:
>> trying to carry the same empty boxes around with you, just because you
>> can't bring yourself to admit they're empty, is limiting.
>
>
>Freud picked up dream -- an empty box -- and suggested that it wasn't
>empty. Many have picked up tarot cards (and its symbolism) -- an empty
>box -- and shown the contents to be solid and useful. Looking at
>seemingly empty things like Scientology, racism, religion, cults, magic,
>witchcraft, ritual, play, sex, WHATEVER -- look inside the seemingly empty
>box, and you'll find it isn't empty.
I thought it may be possible to create an empty box inside your mind, but
even that will have some meaning.
Perhaps the only way to create an empty box is to have no box at all.
Either that, or redefine "empty" as you please.
David.
ca314159
Simplify your problem:
What is the surface of the water in a cup made of ?
Water, or air ?
Does the empty cup hold this same "stuff" the surface is made of ?
The empty cup is full of it.