Surrealists in Ottawa Un-United (sort of)
Brandon J. Freels
times to "get people involved." It doesn't matter if its a birthday party or
a protest or a writer's group. Its a very difficult task, and only seems
important to the initial activator. Just look at Andrea Chen, for example. I
wonder if this is a 20th century problem, or one that has existed throughout
history? I guess we'll find out next year.
Dale Houstman
"Brandon J. Freels" wrote:
>
> That's what happens, Nik. You have my deepest sympathy. We all have tried at
> times to "get people involved." It doesn't matter if its a birthday party or
> a protest or a writer's group.
The difference being that Nik (because he insists that his "feeling" for
surrealism amounts to a valid comprehension and a new definition) cannot
understand that the fact of no one showing up is in itself as
"surrealistic" as any onion he may carve the words "This is not an
onion" into. Because he is caught in a constant search for "new
sensation" lacking even the slightest pinch of consideration, all he
attempts to do in the name of "zen surrealism" is a lost cause. Along
with Andrea he is insistently barraging the world and his own being with
self-consciousness. As if this century were not stuffed to the super-ego
with phony programs of self-actualization and self-help. The people "not
there"are the closest to a surrealist encounter that he will probably
ever have, and YET: he disparages its opportunities, because there
appears to be no respite from wan Ottawan in this no-show, and no
sensationalistic potential. Think of the pixie-like gags that a group of
6 (led by Nik) could have pulled off. Apples pies stolen and replaced
with parcheesi markers! 1000 cars toilet papered in the night as if the
entire city were Just Married! An octopus in a box of chocolates!
All will. All sensation. All fall down.
> Just look at Andrea Chen, for example.
Why? Must we?
> I wonder if this is a 20th century problem, or one that has existed throughout
> history? I guess we'll find out next year.
People have been refusing to show up for basically dreary notions of
adolescent crank-calls and onion-manipulation for centuries. Caesar
refused to join a group dedicated to smearing cheese on the backsides of
sleeping Senators. Zola was invited (and initially accepted) to join a
ragtag bunch called "The Furious 15" whose main thrust of action was to
glue bread crumbs on hackney coaches and wait for the birds to come.
There are towns in France where versions of this organization still
thrive (now with an expanded program of setting fire to bags of merde
and ringing doorbells: Sacre blah!).
DMH
Nikolaus Maack
Dale Houstman (dale.h...@gte.net) writes:
> The difference being that Nik (because he insists that his "feeling" for
> surrealism amounts to a valid comprehension and a new definition) cannot
> understand that the fact of no one showing up is in itself as
> "surrealistic" as any onion he may carve the words "This is not an
> onion" into.
Actually, I am well aware that no one showing up for a meeting of
surrealists is a surreal event, in itself. Stop under-estimating me,
Dale. It gets really boring.
"Oh, that Nikolaus Maack! He doesn't even acknowlege that he's a biped!
He crawls around on all fours, never raising his head to look up at
others, assuming they're on all fours as well."
In debating circles, this is known as a strawman attack. You build a man
of straw, and attack it, instead of talking about a real person. If it
gives you pleasure to do this, by all means, continue. But I thought you
might like to know the name for what it is you are doing.
Nik
--
"Everybody lives in fear. We all think we're incredibly weird and
depraved and bonkers, and if people knew the real us they'd squirt acid in
our faces and make us live in a Canadian mental institution."
-- Cynthia Heimel, essayist
Dale Houstman
>
>
> Actually, I am well aware that no one showing up for a meeting of
> surrealists is a surreal event, in itself. Stop under-estimating me,
> Dale. It gets really boring.
And so does your constant over-estimation of yourself. Your obvious
frustration at the lack of people revealed not one scintilla of
understanding on this score, and statements after the fact cannot change
this.
>
> "Oh, that Nikolaus Maack! He doesn't even acknowlege that he's a biped!
> He crawls around on all fours, never raising his head to look up at
> others, assuming they're on all fours as well."
>
> In debating circles, this is known as a strawman attack.
No; what you just did is a strawman attack: quoting a statement I never
made and refuting it.
DMH
el...@concentric.net
Ignore the cranky babies and don't let their nihilism annhilate your
creative spirit. Your "surreality" or lack thereof may be open to
question, but your creativity is not (in my opinion).
Keep trying to create creative responses to society... to your Ottawa...
to the world at large. I think that one day you'll succeed in the
public aspect of your artistic endeavors and even awaken creative
responses in your "audience".
a story:
I was walking down some East Village street when I passed a man wearing
a suit of armor constructed of (intact) soda cans, who was walking in
the other direction <clankklanc>. This gave me the inspiration which I
needed that day to keep from abandoning one of my own obscure projects.
I'm sure that others were affected in a similar way.
Each day we start from square one. What is old hat to the truly jaded,
may be more precious than jade to the unititiated newbie. It's
always worthwhile to use your creative energy. If it's in public where
it may awaken creative responses in others... so much the better!
For lack of a better term, this "Corrosion of Conformity" can only help
to make this world one in which I would enjoy living.
EAT ART AND LIVE,
-e-
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Dale Houstman
el...@concentric.net wrote:
>
> Neek:
>
> Ignore the cranky babies and don't let their nihilism annhilate your
> creative spirit. Your "surreality" or lack thereof may be open to
> question, but your creativity is not (in my opinion).
I applaud your efforts to "buck up" Nik, as he obviously needs the
encouragement, but I am quite at a loss to understand your calling the
others and me "nihilists" since it is apparent to anyone who wishes to
read and not merely to "take sides" that, despite my differences with
Nik, I am interested in MORE not less of a role for creativity and the
pursuit of the marvelous. If I do not find in Nik's specific projects
and the explanations attending any great hint of this adventure, it is
not because I don't want to, but because (to my mind) they are not
present. I have gone to great trouble to explain what I feel is missing,
and have given examples of "projects" which do achieve some degree of
critical consideration. Unless you are going so far as to claim that
only an acceptance of Nik IN HIS ENTIRETY will save a reader from
nihilism, I can only state that this is a massive reduction of liberty,
and unworthy of you.
>
> Keep trying to create creative responses to society... to your Ottawa...
> to the world at large. I think that one day you'll succeed in the
> public aspect of your artistic endeavors and even awaken creative
> responses in your "audience".
Maybe. Maybe not; but we are not just talking here of awakening
responses, but of seeking the marvelous (as opposed to Nik's vague
mysticism). One can prompt a response from an audience rather easily;
the problem still remains: to what are you awakening them? Is this new
world of intrusive onions in any way preferable to prolonged slumber? Is
prolonged slumber a reasonable response to a world that considers
individuals as interchangeable pieces in a consumer board game? What
does the onion do to address that? Nik has still not clearly defined
(for himself) the difference between self-amusement and critical action,
and seems totally unable to understand the other aspects of surrealism
that lie outside mere confrontation and "sensationalism." He has not
been able to tell me how he will manage to startle an audience doped to
the gills on empty sensation, and how his projects are not (in
miniature) an extenuation of this war for attention that corrupts the
simplest actions of the day-to-day.
>
> Each day we start from square one.
Well: you have an odd memory cache. I awake each day with a lifetime of
memory and a personality constructed of equal parts defense /
imagination / habit.
>
> For lack of a better term, this "Corrosion of Conformity" can only help
> to make this world one in which I would enjoy living.
>
I agree Conformity is one of the enemies. I only find Nik's weapons in
this case to be blunt. They are rather dull continuations of a process
of "happenings" and "conceptual art" that are (by now) mostly a
conformity themselves. To say that I don't know the answer to "how do we
wake up the populace" isn't enough: though I don't, even as I suspect
Nik's onion isn't the answer. For the most part I am mainly concerned
with keeping myself either awake or gainfully asleep.
That said: I have nothing in particular AGAINST Nik's projects, and (of
course) would rather have him doing that than building cluster bombs.
But as we arew WITHN alt.surrealism I believe we can elevate the
discussion above whether or not anyone is entitled to their actions.
This goes without saying. What is left to us is a series of critiques
and suggestions. Nik fronts an idea. I have every right to criticize it.
He has every right to ignore it.
This is not nihilism.
DMH
elag
I applaud your efforts to "buck up" Nik, as he obviously needs the
> encouragement,
e: Tanks, I do what I can.
but I am quite at a loss to understand your calling the
> others and me "nihilists"
e: I am not calling any specific person a nihilist.
1) my posts place in the thread is more a function of the vagaries of
Deja Spews than any intentional direct placement.
2) I am referring, in a generalized sense to the world outside of the
U-net and any nay sayers Neek may encounter therein.
3) I am also referring to a generalized negative tone in this NG that
I dislike whenever it appears.
4) I do (for example) detect a nihilistic tone in this post by barrett:
Nik-
> Have you noticed? Dale, Brandon, and Barrett are being much more helpful
> of late, and a lot less arrogant and aggressive.
barrett-
speaking for myself alone, of course, the only change is in my attitude
toward alt.surrealism, which i no longer have any hopes for.
e: Not that I don't understand the source of this sentiment... I do...
it just doesn't sound like the response of a "surrealist"... and I don't
tend to agree w/ it.
DALE> since it is apparent to anyone who wishes to
> read and not merely to "take sides" that,
e: I'm not taking sides. Sometimes I agree w/ Nik or barret or you or
Brandon, and sometimes I don't. I find items of interest in the posts
of all of you at times, not to mention the many others who've darkened
these hallowed halls.
DALE>despite my differences with
> Nik, I am interested in MORE not less of a role for creativity and the
> pursuit of the marvelous. If I do not find in Nik's specific projects
> and the explanations attending any great hint of this adventure, it is
> not because I don't want to, but because (to my mind) they are not
> present.
e: I understand your point of view and for you it is valid. My point
of view is different. I see potential in Neek's games... one must start
somewhere. I participated in his onion game because I liked the image
of onions appearing in phonebooths in NYC and Ottawa simultaneously. It
was a minor prank, I admit, but I enjoyed it... It was kind of like a (4
dimentional) practice sketch for me... remember, I'm a filmmaker.
e: On the other hand, I didn't care much for the prank phone call Idea
(I screen my calls) so I didn't comment on it. It just happens to have
been the response I chose.
DALE>I have gone to great trouble to explain what I feel is missing,
> and have given examples of "projects" which do achieve some degree of
> critical consideration. Unless you are going so far as to claim that
> only an acceptance of Nik IN HIS ENTIRETY will save a reader from
> nihilism,
e: No, no. I gain knowledge through your exchanges w/ Neek, as he also
does, from all appearances. The exchanges should continue... but let us
not degenerate into FLAMES... that's an artform which brings me no
pleasure. I want Neek to continue his posts... both stories and
progress reports. I enjoy them. Perhaps if the denizens of this NG are
less abrasive (generally) the occasional lurker may be tempted to
join... yes, I'm aware of the irony inherent in that statement at this
particular time.... call me optimistic.
DALE>I can only state that this is a massive reduction of liberty,
> and unworthy of you.
e: I am me and you are not me. That's the only response I feel is appropriate.
elag:
> > Keep trying to create creative responses to society... to your Ottawa...
> > to the world at large. I think that one day you'll succeed in the
> > public aspect of your artistic endeavors and even awaken creative
> > responses in your "audience".
>Dale:
> Maybe. Maybe not; but we are not just talking here of awakening
> responses, but of seeking the marvelous (as opposed to Nik's vague
> mysticism). One can prompt a response from an audience rather easily;
> the problem still remains: to what are you awakening them? Is this new
> world of intrusive onions in any way preferable to prolonged slumber? Is
> prolonged slumber a reasonable response to a world that considers
> individuals as interchangeable pieces in a consumer board game? What
> does the onion do to address that? Nik has still not clearly defined
> (for himself) the difference between self-amusement and critical action,
> and seems totally unable to understand the other aspects of surrealism
> that lie outside mere confrontation and "sensationalism." He has not
> been able to tell me how he will manage to startle an audience doped to
> the gills on empty sensation, and how his projects are not (in
> miniature) an extenuation of this war for attention that corrupts the
> simplest actions of the day-to-day.
e: You make some good points. Here are mine:
1) Street art/ performances are enjoyable and I'd rather Neek busy
himself with that than sit at home watching the Telly. He is ACTIVE.
He's creating ART. That's a good thing I think.
2) As I have in the past been startled into a greater sense of
awareness by "the marvelous" as you call it, I have also been stimulated
in a positive way by some small handcrafted "satoris" as Neek terms
them. I thank the people who have gifted me with various non-sequential
juxtapositions in the past by encouraging Neek to deliver
devil-doll-heads or the like in the present.
3) Just because something (happenings, collage, street assemblage) has
been done before doesn't mean that one might not gain something by doing
it. At any rate, humans are born every day to whom everything is new.
> >elag:
> > Each day we start from square one.
>DALE:
> Well: you have an odd memory cache. I awake each day with a lifetime of
> memory and a personality constructed of equal parts defense /
> imagination / habit.
e: Silly, this is just a metaphor for potential. I'm not starting the
day AS a blank slate... I'm just writing on one. Sometimes I write to
those of long experience and sometimes to those who haven't yet grown
jaded to the simple pleasures of life. They are open to ideas which may
be old to me but are NEW to them. Thus when the old and new interact
they BEGIN at "square-one".
elag:
> >
> > For lack of a better term, this "Corrosion of Conformity" can only help
> > to make this world one in which I would enjoy living.
> >DALE:
> I agree Conformity is one of the enemies. I only find Nik's weapons in
> this case to be blunt. They are rather dull continuations of a process
> of "happenings" and "conceptual art" that are (by now) mostly a
> conformity themselves. To say that I don't know the answer to "how do we
> wake up the populace" isn't enough: though I don't, even as I suspect
> Nik's onion isn't the answer. For the most part I am mainly concerned
> with keeping myself either awake or gainfully asleep.
e: Ja Ja... Neek has room to improve his projects - - - as do we all.
As far as it goes, I'd be glad to see the pattern of gray businessmen
and blue wage-slaves broken by the intrusion of a bunch of artsters
giving away free toast. That dismal blue/grey pattern needs to be
broken, at all costs, so that that 1/2 of 1% of the poulation who can
still be reached can grok the fact that this is not the best of all
possible worlds; that the pattern CAN be broken. That is a message
which is always valuable.
In any case, I suspect that N's alt.surr experience will broaden the
range of his performances in future. Anyways, I'm curious enough to pay attention.
>DALE:
> That said: I have nothing in particular AGAINST Nik's projects,
e: good.
and (of
> course) would rather have him doing that than building cluster bombs.
> But as we arew WITHN alt.surrealism I believe we can elevate the
> discussion above whether or not anyone is entitled to their actions.
> This goes without saying. What is left to us is a series of critiques
> and suggestions. Nik fronts an idea. I have every right to criticize it.
> He has every right to ignore it.
e: True. I just think that you sometimes have too much fun poking fun
at Neek (and others). Don't worry, I won't try and stop you, but I'll
still encourage those characters which I find interesting, whether they
are "surreal" or not.
I must amuse myself SOMEhow.
This is not a FlamE.
<e>
Nikolaus Maack
(el...@concentric.net) writes:
> EAT ART AND LIVE,
My paint tastes funny and my jar of watered down skin tone -- light orange
to you politically minded folks -- smells like sour milk.
Thanks for the kind words, Elag.
Brandon J. Freels
I too see potential in Nik's games, but what I find most unappealing about
them is that they all include the forced participation of a proposed victim.
I find Nik's adherence to "what others feel" in response to his games the
opposite of what I believe Surrealism stands for [this is not to say that
prevocational actions or scandals are not of my interest, but I question if
they are really Surreal]. I feel Nik's projects need to be focused on
personal inspiration, self-amusement in the form of revelation, rather than
on manipulating the public in a masturbatory enjoyment of power. In other
words, I believe Nik needs to be more concerned with what these projects are
saying to "him."
---------------------------------------
elag wrote:
I see potential in Neek's games... one must start somewhere. I participated
in his onion game because I liked the image of onions appearing in
phonebooths in NYC and Ottawa simultaneously . . . I didn't care much for
the prank phone call Idea
Dale wrote:
One can prompt a response from an audience rather easily; the problem still
remains: to what are you awakening them? . . . Nik has still not clearly
barrett john erickson
news:379C7CB1...@concentric.net...
> [...]
> 4) I do (for example) detect a nihilistic tone in this post by barrett:
>
> Nik-
> > Have you noticed? Dale, Brandon, and Barrett are being much more
helpful
> > of late, and a lot less arrogant and aggressive.
> barrett-
> speaking for myself alone, of course, the only change is in my attitude
> toward alt.surrealism, which i no longer have any hopes for.
> e: Not that I don't understand the source of this sentiment... I do...
> it just doesn't sound like the response of a "surrealist"... and I don't
> tend to agree w/ it.
you can call this nihilism if you wish, elag, but it is quite the opposite.
and i assure you that this _is_ the reaction of a surrealist to a newsgroup
that is far more comfortable with those who deliberately spread
misrepresentations of "surrealism" than those who attempt to correct those
misrepresentations -- a newsgroup called "alt.surrealism" which has now
become hostile to the reality of global "surrealism".
-- barrett
bar...@MagneticFields.org
http://www.MagneticFields.org/
==============================================
"Everything tends to make us believe that there exists a
certain point of the mind at which life and death, the real and
the imagined, past and future, the communicable and the
incommunicable, high and low, cease to be perceived as
contradictions."
...André Breton
==============================================
Dale Houstman
elag wrote:
>
>I do (for example) detect a nihilistic tone in this post by barrett:
>
> Nik-
> > Have you noticed? Dale, Brandon, and Barrett are being much more helpful
> > of late, and a lot less arrogant and aggressive.
> barrett-
> speaking for myself alone, of course, the only change is in my attitude
> toward alt.surrealism, which i no longer have any hopes for.
>
> e: Not that I don't understand the source of this sentiment... I do...
> it just doesn't sound like the response of a "surrealist"... and I don't
> tend to agree w/ it.
I must say in the relatively small time I've been here that I have also
noticed a distinct slide in the pertinence of the discussions to
surrealism, although when I came in the whole "surrealism can include a
deity" thing was already going and depressing enough. And it isn't
"nihilistic" to merely give up on one (really tiny) portion of the
world: nihilism is much more general than that! If he has given up on
this ng, I applaud him for a rather positive move; rejection based on
experience is no different than getting a divorce from a drunken brute.
At any rate, he DID respond, so the "giving up" is obviously not an
absolutist statement. But he's correct; the level of discussion here (as
opposed to that I have seen in private lists) is pathetic and entirely
too consumed with a sort of territorial perrogative of "taking over" or
"owning" surrealism, which is a ludicrous conceit. And really anywhere
Andrea hangs her monicker on a regular basis has to have poison in its
veins. Her notions of control and her ideas of button-pushing are out of
line in any reasonable discussion. It is this reduction of a line of
debate to a parade of masks and tricks that ruins the basic trust that
makes conversation possible; if I believe that at any moment you will
announce (for example) that the entire thread we just finished was based
on a joke you concocted to draw me out into "confessions" or
stupidities; what is the point of my continued participation? Even if I
know (and I do) that any statement made by the other is possibly a
willful lie, or a ploy to elicit statements to be attacked, it is
uncomfortable to make this an overt and permanent part of the process.
One likes to (at the least) believe that what is being said is meant.
All her tricks come down to one: nothing can be trusted. I learned this
when I was a child. As an adult I would like to defeat such manipulative
cynicism as much as possible. So far, this ng has not been inspiring in
its collaborative efforts, and collaboration (not obfuscation and
matters of maangement and control) are central to surrealism. Without
them (or the smeblance of them) there is no point to this group
pretending to be involved in an ongoing investigation of its title
subject.
>
> e: I understand your point of view and for you it is valid. My point
> of view is different. I see potential in Neek's games... one must start
> somewhere.
Of course, but one should also have a notion of where one is going. Nik
is far too interested in self-amusement and issues of power to make me
comfortable with his attempts. Despite what he says to the contrary, all
his explanations of the projects concern mere self-satisfaction and the
use of hollow sensationalism to (at times) merely irk the innocent. I
see no point in this.
>But I participated in his onion game because I liked the image of onions appearing in phonebooths in NYC and Ottawa simultaneously.
Okay; but this self-amusement will never be enough. You will always need
more. It cannot satisfy the greater needs thart surrealism at large can.
It is not enough about non-sensational and personal investigations, and
too much about a rather tepid confrontation. I would find even this
provocation more intriguing if I felt it were being properly addressed.
Instead we get what are to me embarrassing accounts of confused women in
phone booths and badgered fast food workers. The acts are entirely
selfish, and remain trivial.
> It was a minor prank, I admit, but I enjoyed it... It was kind of like a (4
> dimentional) practice sketch for me... remember, I'm a filmmaker.
Your self-satisfaction is fine, but why involve others in it? You are
exploiting them... And (worse) you are exploiting the already-exploited.
>
> e: On the other hand, I didn't care much for the prank phone call Idea
> (I screen my calls) so I didn't comment on it.
But this is not correct: how can we all move forward into a greater
comprehension if you are only to comment on the positive side? This is a
sentimental approach to critical thinking that will not help.
> e: You make some good points. Here are mine:
> 1) Street art/ performances are enjoyable and I'd rather Neek busy
> himself with that than sit at home watching the Telly. He is ACTIVE.
> He's creating ART. That's a good thing I think.
All this is debatable. Being active isn't a value. Art is relative.
Maybe he needs to be less ACTIVE and more introspective. Maybe it
wouldn't hurt to read more of the larger aspects of surrealism, the ones
not concerned with mere confrontation. And it is time to move beyond the
sophomoric notion of surrealism as a philosophy of applied oddity.
>
>
>
> e: True. I just think that you sometimes have too much fun poking fun
> at Neek (and others). Don't worry, I won't try and stop you, but I'll
> still encourage those characters which I find interesting, whether they
> are "surreal" or not.
"Fun"? Not really.
>
DMH
elag
>
> (el...@concentric.net) writes:
> > EAT ART AND LIVE,
>
> My paint tastes funny and my jar of watered down skin tone -- light orange
> to you politically minded folks -- smells like sour milk.
well... at least you tried!
>
> Thanks for the kind words, Elag.
de rien. It did me a world of good to speak them.
elag
>
> elag <el...@concentric.net> wrote:
> > [...]
>
> > 4) I do (for example) detect a nihilistic tone in this post by barrett:
> >
> > Nik-
> > > Have you noticed? Dale, Brandon, and Barrett are being much more
> helpful
> > > of late, and a lot less arrogant and aggressive.
>
> > barrett-
> > speaking for myself alone, of course, the only change is in my attitude
> > toward alt.surrealism, which i no longer have any hopes for.
>
> > e: Not that I don't understand the source of this sentiment... I do...
> > it just doesn't sound like the response of a "surrealist"... and I don't
> > tend to agree w/ it.
>
Actually, I was going to say defeatism, which would be more accurate,
but it didn't feel strong enough or have the right sound to convey the
feelings I was feeling at the time that I read your words.
>
> and i assure you that this _is_ the reaction of a surrealist to a newsgroup
> that is far more comfortable with those who deliberately spread
> misrepresentations of "surrealism" than those who attempt to correct those
> misrepresentations misrepresentations of "surrealism"
I don't want to see misrepresentations of "surrealism", and I'm glad to
hear your words when they are informative on the subject. I just hate
the grouchy tone which I hear all too often. Sometimes it's HOW you say
something which says the most about the subject at hand.
-- a newsgroup called "alt.surrealism" which has now
> become hostile to the reality of global "surrealism".
I personally am not hostile to it. In fact I am in deep sympathy w/
"surrealism". Furthermore, it is not the NG which is at fault, it is
the entities contained therein. As one of those entities you too
shoulder a share of the blame for its "failure".
What it is that you (once) expected this NG do accomplish. I'd like to
hear some concrete and specific examples of what this NG should be, in
your eyes.
Brandon J. Freels
The mind cannot be free unless the individual is also.
A Surrealist should pursue freedom at all costs.
Nikolaus Maack wrote
> For the longest time I got the impression that Dale, Brandon, and Barrett
> were arguing that a "real surrealist" is someone who fights corporate
> America and believes in communism. Eventually I decided that couldn't
> actually be what they're saying. I decided to give them the benefit of
> the doubt.
el...@concentric.net
> Brandon's turn:
> I too see potential in Nik's games, but what I find most unappealing about
> them is that they all include the forced participation of a proposed victim.
> I find Nik's adherence to "what others feel" in response to his games the
> opposite of what I believe Surrealism stands for [this is not to say that
> prevocational actions or scandals are not of my interest, but I question if
> they are really Surreal].
I agree with what you're saying. I'm glad that you're "questioning"
Nik's activities rather than ranting at him which was the general
tendency during his last stay at our lil' resort. I sincerely appreciate
your input.
I feel Nik's projects need to be focused on
> personal inspiration, self-amusement in the form of revelation, rather than
> on manipulating the public in a masturbatory enjoyment of power. In other
> words, I believe Nik needs to be more concerned with what these projects are
> saying to "him."
I think you're right again... I see evidence of Nik asking himself
questions which needed to be asked. Perhaps alt.surr serves a purpose
after all...
el...@concentric.net
I too have no use for Chen-Chen but trolls like that come w/ the
territory. I filter out what is of no use to me and concentrate on what
is valuable to me. The more one reacts to trolls the more encouraged
they become. I simply don't expect more from U-net than it can deliver.
This NG simply lacks the critical mass to weather the U-net storms. Take
a look at alt.f*lkl*re.*rb*n if you want to know how cohesive a NG can be
despite attemps at seige.
So far, this ng has not been inspiring in
> its collaborative efforts, and collaboration (not obfuscation and
> matters of maangement and control) are central to surrealism. Without
> them (or the smeblance of them) there is no point to this group
> pretending to be involved in an ongoing investigation of its title
> subject.
I've enjoyed much (visual) collaboration w/ scottyes and others, which I
feel have increased me in measurable ways. Do you deny the validity of
these exchanges? In any case, I expect the content to ebb and flow...
sometimes I'm facinated by what people say and do in here... when I am
not... well, I do have other things to do.
>
>
> >
> > e: I understand your point of view and for you it is valid. My point
> > of view is different. I see potential in Neek's games... one must start
> > somewhere.
>
> Of course, but one should also have a notion of where one is going. Nik
> is far too interested in self-amusement and issues of power to make me
> comfortable with his attempts. Despite what he says to the contrary, all
> his explanations of the projects concern mere self-satisfaction and the
> use of hollow sensationalism to (at times) merely irk the innocent. I
> see no point in this.
Very well... you saw no point in it and got nothing out of it. I saw the
opportunity to increase my reach (or Nik's) by 400 miles. Message
accomplished, mon frere.
>
> >But I participated in his onion game because I liked the image of onions appearing in phonebooths in NYC and Ottawa simultaneously.
>
> Okay; but this self-amusement will never be enough. You will always need
> more.
True, in the long term. In the short term, however, it served my
immediate needs.
It cannot satisfy the greater needs thart surrealism at large can.
I personally am not arguing with that point.
> It is not enough about non-sensational and personal investigations, and
> too much about a rather tepid confrontation. I would find even this
> provocation more intriguing if I felt it were being properly addressed.
> Instead we get what are to me embarrassing accounts of confused women in
> phone booths and badgered fast food workers. The acts are entirely
> selfish, and remain trivial.
But you see -I- wanted someone to use -my- onion to flavor their borscht.
Today I saw a luschious peach (with twig and bright green leaf attached)
laying in the middle of an empty sweltering parking lot. I carried it
all the way home and examined its skin under a powerful magnifying lens.
It yielded delightfully in my fist as I crushed it... watching the sweet
glistening juices run into my steel sink. The metamorphosis of food into
garbage into poetry changed the whole character of my day.
>
> > It was a minor prank, I admit, but I enjoyed it... It was kind of like a (4
> > dimentional) practice sketch for me... remember, I'm a filmmaker.
>
> Your self-satisfaction is fine, but why involve others in it? You are
> exploiting them... And (worse) you are exploiting the already-exploited.
I exploited no one. An NYU student may have become slightly dizzy, but
that's what they came to NYC for. Seriously, though, that RED onion just
looked so marvelous against the brushed stainless of the booth... anyway
nothing lasts long on the streets here.
> >
> > e: On the other hand, I didn't care much for the prank phone call Idea
> > (I screen my calls) so I didn't comment on it.
>
> But this is not correct: how can we all move forward into a greater
> comprehension if you are only to comment on the positive side? This is a
> sentimental approach to critical thinking that will not help.
You're right, of course. I should have inserted my 40% of a US nickel...
but I don't have unlimited time to surf U-net...and my location changes
occasionally.... I respond wherever I see fit and must ignore those
posts which I don't have time to reply to thoughtfully.
I must:
1)work for money
2)spend the money made on completing my short film.
...U-net runs a distant 69th place...
>
> > e: You make some good points. Here are mine:
> > 1) Street art/ performances are enjoyable and I'd rather Neek busy
> > himself with that than sit at home watching the Telly. He is ACTIVE.
> > He's creating ART. That's a good thing I think.
>
> All this is debatable. Being active isn't a value. Art is relative.
> Maybe he needs to be less ACTIVE and more introspective. Maybe it
> wouldn't hurt to read more of the larger aspects of surrealism, the ones
> not concerned with mere confrontation. And it is time to move beyond the
> sophomoric notion of surrealism as a philosophy of applied oddity.
I too would like Neek to read more surrealist texts... I learned much
from those I've read. I also agree that Surrealism is an oft misused
term. On the other hand, many things which aren't <quote> Surreal <
unquote> are still grist for my mill. Neek may never be a "surrealist"
but he may learn thing from "surrealists" in alt.surr.
> >
> > e: True. I just think that you sometimes have too much fun poking fun
> > at Neek (and others). Don't worry, I won't try and stop you, but I'll
> > still encourage those characters which I find interesting, whether they
> > are "surreal" or not.
>
> "Fun"? Not really.
Heh heh... but it SEEMS like you do. Sometimes we must step back and
attempt to see ourselves as others see us.
Top o' the mornin' t'ye!
-e-
Nikolaus Maack
Barrett:
> -- a newsgroup called "alt.surrealism" which has now
> become hostile to the reality of global "surrealism".
A look at www.magenticfields.org reveals a number of political pamphlets
that are, in my opinion, written in a very inaccessable language -- haute
intellectual dogma. It's the kind of stuff that the man on the street
would scan, be unable to decipher, and toss in the garbage without even
registering what the flyer contained.
While Barrett continues to tell those of us in alt.surrealism that we
aren't really "surreal", I can't understand what these pamphlets have to
do with surrealism.
Barrett -- or any one else for that matter -- in all seriousness, can you
explain to me why these flyers should be considered surreal? Do you see
this as "liberating the imagination"? Is that it?
It's easy for me to imagine any anti-corporate group -- say communists or
the folks at Adbusters -- handing out entirely identical pamphlets as the
ones on MagneticFields. And the Adbuster folk would be more likely to
hand out something with a sense of humour -- like the Alice in Wonderland
flyer -- as opposed to the other two, which were just painful. So where's
the surrealist quality? I just don't see it.
For the longest time I got the impression that Dale, Brandon, and Barrett
were arguing that a "real surrealist" is someone who fights corporate
America and believes in communism. Eventually I decided that couldn't
actually be what they're saying. I decided to give them the benefit of
the doubt.
But is that what they're saying?
Well, is that what you're saying, guys?
Nik
--
"Is he a bird or a reptile?"
"Let's just say he's a monster."
-- GAMERA promos
Nikolaus Maack
"Brandon J. Freels" (fre...@teleport.com) writes:
> Surrealism is the freedom of the mind.
> The mind cannot be free unless the individual is also.
> A Surrealist should pursue freedom at all costs.
I would argue that, while the flyers on MagneticFields pursue freedom,
they are not surreal. Do you disagree?
They're also very preachy. I'm criticized for wanting to "teach people a
lesson" because I want to awake them to a particular emotion. Yet here
are flyers that have a blatant political message to sell, coming from the
very people criticizing me. What gives?
But more importantly, if you want to free people, you're going to have to
learn how to talk to them. Those flyers -- except for the Alice in
Wonderland one -- are laughably verbose. (The Alice one is simply
cryptic, without the background info.) You will win no new
comerades-in-arms when you hand out leaflets that speak a language only
the converted can understand.
One single example: references to the "corporate hierarchical structure"
should be taken out.
How about taking a tip from corporate America and making your material
amusing, breezy, but also informative? It is possible to convey a serious
message in such a format.
"Pepsi doesn't love you. Oh sure, Pepsi says he loves you, when you see
him on TV, or on a billboard, or hanging out in the Seven-Eleven. But
he's a liar. Truth is, he's after your money. He'd promise you the world
if it meant you'd slap down another two bucks for some of his sweet love
sauce. Dump the son of a bitch. He's toying with you, man. Drink water.
Water will never show up drunk in your apartment, begging your forgiveness
for having supported an oppressive dictatorship."
Dale Houstman
Nikolaus Maack wrote:
>
>
> A look at www.magenticfields.org reveals a number of political pamphlets
> that are, in my opinion, written in a very inaccessable language -- haute
> intellectual dogma. It's the kind of stuff that the man on the street
> would scan, be unable to decipher, and toss in the garbage without even
> registering what the flyer contained.
Strangely enough, you are the one being elitist here, assuming things
about "the man on the street" that really aren't true. Since I have
handed out some of those pamphlets (which are quite easily understood if
you give any time to it at all), I can tell you from experience that
quite the opposite is true: people of all kinds tend to give more of a
consideration to these sorts of imaginative and engaging texts than they
do to the usual "talk down" leaflets. Since their distribution was the
beginning of many a good engagement over idea and action, one has to
consider your assumption incorrect.
>
> While Barrett continues to tell those of us in alt.surrealism that we
> aren't really "surreal"
He does not: you simply can't get over these "personalist" notions:
people cannot be or not be "surreal."
> I can't understand what these pamphlets have to do with surrealism.
Why? Since they are all about liberating desire from corporate
strictures, how could they NOT have something to do with surrealism,
despite any other qualms you might have with them?
>
> It's easy for me to imagine any anti-corporate group -- say communists or
> the folks at Adbusters -- handing out entirely identical pamphlets as the
> ones on MagneticFields.
You can imagine anything you like, but I am afraid the reality of the
situation makes a liar of you. At first you claim the pamphelts are too
exotic and full of difficulties for the "common man" and then you claim
the pamphlets are too common. Huh?
>And the Adbuster folk would be more likely to hand out something with a sense of humour
But you just said you could imagine Adbusters handing out "entirely
identical" pamphlets. Now you say they wouldn't. Huh?
> For the longest time I got the impression that Dale, Brandon, and Barrett
> were arguing that a "real surrealist" is someone who fights corporate
> America and believes in communism.
I never said any of that. I don't "believe" in communism. For that
matter I don't "believe" in surrealism. Your love for simplification
leads you to place arguments in bad settings over and over.
DMH
Nikolaus Maack
From one of the flyers:
>Free space and time from the grip of the colonizers of experience,
>the capitalist hierarchical mode of operation, so well illustrated by
>multinational corporations more powerful than some governments, their
>willing servants and co-conspirators in exploitation!
It's near gibberish, Dale. The "colonizers of experience"? What does
that mean? The "capitalist hierarchical mode of operation"? There's got
to be an easier way to express this idea.
From the same flyer:
>For everyone beaten down for the extraction of profit, for every animal
>and plant species forced into or threatened with extinction, and for the
>creative impulse which threatens to overturn the present social order, we
>imagine a new way of life where corporate and military oppression is
>impossible, where people are free to determine their own destinies without
>enslavement to an "imperative practical necessity (Breton)," or to
>imperialism and nationalism.
What a very long sentence. And it has the ring of propaganda to it. How
does the above text aid in liberating the imagination?
I don't want to knock your work. Seriously. I just want to ask some
questions about it.
Dale said:
> Since they are all about liberating desire from corporate
> strictures, how could they NOT have something to do with surrealism,
> despite any other qualms you might have with them?
I fail to see how handing out this stuff is surreal. It promotes freedom,
sure, but it has nothing to do with surrealism. Groups that are not at
all realted to surrealism in any way could hand out flyers like this one,
or similar to this one. So what makes this act surreal? It seems to be a
promotion of certain political beliefs. Where is the surreal element?
Surely surrealism is not merely the promotion of freedom?
And again I ask, in all seriousness, is this not an attempt to "teach" the
masses? Are you not taking on a position that you have "the truth" and
must distribute it to the people? How does that liberate anyone?
If taking such a stance -- I have fire, and I will give it to you
neanderthals -- is as negative as you've portrayed it to be, is there any
way to avoid such a stance when creating art?
These are difficult questions, but I am genuinely interested in your
answers.
I said:
>> While Barrett continues to tell those of us in alt.surrealism that we
>> aren't really "surreal"
Dale said:
> He does not: you simply can't get over these "personalist" notions:
> people cannot be or not be "surreal."
You misunderstand me. Read for yourself what he said:
Barrett said:
> -- a newsgroup called "alt.surrealism" which has now
> become hostile to the reality of global "surrealism".
Barrett insists that most of the activity in alt.surrealism has nothing to
do with surrealism. In fact, he says we're going AGAINST true surrealism.
Presumably he sees himself as an exception to this.
And yet, looking at these flyers, I see no surrealism at all.
> You can imagine anything you like, but I am afraid the reality of the
> situation makes a liar of you. At first you claim the pamphelts are too
> exotic and full of difficulties for the "common man" and then you claim
> the pamphlets are too common. Huh?
You misunderstand. In an attempt to win the argument, you're missing the
valid points that I'm raising.
> I don't "believe" in communism. For that
> matter I don't "believe" in surrealism. Your love for simplification
> leads you to place arguments in bad settings over and over.
So are you saying this isn't a "surreal act" at all, but a "Dale Houstman"
act? If that's what you're saying, I'll agree whole-heartedly.
barrett john erickson
news:7nogve$3...@freenet-news.carleton.ca...
> [...]
> While Barrett continues to tell those of us in alt.surrealism that we
> aren't really "surreal",
as Dale has already pointed out, this is simply not the case.
> Barrett -- or any one else for that matter -- in all seriousness, can you
> explain to me why these flyers should be considered surreal? Do you see
> this as "liberating the imagination"? Is that it?
i've posted the main text to "Pleasure's Tumor" separately for those who may
not have seen it.
i feel no need to defend it or explain it.
> [...]
>So where's the surrealist quality? I just don't see it.
and you never will.
the point that is repeatedly lost on you, is that "surreal" or "surrealist"
isn't a "quality" to be found in objects, texts or people.
> [...]
Nikolaus Maack
I said:
>> While Barrett continues to tell those of us in alt.surrealism that we
>> aren't really "surreal",
Barrett:
> as Dale has already pointed out, this is simply not the case.
Then perhaps you should explain what you mean when you said that the
majority of alt.surrealism is working AGAINST what "global surrealists"
stand for.
[Barrett won't comment on the flyers...]
As far as I can tell, your position -- and the position of your comrades
-- is that if a particular act can be said to "further liberation of the
imagination" then it is surreal, no matter what that act is. This would
explain your oft repeated statement that surrealism has nothing to do with
art.
Seems to me that an act that aims to liberate the imagination should
strive to be more imaginative.
Dale Houstman
Nikolaus Maack wrote:
>
> Then perhaps you should explain what you mean when you said that the
> majority of alt.surrealism is working AGAINST what "global surrealists"
> stand for.
As Barrett has explained already, "surreal" is not a quality to be
assigned to this person or that, so when we say we haven't labelled you
"not surreal" this does not mean we do not find certain discussions to
be antithetical to the continuing surrealist project as it exists
worldwide. These are simply different subjects; one imagined (on your
part) and the other real, as it works itself out in the greater world.
We never said "Nik, you are not surreal" because this is a rhetorical
structure that makes no sense to us; it is meaningless in a you seem
unable to grasp. To say, however, that your words and actions show
little knowledge of surrealism as a viable movement with viable
precedents strikes me as (at the very least) accurate.
>
> [Barrett won't comment on the flyers...]
>
He posted one for glory's sake: its relevance to surrealism is painfully
obvious. He didn't comment because the text is self-explanatory. Except
to you?
> As far as I can tell, your position -- and the position of your comrades
> -- is that if a particular act can be said to "further liberation of the
> imagination" then it is surreal, no matter what that act is. This would
> explain your oft repeated statement that surrealism has nothing to do with
> art.
This would explain no such thing, even if I felt your last sentence was
an accurate paraphrase; it is NOT that surrealism has "nothing" to do
with art, but that art is only one portion of the greater surrealist
program. Art is valuable to surrealism only inasmuch as it tends to be
both the "product" of a liberated imagination and a prod to liberations
of all kinds.
>
> Seems to me that an act that aims to liberate the imagination should
> strive to be more imaginative.
>
Barrett's text elicited stronger reactions from the people it was given
freely to than any of the usual "show up and chant" leaflets usually
distributed at such events. As I said, this personal experience proves
the invalidity of your comments. The text is a very imaginative use of
found phrases, evocative dichotomies, poetic suggestions, and "hard
news." Appropriate to the event, and unique. Your dislike of or
disinterest in or blindness to its innate qualities is more stunning to
me by far than any of your Ottawa onions, which are infinitely less
imaginative and massively more empty.
Is it because you feel (as always) that something that is "surreal" must
always be obscure? Or "odd" as you might put it? If so, then why
criticize Barrett's text (as you initially did) on the basis of its
"exotic" or incomprehensible quality?
Your inconsistency reveals a lack of understanding which I believe to be
willful.
DMH
DMH
barrett john erickson
> Then perhaps you should explain what you mean when you said that the
i've tired of efforts to explain things i've already said as well as i can
say them.
Nikolaus Maack
Dale Houstman (dale.h...@gte.net) writes:
[let's have a flame war!]
How long are you going to nitpick semantics while avoiding the bigger
questions?
For example, is there any reason you keep avoiding my question as to
whether or not these flyers are an attempt to "teach" the masses about
your particular "truth"? This will be the third time I've asked the
question.
I believe if you fail to respond a third time, the gods of surrealism will
come down from non-heaven and tear out your testicles, which seem to be
where your eyeballs should be.
Your friend,
Michael Voytinsky
ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Nikolaus Maack) wrote:
> A look at www.magenticfields.org reveals a number of political
>pamphlets that are, in my opinion, written in a very inaccessable
>language -- haute intellectual dogma. It's the kind of stuff that the
>man on the street would scan, be unable to decipher, and toss in the
>garbage without even registering what the flyer contained.
I am not sure if you are right, Nik.
After all, the communist propaganda in 1917 Russia consisted of the
turgid prose you describe, and the communists were able to have
themselves a revolution. Whether it was despite or because of
communist propaganda is hard to tell. Under the right circumstances,
the "man on the street" will see something that makes no sense and
assume that it is just too sophisticated for him to understand, so its
got to be good.
> While Barrett continues to tell those of us in alt.surrealism that we
> aren't really "surreal", I can't understand what these pamphlets have
>to do with surrealism.
I should see if I can find you some old English-language editions of
Pravda. It is quite surreal.
--
Michael Voytinsky
Ottawa Ontario Canada
http://www.igs.net/~michaelv
Michael Voytinsky
Dale Houstman <dale.h...@gte.net> wrote:
> obvious. He didn't comment because the text is self-explanatory.
>Except to you?
The fact that some text is self-explanatory to you does not mean that
it is for those who do not share a common terminology with you.
What do you think of the following statement:
"Software-only VPN solutions implementing DES or tripple-DES do not
provide adequate performance for most applications. Further, DES and
tripple-DES are more computationally intensive than algorithms like
CAST and IDEA (which were developped to be efficient in software
implementation) while offering much weaker security. DES in
particular can not be considered secure given that equipment exists to
decrypt DES ciphertext in under 24 hours."
To me it is self-explanatory. Yet to many it is gibberish.
Dale Houstman
>
>
>
> For example, is there any reason you keep avoiding my question as to
> whether or not these flyers are an attempt to "teach" the masses about
> your particular "truth"? This will be the third time I've asked the
> question.
Actually it isn't. But: no these pamphlets are not any attempt to
"teach." As you have already noted the language is such that (as YOU put
it) it tends to put off the "common man." In other words, we are not
talking down to them from a position of condescending power. We fully
expect the "other" (correctly or not as the individual case may be) to
engage us as equals, which several took the opportunity to do. Also, the
rhetoric of the piece is composed in such a way as to encourage the
reader to find their own way into and out of the arguments being
presented, rather than being a flat statement of idealistic mission. In
other words, we desire the reader to bring their own imaginative process
to the equation, quite apart from any agreement or disagreement with the
points presented. Actually (as with Kosovo, school shootings, etc.) I
have grown weary of the "black/white" dualism that passes for discussion
in the media; a dualism which you seem almost deliriously satisfied with
and which colors your every move. It isn't about "US" teaching "THEM"
since this schemata of relationship is at the core of the problem; the
leaflets attempt to engage a collaborative investigation. Quite unlike
your simplistic onion jape.
>
> I believe if you fail to respond a third time, the gods of surrealism will
> come down from non-heaven and tear out your testicles, which seem to be
> where your eyeballs should be.
Your rhetoric betrays you. You should have it shot.
DMH
Dale Houstman
Michael Voytinsky wrote:
>
> In article <37A0D3FA...@gte.net>,
> Dale Houstman <dale.h...@gte.net> wrote:
>
> > obvious. He didn't comment because the text is self-explanatory.
> >Except to you?
>
> The fact that some text is self-explanatory to you does not mean that
> it is for those who do not share a common terminology with you.
>
Of course you are correct, but the example you give is specialized. The
pamphlet in question (to anyone with even an inkling of knowledge in the
"field" of surrealism) is overt in its relevance to the surrealist
experiment. It is no different than if I posted a simple electronic
schemata on a electronic NG; I would be able to claim (withn the body of
that group) that such a schemata was obvious and self-explanatory. It is
no different in this case. Nik claims to be a surrealist, and Barrett
(and now I) have gracefully taken him at his word. His response reveals
him to have not even the slightest inkling of the greater concerns of
surrealism, particularly in the area of "liberated desire" which this
leaflet addresses clearly. So while Nik may disagree (with my
encouragement to do so!) with the thrust or the specific wording, to
claim (as he does) that it has nothing to do with surrealism is either a
matter of ignorance (which is addressable) or willful resistance, which
is more problematic.
DMH