To All
Dale Houstman
Since we have been "informed" by the kibo and bits roaches that Dada
"invented" collage, could anything they have to say have any validity?
They have
proven (again and again and again) that they have nothing to offer
except
that 90s crap "attitude." There is nothing you can say EVER that will
satisfy
them, nothing that will entice them to engage us in discourse rather
than
empty rhetoric, nothing that will make them understand that their tiny
little
cyber tactics have no lasting effect beyond satisfying their own need to
be
"right." To win., Let them have their putrid little "victories." What
could they
possibly mean to anyone who has a life outside the Usenet, as I do,
and as I assume anyone who can rightfully lay claim to the ideas of
surrealism must have. These are virtual winnings, and I personally do
not
care if they have them. Why bother? They are a waste of bandwidth. They
obviously know nothing of surrealism, and do not respect the gains made
by surrealists. They are only out to elicit something to make them feel
they
are alive, are engaged in some vague way. They begin in insult, and only
insult more and more. This precludes communication. They find fault
because
they are disdainful of those who might have found a positive process.
The shit that constitutes their own life can only be reconstituted in
light of their pretended
revulsion, and lame runs at inteligence. It literally makes no
difference what
you say or don't say; they have compeleted their understanding, and thus
are dead. Let them rot. I personally have had enough of their almost
infinite capacity for lovelessness and abuse. Why might I care? They
are worm shit...
DMH
Throckey
+AD4- They are only out to elicit something to make them feel
+AD4-they
+AD4-are alive, are engaged in some vague way. They begin in insult, and only
+AD4-insult more and more. This precludes communication. They find fault
+AD4-because
+AD4-they are disdainful of those who might have found a positive process.
+AD4-The shit that constitutes their own life can only be reconstituted in
+AD4-light of their pretended
+AD4-revulsion, and lame runs at inteligence. It literally makes no
+AD4-difference what
+AD4-you say or don't say+ADs- they have compeleted their understanding, and thus
+AD4-are dead. Let them rot. I personally have had enough of their almost
+AD4-infinite capacity for lovelessness and abuse. Why might I care? They
+AD4-are worm shit...
+AD4-
Incorrect again dear friend Dale.
There is a critical element in all art. This critical
element drives Genius to +ACo-succeed+ACo- instead of wallowing
in complacency. We are here to question. To demand. To
elevate you to as yet unimagined levels of surrealistic
composition.
Provided you can get over this insufferable +ACI-Surrealism
is love+ACI- tack.
Do you ever get anything out of writer's workshops?
I don't. No one ever has the balls to point out what
they hate. Some thrive in an environment of adversity,
Dale. If you don't perhaps it is you that are dead,
relying on stock automation to craft your replies.
We recognize automation for what it is, Dale. You
can't make art via algorithm. You have to evolve.
Otherwise you're dead.
-B
APhi77ips
<dale.h...@gte.net> writes:
>Hey!
I come in peace and reconciliation, so read on, if you haven't already
plonked me.
>
>Since we have been "informed" by the kibo and bits roaches that Dada
>"invented" collage, could anything they have to say have any validity?
You haven't replied to Gilbert's wider point that, far from being
revolutionary, surrealism is now in the mainstream. Or, as Prince
Charles (gorblessim) put it, "The Avant Garde is now the status quo."
What do you think about that?
>
(...)
. It literally makes no
>difference what
>you say or don't say; they have compeleted their understanding, and thus
>
>are dead.
For my part, I admit to coming on in an abusive, hostile stance. But what
about you? You persistently evaded engaging on any of the serious
points put to you, and instead spammed the thread with your repetitive
satires (I'm being critical now, not abusive) The fault is not all with the
r.a.p. boarding-party.
Let them rot. I personally have had enough of their almost
>infinite capacity for lovelessness and abuse. Why might I care? They
>are worm shit...
No, we are poisonous weeds.
>
>DMH
>
P.S. My newsreader didn't show me your pictures. Is there a websight where
I could check them out?
PPS You might like to read Daniel C. Dennet; I think you could have some
common ground with his "Multiple Drafts" model of consciousness. Similar
ideas to what you expressed when you told me I was a "poor examle" of
myself. Chow.
Andy
Brandon J. Freels
>You haven't replied to Gilbert's wider point that, far from being
>revolutionary, surrealism is now in the mainstream. Or, as Prince
>Charles (gorblessim) put it, "The Avant Garde is now the status quo."
>What do you think about that?
If this is true, why is NBC (i think) doing television movies on Christian
themes such as Noah and Joan of Arc? If you really knew anything about
Surrealism you would realize that what you see on MTV or on television
commercials is only an attempt to imitate the Surrealist imagery produced by
Magritte, and no one else. I don't see Surrealist political beliefs in the
mainstream, do you? I don't see people free from religion, the state, or
other artificial obligations, do you?
APhi77ips
<fre...@teleport.com> writes:
>
>If this is true, why is NBC (i think) doing television movies on Christian
>themes such as Noah and Joan of Arc? If you really knew anything about
>Surrealism you would realize that what you see on MTV or on television
>commercials is only an attempt to imitate the Surrealist imagery produced by
>Magritte, and no one else. I don't see Surrealist political beliefs in the
>mainstream, do you? I don't see people free from religion, the state, or
>other artificial obligations, do you?
>
I don't know the first thing about surrealism. Well, okay, maybe I know the
first thing. I've seen an exhibition of Magritte. It was a long time ago.
I remember the pipe. I was very young, and I didn't understand it. It
was like a joke I didn't get. But now I think I understand--it wasn't a pipe,
it was paint on canvas. Magritte was trying to make us look at the surface
of the canvas, and not into our memories and associations of pipes.
That sort of thinking, of looking at the work of art itself, opened the way for
more abstract work, where the artifact exists in and of itself, and doesn't
stand for anything. How that relates to the rest of Surrealism, I haven't a
clue.
As far as people being liberated from artificial obligations, I suppose it
depends on where you live and how you live. I'm not sure such liberation
is necessarily a good idea. I think a liberal, democratic state, for instance,
is mostly beneficial. Education, sanitation, The National Health Service,
police, armed forces, roads....It's like in Life of Brian: "What have the
Romans ever done for us?"
In most countries, even in some repressive regimes like Iraq, religion
is largly a matter of personal choice.
What are the surrealists doing to help? What are surrealist political
beliefs? Are you really a surrealist?
Andy
Dale Houstman
> You haven't replied to Gilbert's wider point that, far from being
> revolutionary, surrealism is now in the mainstream. Or, as Prince
> Charles (gorblessim) put it, "The Avant Garde is now the status quo."
> What do you think about that?
I think it is an extremely dubious statement uttered by an extremely dubious
person. In what way are the ideals of the avant garde the common coin
of society? Your confusion stems (as so many confusions do) from a
reduction of surrealism's experiments to mere aesthetic mimicry. There
is no doubt that Magritte (for instance) has had his imagery lifted
endlessly by commercialism; this is a left-handed compliment to his
rich imagination. But this is not avant garde, or new in any way;
society at large has always exploited the individual's achievements
and in that process flattened them, stripped them of any power
to disturb, and left them only with the strength to sell, or convince
the viewer to subscribe to a rather limited field of choice. But
if you look at this corporate/militant/christian landscape we are
living through and see the wholesale application of any avant garde
ideals, I am convinced you must be blind.
And (isn't it odd?) that surrealists (or us "self-proclaimed surrealists")
are derided for being old hat or washed up, and ALSO for being
ubiquitous in the culture. Which end of the swizzle stick are you holding
when you stir your cognition? Or is the need to attack (this addiction
to a sort of small beer of invisible victories) so intense in certain
members of the jaded crew, that it overcomes your ability to
even see the limits of your own arguments?
DMH
Dale Houstman
>
> I don't know the first thing about surrealism. Well, okay, maybe I know the
> first thing. I've seen an exhibition of Magritte. It was a long time ago.
> I remember the pipe. I was very young, and I didn't understand it. It
> was like a joke I didn't get. But now I think I understand--it wasn't a pipe,
> it was paint on canvas. Magritte was trying to make us look at the surface
> of the canvas, and not into our memories and associations of pipes.
Not quite. Is this density a pose, or a real density being used as
a form of innocence now that you've had your pathetic little game.
If you don't know anything about surrealism, you might have done
like every other curious (but intelligent) human being has done since
whenver, and humbled your punk ass long enough to ask. But you
preferred to pretend that you knew everything because it served
your pathetic need for confrontation disguised as "good writing"
which by the way I haven't see any of yet. I do like the way
you sound stupid here, as opposed to how you sounded stupid
before. How many different sorts of stupid can you play,
which ones are real, which ones are faked, and how long will
it be before you can't tell the fucking difference anymore?
> What are the surrealists doing to help? What are surrealist political
> beliefs? Are you really a surrealist?
We are gathering money as you speak to hire someone to cut your
punk ass open and make a diaper for a chimp to dump in. Will that
make the world a better place? It would make me happy.
What the hell are you prose posers doing? Why do you ask these
questions, when you have already made it clear you are not interested
in anything besides an aggressive fronting of your own mook-nature?
To put it in surrealist terms: eat shit and die...
DMH
B.S. Oh I know; you win! "Look mommy, I won! I won!"
Anal twat...
Throckey
>APhi77ips wrote
>>You haven't replied to Gilbert's wider point that, far from being
>>revolutionary, surrealism is now in the mainstream. Or, as Prince
>>Charles (gorblessim) put it, "The Avant Garde is now the status quo."
>>What do you think about that?
>
>
>themes such as Noah and Joan of Arc?
Because NBC is a small fraction to the broad
expanse of TV media. In this balkanized pop
culture *everything* is status quo, which
makes the notion of status quo kindof surreal.
>If you really knew anything about
>Surrealism you would realize that what you see on MTV or on television
>commercials is only an attempt to imitate the Surrealist imagery produced by
>Magritte, and no one else. I don't see Surrealist political beliefs in the
>mainstream, do you?
Surrealist Political beliefs? You make me laugh. What
next? Marxist auto mechanics? Country-Western
Hermaneutics? Freudian Algebra?
Oh Wait. I get it. You're making a meta-Surrealism Joke!
You crafty bastard!
>I don't see people free from religion, the state, or
>other artificial obligations, do you?
>
I don't see myself as captured by any religious, state or
other artificial obligations. When I want to invoke religion
I tell people that Jesus told me they are a dick. I give the
state money, they do tasks for me.
So what's enslaving you?
-B
Surrealists of the world unite! You have nothing to
conjugate but your tongue depressors!
Brandon J. Freels
>I give the state money, they do tasks for me.
Brandon:
And what if you don't give money to the state?
APhi77ips
<dale.h...@gte.net> writes:
>
> Not quite. Is this density a pose, or a real density being used as
>a form of innocence now that you've had your pathetic little game.
>If you don't know anything about surrealism, you might have done
>like every other curious (but intelligent) human being has done since
>whenver, and humbled your punk ass long enough to ask. But you
>preferred to pretend that you knew everything because it served
>your pathetic need for confrontation disguised as "good writing"
>which by the way I haven't see any of yet. I do like the way
>you sound stupid here, as opposed to how you sounded stupid
>before. How many different sorts of stupid can you play,
>which ones are real, which ones are faked, and how long will
>it be before you can't tell the fucking difference anymore?
Now, Dale. I was trying to play it your way. I was sincerely looking
for honest dialogue, truth and reconciliation. Shall I appologise?
Very well, then I appologise. I'm sorry for boring you, and for being
so stupid. Now, perhaps you would do me the kindness of explaining
why I am being stupid, and why my understanding of Magritte's
painting is so incomplete.
>
>> What are the surrealists doing to help? What are surrealist political
>> beliefs? Are you really a surrealist?
>
> We are gathering money as you speak to hire someone to cut your
>punk ass open and make a diaper for a chimp to dump in. Will that
>make the world a better place? It would make me happy.
(I can't wait to see the surrealist hit-squad. They'll come mime-walking
into my local and gouge my eyes out with their moustaches, then escape
on invisible bycicles.)
You do always evade the question, don't you?
>
> What the hell are you prose posers doing?
Nothing whatsoever. We don't have a political doctrine. You (apparently)
do; I am curious to know what it is.
Why do you ask these
>questions, when you have already made it clear you are not interested
>in anything besides an aggressive fronting of your own mook-nature?
No, I haven't made that clear. I critisised your writing. If I wasn't
interested,
I'd have ignored you.
Andy
APhi77ips
<dale.h...@gte.net> writes:
>
>> You haven't replied to Gilbert's wider point that, far from being
>> revolutionary, surrealism is now in the mainstream. Or, as Prince
>> Charles (gorblessim) put it, "The Avant Garde is now the status quo."
>> What do you think about that?
>
> I think it is an extremely dubious statement uttered by an extremely
>dubious
>person.In what way are the ideals of the avant garde the common coin
>of society?
Actually, I was muddying the waters a bit there. The avant-garde is now
the status quo in the artistic elite, not in society at large. Nowadays,
enfant-terribles like Damien Hurst win prizes and open restaurants.
>DMH
Andy
Brandon J. Freels
APhi77ips wrote
>>> What are the surrealists doing to help? What are surrealist political
>>> beliefs? Are you really a surrealist?
While the political beliefs have varied over the century from a type of
Marxism to a type of anarchism, one theme stays steady: freedom at all
costs.
Andrea Chen
>
> APhi77ips wrote:
>
> > You haven't replied to Gilbert's wider point that, far from being
> > revolutionary, surrealism is now in the mainstream. Or, as Prince
> > Charles (gorblessim) put it, "The Avant Garde is now the status quo."
> > What do you think about that?
>
> I think it is an extremely dubious statement uttered by an >extremely dubious person.
Bad boy Gilbert! You are dubious. We must not listen to you!
> In what way are the ideals of the avant garde the common coin
> of society?
We need to specify the "avant garde." In this case I assume you mean
the surrealists. Also specify ideas. There are many. They shift and
change. Surrealism went through a mystic period, then seduced by the
party and desiring to assert power, Breton rejected this, in his old age
we find that he embraced aspects of eastern mysticism. Certainly his
friendship with Octavio Paz shows he didn't oppose them even in the late
thirties.
> Your confusion stems (as so many confusions do) from a
> reduction of surrealism's experiments to mere aesthetic mimicry.
Experiments must take some describable shape. You and your friends are
inclined towards vague concpets such as "emacipation of the imagination"
letting this mean whatever it likes. This is nice and safe. It will
get you good grades on junior high school essays, but it means nothing.
Surrealism was (in part) a set of techniques and experiments. as i
have tried to point out these can be understood and continued. For
example various forms of automatic writing or collective creating can be
played out in this medium. Individuals from rec.arts.prose recently
proposed an example of the later in which different stages of a story
(possibly with alternative branches) were composed. There was no
interest among the socalled surrealist, this means of discovery was of
no interest. Instead you play with theory.
Despite all you say surrealism was little more than a grouping of
aesthetic approaches. Unlike the communist party or the Jehovah's
witnesses it did not act as a way of life though Breton did at times
attempt to impose dogma and discipline.
>There
> is no doubt that Magritte (for instance) has had his imagery lifted
> endlessly by commercialism; this is a left-handed compliment to his
> rich imagination. But this is not avant garde, or new in any way;
> society at large has always exploited the individual's achievements
> and in that process flattened them, stripped them of any power
> to disturb, and left them only with the strength to sell, or convince
> the viewer to subscribe to a rather limited field of choice.
"Society at large?" s opposed to the "individual." It's boring to
discuss social issues with you and this shows why. Once again you
define things as the most standard of cliches, the concepts which go
over well in junior high school English classes.
> But
> if you look at this corporate/militant/christian landscape we are
> living through
If you look at the lanscape you are living in you will note that there
are sever differences in corporation defined society and Christian
desired society. They conflict. As a simple example, Jerry falwell
doesn't like what's on television. You always resort to vague terms
which make sense to people who don't think and don't look. But if one is
serious about "experimenting" with society, one must actually study the
complex relationships.
> and see the wholesale application of any avant garde
> ideals, I am convinced you must be blind.
>
Nope. 2 "avant garde" ideas were the weakining of the family and the
loosening of sexual restrictions. These have occured along with a
serious weakening of class barriers in Europe. Many "avant garde"
ideals have been at least partially realized, differently than the avant
garde imagined or hoped for.
> And (isn't it odd?) that surrealists (or us "self-proclaimed surrealists")
> are derided for being old hat or washed up, and ALSO for being
> ubiquitous in the culture.
Actually surrealist techniques are ubiquitous in our culture and they
often retain power. Surrealist "ideals" are washed up. I once tried to
explain to you how certain themes had been taken up by others (possibly
influenced by the surrealists); I pointed out certain intellectual
flows, people like Marcuse and brown; concepts of liberating the soul by
liberating inhibitions, the rebellion against Freud (within a Freudian
context) in the desire for ploymorpheous sensuality. You couldn't get
it. If surrealism is alive intellectually as it is aesthetically, it is
is the same form, a thread of ideas or techniques woven into others.
You might desire to go back and resurrect a purer vision. Do so. But
so far all you do is harp out this fifties, vaguely leftist philosophy
filled with vague desires and vague goals without any power.
If surrealism is serious (as you and your friends claim) about
transforming society or at least letting a few people break the bondage,
then it becomes about power (if only the power to control your mind.)
You can talk about vague goals like "emancipation" but they mean nothing
unless you define (at least a little) from what and to what. You can
talk about the importance of art that shocks and startles (also desired
in our faced paced consumer society), but the power of visions and ideas
is their ability to take hold of your mind. Yesterday you (or brandon,
it's hard to tell you apart) happily quoted it sinks, it flats, it's
ivory soap; you used it as referance to Gilbert. *THATS* the imagery
which controls you and directs your thoughts.
APhi77ips
<fallin...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>> > You haven't replied to Gilbert's wider point that, far from being
>> > revolutionary, surrealism is now in the mainstream. Or, as Prince
>> > Charles (gorblessim) put it, "The Avant Garde is now the status quo."
>> > What do you think about that?
>>
>> I think it is an extremely dubious statement uttered by an >extremely
>dubious person.
>
> Bad boy Gilbert! You are dubious. We must not listen to you!
I think the Dale aspect of the Brandon/Dale entity was referring to Prince
Charles. The SAS are on their way to chop both heads off now.
>
>> In what way are the ideals of the avant garde the common coin
>> of society?
>
> We need to specify the "avant garde." In this case I assume you mean
>the surrealists. Also specify ideas. There are many. They shift and
>change. Surrealism went through a mystic period, then seduced by the
>party and desiring to assert power, Breton rejected this, in his old age
>we find that he embraced aspects of eastern mysticism. Certainly his
>friendship with Octavio Paz shows he didn't oppose them even in the late
>thirties.
>
>
>
>
>> Your confusion stems (as so many confusions do) from a
>> reduction of surrealism's experiments to mere aesthetic mimicry.
>
> Experiments must take some describable shape. You and your friends are
>inclined towards vague concpets such as "emacipation of the imagination"
>letting this mean whatever it likes. This is nice and safe. It will
>get you good grades on junior high school essays, but it means nothing.
>
> Surrealism was (in part) a set of techniques and experiments. as i
>have tried to point out these can be understood and continued. For
>example various forms of automatic writing or collective creating can be
>played out in this medium. Individuals from rec.arts.prose recently
>proposed an example of the later in which different stages of a story
>(possibly with alternative branches) were composed. There was no
>interest among the socalled surrealist, this means of discovery was of
>no interest. Instead you play with theory.
We're still waiting for Throcky to kick it off, but he's got to finish his
vomit
story first. Maughan's "antithetically inclined." Why don't you have a go,
Andrea? You're wonderfully subversive. Keep up the crossposting--I'm
going to have a lurk at alt.syntax.tactical now. I think we should involve
alt.fondle.vomit--they deserve a wider audience.
To be fair, Dale does produce some sort of creative work, although I've
been unable to see it. She has work (poetry? pictures?) in a journal
published in Laguna Beach, California. I forget the name. I found it
by searching Dale and Houstman.
Andy
fr...@myremarq.com
Throckey <XXXe...@jetcity.com>
> We recognize automation for what it is, Dale. You can't make art via
algorithm.
Of course you can. There's the endless printing of statments like
'eternity is no closer' or there's fractal generation etc, etc
this is really just another test, I'm not sure what's going on
with enclosing text from previous post.
**** Posted from RemarQ - http://www.remarq.com - Discussions Start Here (tm) ****
Throckey
give money to the state would be to place a value on
money. Which would oppress me. It oppresses the fuck o
ut of my friends.
-B