The Nik Maack Conundrum.
Disturbed42
Try as I might, I can't quite see exactly what all the fuss is about Nik. I've
read his posts, and he's quite clearly a good writer. He went overboard on
condemning that one fellow's paragraph which he found objectionable, but that's
hardly something to get upset over. Cythera strikes me as particularly
mean-spirited and ridiculous. Anyone who would call the Humane Society, or even
threaten to, because they read a post on usenet about someone kicking one of
his two dogs to stop them from fighting is either a moron, mentally imbalanced,
a troll, or some combination of the three.
I expect this thread to become a catty sniping session, but hopefully I'll also
be able to suss out an explanation (perhaps from someone uninvolved in this
feud of the silliest type: Usenet.)
brandon...@my-deja.com
> Try as I might, I can't quite see exactly what all the fuss is about
> Nik. I've read his posts, and he's quite clearly a good writer. He
> went overboard on condemning that one fellow's paragraph which he
> found objectionable, but that's hardly something to get upset over.
Nik has been spreading misinformation about Surrealism here for the
last four years. He's been somewhat tame as of late. When he first
started posting, not knowing a damn thing about Surrealism beyond its
dictionary definition, he decided that rather than learn from those who
do know he would oppose them at all costs. Of course, the little he's
read about Surrealism over the past four years has changed his
position, but he would never admit this and these slight changes can
only be seen when juxtaposing the old Nik with the new Nik. But his
understanding of Surrealism is still light years away from where it
should be, and he matches every unconscious (natural) step forward with
a conscious (forced) step backward. On the one hand, he doesn't want to
take our side because he doesn't like us. One the other hand, he knows
we are right.
> Cythera strikes me as particularly mean-spirited and ridiculous.
> Anyone who would call the Humane Society, or even threaten to,
> because they read a post on usenet about someone kicking one of his
> two dogs to stop them from fighting is either a moron, mentally
> imbalanced, a troll, or some combination of the three.
I was going to say something about Cythera, but she might contact my
ISP. I'll just leave it at this: Cythera wasn't always mean-spirited.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
barrett john erickson
"Disturbed42" <distu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001108154350...@ng-mc1.aol.com...
> Since I'm new here, how about you all just humor me on this.
>
I've
> [...]
from a previous (8/00) answer to someone similarly confused by the responses
nik's posts receive:
>>>
the problem for a "newcomer" is that many of nik's comments may not seem
that far off, when taken out of the larger context of his 3 year or so
posting history. i certainly had a more favorable impression of him when he
first arrived here in alt.surrealism. but since then, some of us have tried
repeatedly to engage him in attempts (quite civil attempts, i may add) to
correct his various missteps, and have come to realize that he isn't open to
reconsidering any of the misinterpretations he clings to, and has little
interest in actually learning anything about, or contributing anything to
the surrealist movement as it exists today.
nik has, in his posts here, consistently and recklessly misrepresented the
arguments of others, is often the first to personalize a discussion with
insults and psychologized assertions about an other's motivations, is prone
to criticizing writing style in lieu of responding to a well directed point,
and in the end, he openly judges everything solely on the grounds of -- and
appears to be interested only in -- what is "useful" to him.
it is the arrogance of his ignorance (or perhaps the ignorance of his
arrogance) that provokes the comments you witness.
i remember seeing a quote form Daniel Moynahan in someone's "sig" recently:
"everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts" or
something similar.
and this is where our arguments with nik began three or so years ago. these
early conflicts continue because he refuses to recognize any basis for
resolution beyond his being allowed to assert any misrepresentation and
disseminate any falsification of "surrealism" unchallenged.
_that_ is what forms the overall context in which the criticisms of today
take place.
for example:
during a discussion a year or two ago, nik and a couple others proclaimed
essentially that "surrealism" was whatever they decided it was (a position
now known as "personalist"). it didn't matter to them that a long record
might exist of surrealists rejecting a particular perpective, it didn't
matter what 80 years of surrealist texts might say on the matter, and it
didn't matter if every surrealist asked would denounce the perspective and
be able to argue their point effectively from within the context of
surrealist theory.
they insisted any person could, simply because he/she decided to, now
proclaim that any given perspective was compatible with their personal
"surrealism" and that surrealists should accept that, or at least not argue
with them about it.
this of course provoked a series of attempts to get them to acknowledge
that -- 1) because "surrealism" was a collaborative venture, as much
social
as personal, and that 2) in any case, it can't be denied that "surrealism"
obviously existed before they did, and has a history and a lineage of
thought and practice that 3) continues today all around the world among
living surrealists with unbroken links to that lineage and history -- that
no one person could legitimately redefine the term "surrealism" in ways that
deliberately ignored, much less openly conflicted with that historical and
current context. and that anyone attempting to do so in a forum discussing
"surrealism" should expect a heated challenge.
nik among others continued to argue otherwise.
just one opinion vs. another? no, despite their insistent accusations that
we were arguing that there was some kind of criteria that had to be met to
be an "official" surrealist, we were only arguing that _they_ could not
arbitrarily redefine "surrealism" in their own image and expect others to go
along with it -- that "surrealism" has existed and continues to exist as a
global movement with observable characteristics that are outside of their
personal control.
nik, among others who post far less frequently, remains entrenched in his
refusal to acknowledge this simple reality and it is that choice -- _his_
choice -- that places him by definition outside of "surrealism".
<<<
-- 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
==============================================
Sven
> Since I'm new here, how about you all just humor me on this.
>
> Try as I might, I can't quite see exactly what all the fuss is about Nik. I've
> read his posts, and he's quite clearly a good writer. He went overboard on
> condemning that one fellow's paragraph which he found objectionable, but
> that's
> hardly something to get upset over.
The fuss about Nik is all generated by the Nik Maack Self Publicity
department, which is a collection of pseudonyms he uses, the purpose of all
of whom is to ridicule Nik Maack and thus increase his profile. I am one of
these pseudonyms. See how I dance. A lifeless puppet on a string.
No, really, I arrived here a while back feeling cheeky and asking exactly
the same questions. Things were simpler then. (Tear forms in eye and
slowly rolls down cheek). Now what was the solid NM Opposition has
fractured and given itself to in-fighting. See the rest of the current
threads for more details.
Nik has been a bit more restrained of late, perhaps because he's aware that
future employers will look him up on the internet, and sixteen weeks later
will rise from their computers, looking dazed, and emigrate.
On the other side of things, Dale has morphed from being a source of some
good sense surrounded by hatred, into pure evil. His first words on
returning to this spiky yet still living-room-esque environment were, "God
this place sucked while I was away."
The rest of them are a decent bunch. Alright chaps? But cythera is a
dizzibatch of beef shrapnel.
Disturbed42
>be unfriendly, but which this man nonetheless confined together
>within one small cage.
I read the thread.
Please enlighten me as to how you know the size of the cage.
Oh, you mean you don't?
You're quite obviously a nut.
Nikolaus Maack
> Try as I might, I can't quite see exactly what all the fuss is about
> Nik.
Neither can I, which is odd, given that I am Nik.
> He went overboard on condemning that one fellow's paragraph which he
> found objectionable, but that's hardly something to get upset over.
I was just screwing around. Barrett's paragraph seemed as lugubrious and
turgid as a stretch of intestine blocked by cancerous tumours -- but I've
been exaggerating my disdain. I was simply passing the time by writing
something to amuse myself. Perhaps this is the worst of my crimes -- I
tend to just splash around a lot, throwing colour in all directions for no
good reason, simply because I love to listen to myself play with words.
In other words, my crime is being a writer.
> I expect this thread to become a catty sniping session
You know it.
Nik
--
NOW AVAILABLE! Art by Nik in mass produced formats!
'L. Ron' t-shirts, coffee mugs, and mouse pads.
Just click: http://www.cafepress.com/nikart
Nikolaus Maack
> On the one hand, [Nik] doesn't want to
> take our side because he doesn't like us. One the other hand, he knows
> we are right.
Don't be so stupid, Brandon. Please take note of the following for your
FAQ.
There are two schools of surrealism.
One school (your school, Brandon) says that the automatic impulse is all
important. An artwork cannot be surreal. Only the process that creates
it is surreal. The process must be totally unguided by the creator. If
the artist makes any attempt to guide the work -- by making it more
commercial, more legible, planning a course before commencing, etc -- then
the artist has failed to let the surrealist process occur.
The other school of surrealism (my preferred school) is very different.
Its purpose is to create works of art that startle, that wake people up,
that create "satori". For example -- take two images, overlap them, and
surprise the viewer. This school is far more calculating. The automatic
impulse can be used to find interesting images, but this group doesn't
worship the automatic impulse. A painting (for example) can be extremely
calculated, planned, charted, and mapped before brush ever touches canvas.
Group one would rather die than create this way.
Since the day I have first arrived here, I've had a great deal of
difficulty convincing members of group one (the dominant position held in
this newsgroup) that group two even exists. When I pointed out that
Britannica.com defines surrealism as separated into these two camps, it
was Brandon who told me that Britannica isn't a surrealist text, and
therefore its comments are valueless.
I believe this is known as "shooting the messenger".
Being an open-minded person, I am more than willing to allow group one to
worship their "automatic" impulses.
(Although I put "automatic" in quotes because I find it suspicious that
all "automatic" text tends to look the same. Any surrealist worth his or
her salt knows what "real" automatic text is supposed to look like, and
produces "proper" automatic text without effort. Which leads me to
suspect that there is NO SUCH THING as automatic text. But that's only a
theory of mine.
Not only that, but if the automatic impulse is the key, what of works that
automatically produce blandness? If I sit down and, without any
preconceived notions, write or paint something utterly dull and ordinary,
is it really a work that deserves to be associated with the word
"surreal"? I don't think so.)
As I said, I'm quite willing to let the "group one" folk, the "automatic
surrealists", believe what they believe. Alas for me, they are not quite
as open-minded as myself. They see any "group two" efforts as
manipulative. According to them, an artist is supposed to create work
spontaneously and for themselves alone. Trying to create a response in
the viewer? That's manipulative, wrong, and simply not done.
And thus I was mocked for an attempt I made so very long ago, when I first
arrived here -- I suggested we all leave onions in phone boots. The idea
was that people would walk into the booth, see an onion lying there, and
be startled. For an instant they would become ALERT, AWAKE, SURPRISED.
It would cause, in other words, a brief moment of "satori".
"What the hell is this onion doing here?" they would gasp. And in that
moment, in my opinion, lies the surreal experience. They saw and they
questioned and they were ever so briefly alive. To me, surrealism is
about attempting to create that experience in others, but also in
ourselves. I want to be pleasant surprised by everything around me every
instant that I am alive and even after I die.
The group one people saw the onion game an utterly ridiculous project
without worth. And from their particular definition of surrealism, they
are right. Of course, there is more than one definition of surrealism.
Which has been another point of contention among us all.
"Dear Nik, sad Nik, you cannot go around defining words as you see fit.
It's simply not done. Surrealism is defined in the manner we define it,
not in the way you define it. We're right, you're wrong. Why can't you
see this?"
Well, given this situation, is it all right if I use the word the way that
Britannica.com defines it? They desacribe the two "poles" of surrealism
as follows:
"Each artist sought his own means of self-exploration. Some
single-mindedly pursued a spontaneous revelation of the unconscious, freed
from the controls of the conscious mind; others, notably Miró, used
Surrealism as a liberating starting point for an exploration of personal
fantasies, conscious or unconscious, often through formal means of great
beauty.
"A range of possibilities falling between the two extremes can be
distinguished. At one pole, exemplified at its purest by the works of Arp,
the viewer is confronted with images, usually biomorphic, that are
suggestive but indefinite. As the viewer's mind works with the provocative
image, unconscious associations are liberated, and the creative
imagination asserts itself in a totally open-ended investigative process.
To a greater or lesser extent, Ernst, Masson, and Miró also followed this
approach, variously called organic, emblematic, or absolute Surrealism.
"At the other pole the viewer is confronted by a world that is completely
defined and minutely depicted but that makes no rational sense: fully
recognizable, realistically painted images are removed from their normal
contexts and reassembled within an ambiguous, paradoxical, or shocking
framework. The work aims to provoke a sympathetic response in the viewer,
forcing him to acknowledge the inherent "sense" of the irrational and
logically inexplicable. The most direct form of this approach was taken by
Magritte in simple but powerful paintings such as that portraying a normal
table setting that includes a plate holding a slice of ham, from the
centre of which stares a human eye. Dalí, Roy, and Delvaux rendered
similar but more complex alien worlds that resemble compelling dreamlike
scenes."
Allow me to emphasize one particular sentence:
"The work aims to provoke a sympathetic response in the viewer, forcing
him to acknowledge the inherent "sense" of the irrational and logically
inexplicable."
In other words, one pole of surrealism is all about "manipulating" the
viewer.
But enough about that for a moment.
Brandon is right about one thing -- over the two years or so that I have
spent in this newsgroup, I have changed. I've learned more about
surrealism from people in here as well as books and magazines and music.
Even my "foes" have occasionally taught me a thing or two.
For example -- Barrett provided me with the excellent metaphor for the
subconscious. The conscious mind is a spotlight that shines into a
darkened warehouse. The subconscious is the warehouse. At any moment,
the light illuminates a patch of ground. It can, however, move about,
lighting up other areas. Are there areas that cannot be lit up? Are
there areas we deliberately avoid lighting up? How can we even begin to
answer this question?
This is a great metaphor, and I have used it on numerous occasions since
first hearing it. Thank you, Barrett. And thank you Dale, Brandon,
Cythera, Parry, Sven, Egal, Orlan, and everyone else. You've all given me
a great deal -- although you don't always give me what you intend to give
me.
Enough ranting for one night. Although I think I just carved out some of
the larger pieces of my FAQ by doing so.
brandon...@my-deja.com
> There are two schools of surrealism.
The division of Surrealism into two schools is done so by art critics
to ignorant to realize that a) Surrealism is not an art movement, and
b) collage serves the same purpose as automatism---the outcome can not
be premeditated. Anyone who thinks that collage can be premeditated has
never tried collage.
> The work aims to provoke a sympathetic response in the viewer ...
This is written by an art critic who fails to see that Magritte and
Delvaux are using the collage technique just as Ernst did. Delvaux is
simply sticking naked women everywhere he can. Magritte painted many of
his paintings out of sketchbook collages, not to mention hallucinations
and obsessions (with certain objects).
By the way, the sentence you focused on was an example of
misinformation. This is why we feel you are unbearably pathetic in your
critical thinking. Any high schooler is smart enough to question what
an art history "authority" says, especially when what they say just
doesn't work. Perhaps if this individual actually read about Magritte
from books on Magritte or actually read texts by Magritte he would see
the folly of his thought process. Relying on art history textbooks will
get you nowhere. You have to do the research yourself.
Kristina
I wholeheartedly agree on that score.
Kristina.
el...@cloud9.net
> In article <20001108201310...@ng-bh1.aol.com>,
> distu...@aol.com (Disturbed42) wrote:
> > > Dogs of a breed that is apparently known to
> > > be unfriendly, but which this man nonetheless confined together
> > > within one small cage.
> >
> > I read the thread.
> > Please enlighten me as to how you know the size of the cage.
>
>
> My inference that the cage is small, or rather too small, was and is
> based on the poster's assertion that the animals turned against one
> other.
Fas said:
First of all the "pen" is about 25ft x 50ft - equal to about 100 "small
cages"
[1250 sq. ft. & 3x the size of my apt. BTW =e]
Mikal 606
"cythera" <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8udjfc$6pv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > be unfriendly, but which this man nonetheless confined together
> > > within one small cage.
> >
> > I read the thread.
> > Please enlighten me as to how you know the size of the cage.
>
>
> My inference that the cage is small, or rather too small, was and is
> based on the poster's assertion that the animals turned against one
> other.
>
> feel you need in order to draw your conclusions about me, and to then
> post your series of personal and inflammatory remarks, please tell all
> of us <snip>
Only you are interested in this.
brandon...@my-deja.com
> Go ahead; knock yourself out. If I add you to long list of people I
> won't read on this newsgroup, I won't be seeing anything about it.
> That's a win-win situation. Enjoy...
It was a joke. It was a joke. Maybe Nik's right about my sense of humor?
> Please feel free to also post what scanty email I have sent you as
> well -- (I mean what you haven't posted already.)
That really got to you, huh?
> Thank you for the reminder why I stopped reading and posting on this
> newsgroup.
No problem.
Nikolaus Maack
> By the way, the sentence you focused on was an example of
> misinformation.
Brandon, you're very stupid. If you go around defining anything that
doesn't suit your personal stance as "misinformation", and people who
don't believe what you believe as incapable of "critical thinking", you
make your world smaller and more comfortable, but you'll also make it
infinitely more dull.
Clearly I am quite capable of critical thinking and you're not, given that
you didn't even run your own words through the "What if I'm wrong?" filter.
> Relying on art history textbooks will
> get you nowhere.
I was unaware that Britannica.com is an "art history textbook".
>You have to do the research yourself.
I have. Evidently I have somehow managed to do my research only from
sources you consider misguided and inappropriate. How convenient for you.
barrett john erickson
"Nikolaus Maack" <ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:8udc00$epm$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> (brandon...@my-deja.com) writes:
> > On the one hand, [Nik] doesn't want to
> > take our side because he doesn't like us. One the other hand, he knows
> > we are right.
>
> Don't be so stupid, Brandon. Please take note of the following for your
> FAQ.
>
> There are two schools of surrealism.
this is based on a false dichotomy, over simplified and simply wrong.
your expository text might pass the typical art history professor (or the
editorial board of Britannica), but it won't pass a surrealist. it fails in
too many ways to repeat yet again.
> [...]
> Since the day I have first arrived here, I've had a great deal of
> difficulty convincing members of group one (the dominant position held in
> this newsgroup) that group two even exists.
what you've had a great deal of difficulty with is understanding that
"surrealism" cannot be subdivided and occupied plot by plot without
transforming it into something less than "surrealism".
> When I pointed out that
> Britannica.com defines surrealism as separated into these two camps, it
> was Brandon who told me that Britannica isn't a surrealist text, and
> therefore its comments are valueless.
and rightly so.
> I believe this is known as "shooting the messenger".
>
> Being an open-minded person, I am more than willing to allow group one to
> worship their "automatic" impulses.
what you call an "open-minded person" is actually someone so intellectually
myopic that he thinks all matters beyond his immediate grasp are too blurry
to be real.
> [...]
> Which has been another point of contention among us all.
>
> "Dear Nik, sad Nik, you cannot go around defining words as you see fit.
> It's simply not done. Surrealism is defined in the manner we define it,
> not in the way you define it. We're right, you're wrong. Why can't you
> see this?"
>
> Well, given this situation, is it all right if I use the word the way that
> Britannica.com defines it?
no. it is not at all right.
anyone who actually understands the surrealist movement _as it existed and
continues to exist for surrealists_, should immediately recognize that any
definition of "surrealism" that begins:
"Surrealism
movement in visual art and literature, flourishing in Europe between World
Wars I and II. "
is full of shit.
> [...]
> For example -- Barrett provided me with the excellent metaphor for the
> subconscious. The conscious mind is a spotlight that shines into a
> darkened warehouse. The subconscious is the warehouse. At any moment,
> the light illuminates a patch of ground. It can, however, move about,
> lighting up other areas. Are there areas that cannot be lit up? Are
> there areas we deliberately avoid lighting up? How can we even begin to
> answer this question?
our discussion of cognitive processes may have provoked this metaphor in you
(and on first read it strikes me as an improvement over where we started),
but this doesn't correspond with my position.
Mikal 606
> In article <8udmnh$8va$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> el...@cloud9.net wrote:
> > cythera <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > In article <20001108201310...@ng-bh1.aol.com>,
> > > distu...@aol.com (Disturbed42) wrote:
> > > > > be unfriendly, but which this man nonetheless confined together
> > > > > within one small cage.
> > > >
> > > > I read the thread.
> > > > Please enlighten me as to how you know the size of the cage.
> > >
> > >
> > > My inference that the cage is small, or rather too small, was and
> > > is based on the poster's assertion that the animals turned against
> > > one other.
> >
> >
> > First of all the "pen" is about 25ft x 50ft - equal to about 100
> > "small cages"
>
> very correctly pointed out, he did not specify cage size in his first
> post (the one which I read, and to which I responded.)
>
> The real issue here is <snip>
..is Cythera telling everyone else what the real issue is.
Why dont you go away?
brandon...@my-deja.com
> I was unaware that Britannica.com is an "art history textbook".
You're right, not even an art history professor would stand for you
siting Britannica.com as a source. Chances are they would call you to
their office and explain that you should go to THE LIBRARY and pick up
one of those three to four hundred page books on the subject or maybe
even, heaven forbid, a book by an actual Surrealist. Of course, they
would be laughing at you behind your back, along with all the other
professors and graduate students, as you walked away
perplexed ... "What is the library?"
I actually saw this happen to a kid once. I think he eventually droped
out.
Andrew Nellis
> The division of Surrealism into two schools is done so by art critics
> to ignorant to realize that a) Surrealism is not an art movement, and
> b) collage serves the same purpose as automatism---the outcome can not
> be premeditated. Anyone who thinks that collage can be premeditated has
> never tried collage.
Do you know what a True Scotsman argument is?
Didn't think so.
A.
Andrew Nellis
> the problem for a "newcomer" is that many of nik's comments may not seem
> that far off, when taken out of the larger context of his 3 year or so
> posting history. i certainly had a more favorable impression of him when he
> first arrived here in alt.surrealism. but since then, some of us have tried
> repeatedly to engage him in attempts (quite civil attempts, i may add) to
> correct his various missteps, and have come to realize that he isn't open to
> reconsidering any of the misinterpretations he clings to, and has little
> interest in actually learning anything about, or contributing anything to
> the surrealist movement as it exists today.
The smug, navel-gazing arrogance of the dogmatic fundamentalist materialists in
here is nothing short of obnoxious. Here's a free clue for you, since none of
you seem to have any: a fact is an opinion which you believe to be true.
Do ANY of you have any idea what you're talking about? You make vague noises
like the sort of half-assed teenybopper atheists I see hanging out about channel
#Atheism on DALnet, but lack even their negligible understanding of scientific
theory. Science is the philosophy of empiricism. Nothing more. Since it's
concerned solely with the empirical, you can't make truth claims. Truth, you
see, is metaphysical; you can't hold it in your hand, weigh it, determine its
specific gravity.
You and Dale (and the rest of the Usual Suspects) make a bunch of arm-waving
gestures and then insist that you have laid down the Holy Writ. From what I
can tell, you're exactly the sort of puffed-up self-important frauds into
which the surrealist movement was trying to poke holes.
> nik has, in his posts here, consistently and recklessly misrepresented the
> arguments of others, is often the first to personalize a discussion with
> insults and psychologized assertions about an other's motivations, is prone
> to criticizing writing style in lieu of responding to a well directed point,
> and in the end, he openly judges everything solely on the grounds of -- and
> appears to be interested only in -- what is "useful" to him.
The "well directed points" seem to consist of specious appeals to authority
and one-line "mEEE tOOOO" responses of such astounding denseness that they
make me want to chew my fingers off.
> it is the arrogance of his ignorance (or perhaps the ignorance of his
> arrogance) that provokes the comments you witness.
No, it's his refusal to join your incestuous little pseudo-artsy social
club of lusers, lesbians, and closeted light-loafered elflords that pisses
you off.
> i remember seeing a quote form Daniel Moynahan in someone's "sig" recently:
> "everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts" or
> something similar.
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."
-- Albert Einstein
Want to play duelling quotations? You'll lose.
> and this is where our arguments with nik began three or so years ago. these
> early conflicts continue because he refuses to recognize any basis for
> resolution beyond his being allowed to assert any misrepresentation and
> disseminate any falsification of "surrealism" unchallenged.
How amazing. The entire rest of the planet concedes that, like post-modernism,
there is no one single definition which will satisfy everyone, but a half-dozen
loud-mouthed Usenet "experts" have sifted out the One True Really Real True
Truth About Surrealism.
[Blah-blah about how Nik doesn't fit into your surrealist glee club snipped.]
Someone open the windows. The smell of bullshit in here is overpowering.
A.
Disturbed42
>both a political and a philosophical argument into one about assumed
>personality, I will stop reading your posts. Your choice...
I can only assume this is intended as a threat.
Nikolaus Maack
Is that the full extent of your argument?
You see, in my world, if someone disagrees with a statement, they
ordinarily have to explain themselves and their position if they want to
be taken seriously. Simply saying, "YOU ARE WRONG," is what children and
the mentally-handicapped do when they don't get their way. Are you a
child? Are you mentally handicapped? Of course not. So if you are going
to argue that one perspective is right and another perspective is wrong,
you're actually going to have to explain your position. Okay?
I personally find the Britannica.com description of surrealism extremely
useful. It describes quite neatly the range of surrealist philosophy I
have encountered. There are "automatics" at one extreme, and the
philosophy ranges all the way to "concrete" surrealists at the other
extreme. There are many sorts of surrealists found in between.
By the way, when I put out my surrealist FAQ, it will feature a definition
of surrealism as described in the above.
> what you've had a great deal of difficulty with is understanding that
> "surrealism" cannot be subdivided and occupied plot by plot without
> transforming it into something less than "surrealism".
Barrett, you're stupid. Surrealism HAS been subdivided, whether you want
to ackowledge it or not. It has split over and over and over again into
different camps with different opinions. Not everyone agrees what
"surrealism" means. You can't make your definition stick simply by
calling everyone else's defintion "wrong".
"Automatic surrealism" is one single approach available. There are many
other approaches available. Fact. If you insist that these other
approaches are no longer surrealism, then you're an idiot, burying your
head in the sand, insisting (as usual) that your way is the way. Which is
bullshit.
> what you call an "open-minded person" is actually someone so intellectually
> myopic that he thinks all matters beyond his immediate grasp are too blurry
> to be real.
I understand the "automatic" approach to surrealism. I simply don't agree
with it. I see many flaws in it. I listed some of these flaws in a
previous post. Care to address them?
Parry
> The smug, navel-gazing arrogance of the dogmatic fundamentalist materialists in
> here is nothing short of obnoxious.
He fights spam by day, trolls by night. Andrew Nellis, hypocrite.
-- Parry
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Mikal 606
> In article <8ueor0$v2b$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net>,
> "Mikal 606" <mika...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > "cythera" <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:8uen4h$40e$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > In article <8udmnh$8va$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > el...@cloud9.net wrote:
> > > > cythera <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > > In article <20001108201310...@ng-bh1.aol.com>,
> > > > > distu...@aol.com (Disturbed42) wrote:
> > > > > > > be unfriendly, but which this man nonetheless confined
> > > > > > > together within one small cage.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I read the thread.
> > > > > > Please enlighten me as to how you know the size of the cage.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > My inference that the cage is small, or rather too small, was
> > > > > and is based on the poster's assertion that the animals turned
> > > > > against one other.
> > > >
> > > > Fas said:
> > > >
> > > > First of all the "pen" is about 25ft x 50ft - equal to about 100
> > > > "small cages"
> > >
> >
> > ..is Cythera telling everyone else what the real issue is.
> > Why dont you go away?
> >
> you don't like them -- you even go so far as to write on them... I am
> hardly so interesting as to warrant all this attention.
>
> cythera.
>
It interests me when someone goes wonky and starts to go real life-
on a surrealist newsgroup.
Talk about blurring the borders of reality...
elag
>
> brandon wrote:
> > Nik has been spreading misinformation about Surrealism here for the
> > last four years. He's been somewhat tame as of late. When he first
> > started posting, not knowing a damn thing about Surrealism beyond its
> > dictionary definition, he decided that rather than learn from those who
> > do know he would oppose them at all costs. Of course, the little he's
> > read about Surrealism over the past four years has changed his
> > position, but he would never admit this and these slight changes can
> > only be seen when juxtaposing the old Nik with the new Nik. But his
> > understanding of Surrealism is still light years away from where it
> > should be, and he matches every unconscious (natural) step forward with
> > a conscious (forced) step backward. On the one hand, he doesn't want to
> > take our side because he doesn't like us. One the other hand, he knows
> > we are right.
>
>
> "He's been somewhat tame as of late". Before he was a roaring beast with
> three horns, five breasts, green blood, and bad breath!!!!!!! RUN FOR THE
> HILLS, IT's NIK!!!!
>
> Aside from the humor though...
>
> I don't know what on earth people think Nik is going to do by having a
> different belief/definition of surrealism. So what if it IS or ISN'T
> wrong?
>
> I've brought this up before and been belittled and ridiculed with all sorts
> of
> reasons, but as yet, I have not heard a good one. The truth is that people
> believe he is wrong. Wrongness is a needle in the side, a thorn in the eye,
> an
> itch that must be scratched... nothing more.
>
> Damn, I've got an itch right now and I believe I've scratched it!
They fight!
and fight!
and fight and fight and fight!
The Touchy and Punchy Sho-ow...
elag
batding wrote:
>
> brandon:
> > The division of Surrealism into two schools is done so by art critics
> > to ignorant to realize that a) Surrealism is not an art movement, and
> > b) collage serves the same purpose as automatism---the outcome can not
> > be premeditated. Anyone who thinks that collage can be premeditated has
> > never tried collage.
>
> I disagree about the collage thing. I've done a few collages. One was
> completely automatic, cutting what appealed to me, pasting where things
> happened to fit, sometimes jumping at aesthetics and other times saying to
> hell with that! I liked it.
>
> Another collage that I did was rather calculated. I wanted a certain look,
> a
> definate image, and designed a female figure of sorts. I think it was quite
> premeditated.
Of course collage can be entirely pre-meditated. Graphic designers do
this every day.
> Maybe I'm doing my collages wrong ;)
You need to go back to Collage College.
Kristina
> > ..is Cythera telling everyone else what the real issue is.
> > Why dont you go away?
> >
> Why don't you? And why, for that matter, are you reading my posts if
> you don't like them -- you even go so far as to write on them... I am
> hardly so interesting as to warrant all this attention.
>
> cythera.
You are right, you are not that interesting -- however, why does anyone read
any of the posts? They are on a public forum, so be prepared to be
questioned on what you say.
Kristina.
jsday
>
> I understand the "automatic" approach to surrealism. I simply don't agree
> with it. I see many flaws in it. I listed some of these flaws in a
> previous post. Care to address them?
The people who do claim to practice what you call the "automatic approach"
(and they apparently call "surrealism") don't think you understand it, and
since it's theirs, I think it's their right to define it as "the Surrealism
Which is Defined by the Inability of Nikolaus Maack to Understand It."
_
jsday
> [You all suck. I'm scientific and post-modern. Let's flame.]
It's nice to see someone of your vast understanding of usenet idiom
visit this little group. Please, stick around.
> Truth, you see, is metaphysical; you can't hold it in your hand, weigh it,
> determine its specific gravity.
That's pretty funny. So it might be true. But it's definitely meaningless,
and alas, your ears are getting tangled up in metaphysics. Sorry.
I'd comment on the whole Nik Maack love/hate thing that this thread
is supposed to be about, but uhh... it's getting a little old now,
don't ya think? Last time I looked here was, like, a year ago, and
it'd been going on for years then.
Hey! Maybe you can be the new center of attention for a year or two!
You just have to tone down the flames a little and pretend to agree with
people, while stating their own positions with subtle but persistent
inaccuracy. It's not hard.
_
fluffy_...@my-deja.com
--
The URL here has a pretty good list of nationwide protest sites for
this Saturday...
----------
Subject: [EF!] A Nation Rumbles...
As word spreads of large scale nation-wide protests (
http://geocities.com/countercoup/ ) against Republican Headquarters and
Election Board Offices we should use this as an opportunity to "fuel
the fire". I encourage everyone who has a local Republican HQ, Federal
Building, etc. to organize a protest against this phony election mess...
Imagine, bashing the Republicans and getting millions of outraged
Americans to show up! The chasm between the two parties and their
supporters is great right now, bars are rip with fights and arguments,
America is ready to rumble, let's give 'em one hell of a fight!
Good Luck, PS Chicago's demo is Saturday at 1pm in Daley Plaza...
Protest sites for this 11/11, 1PM your local time: (alphabetical by
city)
Asheville, NC: Pack Square.
Ann Arbor, MI: Federal Building.
Athens, GA: College Square, downtown Athens.
Athens, OH: the old courthouse, Court street.
Atlanta: Olympic Park, across from CNN headquarters.
Austin, TX: the Governor's Mansion in downtown Austin.
Baltimore: Federal Building, Hopkins' Plaza.
Bellingham, WA: Federal Building.
Bloomington, IN: Justice Building at 301 College St.
Boston: Capitol steps facing the Commons.
Buffalo, NY: City Hall.
Chicago: Daley Plaza @ Washington & Clark.
Cleveland, OH: Mall C at the "Free" Stamp statue.
Columbus, OH: Statehouse lawn.
Dallas: JFK Memorial (court district).
Denver: The circle in front of the State Capitol.
Des Moines, IA: State Capitol Steps.
Eugene, OR: Public space in front of City Hall.
Eureka, CA: County Courthouse.
Grand forks, ND: City Hall.
Grand Rapids, MI: Indian Mounds by the Ford Museum.
Houston, TX: Jones Plaza downtown.
Iowa City: Front steps of the Old Capitol.
Knoxville, TN: World's Fair Park.
Lansing, MI: Capital Steps.
Little Rock: Old State House.
Los Angeles: Federal Building at 11000 Wilshire Blvd.
Memphis, TN: Bush Headquarters, 1245 Ridgeway.
Miami: Bayfront Park
Milwaukee: Cathederal Square Park (Wells&Jefferson).
Minneapolis, MN: City Hall and Federal Courthouse at 5th St. & 3rd Ave.
Nashville: Executive Plaza, downtown Nachville.
New York: Times Square.
Northampton, MA: Courthouse (at King & Main).
Oakland, CA: Frank Osagawa Plaza, city center.
Olympia, WA: Fountain on the Capitol Campus.
Orlando, Fla: Lake Eola Park, by band shell.
Palm Springs, CA: City Hall.
Peoria, IL: Constitution Plaza.
Philadelphia: Independence Mall.
Phoenix: Patriot's Park.
Portland, OR: Pioneer Courthouse Square.
Providence, RI: Kennedy Plaza.
Richmond, VA: front of State Capitol building.
Rochester, NY: Manhattan Sq. Park.
Sacramento: State Capitol.
San Antonio: The Alamo.
San Diego: In front of Building A-San Diego City College.
San Francisco: Justin Herman Plaza.
Santa Cruz: Clock tower.
Santa Fe: Plaza downtown.
Seattle: Central Community College.
St. Paul, MN: Capitol building.
Tallahassee, Fla: state Capitol building.
Tampa, Fla: The Old Gandy Bridge-Gandy Blvd.
Washington DC: the U.S. Capitol building steps at the end of the
Mall.
Thousands of protesters rallied outside the Yugoslav parliament
building in Belgrade center October 5, 2000. The Yugoslav people
toppled President Slobodan Milosevic after demonstrators stormed the
federal parliament and state media swung behind them. This Web site is
simply a listing of protest sites. It is just an effort to facilitate
spontaneous, decentralized protests in the event of a popular
vote/electoral college split..
http://geocities.com/countercoup/
To Post a message, send it to: bigc...@eGroups.com
To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: bigcheap-
unsub...@eGroups.com
Frequently Asked Questions answered at
http://www.egroups.com/files/bigcheap/bigcheapFAQ.htm
brandon...@my-deja.com
> How amazing. The entire rest of the planet concedes that, like post-
> everyone, but a half-dozen loud-mouthed Usenet "experts" have sifted
> out the One True Really Real True Truth About Surrealism.
My art history prof. told me that post-modernism is an art movement.
Her requirements for post-modernism are as follows:
1. Modernism
2. Alligory
3. Photography
4. Feminism
So just what the hell are you talking about?
batding
batding
> The division of Surrealism into two schools is done so by art critics
> to ignorant to realize that a) Surrealism is not an art movement, and
> b) collage serves the same purpose as automatism---the outcome can not
> be premeditated. Anyone who thinks that collage can be premeditated has
> never tried collage.
I disagree about the collage thing. I've done a few collages. One was
completely automatic, cutting what appealed to me, pasting where things
happened to fit, sometimes jumping at aesthetics and other times saying to
hell with that! I liked it.
Another collage that I did was rather calculated. I wanted a certain look,
a
definate image, and designed a female figure of sorts. I think it was quite
premeditated.
Maybe I'm doing my collages wrong ;)
batding
http://www.20-eyes.com/batding
batding
> My art history prof. told me that post-modernism is an art movement.
> Her requirements for post-modernism are as follows:
> 1. Modernism
> 2. Alligory
> 3. Photography
> 4. Feminism
>
> So just what the hell are you talking about?
My art history teacher told me that surrealism is an art movement. Her
vague requirements for surrealism went something like this:
1. Dreams are involved
2. Automatism was cool
3. Getting in touch with our sub-concious was the goal
4. Making no sense is a good clue.
heh.
batding
brandon...@my-deja.com
> Another collage that I did was rather calculated. I wanted a certain
look, a definate image, and designed a female figure of sorts. I think
it was quite premeditated.
If you knew what you were going to get then why did you do it? My
collages, even if I premeditated them, never turn out like I planned
them.
brandon...@my-deja.com
> You know.. I really believe that all the fuss over Nik is ridiculous.
I agree. It is ridiculous and at times tiresome, but until the FAQ is
done this is the next best thing.
Mikal 606
<brandon...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8ug0bg$7h7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> batding wrote:
> > You know.. I really believe that all the fuss over Nik is ridiculous.
>
> I agree. It is ridiculous and at times tiresome, but until the FAQ is
> done this is the next best thing.
>
What is the FAQ gonna change?
brandon...@my-deja.com
be the one to respond, but batding will have to do. Now according to
Nik and Andy "post-modernism" is bigger than "art." To them its a full-
on philosophy of life. But not according to my art history prof. She
basically limited it to four vague characteristics. According to these
characteristics Andy and Nik's understanding of post-modernism is
completely false, and unfounded. So Nik, how is my professors defintion
right, and how is it wrong?
Also, I wonder how Britannica.com defines "post-modernism"?
In article <LHKO5.86592$76.16...@news1.rdc1.ab.home.com>,
brandon...@my-deja.com
> What is the FAQ gonna change?
Nik is more of a tool of ours than anything, sort of like Slugworth was
a tool of Willie Wonka's. He gives us an excuse to repeat over and over
again what Surrealism is, and what it is not. To understand what
Surrealism is, and what it is not is an essential for those new to
Surrealism. But once the FAQ is completed and posted monthly there will
be no use for Nik since the newcomers can simply read it for themselves
on the FAQ.
Nikolaus Maack
> You know.. I really believe that all the fuss over Nik is ridiculous.
I think it's sort of flattering. Even when I'm not trying to get any
attention at all, I get attention. Evidently my writing is so smooth,
sweet, and satisfying that it causes some people a great deal of worry. I
will woo people away from the bland "automatic" surrealism to something
more sophisticated and pleasurable. Clearly I must be stopped.
Put a stake through my heart now. I'm creating a race of "concrete
surrealists" -- that's the term I came up with for those of us who are
surrealists but aren't as keen on the whole "automatic process" shtick.
All of this will be made clear in my surrealism FAQ. I expect, when I
publish it in here, there will be screams of horror and much gnashing of
teeth. I don't know about you, but I'm kind of looking forward to it.
> "He's been somewhat tame as of late". Before he was a roaring beast with
> three horns, five breasts, green blood, and bad breath!!!!!!! RUN FOR THE
> HILLS, IT's NIK!!!!
I look nothing like this. However, I might enjoy having breasts, if such
a thing can be arranged.
> Damn, I've got an itch right now and I believe I've scratched it!
Talking about sex will get you nowhere.
Nikolaus Maack
> But once the FAQ is completed and posted monthly there will
> be no use for Nik since the newcomers can simply read it for themselves
> on the FAQ.
Of course my FAQ will be far more readable and entertaining than yours,
given that you're a humourless idiot. You can't write a piece of prose
without sounding like a retarded chimp asking for a pat on the head. If
it weren't for the fact that I occasionally stoop to your level and try to
talk to you, no one would bother reading the muddled strands of blackened
snail-slime you call "writing".
The most fascinating part of your stupidity is that you clearly know
you're an idiot. Am I imagining this? I can see you desperately banging
the keyboard, trying to come up with some piece of wit, some clever
retort, some proof that you're "a power to be reckoned with". Instead you
demonstrate to the world and to yourself that, at best, you're a competent
failure.
Not only that, dear Brandon, but I think a big part of you wants to fail.
As insecure as you are dumb, you've learned to love being at the very
bottom of the totem pole. I think being there makes you hard.
Have you noticed that none of your "friends" have stepped forward and
said, "Don't call Brandon stupid -- he's very intelligent"? Why do you
suppose they aren't defending you? Could it be that they too are aware
that you're the intellectual equivalent of a tadpole doomed to die as his
mud puddle dries up in the sun?
I only say all of this because I love you. If you admit to me that you
are a masochist we can drop all the pretenses, and I can start writing
lengthy descriptions of your sexual humiliation. Suck my dick, Brandon.
You know you want to.
Nikolaus Maack
> Perfect. This is the analogy I was looking for.
Brandon, you're an idiot.
Your art history teacher defines a word one way, Andrew defines it
another. You wait for Andrew (or me, or anyone) to say that the art
history teacher is wrong. Once someone says it, you leap into action.
"Ah ha! But if she's wrong, isn't it possible that you, Nik, are wrong
with your definitions? You're quoting art history types! See how they
are flawed?"
Then I'm supposed to slap my forehead and say, "Gosh, you got me Brandon
with your clever, clever thinking!"
Is your art history teacher wrong? Her definition is not entirely off the
mark, and a good place to start a discussion on post-modernism. Not only
that, but I suspect you misrepresent her, partly because you're an idiot,
but partly because whatever definition she gives is going to be in the
context of ART HISTORY. She is, after all, teaching an art history
course.
If you were in my mechanics class, and I was talking about cars, you can
be sure I'd talk about how the cars are put together and how to fix them.
I would probably avoid talking about how the car has changed the shape of
cities, affected the social systems of rural areas, how it is an added
budgetary concern for families, etc etc. All of that might be pertinent
information, but I'm there to tell you how to fix a car.
> Now according to
> Nik and Andy "post-modernism" is bigger than "art." To them its a full-
> on philosophy of life. But not according to my art history prof. She
> basically limited it to four vague characteristics.
"Basically limited"? She's describing its features. If I say a face has
two eyes, a nose, and a mouth, am I "basically limiting" the contents of a
face? Does that mean any face you encounter that has any other features
is not a face?
"This man has a moustache, ergo the thing at the front of his head is not
a face! Either that, or Nik's definition of face is wrong!"
No, Brandon, you moron -- the definition is fine. Reality is just more
complex than definitions.
What level art history course are we talking about? Is it a course on
post-modernism or a general overview? Because if it's a general overview
course (and I suspect it is) the prof doesn't have a lot of time to cover
the intricacies of each item. She might just say, "Here's the four
basics," and leave it at that.
> According to these
> characteristics Andy and Nik's understanding of post-modernism is
> completely false, and unfounded.
You're an idiot. Her definition does not go against the one Andrew might
offer up. Again, consider the matter of CONTEXT. She is talking about
post-modernism as applied to art history. Andrew is talking about
post-modernism as a philosophy. She is talking about identifying
post-modern concepts in an artwork. Andrew is talking about the notion of
the subjective and the objective, and what post-modernism has said on this
topic.
Both your teacher and Andrew are right. There is a LARGE thing called
"post-modernism". She was describing its elbow, and Andrew was describing
its butt.
In other words, you're comparing an apple to an orange and saying, "Which
one is the TRUE piece of fruit?"
When we talk about surrealism, we can talk about "automatic surrealism"
and "concrete surrealism" and both be right. They are simply different
points of view of the larger picture called "surrealism".
> Also, I wonder how Britannica.com defines "post-modernism"?
If you really want to know, go look it up, you dunce.
brandon...@my-deja.com
> whatever definition she gives is going to be in the context of ART
> HISTORY. She is, after all, teaching an art history course.
This is what we've been trying to tell you. Almost all the critics
writing about Surrealism are art critics, so they keep it within the
context of ART HISTORY. Of course, just like post-modernism, Surrealism
can't be kept within such a boundry---not if you want to know what it
really is.
> Because if it's a general overview course (and I suspect it is) the
> prof doesn't have a lot of time to cover the intricacies of each
> item. She might just say, "Here's the four basics," and leave it at
> that.
The same goes for people writing at Britannica.com. Chances are they
have hundreds of more entries to write-up, so they can't do too much
research into the subject, and decide just to start where they know
the'll find something---ART HISTORY! This is how misrepresentations
start.
> She is talking about post-modernism as applied to art history.
> Andrew is talking about post-modernism as a philosophy. She is
> talking about identifying post-modern concepts in an artwork. Andrew
> is talking about the notion of the subjective and the objective, and
> what post-modernism has said on this topic.
She is claiming that outside of art and literature post-modernism
doesn't exist. Besides, isn't post-modernism is dead. Oh, here it is:
http://www.altx.com/memoriam/
> When we talk about surrealism, we can talk about "automatic
> surrealism" and "concrete surrealism" and both be right.
What you are calling concrete surrealist art is really just another
type of automatic art. You simply can't grasp how this is possible
since you have such a closed mind.
brandon...@my-deja.com
http://www.altx.com/manifestos/avant.pop.manifesto.html
Postmodernism, a hoax? (text by Leyner, I think)
http://www.wmich.edu/english/tchg/lit/pms/crit/postmod.html
"Postmodernism seemed a fine thing for academics to stroke their chins
over ..."
http://www.kidpowerx.com/kp_article4.htm
batding
> "batding" wrote:
> > Another collage that I did was rather calculated. I wanted a certain
> look, a definate image, and designed a female figure of sorts. I think
> it was quite premeditated.
>
> If you knew what you were going to get then why did you do it? My
> collages, even if I premeditated them, never turn out like I planned
> them.
I don't think anything in art that I've planned has turned out exactly as I
saw it in my mind's eye. Yet, I do think that collage can be just as
premeditated as any other form of art at times.
Nikolaus Maack
> This is what we've been trying to tell you. Almost all the critics
> writing about Surrealism are art critics, so they keep it within the
> context of ART HISTORY. Of course, just like post-modernism, Surrealism
> can't be kept within such a boundry---not if you want to know what it
> really is.
The art history approach to surrealism is a valid one. It has meaning.
It is true. I am not suggesting Britannica.com has the ONE TRUE ANSWER.
I'm saying, "Look! A glimpse of the truth from one voice! Interesting,
isn't it?"
This is why I never say that I possess the one true vision of surrealism.
I don't. I have only my vision of surrealism, and I think it's an
interesting one. You don't possess the one true vision either, although
your one perspective might also be interesting. No one person contains
the entirety of surrealism inside them. No one can.
You seem to spend all your time finding opinions that you consider
distasteful and bashing them over the head with a shovel. This is a waste
of your time and energy. To what end, finding people who think
differently than yourself, calling them enemies, and attacking them?
If you genuinely believe in something, express it. Sing your words out.
Carve them into paper. Paint them in the air. This sort of activity will
draw people to you.
Kicking the words of others? Insisting they are wrong? These actions
only make you look foolish.
> She is claiming that outside of art and literature post-modernism
> doesn't exist. Besides, isn't post-modernism is dead. Oh, here it is:
> http://www.altx.com/memoriam/
Someone has also declared Surrealism dead. Someone on this planet is
always declaring something. It's what people do. They are entitled to do
so. And perhaps each declaration is true and real, even if they
contradict each other. Why not let all statements be true? Perhaps they
are.
You'll never understand this, of course. Something inside of you seems to
insist that we always determine which voice is RIGHT.
> What you are calling concrete surrealist art is really just another
> type of automatic art.
There are aspects of automatic art in it. I agree that there are overlaps
between the two positions I am describing. But after having had many a
lecture from you, Dale, and Barrett, it's clear the two are also very
different. After all, if an art is created with an effect in mind --
creating a startle response in the viewer -- is it not your position that
it fails to be automatic and thus it fails to be surreal?
Perhaps now would be a good time to post the rough beginnings of my FAQ.
> You simply can't grasp how this is possible
> since you have such a closed mind.
How amusing. You, who would say that my point of view is an invalid one,
tell me that I have a closed mind? You, who desperately try to convert me
to your "automatic" church, even going so far as to suggest I'm already a
member, tell me that I need to get some perspective? I'm more than
willing to respect your position, even though I don't share it, and you
have the audacity to call me close-minded?
Brandon -- why do you continue to demonstrate your own stupidity with such
gleeful enthusiasm?
brandon...@my-deja.com
> The art history approach to surrealism is a valid one. It has
> meaning. It is true.
How so? Can you offer an explination?
> You don't possess the one true vision either, although your one
> perspective might also be interesting. No one person contains the
> entirety of surrealism inside them. No one can.
Oh please, don't give me any of that pseudo-idealist new age crap.
> You seem to spend all your time finding opinions that you consider
> distasteful and bashing them over the head with a shovel. This is a
> waste of your time and energy.
Is critiquing the world really a waste of energy? Should I just go
along with stuff, even if I don't like it or don't believe it? If I
should then why don't you?
> You'll never understand this, of course. Something inside of you
> seems to insist that we always determine which voice is RIGHT.
I am interpreting Surrealism the way it was presented by Andre Breton
and the Paris Surrealists and how it has been carried up to the modern
day Surrealists, most notably like those folks in Chicago. You are
interpreting Surrealism the way it was presented by art historians and
big business. As long as this is clear, and as long as those reading
your statements are aware of this than I don't have a problem with your
claim. I are working from the Surrealist idea. You are working from the
name.
"Perhaps the greatest danger threatening Surrealism today is the fact
that because of its spread throughout the world, which was very sudden
and rapid, the word found favor much faster than the idea"
---Andre Breton, Surrealist Situation of the Object
Mikal 606
I say, conserve!
<brandon...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8uip70$efj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Parry
>
> <brandon...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8ug0bg$7h7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > batding wrote:
> > > You know.. I really believe that all the fuss over Nik is ridiculous.
> >
> > I agree. It is ridiculous and at times tiresome, but until the FAQ is
> > done this is the next best thing.
> >
>
> What is the FAQ gonna change?
A faq won’t provide any immediate remedy but, as a convenient counter to
disinformation, it is a first step towards moving this newsgroup beyond
being a brainpan for drippy thoughts to a forum that has some connection
to the foundation of surrealist thought.
The Brandon-Nik threads you are now reading are a replay of old
arguments, provoked by Nik’s self-serving assertion that surrealism is
whatever he wants it to be. His feeble premises could be applied to any
concern. Substitute the word “anarchism” for “surrealism” and you get
something like: “anarchism is whatever I say it is, because no one has a
monopoly on truth, meaning no one is right so therefore I’m not wrong.”
Sometimes newcomers -- knowing little of surrealism other than it’s
something “weird,” and mistaking this group perhaps for “alt.wacky” or
“alt.whatever” -- buy into Nik’s game.
A faq won’t help Nik, of course, but it will give newcomers easy access
to information about the basics of surrealism. And who’s to say how many
newcomers there will be, or what may be gained from a little coherency?
If all fails, and this newsgroup never amounts to anything more than it
currently is, at least you won’t be able to say no one tried.
-- Parry
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Nikolaus Maack
>> The art history approach to surrealism is a valid one. It has
>> meaning. It is true.
>
> How so? Can you offer an explination?
*sigh* I have. You're just too stupid to understand an extremely basic
principle. Let me try again so that you can spout, "New age post-modern
twaddle!" and then I can give up on you.
There is a THING, it is very big, it is seen by many different people.
They each walk away from the THING with a vision of it. Each vision is a
true one. As an individual trying to understand this THING, I have to
choose the vision that is most in tune with me and where I am coming from
-- I have to combine a mixture of my own vision of the thing, and the
other visions I have heard of.
If we were talking about something simple, like the number of teeth in the
mouth of your average dog, I wouldn't have much difficulty. I could count
the teeth in my dog's mouth. I could get other people to count the teeth
in their dogs' mouths. I could do research on dog biology. Compiling all
this information, I would come up with a fairly steady number, and my
choice would be relatively simple.
When it's something like SURREALISM, the choice becomes much more
difficult. There are no teeth to count. There are many surrealists, each
who went their own way. Throughout their individual lives, they changed
and grew and came up with new ideas. Do I like Salvidore Dali of 1945 or
1955? The Andre Breton of 1923, or the mythos surrounding Pablo Picasso
long after he's dead? Each of these men had their own particular
emphasis, their own particular point of view that was constantly in flux.
Then there are the things I want to emphasize. What is my vision? How
does it interact with the visions of these others? Who do I want to be
and what do I want to chase? Where is the overlap between me and
surrealism?
Combining these elements gives me my particular vision of surrealism. I
would never suggest that my vision is THE vision or that my view has more
or less value than yours. It is mine.
>> You don't possess the one true vision either, although your one
>> perspective might also be interesting. No one person contains the
>> entirety of surrealism inside them. No one can.
>
> Oh please, don't give me any of that pseudo-idealist new age crap.
You see? You clearly want to be able to say, "I am right, and you
are wrong." Someone, somewhere, must have the RIGHT ANSWER, and you want
to be that person so very badly. Why? Probably because you are intensely
insecure. Why else would this be so important to you?
It seems to me that, in the field of art and literature, there is no
objective right or wrong. The best you can hope for is, "This is right
for me. This fits me. This model expresses what I am."
>> You seem to spend all your time finding opinions that you consider
>> distasteful and bashing them over the head with a shovel. This is a
>> waste of your time and energy.
>
> Is critiquing the world really a waste of energy? Should I just go
> along with stuff, even if I don't like it or don't believe it? If I
> should then why don't you?
Critiquing is a waste of energy if that's all you ever do. If two people
get into an argument, for example, and spend their days squabbling,
neither of them is actually doing anything. The person who will win the
argument is the one who ACTS, the one who demonstrates their beliefs are
more than just brain candy to suck on.
Should you just "go along with stuff, even if you don't like it or believe
it"? Well, you can respect people with opinions that differ from yours.
That's not the same thing as going along with it. Is it?
Why should you do it if I don't?
Brandon, have I ever said your vision of surrealism is wrong? No. All
I've ever said is that there is room for different perspectives of
the same big thing. You have the ass of surrealism, and I have its elbow.
I am satisfied with that. You are not. That's because you have to
be right -- because you're stupid and insecure and you require certainty
and clarity and objectivity. You can't get those things in this field.
It is simply not possible.
There is no such thing as REAL surrealism -- it's only an idea. We can't
scientifically study it and dissect it. No one can EVER know what real
surrealism is, because it's nothing more than an intellectual construct.
Surrealism does not exist, in the same way that Christianity does not
exist, or modernism does not exist.
If a definition is nothing more than a vague cloud, certain definitions
are less vague than others. We can agree what the definition of RED is.
We cannot agree on the definition of surrealism or nihilism or
Christianity. These words are more vague, more nebulous, than other
words.
> I am interpreting Surrealism the way it was presented by Andre Breton
> and the Paris Surrealists and how it has been carried up to the modern
> day Surrealists, most notably like those folks in Chicago.
What you are trying to say, but cannot bring yourself to say, is, "I,
Brandon, am a member of the REAL surrealist group. You are not." That's
what you and your stupid friends have been saying for over two years now.
I laugh at such utter stupidity at the same time as it makes me depressed.
What arrogance and idiocy you all demonstrate as you strive to establish
your authenticity. How insecure and small you must all feel, spending all
your time insisting that you possess the objective truth.
Andrew recently asked you if you know what the "true scotsman" fallacy is.
Do you?
I can't help but notice that, as we have this stupid conversation once
more, you aren't even bothering to describe what your point of view is.
Instead you merely say, "I believe what Andre Breton believed, and what
the modern day surrealists of Chicago believe." By expressing your beliefs
in this manner, you can suck the authenticity out of these people in an
attempt to make your walking-corpse seem more lifelike.
What do YOU believe, Brandon?
barrett john erickson
"Nikolaus Maack" <ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:8uii4p$du5$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> (brandon...@my-deja.com) writes:
> > This is what we've been trying to tell you. Almost all the critics
> > writing about Surrealism are art critics, so they keep it within the
> > context of ART HISTORY. Of course, just like post-modernism, Surrealism
> > can't be kept within such a boundry---not if you want to know what it
> > really is.
>
> The art history approach to surrealism is a valid one. It has meaning.
> It is true. I am not suggesting Britannica.com has the ONE TRUE ANSWER.
> I'm saying, "Look! A glimpse of the truth from one voice! Interesting,
> isn't it?"
a complex subject is always _approached_ from a specific angle and any angle
of _approach_ is valid. i have no problem with those who _approach_
"surrealism" from the perspective of art history.
but it isn't valid to make general claims about how the executive branch of
the united states government functions based on having peeked into one or
two bedroom windows of the white house, and it isn't valid to make general
claims about "surrealism" based on a similarly limited art historical
perspective.
certainly art and poetry (but here in the broader surrealist usage: the
process of imagination in action) are inevitable and desired manifestations
of the movement. but not a sufficiently defining characteristic.
surrealists were/are primarily concerned with enhancing the reality of daily
experience (social and individual in its scope) through the integration of
the liberated imagination. that means freeing the imagination so we can
actually live (among others) in a reality with poetic dimensions as well as
geometric dimensions.
but painting pictures, or writing novels -- an individual making "art" (in
the narrower usage common to art historians, and the general public) -- is
peripheral to the surrealist project.
so i _do_ have a problem with those, like Britannica.com and you, who
attempt to reorient and redefine the entire complex movement around the
limited study of some limited aspect of a peripheral activity.
it's either intellectually stunted and sloppy or arrogantly stupid (to use a
word you seem attached to lately). take your pick.
> This is why I never say that I possess the one true vision of surrealism.
> I don't. I have only my vision of surrealism, and I think it's an
> interesting one. You don't possess the one true vision either, although
> your one perspective might also be interesting. No one person contains
> the entirety of surrealism inside them. No one can.
your visions are of a third generation derrivative of "surrealism" --
malnourished, neutered and bleached of its nuance.
of course "no one person contains the entirety of surrealism inside them".
that's because "surrealism" can only be defined as the aggregate activity of
all surrealists. it is a complex _social_ movement, with an 80 year
history, that remains active today in many cities around the world.
which means that -- no matter how much you'd like to -- _you_ cannot
unilaterally redefine it in your own image as something small and personal.
> [...]
> There are aspects of automatic art in it. I agree that there are overlaps
> between the two positions I am describing. But after having had many a
> lecture from you, Dale, and Barrett, it's clear the two are also very
> different. After all, if an art is created with an effect in mind --
> creating a startle response in the viewer -- is it not your position that
> it fails to be automatic and thus it fails to be surreal?
as i recall those initial arguments (mostly centered on the "onion in a
phone booth" project), the accusation was that your stated purpose was too
narrow, self-centered and condescending.
you focused entirely (and only) on trying to provoke a startled response in
someone you deemed asleep. and _any_ response seemed acceptable to you --
arguing as i recall, that whatever other response/effect it might have was
irrelevant to you as long as someone was startled.
so, as the challenges revealed, your scheme was far too shallow, and lacked
most of the dimensions that would allow it to be defended as a plan for
surrealist intervention.
>
> Perhaps now would be a good time to post the rough beginnings of my FAQ.
>
> > You simply can't grasp how this is possible
> > since you have such a closed mind.
>
> How amusing. You, who would say that my point of view is an invalid one,
> tell me that I have a closed mind?
it's not your point of view that is invalid, but your arrogant insistence
that it alone is sufficient to redefine "surrealism" in opposition to actual
surrealists, living and dead.
go ahead, create and use the label "concrete surrealism" if you wish. at
least that carries an implicit admission that what you are proposing is a
modification of "surrealism" and not actually "surrealism".
of course, i'm sure i won't be the only one to point out that "concrete
surrealism", as you represent it, is lifeless sand and rock hardened into a
pock marked slab totally devoid of movement.
-- 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
==============================================
Nikolaus Maack
> but painting pictures, or writing novels -- an individual making "art" (in
> the narrower usage common to art historians, and the general public) -- is
> peripheral to the surrealist project.
So you're saying that a small minority of people of your choosing get to
define the word "surrealism". The world at large is ignorant of the
"real" definition. The "general public" doesn't possess the truth. You
and other dust-smeared philosopher losers have the REAL surrealism.
Funny. I could have sworn you were telling me that I was arbitrarily
determining what the word means. Isn't that what YOU are doing?
> so i _do_ have a problem with those, like Britannica.com and you, who
> attempt to reorient and redefine the entire complex movement around the
> limited study of some limited aspect of a peripheral activity.
What are the major activities then, if not art, writing, etc? The only
activities I have seen take the shape of art. Here's a question I ask you
often and never get a response to -- what shape does your surrealist
activity take? I mean besides your very boring web page.
> which means that -- no matter how much you'd like to -- _you_ cannot
> unilaterally redefine it in your own image as something small and personal.
Sure I can. I can do anything I want. How are you going to stop me? You
can't. It's done. I've already snatched the word away from you and bent
it into a pretty bow. My definition is far more interesting than anything
you have ever said in your miserable bookish life.
Face it, Barrett. I'm a better writer than you, I'm smarter than you, I'm
more fun to talk to than you. I'm wittier, prettier, and I have a beat
you can dance to. I am compelling. Why do you all spend so much time
talking about me? Because I rock. Because I roll. Because I have song
and I have soul.
I am a bad influence you say, spreading disinformation. Guess what? My
"disinformation" has more appeal than your poorly scrawled obfuscating
excessive verbosity.
What hope do you, Dale, Brandon and your ilk have, faced with my
splendour? Take a lesson from surrealist history -- why is Salvidore Dali
a household word, and Andre Breton little more than a footnote in art
history textbooks? Sure, Dali was a sell-out. But he also had style,
splash, pinache! The man knew how to be beautiful. Breton? Ugly and
bland and small and silent.
Andre Breton was too chickenshit to even learn how to speak English.
Satisfied to live in relative obscurity, most of his books ignored and
selling poorly, living in poverty and misery, he satisfied himself by
bullying a small circle of friends who kept ditching him.
Learn from this, Barrett. Your blandness will be the death of you. Mark
my words.
Now go pick up a pencil, and start writing without thinking. Release the
results in a chapbook that sells maybe 20 copies -- all to dead
intellectuals such as yourself. Preach intellectual freedom to a
collection of yes-men. Explain to the world, in as convoluted language as
possible, why money is bad. If I can help you in any way, let me know.
And maybe, when you're done doing all this intellectual masturbation, you
can explain to me how your actions freed your painfully limited
imagination.
john adams
is something else. Your last few posts are the ultimate dagger
to the name nik maack, I think. If no others serve as evidence of such
shrewish
stubborness, thse certainly do. But where to begin? Of course that would be
too overwhelming a task to attend to, yet as i say these comments are
astoundingly
unastounding.
Your recounting of surrealism's past is so typically dented and decayed,
and even with your some 3 years plus interest failed to improve (you can't
even
spell your hero Salvador's name correctly). As for your assertion that art
is the only
evidence of surrealism at this point is oddly fitting, considering the
record. Why don't
you ever listen closely to what anyone else has to say instead of only
yourself? What about this
strong "curiosity" of yours you purport to possess? It seems to come back to
the same
point: are you unable to comprehend, or that much in need of excitement to
continually post paralyzed fragments of thought to newsgroups to 'affect
chaos' and replies.
Witty intelligent people don't have reason to convince others how brilliant
they are.
Brilliant people don't consume all of their time fooling themselves they are
being clever by
sounding stupid on the internet. And, according to you they are those who
sell more of their
'creative' commodity to the rest of the world. This is the measure of
meaning and beauty you
are capable of. It comes as no surprise you are unfamiliar then with 'the
liberated mind', beyond the
sound of the words, or what even minor relevance automatism could have, or
perhaps similar ideas
concerning inspirational or spontaneous-creative thought and report, at
least, to prefer your own
'superior', forced writing .
Here is a qoute I find that is suiting, from Andre:
"An almost forbidden world of sudden parallels, petrifying coincidences, and
reflexes peculiar to each individual, of harmonies struck as though on the
piano, flashes of light that would make you see, really see, if only they
were not so much quicker than all the rest. I am concerned with facts of
quite unverifiable intrinsic value, but which, by their absolutely
unexpected, violently fortuitous character, and the kind of associations of
suspect ideas they provoke-- a way of transforming gossamer into spiderweb."
And finally, as i fade back to silence, and most especially for the
languagists:
"Does not the mediocrity of our universe depend essentially on our power of
enunciation?... I believe it is not too late to recoil from this deception,
inherent in the words we have thus far used so badly. What is to prevent me
from throwing disorder into this order of words, to attack murderously this
obvious aspect of things? Language can and should be torn from this
servitude. No more descriptions from nature, no more sociological studies.
Silence, so that I may pass where no one has ever passed. Silence! After
you, my beautiful language!"
john
Nikolaus Maack wrote in message <8ukitf$e94$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>...
>"barrett john erickson" (bar...@magneticfields.org) writes:
>> but painting pictures, or writing novels -- an individual making "art"
(in
>> the narrower usage common to art historians, and the general public) --
is
>> peripheral to the surrealist project.
>
>So you're saying that a small minority of people of your choosing get to
>define the word "surrealism". The world at large is ignorant of the
>"real" definition. The "general public" doesn't possess the truth. You
>and other dust-smeared philosopher losers have the REAL surrealism.
>
>Funny. I could have sworn you were telling me that I was arbitrarily
>determining what the word means. Isn't that what YOU are doing?
>
>> so i _do_ have a problem with those, like Britannica.com and you, who
>> attempt to reorient and redefine the entire complex movement around the
>> limited study of some limited aspect of a peripheral activity.
>
>What are the major activities then, if not art, writing, etc? The only
>activities I have seen take the shape of art. Here's a question I ask you
>often and never get a response to -- what shape does your surrealist
>activity take? I mean besides your very boring web page.
>
>> which means that -- no matter how much you'd like to -- _you_ cannot
>> unilaterally redefine it in your own image as something small and
personal.
>
Nikolaus Maack
> I had thoughts of taking a good vacation from this group, but this
> is something else.
John, I shall try to explain something to you that has hit me very hard
lately, like a punch to the groin or a piece of sandpaper getting all
comfortable next to my right eyeball. People are cowards. They are
cowards because they are afraid to act, afraid to do anything. We all
spend most of days talking and talking and doing little else.
Anyone who stands up and says "I am an individual of importance and
vitality, who shall sing and dance for my supper, who shall say whatever
comes to mind without fear, who is brilliant and witty and fun," -- anyone
who speaks these words will be shat upon, repeatedly.
The odd thing is that anyone can say these words and they will be true.
They are fun words to say. They are awesome words, they are powerful
words. Once you speak them and mean them, your whole life changes. You
become a force, an energy, a living artform.
Recently, I have gotten up off my ass and done some things. A certain
internet cafe in Ottawa, on the corner of Bank and Sommerset, is now
displaying my art both inside on the walls and outside in display cases.
I have a job interview monday. And other exciting things are happening as
well.
What made these changes come about? I realized I am a force to be
reckoned with. I am wonderful and intelligent and fun. You can point at
me and say, "Anyone who has to convince others of their genius is no
genius." But I'm not trying to convince you. I'm stating what I know. A
fact.
Your critical words are a very convenient thing for you to say. It's a
small thing, it's a dull thing. It's smearing shit on a rock that refuses
to stop shining. "Shh! You're embarrassing yourself, Nik!"
We are taught to be small and dull and silent. Anyone who glows in the
dark -- why, the arrogance! The audacity! How dare they glow in the
dark! How dare they be so arrogant and bright! So we smear our fecal
matter on them. We hiss, "Sit down, sit down! You're embarrassing
yourself and everyone present!"
Why does this bother people -- this loud, flashy genius? Because they
can't allow themselves to be the same way. They remain dim and in shadows
and polite and modest. This, they think, is the proper way to behave.
They languish in their own misery, but they are convinced that they are at
least behaving properly, even if they are ignored.
Don't attempt to affect other people. That's manipulation. Work on your
own mind. Challenge authority, but not all authorities -- only the ones
you can get away with challenging. By all means, act -- but remain
modest. Handing out flyers is a fine thing.
I say unto you, John, that if you have the courage, you too can shine.
Being a genius isn't something you're born with. You choose to be a
genius. You choose to express that essential YOU-ness. Lots of people
pay lip-service in here to the notion of being authentic, and then they
circle their wagons and speak small and soft and consistent with everyone
else.
Boring! Bland! Small!
Your reaction to me is based on the years you spent in the school system,
taught to sit and be quiet and listen to the words the nice man or lady at
the front of the room says. Is there no time for you to speak of who you
are, to sing out your heart until it bursts? You, John, are now speaking
for all the teachers and parents and policemen and politicians who demand
and always will demand that the world be quiet.
Shh! Shh! You're making too much noise. Whisper your words. Whisper
them into a mud puddle. Keep your palette dim. Your colours bland. Your
tones subdued. Your dance subtle. March, march, march off to war like
everyone else. Be civilized and sane.
That is the antithesis of surrealism!
I am not perfect. Of course I'm not. But I have a better grasp on the
truth than you bags of sawdust who don't even have the courage to call
yourselves surrealists. So I spell Salvadore Dali's name wrong. You
don't think I've noticed? Salvadore, Salvidore -- I keep making that
mistake. You going to let this tiny blurring destroy the vast panorama
that is me?
And where the hell is the vast panorama that is you? What rock are you
hiding it under? Why don't you share it? I'd like you to share it! I'd
like to see you explode, to drunkenly throw yourself across this newsgroup
like a shooting star in tap-shoes.
A better example of my imperfection -- I went out for dinner with my
girlfriend Michelle last night. We were seated in the non-smoking
section. After we were seated, a table of 8 women were put next to us.
They were all smoking. I hate smokers, as does my girlfriend. We asked
the waitress to make them stop. She apologized and said she would do so.
The women next to us made jokes about it but kept up their smoking. My
girlfriend -- more willing to embrace conflict than me -- asked to speak
to the manager. She told him she was never coming back here again. Food
was great, service awesome. The smoking? A hassle. The manager
apologized -- they were very busy, and he was sorry, and what could they
do, and maybe we'd like a free meal next time we come back?
"We won't come back," my girlfriend said, "until you're a smoke free
restaurant. Thanks anyway."
Man, I was proud of her. She fought for what she believed in. She made a
small scene. She said what was in her heart.
But me... What I wanted to do, and didn't... What I continue to dream of
the next day...
I wish I'd stood up, asked for the attention of everyone in the
restaurant, and drawn their attention to the table of smokers. I'd give a
speech -- a short one, on how I have asthma and grew up with smoker
parents. How I don't mind drug addiction in people, so long as they don't
breathe clouds of their toxins in my direction. How I know we are all
slightly drunk and inconsiderate at this point, but please -- let's be
nice, okay?
Wouldn't that have been awesome? Can't you see the women writhing with
embarrassment as the entire restaurant turns to look at them? And even if
I embarrass myself a little -- so what?
Yes, that would have been an awesome thing to do. But I didn't do it. I
chickened out.
However, the memory of my failure to act, that's what's going to spur me
to act next time. Regret -- use it. I try to use it to force myself to
act the way I wanted to next time. Fear is a useful force, because if
there's a simple act I want to do, and I feel fear, I know it's something
I really, really want to do. Fear can be used to make me act.
> Your recounting of surrealism's past is so typically dented and decayed,
> and even with your some 3 years plus interest failed to improve
For the record, I have been here slightly over two years. I keep seeing
four years of three years and on rare occasions five years. This summer
coming up will mark the third year that I have been in here, filling all
of you with embarrassed terror.
> Why don't
> you ever listen closely to what anyone else has to say instead of only
> yourself?
Ah, sweet irony. The FAQ I am working on is a summary of all the silly
fights that come and go in alt.surrealism. A list of sore spots that
flare up frequently. It was interesting for me to see just how much of
the arguments from the "automatics" I have digested. Their arguments that
God is an authority and therefore bad, that creating art with the
intention of bringing about an emotion in the audience is manipulation,
that surreal isn't a quality found in the art object but a quality in the
process of making it.
Yes, I have digested all your arguments and thoughts and feelings. I
understand them. I have heard them. I just haven't accepted them, which
is an entirely different matter. Something in all of your "automatic"
words stikes me as cowardly and conforming and small.
That's why, when I stumbled across the idea that there are two schools of
surrealism, I was very pleased. It explained why what the "automatics"
said struck me as so very bland. Andrew suggested to me, in a recent
conversation, that "automatic" and "concrete" aren't good names for the
division. He suggested "Bretonian" and "Dalian" as better descriptors.
I think he might be right.
What amuses me is you Bretonians sneer at the notion of financial success.
Clearly anyone who achieves any has prostituted themselves. How
convenient to think so. Now you have to make zero effort to sell
yourself, to be seen, to be heard. Is it wrong to pursue these things?
No, it ain't. Being seen, heard, singing your goddamn heart out -- that
goes against the conformity, the stiffness, the deadness of the people
around you.
People are scared shitless to be SEEN. If you cower, if you hide in your
poetry circles and in your cafes and in the company of your surrealist
friends -- you are no better than the blandest bureaucrat, the limpest
office worker.
Stand up and be seen. And if you make some money at the same time, great,
because you've got rent to pay and so do I. Let us admit that we at least
need SOME cash in our lives.
> Witty intelligent people don't have reason to convince others how brilliant
> they are.
I don't have to convince you of anything. All I have to do is speak, and
you will feel compelled to answer me. Why? Because my words have FORCE
to them. If I was the total idiot you claim I am, you wouldn't feel the
need to correct me. To whisper, "Shh! You're embarrassing yourself and
all of us!"
Why don't your words have the force and passion that my words have? What
are you afraid of, John? Are you terrified of being seen, of being heard?
Once again, like so many times before, the entire newsgroup circles around
me. Why? Because I speak from me, of me. Who do you speak for, John?
Who do you speak for, Dale? Who do you speak for, Cythera? Who do you
speak for, Brandon?
Brandon recently said (paraphrased), "My perspective of surrealism is the
one based on Breton and the evolution of his beliefs as manifested mostly
through the surrealists of Chicago."
Can you imagine a blander, duller, dryer way of expressing your beliefs?
"Those authorities over there -- I believe what they believe. I'm a
member of that group. I do what they do. Them? That's me."
Well, what the hell is that? What DO you do, Brandon? What do you
believe? Scream it out. Risk it. Don't just assure me you believe what
all "true" surrealists believe. Let's see your heart, warts and all. Why
not?
> "An almost forbidden world of sudden parallels, petrifying coincidences, and
> reflexes peculiar to each individual, of harmonies struck as though on the
> piano, flashes of light that would make you see, really see, if only they
> were not so much quicker than all the rest. I am concerned with facts of
> quite unverifiable intrinsic value, but which, by their absolutely
> unexpected, violently fortuitous character, and the kind of associations of
> suspect ideas they provoke-- a way of transforming gossamer into spiderweb."
You're quoting this at me? You make me laugh, John. Especially since you
follow it with the following...
> And finally, as i fade back to silence, and most especially for the
> languagists:
Fade back to silence? Fade back to silence! You poor, poor man. You
live in silence, and it damns you.
> "Does not the mediocrity of our universe depend essentially on our power of
> enunciation?
It does. All talk and no action. Step forth Brandon, Barrett, and Dale
-- philosophical dust clouds, whirring balls of words that never DO
anything. Critics, critics everywhere. Always telling other people what
they are doing wrong, thinking wrong. Always a critic and never acting,
doing, feeling, being.
You know that I will have a FAQ up here long before anyone else. Why?
Because that's DOING something, of a sort. And even if someone beats me
to the punch, their FAQ will be a snivelling tribute to mediocrity and
sucking up.
"Once there was a great man named Andre Breton..."
What about the great men named John, Brandon, Barrett, Dale? What of our
greatness? Every person -- man or woman -- in this very newsgroup is
capable of greatness. All you have to do is SEIZE it, and scream:
"I AM OF WORTH!"
But most of you would rather spend your time clutching those who stand up
and dragging them down into your miserable, conforming silence.