chicago's shoulders
barrett john erickson
following this discussion in an effort to respond has been a frustrating
matter of search, read, copy and paste from dejanews. please bear with me
and the confusing layouts this forces. ]
brandon wrote to someone else>>>
"I don't understand what you are saying---why does it imply a hierarchy? I
think they are attempting to created a focus point for Surrealism in the
U.S.A. As far as I know only the Rosemonts and Garon are in Chicago [ ... ]
They recently asked me to fill out a questionaire for a Surrealist issue of
a San Francisco magazine (don't remember the title right now), and I don't
live anywhere near Chicago."
and i'm sure when this magazine appears, chicago will be portrayed as the
clearing house of all things surrealist in the usa.
but really i don't have much taste for sour turf battles.
from my perspective:
if chicago wants to be a focal point for surrealism in the usa, i have no
problem with that. i don't disagree with them in any significant way on
anything that i know of, i respect what they've done in the past and they
have seniority if nothing else.
and i'd even support them as the seat of a kind of federation of american
surrealist groups (and individuals seeking collaborative groupings), through
which actions could be coordinated, campaigns to counter misinformation
could be launched, new groups encouraged and communications improved both
domestically and globally -- that is, _movement_ put back into The Movement.
we could get insignias to wear over our left breast.
but they can't assume "the point" without simultaneously assuming a position
relative to every action taken in the name of "surrealism" in the united
states, and everyone in the country who identifies themselves as a
surrealist (rightly or wrongly). in other words: taking "the point"
carries with it a certain responsibility to the larger global movement (a
responsibility i don't think any single group could be expected to meet on a
land mass as large as the us of a).
what angered us was the misleading signature -- "the surrealist movement in
the united states" -- clearly implying that this was some kind of collective
text produced by surrealists in the united states, when it clearly (and
deliberately) was not a collaborative effort on anything near that scale.
specifically, they were not speaking for us (although we probably wouldn't
have raised any objections to the text itself, given a chance), so in the
context of the implication that they were (some of our friends thought this
was evidence of a rapprochement between mn and chicago), we felt the need to
clarify our situation.
this wasn't about them not talking to us, but about them signing a tract in
a way that implied they were when they were not.
and>>>
"Just another side note. One of the areas I see being avoided by the Chicago
group, and even put down by Barrett and Dale in recent posts, is the
cultural revolution of queer politics."
well this doesn't really reflect the positions dale and i have taken in our
respective posts.
what we have put down is that _segment_ of "gay rights" activists that are
primarily focused on gaining entrance into the existing order of mainstream
america (i.e., job issues, the military, marriage, priests/ministers, etc.).
the objection is to those who have bought into the values and goals of that
existing order, thereby siding with the very forces and institutions of
oppression (those who are actually counter-revolutionary in their
perspectives).
those who only want their share of the power we struggle against are not our
allies.
and>>>
"I am also, after having discovered Claude Cahun, very interested in the
concept of "genderfuck" which I think can only be supported by Surrealists
without question. How can a Surrealist not support the revolt against gender
[which is an artificial construction of a repressive society]."
can you enlighten me a bit on Cahun's view?
i certainly agree that "race" and "gender" (in the sense we are discussing
it, that is, "gay" vs. "straight", etc.) are social constructs that should
be opposed.
but when it comes to gender issues (or race, or...), i consider them battles
in the larger struggle against POWER. those who oppose POWER will always
have my full support. those who merely want to change the personnel in
charge (more women ceo's, etc.), or just grab a bit for themselves (many of
today's union activists) will always have my full opposition.
and>>>
"I don't see any main clashes between their ideas and Blue Feathers [maybe
Barrett and Dale could enlighten us on this]. But at this point, until some
communication happens, we really shouldn't jump to
conclusions about why the "cold shoulder" is in effect. I would really like
to know what kind of e-mail discussion Paul Garon and Barrett had."
well i don't have any idea what they might find disagreeable either. i
really wish i could help you out with this. they have some objection to us,
that seems obvious. but they've never raised them with us.
[ as for the PG e-mail exchange...
i just requested his address so i could mail him a full complement of our
materials with the expressed hope that that would stimulate more
communication between chicago and minneapolis (sending them to Rosemont as
they were produced obviously hadn't done so). i also dropped a sufficient
deluge of names that he would recognize so he knew we already had good
relations with other groups around the world.
i wasn't looking for anything more than the courtesy of receiving in return
whatever tracts, announcements, etc. they might produce as they produced
them. in other words, for them to keep us informed of their activities as
we were keeping them informed of ours. (the way they appear to be keeping
_you_ informed!)
beyond that, at some point i hoped an opportunity for more direct
collaboration might reveal itself.
he sent me his address and thanked me for my e-mail.
*** oh, and i need to correct one thing: we did receive notice in March
that the Britannic thing was going on-line the following week. of course it
was already a done deal at that point, and the notice was not specifically
addressed to us but rather produced for wide distribution -- more of a press
release really. it _is_ the kind of thing we were hoping to start
receiving, but the problems revealed by the WTO tract were still evident and
unaddressed. ]
-- 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
==============================================
Dale Houstman
"barrett john erickson" <bar...@magneticfields.org> wrote in message
news:39c971e3$0$28246$7f89...@newsreader.visi.com...
>
> brandon wrote to someone else>>>
Chicago
> group, and even put down by Barrett and Dale in recent posts, is the
> cultural revolution of queer politics."
>
> well this doesn't really reflect the positions dale and i have taken in
our
> respective posts.
>
I truly resent the misreading here of my attitude toward queer politics,
when I have (for one) never manifested the slightest hint of such a stance,
either publicly (of least importance to me), or privately. Quite the
opposite: dealing with such concerns is a personal matter with me, involving
several of my friends and family. It is - in fact - more homophobic to
assume critiques of aspects of that struggle are off limits (thus placing
the gay movement and its participants in a special category of
"untouchable") than it is to assume any movement worth pursuing is worth
getting right - whatever one's opinion of what is right may be. The damage
to progress in these matters is just as real if one rejects or accepts
without regard to intelligent perusal.
I can suppose then that any gay who also rejects this "let's get'em into the
military" stance - or to be more "trendy" this "hate crime legislation"
kick - is also - in some odd manner - also putting down the gay cultural
revolution? And yet: there they are all around me: at work, at home, in NYC:
gays who are equally bored or dismayed by such an emphasis. The argument
doesn't wash - and in consquence it stinks.
dmh
Brandon Freels
<brandon...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8qcaj1$qf3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> barrett john erickson wrote:
> > what angered us was the misleading signature -- "the surrealist
> > movement in the united states" -- clearly implying that this was some
> > kind of collective text produced by surrealists in the united states,
> > when it clearly (and deliberately) was not a collaborative effort on
> > anything near that scale.
>
> I can understand that. All the other flyers I have from them are
> signatured "Surrealist Group of Chicago" but are also based on Chicago
> issues.
>
> > this wasn't about them not talking to us, but about them signing a
> > tract in a way that implied they were when they were not.
>
> I get it: The "cold shoulder" really wasn't the issue, but you do seem
> a bit irritated by it.
>
> > well this doesn't really reflect the positions dale and i have taken
> > in our respective posts.
>
> To a degree I understand your position on "gay rights" activists, but I
> sort of see this action by "gay rights" activists as a form of cultural
> sabatoge. Eventually mainstream America will not be mainstream America.
> I could argue that a "gay rights" activist is not necessarily buying
> into the values and goals of the existing order or institutions of
> oppression, but rather attempting to transform those values, which
> would eventually point towards a disassembling of those powers.
>
> > can you enlighten me a bit on Cahun's view?
>
> I wasn't implying that Claude Cahun had a theory, but she is probably
> the only Surrealist that ever constantly attacked gender. In her
> photography she pretty much predicted the modern gender outlaw. Her
> first photographs, starting around 1920 only showed her in drag, and
> would have fit in nicely next to Duchamp in drag, but she was somewhat
> ignored. Her later work towards the early 1930's defied any gender
> recognition at all (rather than gender switching). Here appearence was
> truly androgynous. The point was that not only does she predict modern
> definitions of androgyne and genderfuck, but that these theories are in
> everyway something I see compatable with Surrealism (she was asked to
> join the paris group after WW2, but declined for personal reason). At
> times anti-gender ideas have been vaguely eluded to in surrealist
> essays and poems but never really discussed.
>
> [not sure if you need these but others might]
>
> Androgyne
> n. 1. A person whose biological sex is not readily apparent, whether
> owing to chance or choice (see 'genderfuck'). 2. A person who is
> intermediate between the two traditional genders. 3. A person who
> rejects gender roles entirely. 'Intersexual' and 'hermaphrodite' refer
> to people intermediate in sex, 'androgyne' to people intermediate in
> gender
>
> Genderfuck
> n. (also v.): 1. Deliberately sending mixed messages about one's sex,
> usually through dress (e.g., wearing a skirt and a beard).
>
> [ definitions from http://www.chaparraltree.com/raq/ ]
>
> > but when it comes to gender issues (or race, or...), i consider them
> > battles in the larger struggle against POWER. those who oppose POWER
> > will always have my full support. those who merely want to change
> > the personnel in charge (more women ceo's, etc.), or just grab a bit
> > for themselves (many of today's union activists) will always have my
> > full opposition.
>
> I understand Dale and your position, but how do you judge what these
> people want ... "power" or to radically change culture. And as long as
> the military is part of our culture ...
>
> And as for Dale's resentment: all I said is that the Chicago group
> seems to AVOID and you two PUT DOWN queer politics. You did PUT DOWN a
> certain attempt made by some "gay" activists. You did TAKE THAT STANCE.
> This PUT DOWN was your critique, and what I was talking about. Are you
> now denying that you critiqued gay politics? Come on. Its not like
> called you both homophobes, I'm just simply baffled at why I've never
> read any surrealist text dealing with the issue in a progressive way.
> Its easy to pick something apart, and to find reasons not to support
> it. But really, what is the alternative. Queers should sit down and
> shut up?
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
brandon...@my-deja.com
> what angered us was the misleading signature -- "the surrealist
> movement in the united states" -- clearly implying that this was some
> kind of collective text produced by surrealists in the united states,
> when it clearly (and deliberately) was not a collaborative effort on
> anything near that scale.
I can understand that. All the other flyers I have from them are
signatured "Surrealist Group of Chicago" but are also based on Chicago
issues.
> this wasn't about them not talking to us, but about them signing a
> tract in a way that implied they were when they were not.
I get it: The "cold shoulder" really wasn't the issue, but you do seem
a bit irritated by it.
> well this doesn't really reflect the positions dale and i have taken
> in our respective posts.
To a degree I understand your position on "gay rights" activists, but I
sort of see this action by "gay rights" activists as a form of cultural
sabatoge. Eventually mainstream America will not be mainstream America.
I could argue that a "gay rights" activist is not necessarily buying
into the values and goals of the existing order or institutions of
oppression, but rather attempting to transform those values, which
would eventually point towards a disassembling of those powers.
> can you enlighten me a bit on Cahun's view?
I wasn't implying that Claude Cahun had a theory, but she is probably
[ definitions from http://www.chaparraltree.com/raq/ ]
> but when it comes to gender issues (or race, or...), i consider them
> battles in the larger struggle against POWER. those who oppose POWER
> will always have my full support. those who merely want to change
> the personnel in charge (more women ceo's, etc.), or just grab a bit
> for themselves (many of today's union activists) will always have my
> full opposition.
I understand Dale and your position, but how do you judge what these
brandon...@my-deja.com
> what angered us was the misleading signature -- "the surrealist
> movement in the united states" -- clearly implying that this was some
> kind of collective text produced by surrealists in the united states,
> when it clearly (and deliberately) was not a collaborative effort on
> anything near that scale.
I can understand that. All the other flyers I have from them are
signatured "Surrealist Group of Chicago" but are also based on Chicago
issues.
> this wasn't about them not talking to us, but about them signing a
> tract in a way that implied they were when they were not.
I get it: The "cold shoulder" really wasn't the issue, but you do seem
a bit irritated by it.
> well this doesn't really reflect the positions dale and i have taken
> in our respective posts.
To a degree I understand your position on "gay rights" activists, but I
sort of see this action by "gay rights" activists as a form of cultural
sabatoge. Eventually mainstream America will not be mainstream America.
I could argue that a "gay rights" activist is not necessarily buying
into the values and goals of the existing order or institutions of
oppression, but rather attempting to transform those values, which
would eventually point towards a disassembling of those powers.
> can you enlighten me a bit on Cahun's view?
I wasn't implying that Claude Cahun had a theory, but she is probably
[ definitions from http://www.chaparraltree.com/raq/ ]
> but when it comes to gender issues (or race, or...), i consider them
> battles in the larger struggle against POWER. those who oppose POWER
> will always have my full support. those who merely want to change
> the personnel in charge (more women ceo's, etc.), or just grab a bit
> for themselves (many of today's union activists) will always have my
> full opposition.
I understand Dale and your position, but how do you judge what these
brandon...@my-deja.com
> what angered us was the misleading signature -- "the surrealist
> movement in the united states" -- clearly implying that this was some
> kind of collective text produced by surrealists in the united states,
> when it clearly (and deliberately) was not a collaborative effort on
> anything near that scale.
I can understand that. All the other flyers I have from them are
signatured "Surrealist Group of Chicago" but are also based on Chicago
issues.
> this wasn't about them not talking to us, but about them signing a
> tract in a way that implied they were when they were not.
I get it: The "cold shoulder" really wasn't the issue, but you do seem
a bit irritated by it.
> well this doesn't really reflect the positions dale and i have taken
> in our respective posts.
To a degree I understand your position on "gay rights" activists, but I
sort of see this action by "gay rights" activists as a form of cultural
sabatoge. Eventually mainstream America will not be mainstream America.
I could argue that a "gay rights" activist is not necessarily buying
into the values and goals of the existing order or institutions of
oppression, but rather attempting to transform those values, which
would eventually point towards a disassembling of those powers.
> can you enlighten me a bit on Cahun's view?
I wasn't implying that Claude Cahun had a theory, but she is probably
[ definitions from http://www.chaparraltree.com/raq/ ]
> but when it comes to gender issues (or race, or...), i consider them
> battles in the larger struggle against POWER. those who oppose POWER
> will always have my full support. those who merely want to change
> the personnel in charge (more women ceo's, etc.), or just grab a bit
> for themselves (many of today's union activists) will always have my
> full opposition.
I understand Dale and your position, but how do you judge what these
people want ... "power" or to radically change culture? And as long as
the military is part of our culture ...
And as for Dale's resentment: all I said is that the Chicago group
seems to AVOID and you two PUT DOWN queer politics. You did PUT DOWN a
certain attempt made by some "gay" activists. You did TAKE THAT STANCE.
This PUT DOWN was your critique, and I never stated that you were anti-
queer. Its not like I called you both homophobes, I'm just simply
baffled at why I've never read anything from a surrealist dealing with
this issue, or at least not in a progressive way. Its easy to pick
something apart, and to find reasons not to support it. But really,
what is the alternative. Queers should sit down and shut up?
[ By the way, I also see your critiques of queer politics much
different than johamar, who I believe would okay anything he precieves
as anti-queer. I understand that your addressing the "politics" and not
the actual act of "being gay." I'm not so sure about him, and when I
asked him to clarify he never did. ]
Brandon Freels
<brandon...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8qcb7d$r7c$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> barrett john erickson wrote:
> > what angered us was the misleading signature -- "the surrealist
> > movement in the united states" -- clearly implying that this was some
> > kind of collective text produced by surrealists in the united states,
> > when it clearly (and deliberately) was not a collaborative effort on
> > anything near that scale.
>
> I can understand that. All the other flyers I have from them are
> signatured "Surrealist Group of Chicago" but are also based on Chicago
> issues.
>
> > this wasn't about them not talking to us, but about them signing a
> > tract in a way that implied they were when they were not.
>
> I get it: The "cold shoulder" really wasn't the issue, but you do seem
> a bit irritated by it.
>
> > well this doesn't really reflect the positions dale and i have taken
> > in our respective posts.
>
> To a degree I understand your position on "gay rights" activists, but I
> sort of see this action by "gay rights" activists as a form of cultural
> sabatoge. Eventually mainstream America will not be mainstream America.
> I could argue that a "gay rights" activist is not necessarily buying
> into the values and goals of the existing order or institutions of
> oppression, but rather attempting to transform those values, which
> would eventually point towards a disassembling of those powers.
>
> > can you enlighten me a bit on Cahun's view?
>
> > but when it comes to gender issues (or race, or...), i consider them
> > battles in the larger struggle against POWER. those who oppose POWER
> > will always have my full support. those who merely want to change
> > the personnel in charge (more women ceo's, etc.), or just grab a bit
> > for themselves (many of today's union activists) will always have my
> > full opposition.
>
Dale Houstman
"Brandon Freels" <brandon...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:8Wiy5.74$eg....@news-west.usenetserver.com...
> Deja sucks sucks sucks.
>
Maybe it's gay?
In that case - of course - I hate and fear them.
dmh
brandon...@my-deja.com
Houstman has marvelously morphed into Nik Maack!
He didn't even go into a phonebooth --- damn he's good!
***
In article <39c9d0d8$1$28254$65a9...@news.citilink.com>,
Dale Houstman
<brandon...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8qclip$7om$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> And after a mysterious failure with his news provider mild-mannered Dale
> Houstman has marvelously morphed into Nik Maack!
>
> He didn't even go into a phonebooth --- damn he's good!
>
Well - to shed the usual wit and "mild manner" even a little bit more...
Fuck you...
I am sorry I offended you by taking offense at your offensive (and
ill-informed) comments. But not too much.
(By the way: how did you turn into a headless worm without even crawling iup
your own ass? Just a biological inquiry...)
dmh
Dale Houstman
<brandon...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8qclip$7om$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> And after a mysterious failure with his news provider mild-mannered Dale
> Houstman has marvelously morphed into Nik Maack!
>
> He didn't even go into a phonebooth --- damn he's good!
Also - by way of clarification: that's a joke, although one with reference
to your rather flat-footed "defense" of the "gay military" push. I expected
a little more subtle comprehension from you vis a vis the corrupted desire
of military "service" even if you didn't agree with me. In essence, I rather
think your stance is more Nik-like. Let's hope your recovery is swift and
doesn't involve intrusive surgery.
Also: I've NEVER been mild-mannered so no metamorphosis was called for.
>
dmh
brandon...@my-deja.com
Dale Houstman wrote:
> Well - to shed the usual wit and "mild manner" even a little bit
> more...
>
> Fuck you...
>
> I am sorry I offended you by taking offense at your offensive (and
> ill-informed) comments. But not too much.
>
> (By the way: how did you turn into a headless worm without even
> crawling iup your own ass? Just a biological inquiry...)
barrett john erickson
<brandon...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8qcaid$qeq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> barrett john erickson wrote:
> > what angered us was the misleading signature -- "the surrealist
> > movement in the united states" -- clearly implying that this was some
> > kind of collective text produced by surrealists in the united states,
> > when it clearly (and deliberately) was not a collaborative effort on
> > anything near that scale.
>
> signatured "Surrealist Group of Chicago" but are also based on Chicago
> issues.
>
> > tract in a way that implied they were when they were not.
>
> a bit irritated by it.
yes, i am. but the context is also a bit deeper than i'd care to go into
here. still, we'd have felt no need to react if it hadn't been for
implications of the signature.
>
> > well this doesn't really reflect the positions dale and i have taken
> > in our respective posts.
>
> To a degree I understand your position on "gay rights" activists, but I
> sort of see this action by "gay rights" activists as a form of cultural
> sabatoge. Eventually mainstream America will not be mainstream America.
> I could argue that a "gay rights" activist is not necessarily buying
> into the values and goals of the existing order or institutions of
> oppression, but rather attempting to transform those values, which
> would eventually point towards a disassembling of those powers.
contrast, for example, the puny little calls to eliminate "job
discrimination" with Ronnie Burk's (a surrealist and key player in ACT-UP
SF) piece "Jobs Are Jails" in our N30 issue, and i hope you'll see what i
mean.
after suffering through two cycles of corporate jobs among many well meaning
co-workers, all of us slowly decomposing under the relentless pressure of
the profits first corporate mentality, i have little remaining tollerance
for "work within the system" arguments.
once you're inside, any work you do is helping to stabolize the existing
order not destroy it.
>
> > can you enlighten me a bit on Cahun's view?
>
> I wasn't implying that Claude Cahun had a theory, but she is probably
> [... thanks ... ]
>
> > but when it comes to gender issues (or race, or...), i consider them
> > battles in the larger struggle against POWER. those who oppose POWER
> > will always have my full support. those who merely want to change
> > the personnel in charge (more women ceo's, etc.), or just grab a bit
> > for themselves (many of today's union activists) will always have my
> > full opposition.
>
> I understand Dale and your position, but how do you judge what these
> people want ... "power" or to radically change culture. And as long as
> the military is part of our culture ...
by what they are asking for.
again... refer to "jobs are jails" vs. "end descrimination on the job".
if some group or individual could have everything they want and the
corporation still survive, in fact become stronger for their victory by
gaining a broader base of wage/salary slaves, then that group or individual
is not my ally.
> And as for Dale's resentment: all I said is that the Chicago group
> seems to AVOID and you two PUT DOWN queer politics. You did PUT DOWN a
> certain attempt made by some "gay" activists. You did TAKE THAT STANCE.
> This PUT DOWN was your critique, and what I was talking about. Are you
> now denying that you critiqued gay politics? Come on. Its not like
> called you both homophobes, I'm just simply baffled at why I've never
> read any surrealist text dealing with the issue in a progressive way.
> Its easy to pick something apart, and to find reasons not to support
> it. But really, what is the alternative. Queers should sit down and
> shut up?
again you are misrepresenting our argument (as restated above) by
generalizing a critique of "reformist" positions within a broader movement
into a critique of the entire movement. we are in full accord with the
truly _radical_ aspects of "queer politics" (as exampled by Ronnie Burk).
queers shouldn't sit down and shut up, they should rise up and shut down the
institutions of oppression.
barrett john erickson
"cythera" <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8qcfs2$1er$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> [..]
> That some people question and reject all or part of what they
> challenge themselves to examine is perceived as a _threat_. (I wish
> you'd seen Ronnie Burk and Tate Swindell give it to the liberals--
> both gays and heterosexuals-- on the Board of Supervisors...
> Incidentally, ACT-UP S.F. is being sued because of their overall
> naughtiness, but, I think, specifically for spraying silly string on
> a gay supervisor). Ha ha ha ha!
yes!
(hopefully, in this example, brandon can see the contrast i've been trying
to draw.)
(hopefully this also serves as an illuminating example of the difference
between the poetic-level of this surrealist action and onions in a phone
booth or rotting hamburger on a statue.)
johamar
brandon...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> [ By the way, I also see your critiques of queer politics much
> different than johamar, who I believe would okay anything he precieves
> as anti-queer.
You are deliberately trying to misunderstand me. Why I don't know.
I have never said this.
> I understand that your addressing the "politics"
I was talking ""politics"" too.
> and not
> the actual act of "being gay." I'm not so sure about him, and when I
> asked him to clarify he never did. ]
Does this clarify for you what I am saying:
To try to change the system from inside is a failure.
>
>