Surrealism: A Clarification.
Brother Alphabet
Recently, I have seen a various articles and questions dealing
with Surrealism posted here and in a number of other internet forums. Most
of these notes seemed to regard Surrealist art as a style of presentation.
Statements such as "just from looking at the piece, I could tell it was
Surrealism" and "His works are mostly these strange shapes, he does
Surrealist art more than anything else" were posted unchallenged. As a
result, I thought I would make a clarification on what exactly Surrealism
is, and what it is not. (Just for anyone who might be curious.)
What Surrealism is not:
Just because a painting depicts 'strange objects' or distorted
things in no apparent context does not instantly classify the work as a
Surrealist work. Strangeness is only an occasional side-effect of
Surrealism and is certainly not a prerequisite to composing a Surrealist
painting. There is no set formula for Surrealist composition. The
idea is more related to intent and experience than object or
manner. Certain of the lesser-known members of the Surrealist movement
painted quite 'ordinary' pictures (Or, rather, their compositions and
styles did not differ greatly from those found in what can be loosely
called 'traditionalist' images.)
Surrealism is not a historical movement contained solely in the
past. This is evident from the initial urge of the various people
mentioned above to label any given odd work as Surreal. Surrealism was not
an invention, but a discovery. The discovery has been made
countless times over the ages, and was defined by name upon the
foundation of the actual movement. Surrealism, the movement, was in itself
contained between an approximate beginning and approximate ending date,
but Surrealist imagery and methodology existed long before there was a
term for it, or a movement to collectively endorse, create and display it.
In certain ways, the base act of representation, whether realistic or
imaginary (especially imaginary) is a Surrealist process, but this trait
is later altered and often removed by the artist's intentions in creating
the work. (These ways are related to the conceptual stage of image
development. The artist usually initailly visualizes the finished piece
and then proceeds to try to make the image turn out like the vision in his
or her mind.)
Surrealism is not the product of exterior (chemical) influence.
There is no magical substance one can take to tap into some sort of
surreal state of mind. Everything might suddenly look like a Dali
painting, but that only means you are experiencing a psychotic episode
enhanced by a euphoric rush due to the reaction your brain is having to
whatever it was you took.
Surrealism is not concerned with transmitting messages. Too many
people stand and look at a Surrealist painting and try to invent
definitions for all the 'symbols'. A pure Surrealist image carries no
'meaning' other than itself. There is no story, there is no profound
lesson. It is but a picture to digest. The enigma is the image. Any
'meaning' gleaned is the direct result of the viewer's mind spouting out
reason where reason has no place. The conscious mind can not comfortably
interpret things it does not immediately recognize. Because of this, the
mind begins to take guesses as to what the image might mean. The mind then
stops when the ego hears something it feels it can believe. Any definition
applied to a Surrealist object exists only in that viewer's mind.
(Therefore, when reading through history books, just ignore the lies the
author tells in regard to what the Surrealist pictures mean.)
Surrealism is not political or religious. It does not pertain to
human emotion. It does not care about any superficial human concern
whatsoever. The imagery might contain objects related to any of the above,
but this does not imply content. For instance, Salvador Dali painted a
number of crucifixion paintings. Many people look to those as declarations
of faith. While this is fine for the viewer, the religious content, or at
least the perceived religious content is null. Religion appears as a
matter of consciousness. In the case of Dali, if he wasn't merely joking,
he was appropriating traditionalist subject matter for a Surrealist
composition (This relates to consciousness).
Surrealism is:
When looking at one's surroundings, one might notice a table
cluttered with dishes, a couch, a wallpaper print, a clock on the wall, a
headache, a sneeze. One might hear the neighbors in the next apartment
talking, laughing, having sex. One might notice a harvest moon out the
bathroom window. One might find all of these perfectly ordinary.
When looking at one's surroundings, one might notice a table,
cluttered with the neighbors in the next apartment having sex with the
harvest moon, a couch out the bathroom window sneezing. A clock on the
wallpaper print.
When looking at one's surroundings, one might notice any number of
things, perfectly ordinary, and in another instant, all of these unrelated
objects all relate to one another.
Imagine your best friend. You are looking at your best friend from
the right side - in profile. You have known your best friend for years,
and you have seen both sides of your friend's face many times, yet at this
moment, you have no proof that the other side of your friend's face is
actually there at all. Your friend could be flat, one-sided. Your friend
could be someone else on the other side of that face.
When you are inside your home, you have no proof there is anything
else in the universe. No outside. Look out the window? How do you know
it's a window and not a picture? Look at a picture. Vice versa.
These thoughts are some very basic ideas in metaphysical reality
and surrealism. In order to see your friend's whole self, you would have
to be looking at your friend from all angles at the same time. In order to
really know that there is an outside to your room you would have to be in
your room and outside at the same time.
Metaphysical reality, or more relevant to image, metaphysical
compositions take on multiple points of view simultaneously. (Not in the
manner of Cubism, which is metaphysical in itself but with differeing
intent). Surrealism takes on singular views of different objects or
curcumstances and presents them simultaneously. Metaphysical Surrealism
(to swipe a term from Cusimano) presents multiple views of unrelated
objects and presents them simultaneously. Don't mistake this for the whole
ballgame. This is only the mechanism.
'Viewpoint' and 'object' do not carry the conventional definition
in regard to Surrealist vision. The source of the object could be an apple
in a bowl, or it could be a sleep-dream, or a waking-dream, or an idea, or
a metamorphism of varied real and imaginary objects. The viewpoint can be
internal, external, or multiple. All conventional elements of composition
are only spice and are quite optional. Light, mass, color...These can be
arbitrary or observed, or most likely, one based on the other.
Even still, there is a difference between 'fake' Surrealism and
pure Surrealism. On the first count, we will usually see a hodge-podge of
shapes, or a blatantly distorted figure or both - some sort of reference
to something that has already been done...(This will be called a
reference, allusion or homage by the fraudulent creator). Usually there
will be a sense of deliberate strangeness, as though the artist has chosen
to compose strangely due to his or her lack of ability to compose any
other way. Most obvious of all will be a very detailed and often lengthy
'meaning' for it all. If a painter remarks as to the 'meaning' of his or
her supposedly Surrealist work, or begins to go through the flow chart of
symbols, you can feel confident in writing the person off as a charlatan.
Pure Surrealism is a hybrid between waking mind and lucid,
dreaming mind. It can, but is not required to, feature melded subject
matter. Memories, dreams, memories of dreams can all flow into and out of
a Surrealist work. On the other hand, as mentioned, this is only a tiny
aspect of what has been done in the past. The object is not to screw all
and begin trying to remember dreams, though learning to do so is a good
idea. The object is to remove the conscious self from the conceptual
process. The ego tells lies and negatively impacts the mind's eye. To
detach, consciously (or lucidly) and let an image flow forth is the key.
The reason why drugs or alcohol ruin this process is that they become the
replacement voice for the ego. They do not truly free the self, they bind
the self to whatever experience the drug triggers and furthermore pollute
the perception of the user, causing him or her to believe that he or she
is actually in a state of detached awareness or enlightenment.
Surrealism is also a discipline. Learning to detach the ego is not
an easy task. It takes practice. It is also very easy to slip back to
surface awareness. Self-consciousness is a large hinderance to automatic
realization. An artist will begin to question the process and doubt the
outcome if self-awareness intercedes.
The most dominant of all aspects of Surrealist composition is the
way in which the individual observes his or her surroundings (and in this
case, 'surroundings' includes internal/nocturnal thought processes.) The
connectivity of all things is key to finding the solution. This is because
what is harnessed in pure Surrealist composition is not just a picture an
individual composes, but tiny bits and pieces of all human psyches past
and present. Any individual open to the image (the by-product of the
experience) can re-live the experience. This is not done consciously, but
underneath the viewer's ego. That viewer will be vaguely aware of this, as
is evident by the strange reactions many have to viewing great artworks.
(Not just 'Surrealist' works, either - The doors have been opened by many
artists over time, remember.)
The final point I'll make is a reiteration of the false
limitations people place upon Surrealism. There is no style to which the
Surrealist must adhere. These principles can be applied to any form of
expression the artist desires.
A great deal of this, I am sure, sounds a little far-fetched. For
further information, read "Man and his Symbols" by Jung, and various other
writings Jung published on the topic of the psyche. (Many of his essays
are compiled at various sites on the web). Also, if possible, read at
least the First Manifesto of Surrealism by Breton. I will warn against
relying on the word of theorists and historians without backing that
information up from first-hand reference. Rene Magritte was quite vocal on
the subject of what Surrealism was, as well as was Breton and a number of
other poets of the day. Breton also produced a book on Magritte, if it can
still be found.
Thanks for your time in reading this.
Hutto
-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-
"I paint what I think, not what I see..." - Pablo Picasso
"You're not the boss of me!..." - J. A. Hutto (Pre age 3)
http://www2.msstate.edu/~jah10 + ja...@ra.msstate.edu
Erik Johnson
On Wed, 18 Feb 1998 20:41:02 -0600, Brother Alphabet
<ja...@isis.msstate.edu> wrote:
An interesting post, with many instances of truth that in totality
seems hard to swallow.
>intro snipped<
Though I think it is pointless to try to assign concrete meaning to
surrealist imagery, that doesn't mean that insights into the artist's
thought process are not possible... implying some level of meaning.
Exactly what sort of lies does the ego tell? And how does the ego
exist independently of the waking mind, or ones memories? The human
mind is a complex and rather chaotic device... out of which all
artwork, and surrealist artwork comes. How can you say which
particular mechanisms of the artist's mind are valid or not when
creating a piece? And if the piece fails your litmus test for being
authentically surreal, does that make it inauthentic altogether? In
this world that so likes labels, what then does someone call the
impurely surreal? Trippy? Far out? Sublime? Crap?
I don't see the world as so black and white. Surreal may be the
most accurate term for some works, despite the works not completely
fitting your extended definition.
> Surrealism is also a discipline. Learning to detach the ego is not
>an easy task. It takes practice. It is also very easy to slip back to
>surface awareness. Self-consciousness is a large hinderance to automatic
>realization. An artist will begin to question the process and doubt the
>outcome if self-awareness intercedes.
I find it hard to believe that Dali ever detached himself from his
incredible ego. Yet no one has trouble referring to his works as
surreal.
> The most dominant of all aspects of Surrealist composition is the
>way in which the individual observes his or her surroundings (and in this
>case, 'surroundings' includes internal/nocturnal thought processes.) The
>connectivity of all things is key to finding the solution. This is because
>what is harnessed in pure Surrealist composition is not just a picture an
>individual composes, but tiny bits and pieces of all human psyches past
>and present. Any individual open to the image (the by-product of the
>experience) can re-live the experience. This is not done consciously, but
>underneath the viewer's ego. That viewer will be vaguely aware of this, as
>is evident by the strange reactions many have to viewing great artworks.
>(Not just 'Surrealist' works, either - The doors have been opened by many
>artists over time, remember.)
This paragraph seems to imply a level of meaning that seems to refute
your earlier statement that authentic surrealism carries no meaning
outside of itself... yet surely you agree that the artist's
"internal/nocturnal thought processes", 'the connectivity of all
things', and the 'tiny bits and pieces of all human psyches past and
present' hold some meaning apart from the surrealist artwork that
somehow unconsciously incorporatates them.
You also state in your first paragraph while telling us what
surrealism is not, "Strangeness is only an occasional side-effect of
Surrealism"... yet if authentic surrealism does incorporate these
rather strange metaphysical concepts (thought processes, connectivity,
human psyches) then surely the end result will be almost guaranteed
to be "strange"?
And if your last paragraph is true, is it not true that some drugs
might aid in cluing one into these metaphysical concepts?
> The final point I'll make is a reiteration of the false
>limitations people place upon Surrealism. There is no style to which the
>Surrealist must adhere. These principles can be applied to any form of
>expression the artist desires.
> A great deal of this, I am sure, sounds a little far-fetched. For
>further information, read "Man and his Symbols" by Jung, and various other
>writings Jung published on the topic of the psyche. (Many of his essays
>are compiled at various sites on the web). Also, if possible, read at
>least the First Manifesto of Surrealism by Breton. I will warn against
>relying on the word of theorists and historians without backing that
>information up from first-hand reference. Rene Magritte was quite vocal on
>the subject of what Surrealism was, as well as was Breton and a number of
>other poets of the day. Breton also produced a book on Magritte, if it can
>still be found.
Is there by chance some exceprts or the full text of the First
Manifesto of Surrealism on the web?
To most people these days, the overused term surreal has become a
generic adjective that fits the latter half of the definition in my
dictionary...
"A modern French movement in art and literature, influenced by
Freudianism, purporting to express the subconcious mental activities
by presenting images without order or sequence, as in a dream."
Or the most basic definition that I've been hearing all my life...
unrealistic scenes rendered in a realistic manner.
Or if you just take the word surreal apart, you basically get
"over real"... too real to be real?
I prefer the definition supplied by Ramon Gomez De La Serna in an
essay about Dali and surrealism ...
"Surrealism is a glimpse of the unheard-of, the geometry of the
mind with its thousands of half-formed images, a geometry of as
yet unknown laws, apparently superfluous planes, phantasmagorical
architecture."
Perhaps the reason I prefer the latter is that it more closely
describes my artwork... but then I'm probably one of those "false
surrealists" as I've been known to take drugs, and am convinced
that if I only look hard enough I might discern some meaning from
my works just as I might discern some meaning out of the scattered
chaos (including ego) that is my mind.
Don't get me wrong, I basically agree with you, but see
inconsistencies in the totality of your statements.
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Erik Johnson erik@ phidias.colorado.edu
http://phidias.colorado.edu/ejvgallery
http://phidias.colorado.edu/phidias
Al Strano
If I may add one more thing to your list of things that are NOT
surrealist: Salvador Dali
Brother Alphabet
On Thu, 19 Feb 1998, Erik Johnson wrote:
> Though I think it is pointless to try to assign concrete meaning to
> surrealist imagery, that doesn't mean that insights into the artist's
> thought process are not possible... implying some level of meaning.
This is an idea that was strenously fought against by artists like
Magritte (one of the more 'devout' in terms of the philosophy) - The above
is akin to psychoanalysis (Magritte rabidly refused to be psychoanalyzed,
as did Dali and others. He also refused to allow anyone to assign
meanings to his 'symbols' and never acknowledged any actual meanings
himself. The only definitions for his works to be found derived from the
opinions of historians and critics. Magritte never even titled his own
work. He had poet friends give them titles based on their first
impressions of them) - Looking into a work (or mind)
to locate and identify symbols to be defined. The object is the meaning.
Jungian dream-interpretation theory, which is basically an advanced and
more useful version of Freudian theory, states that no singular dream can
be defined by its contents, and that no diagnosis or discovery can be made
from the consideration of a singular dream experience. In order to fully
understand the mind in question, not one dream, but all dreams in sequence
must be considered.
In terms of painting, or Surrealist ideology applied to painting, no
singular image has a concise meaning, but instead the image continuum must
be examined.
> Exactly what sort of lies does the ego tell? And how does the ego
> exist independently of the waking mind, or ones memories?
The ego is but one member of the multiplex of consciousness. The ego is
concerned with protecting you from embarrassment, covering for your
weaknesses, making you look attractive or smart (at least to itself). The
ego is impulsive, paranoid, jealous, lustful...The ego is animal-man.
Look at it as the wall of defense around a fortress...
Your waking mind is up to many things without our noticing. It is taking
us through our daily routine while also thinking of what we get to do
after our tasks are done, where the keys are, if that check bounced...
The ego sits around waiting for it's turn, always present, and almost
always an influence upon all our waking decisions. Someone cuts us off in
traffic, the ego urges us to flip the jerk off. If we choose not to do
so, there is an argument in the mind - The reasonable self versus the
irritable ego. Your self is not the same as your ego...Your ego protects
your self.
Memories are the domain of the subconscious and the unconscious. The
waking mind stumbles onto those locked-away files, and takes a moment to
read them. The ego, as always, has something to say about those. If a
memory is particularly unpleasant, it is your ego that allows you to have
those feelings. All emotions stem from the ego. Ever notice how easy it is
to remember things incorrectly, yet how easy it also is to defend those
faulty memories until proven incorrect? Your ego doesn't care about truth,
only that you come out on top.
So, in effect, it is possible to allow your self to slip from under the
influence of the ego. Your self is where your reality is contained. Your
self does not really believe the ego...Your self knows the truth about
you, that perhaps you are not abrasive, but warm and sensual, or that you
really are afraid to walk city streets at night. All it takes is the
desire and the discipline to let your self escape.
> The human
> mind is a complex and rather chaotic device... out of which all
> artwork, and surrealist artwork comes. How can you say which
> particular mechanisms of the artist's mind are valid or not when
> creating a piece?
I am not identifying what is valid or invalid. I am merely relating the
Surrealist ideal. Art based solely on the ego is also valid art. I sought
only to clarify Surrealism.
> And if the piece fails your litmus test for being
> authentically surreal, does that make it inauthentic altogether?
No. I wouldn't say that I had a litmus test for it either.
I cannot claim to be able to look at a work and say 'That ain't surreal'
because 9/10 times, everything is Surreal. The main thing to get is that
Surrealism is not in fact a label to be applied or a style to be
mimicked...It is a way to train the eye to see and interpret its
environment. The only actual 'false' Surrealism is that which is
fraudulently created...It goes back to the intent. Of course, not all
artists are surrealists...but this is by their own definition and not by
the parameters of the philosophy. As I mentioned, all creation has its
roots in the surrealistic process...Envisioning an image, then going about
making it into being...Even if one works from life, there is still a
mental picture sought after...
> In this world that so likes labels, what then does someone call the
> impurely surreal? Trippy? Far out? Sublime? Crap?
It would depend. Psychedelic art is not really Surrealistic art, but just
about anything can be psychedelic. 'Trippy and Far Out' could apply to a
jar of mustard...correct me if I'm wrong...Sublime is a term I'd reserve
to use in describing something that blows traditional versions of Beauty
out of the water...Something so incredible it can't be encompassed, and
is therefore reacted to harshly or negatively. Crap? Well, if it's just
plain BAD, then it's crap. :)
> I don't see the world as so black and white. Surreal may be the
> most accurate term for some works, despite the works not completely
> fitting your extended definition.
I agree. A thing can have a 'surreal quality' - Like a particular sunset,
or a face in woodgrain, or de ja vu...I don't see the whole world as black
and white, but I am inclined toward purist Surrealism.
> I find it hard to believe that Dali ever detached himself from his
> incredible ego. Yet no one has trouble referring to his works as
> surreal.
His ego was only present in his public life. He was a showman and a clown,
and readily admits that. He had a sense of humor and an ability to laugh
at himself as well. The ego in art shows up and is glaringly obvious.
A painting of a homeless person, starving in the streets. A painting of an
african-american man being persecuted. A painting of an aborted fetus.
These things are shallow, senseless and dripping with ego. Some might say
it's political, some might say it's sentimental, some might say it's
historical...But all of these are terms for ego-manifestations. History is
an ego-toy. It can be redefined to suit any given agenda, and often is.
The past and future do not exist. There is only this heartbeat.
Politics is the perfect playground for the ego. What better way for an ego
to be fed than by immortalizing ones political beliefs? That gives certain
praise and credibility to impulses created and nourished by it.
Sentimentality, emotion, is the root of the ego's strength. The more
susceptible to emotion the person is, the more volatile the ego.
> This paragraph seems to imply a level of meaning that seems to refute
> your earlier statement that authentic surrealism carries no meaning
> outside of itself...
The image itself is the meaning...
The viewer needs nothing more to process.
> yet surely you agree that the artist's
> "internal/nocturnal thought processes", 'the connectivity of all
> things', and the 'tiny bits and pieces of all human psyches past and
> present' hold some meaning apart from the surrealist artwork that
> somehow unconsciously incorporatates them.
That's the point exactly!
If such elements can be transliterated into a work there is no need for
any other definition, especially not a contrived ego-driven one. An image
need not be burdened with afterthought and puffed-up soap-box
speeches...Let it alone to speak for itself. Paint to put a picture down,
not to talk. If you want to talk and provide meanings be a writer...
Besides, imagine how you will be able to relax when people don't "get"
your work. :) You wont have to feel frustrated that they can't 'see' the
message! You won't have to fret over whether or not your symbols are
apparent to their eyes. It's a whole new freedom.
> You also state in your first paragraph while telling us what
> surrealism is not, "Strangeness is only an occasional side-effect of
> Surrealism"... yet if authentic surrealism does incorporate these
> rather strange metaphysical concepts (thought processes, connectivity,
> human psyches) then surely the end result will be almost guaranteed
> to be "strange"?
If it IS strange, that is not bad. What I was saying was that BEING
strange or MAKING strange things is not the objective...I mentioned that
many Surrealist works were quite 'ordinary' in terms of conventionality.
A work does not HAVE to be odd to be Surrealistic.
> And if your last paragraph is true, is it not true that some drugs
> might aid in cluing one into these metaphysical concepts?
The mind that cannot harness the concepts without drugs, most certainly
cannot with them. Clarity of mind is very important to finding the keys.
It is hard enough getting past yourself without the imaginary escape drugs
offer.
> Is there by chance some exceprts or the full text of the First
> Manifesto of Surrealism on the web?
There is a WWW version in the works...I have requested permission to
re-print the book on my site, but have not gotten a reply as yet. I will
soon adopt the 'better to ask forgiveness than permission' view of things
and just put it up. I will make it known when it's done. In the meantime,
I have found that it is available for a very good price at Amazon.com,
along with numerous other of Breton's writings.
> To most people these days, the overused term surreal has become a
> generic adjective that fits the latter half of the definition in my
> dictionary...
This is why I felt it was important to at least attempt to clarify the
matter...
> "A modern French movement in art and literature, influenced by
> Freudianism, purporting to express the subconcious mental activities
> by presenting images without order or sequence, as in a dream."
I will send you Andre Breton's definition when I get a chance. I don't
have the text with me so I can't get a direct quote. He provided two
definitions in the manifesto.
> Or the most basic definition that I've been hearing all my life...
> unrealistic scenes rendered in a realistic manner.
What about realistic scenes rendered unrealistically?
Or unrealistic scenes as seen by a small hairless cat?
> Or if you just take the word surreal apart, you basically get
> "over real"... too real to be real?
Or, 'more than real', which hits close to what most of the Surrealist
poets identified with. Try NEW amazing, *Real PLUS* (Now with color-safe
bleach and static-cling fighters....)
> I prefer the definition supplied by Ramon Gomez De La Serna in an
> essay about Dali and surrealism ...
>
> "Surrealism is a glimpse of the unheard-of, the geometry of the
> mind with its thousands of half-formed images, a geometry of as
> yet unknown laws, apparently superfluous planes, phantasmagorical
> architecture."
IN a certain sense, but it is also the mere ordinary made extraordinary by
association.
> Perhaps the reason I prefer the latter is that it more closely
> describes my artwork... but then I'm probably one of those "false
> surrealists" as I've been known to take drugs,
Not to be preachy or parental, but I would encourage you to stop using
them. No matter what you perceive you experience, they only hinder your
growth...The world is strange all by itself...
> and am convinced
> that if I only look hard enough I might discern some meaning from
> my works just as I might discern some meaning out of the scattered
> chaos (including ego) that is my mind.
I don't think there is anything wrong with that.
What I endorse is finding meaning in the making of the picture, without
being so concerned with the pretense of messaging in that image's context.
> Don't get me wrong, I basically agree with you, but see
> inconsistencies in the totality of your statements.
I know where you're coming from. I hope I have resolved my statements in
this reply.
Erik Johnson
>This is an idea that was strenously fought against by artists like
>Magritte (one of the more 'devout' in terms of the philosophy) - The above
>is akin to psychoanalysis (Magritte rabidly refused to be psychoanalyzed,
>as did Dali and others. He also refused to allow anyone to assign
>meanings to his 'symbols' and never acknowledged any actual meanings
>himself.
Just because he failed to acknowledge any meaning doesn't mean that
the piece held no meaning to him. Of course with Magritte (an artist
I admit no fondness for) it really is hard to find much potential
meaning.
>The only definitions for his works to be found derived from the
>opinions of historians and critics. Magritte never even titled his own
>work. He had poet friends give them titles based on their first
>impressions of them) - Looking into a work (or mind)
>to locate and identify symbols to be defined. The object is the meaning.
>
>Jungian dream-interpretation theory, which is basically an advanced and
>more useful version of Freudian theory, states that no singular dream can
>be defined by its contents, and that no diagnosis or discovery can be made
>from the consideration of a singular dream experience. In order to fully
>understand the mind in question, not one dream, but all dreams in sequence
>must be considered.
So by analogy, would that mean that one cannot find meaning from a
surrealist's individual painting, but might by studying their entire
body of work?
Thanks for the background into psychoanalysis. I didn't realize the
ego was such a nasty character. I find it hard to believe that any
artist can completely divorce himself from their ego (assuming such
a beast exists).
>I am not identifying what is valid or invalid. I am merely relating the
>Surrealist ideal. Art based solely on the ego is also valid art. I sought
>only to clarify Surrealism.
Well, I think you have done a good job clarifying Surrealism. Perhaps
the Surrealist ideal is no longer embodied in the derived term
"surreal" (lowercase s) that has gained such widespread use?
>No. I wouldn't say that I had a litmus test for it either.
>I cannot claim to be able to look at a work and say 'That ain't surreal'
>because 9/10 times, everything is Surreal. The main thing to get is that
>Surrealism is not in fact a label to be applied or a style to be
>mimicked...It is a way to train the eye to see and interpret its
>environment. The only actual 'false' Surrealism is that which is
>fraudulently created...It goes back to the intent. Of course, not all
>artists are surrealists...but this is by their own definition and not by
>the parameters of the philosophy. As I mentioned, all creation has its
>roots in the surrealistic process...Envisioning an image, then going about
>making it into being...Even if one works from life, there is still a
>mental picture sought after...
But if everything is Surreal (or at leat 9/10), then what the
difference between the fradulently surreal and the incidentally
surreal? The intent of the artist?
>> In this world that so likes labels, what then does someone call the
>> impurely surreal? Trippy? Far out? Sublime? Crap?
>
>It would depend. Psychedelic art is not really Surrealistic art, but just
>about anything can be psychedelic. 'Trippy and Far Out' could apply to a
>jar of mustard...correct me if I'm wrong...Sublime is a term I'd reserve
>to use in describing something that blows traditional versions of Beauty
>out of the water...Something so incredible it can't be encompassed, and
>is therefore reacted to harshly or negatively. Crap? Well, if it's just
>plain BAD, then it's crap. :)
Perhaps I see surreal as just another label, in a world with too
many labels and fail to grasp what it is to actually be Surreal.
>I agree. A thing can have a 'surreal quality' - Like a particular sunset,
>or a face in woodgrain, or de ja vu...I don't see the whole world as black
>and white, but I am inclined toward purist Surrealism.
That's good to know.
>> I find it hard to believe that Dali ever detached himself from his
>> incredible ego. Yet no one has trouble referring to his works as
>> surreal.
>
>His ego was only present in his public life. He was a showman and a clown,
>and readily admits that. He had a sense of humor and an ability to laugh
>at himself as well. The ego in art shows up and is glaringly obvious.
Do you really think that all his showmanship and clownship ceased when
he picked up the brush? It certainly didn't when he picked up the pen
(writing, not drawing).
>A painting of a homeless person, starving in the streets. A painting of an
>african-american man being persecuted. A painting of an aborted fetus.
>These things are shallow, senseless and dripping with ego. Some might say
>it's political, some might say it's sentimental, some might say it's
>historical...But all of these are terms for ego-manifestations. History is
>an ego-toy. It can be redefined to suit any given agenda, and often is.
>The past and future do not exist. There is only this heartbeat.
>Politics is the perfect playground for the ego. What better way for an ego
>to be fed than by immortalizing ones political beliefs? That gives certain
>praise and credibility to impulses created and nourished by it.
>Sentimentality, emotion, is the root of the ego's strength. The more
>susceptible to emotion the person is, the more volatile the ego.
I don't know that I buy into the ego thing. I cannot say that I am
much of a fan of political works (where all to often that crap label
comes to mind)... but I'm not sure that I see how painting a homeless
man (perhaps that is what the painter sees from their window) must
inevitably be wrapped up in this ego you have described.
>The image itself is the meaning...
>The viewer needs nothing more to process.
Perhaps you could clarify your meaning here. You aren't saying that
the viewer is irrelevant.
>> yet surely you agree that the artist's
>> "internal/nocturnal thought processes", 'the connectivity of all
>> things', and the 'tiny bits and pieces of all human psyches past and
>> present' hold some meaning apart from the surrealist artwork that
>> somehow unconsciously incorporatates them.
>
>That's the point exactly!
>If such elements can be transliterated into a work there is no need for
>any other definition, especially not a contrived ego-driven one. An image
>need not be burdened with afterthought and puffed-up soap-box
>speeches...Let it alone to speak for itself. Paint to put a picture down,
>not to talk. If you want to talk and provide meanings be a writer...
It seems then that you (or the Surrealists) detest not the inherent
meaning within a picture but 'artificial' attempts to provide meaning
to a picture?
This is surely different than saying that a piece should be
meaningless (sorta the drift I got from your last post).
>Besides, imagine how you will be able to relax when people don't "get"
>your work. :) You wont have to feel frustrated that they can't 'see' the
>message! You won't have to fret over whether or not your symbols are
>apparent to their eyes. It's a whole new freedom.
People are so quick to find meaning where one wasn't intended that
it really doesn't often matter whether the artist intended to mean
something or not.
>If it IS strange, that is not bad. What I was saying was that BEING
>strange or MAKING strange things is not the objective...I mentioned that
>many Surrealist works were quite 'ordinary' in terms of conventionality.
>A work does not HAVE to be odd to be Surrealistic.
I'd be interested to know of an example of a piece you would
consider to be Surrealistic, but not strange.
>The mind that cannot harness the concepts without drugs, most certainly
>cannot with them. Clarity of mind is very important to finding the keys.
>It is hard enough getting past yourself without the imaginary escape drugs
>offer.
No argument.
>
>> Is there by chance some exceprts or the full text of the First
>> Manifesto of Surrealism on the web?
>
>There is a WWW version in the works...I have requested permission to
>re-print the book on my site, but have not gotten a reply as yet. I will
>soon adopt the 'better to ask forgiveness than permission' view of things
>and just put it up. I will make it known when it's done. In the meantime,
>I have found that it is available for a very good price at Amazon.com,
>along with numerous other of Breton's writings.
Drop me an email when you put it online (I won't tell anyone). I'd
be interested to read through it.
>> To most people these days, the overused term surreal has become a
>> generic adjective that fits the latter half of the definition in my
>> dictionary...
>
>This is why I felt it was important to at least attempt to clarify the
>matter...
I understand.
>I will send you Andre Breton's definition when I get a chance. I don't
>have the text with me so I can't get a direct quote. He provided two
>definitions in the manifesto.
Please do.
>> Or the most basic definition that I've been hearing all my life...
>> unrealistic scenes rendered in a realistic manner.
>
>What about realistic scenes rendered unrealistically?
>Or unrealistic scenes as seen by a small hairless cat?
Can't say as I've heard those:)
>> Or if you just take the word surreal apart, you basically get
>> "over real"... too real to be real?
>
>Or, 'more than real', which hits close to what most of the Surrealist
>poets identified with. Try NEW amazing, *Real PLUS* (Now with color-safe
>bleach and static-cling fighters....)
>
>> I prefer the definition supplied by Ramon Gomez De La Serna in an
>> essay about Dali and surrealism ...
>>
>> "Surrealism is a glimpse of the unheard-of, the geometry of the
>> mind with its thousands of half-formed images, a geometry of as
>> yet unknown laws, apparently superfluous planes, phantasmagorical
>> architecture."
>
>IN a certain sense, but it is also the mere ordinary made extraordinary by
>association.
Well, I suppose that the ordinary represented throught "the geometry
of the mind" would seem rather extraordinary.
>> Perhaps the reason I prefer the latter is that it more closely
>> describes my artwork... but then I'm probably one of those "false
>> surrealists" as I've been known to take drugs,
>
>Not to be preachy or parental, but I would encourage you to stop using
>them. No matter what you perceive you experience, they only hinder your
>growth...The world is strange all by itself...
Don't worry about me. Its all experience and most of that experience
is in the past... but as we all draw from our experiences...
>I don't think there is anything wrong with that.
>What I endorse is finding meaning in the making of the picture, without
>being so concerned with the pretense of messaging in that image's context.
>I know where you're coming from. I hope I have resolved my statements in
>this reply.
I have.
Brother Alphabet
On Thu, 19 Feb 1998, Al Strano wrote:
> If I may add one more thing to your list of things that are NOT
> surrealist: Salvador Dali
You are correct. Salvador Dali has died.
Dali was a second-wave member of the Surrealist movement. He was not 'on
board' when the first manifesto was signed. By the time the second was
published/signed, the character of the movement had been expanded and
more, stylistically varied artists were included. Dali was a signee on the
second manifesto. It is a historical fact that he was a member, and a very
important one at that, of the movement. I don't think you will be able to
cite any actual or functional reason why he was not a Surrealist.
Perhaps you have been overburdened, as have most people, by his
ever-present images...Perhaps you have heard all the stories of the fake
Dali prints...Perhaps you just don't like Dali...I don't even like Dali as
much as I do some of the other painters...
Whatever the case, I can't see how you can realistically claim that he was
not a Surrealist.
Brother Alphabet
On Fri, 20 Feb 1998, Erik Johnson wrote:
> Just because he failed to acknowledge any meaning doesn't mean that
> the piece held no meaning to him.
This is probably true. But, we can't expect the relationship between
creator and creation to carry over to that of the onlooker to that
creation. Each encounter is unique, even repeated encounters between the
onlooker and the same creation.
> Of course with Magritte (an artist
> I admit no fondness for) it really is hard to find much potential
> meaning.
Oh, man...
I have to breathe...I will ask you why you don't like Magritte later...
There are only volumes of writings about what Magritte's works mean, his
symbols, etc. He was one of the only Surrealists who remained tightly
aligned with the postulates of the original Manifesto.
The problem with the movement was that after its initial foundation, many
many artists wanted to ride the bandwagon (this includes Picasso, he and
his 'surrealistic women' (My ear))...It became hard to tell who was doing
what, and by the end of the movement's life, all hell had broken loose and
Surrealism had been theorized to death by ignorant critics and the like.
Through all the nonsense, Magritte still held fast to the ideal and did
not change to suit the trends (as did Picasso, and a number of other
visitors to the group).
This is why Magritte is such a good example to study.
> So by analogy, would that mean that one cannot find meaning from a
> surrealist's individual painting, but might by studying their entire
> body of work?
ONE can find meaning in anything ONE looks at, whether it be a stop sign
or the Mona Lisa.
What I left open (and what I should have said originally) was that the
power of art is not the comprehension of singularities...Who really cares
what was in the mind of a single person? The value of art is it's ability
to grant us at least slight understanding of humanity as a whole.
If you believe what Jung says about the psyche (which is a huge
requirement for any of this to apply to anything, so If you don't believe
it, this will just be fluffy pondering) you can see how all of art equals
all of the human collective unconscious, or at least how it has the
potential to equal same.
So, in freeing the self from its surface one can tap into the influence
the unconscious mind has upon the dreaming mind...In a lucid, or
waking-dream state, the mind is able to see and understand the
interconnectedness of even the most random things. The conscious mind,
influenced by the ego, doesn't think any of that makes sense and writes it
off as nonsense.
There is also the idea of primordial residue, which is present in the soup
somewhere in the unconscious mind (This would be more like trace DNA
evidence than books on a shelf...or rather, it is not something that can
be located and examined, but something that is just THERE.
If a work contains these elements then it can be universally 'understood'
at least on a psychic level. Also, if the scope of human existence is
contained in the mass of human expression, by treating it all as pieces of
a dream one can gather the meaning of being human.
> Thanks for the background into psychoanalysis. I didn't realize the
> ego was such a nasty character. I find it hard to believe that any
> artist can completely divorce himself from their ego (assuming such
> a beast exists).
It might not be as beastly for you as it is for me. :)
When it comes to psychoanalysis, I have no information outside what I got
from general psych class and my reading of Jung and Freud...All the things
I mention I learned from either the Breton Writings or one or both Jung
and Freud. I am inclined to believe I would be thrown into a room if I
were analyzed. :)
> Well, I think you have done a good job clarifying Surrealism. Perhaps
> the Surrealist ideal is no longer embodied in the derived term
> "surreal" (lowercase s) that has gained such widespread use?
You are right in saying that 'surreal' is mis-applied. It is more a
marketing/stylistic reference today. It is as appropriated as
the lines of automatic poetry.
> But if everything is Surreal (or at leat 9/10), then what the
> difference between the fradulently surreal and the incidentally
> surreal? The intent of the artist?
Yes, pretty much.
And, if the artist has a good line, it won't even be easy to spot false
intent. That side of the coin is largely irrelevant.
> Perhaps I see surreal as just another label, in a world with too
> many labels and fail to grasp what it is to actually be Surreal.
The fact that we wear things on our feet called 'shoes' is surreal.
The sound of bacon sizzling in a pan heard in the background while
listening to the morning news is surreal. A bird flying into plate glass
by accident is surreal. (Of course, a bird doing that on purpose would be
that much more surreal :))
It isn't what you see, it's how you see it.
> >His ego was only present in his public life. He was a showman and a clown,
> >and readily admits that. He had a sense of humor and an ability to laugh
> >at himself as well. The ego in art shows up and is glaringly obvious.
>
> Do you really think that all his showmanship and clownship ceased when
> he picked up the brush? It certainly didn't when he picked up the pen
> (writing, not drawing).
Dali was not a surrealist writer by any means...
A large portion of Dali's published works was total absurdity and
nonsense. This goes according to one of the stipulations of the manifesto:
'You will write nonsense novels and give nonsense speeches.'
Dali was, in much of his public life, pure nonsense.
Breton's literary ideal had a great deal to do with the trashing of the
modern literary treatment of 'Novel' writing. One of the poets ideas (I
forget which one) was to create a novel of the first lines of all the best
sellers.
Breton loathed blatant description..."His name was Bud, his hair was brown
and his shirt was green and his breath smelled exactly like those little
white onions just after you cook them at 275 degrees for ten minutes..."
This disdain for 'spelling things out' led in part to the visual ideal of
'messageless' imagery. The reader, and the viewer, should be left to make
the important choices on their own...
> I don't know that I buy into the ego thing. I cannot say that I am
> much of a fan of political works (where all to often that crap label
> comes to mind)... but I'm not sure that I see how painting a homeless
> man (perhaps that is what the painter sees from their window) must
> inevitably be wrapped up in this ego you have described.
The painter looked out the window and saw only a homeless man?
Why did the man strike the painter? It could be as you say, just the first
thing the painter saw. But, it could also be the first thing the painter
saw that he thought he could 'raise awareness' with...Again, this is
related to intent...
> Perhaps you could clarify your meaning here. You aren't saying that
> the viewer is irrelevant.
The viewer spends a fair amount of time being irrelevant, until it is the
painter's turn.
> It seems then that you (or the Surrealists) detest not the inherent
> meaning within a picture but 'artificial' attempts to provide meaning
> to a picture?
A picture has no inherent meaning.
The viewer brings into the fray a set of pre-established definitions for
things...definitions which his mind has arranged so that it will not be
alarmed by its environment.
Any attempt to define a work is a real attempt, but the meaning is still
artifical, or imposed upon the work.
> This is surely different than saying that a piece should be
> meaningless (sorta the drift I got from your last post).
When asked 'what does it mean' by people looking at my work, I can
honestly say "I have no idea." I dont even want to have an idea. Ijust
want to make another picture.
> People are so quick to find meaning where one wasn't intended that
> it really doesn't often matter whether the artist intended to mean
> something or not.
That's also right and it is really sort of the way it should be.
I did an exhibition in which I made these little cards for each piece with
a pre-made 'meaning' written on them. The cards said things like "In this
work, you see your worst fear happening while your back is turned" and
other ridiculous notions. I stood back and watched people react to being
told what to see. It was incredible how many people came up to me and
argued, and it was also incredible how many people just accepted the
meaning as fact and moved on. The only actual meaning I can think of for
any of those works is that I liked the subject matter and I liked painting
them. (At the time of the show, I had this grandiose meaning for the
series, and I had even gone so far as to identify symbol and so on. That
was the point at which I learned that spending so much time figuring out
how to convey a message only wastes time that could have been spent
painting.
> I'd be interested to know of an example of a piece you would
> consider to be Surrealistic, but not strange.
Argh. I had hoped no one would ask me to do that. Now I will have to go
digging in my book boxes (I have just moved so my bookshelves are all in
cases. (Bookcases?) I will find a few and return to post them asap.
barrett john erickson
surrealist work exists -- surrealist works do not
My intent is not to disparage what i assume was a good-faith effort by
Hutto (Brother Alphabet) to rectify some of the recent
misrepresentations of surrealism. After all, he was the only one to
attempt such a thankless task.
But there are major flaws in his efforts, which perpetuate several
misconceptions of the art/historical variety. The most serious of these
can be condensed into this one very important point:
SURREALISM IS PROCESS NOT ATTRIBUTE.
The essence of the surrealist project was (from the beginning) and
continues to be (among living and acting surrealists) to fully integrate
the liberated imagination into all aspects of daily living.
Surrealism is _not_ about representation or expression (although
Breton's original definition unfortunately muddies this point, a careful
reading of the manifestoes and other theoretical endeavors, as well as
any dialog with a practicing surrealist, will quickly lead to this
conclusion). Any objects or "works" resulting from surrealist
explorations are artifacts of archeological value only.
Intent is irrelevant and, _like all art_ (and all non-art for that
matter), meaning is not a property of the image (or object, or
performance, or text) but can only _emerge_ from the (en)active process
of a viewer (even when that viewer is the originating artist).
As for "egos", the "subconscious", and such...
This kind of analytical (and reductionist) fragmentation not only runs
counter to some very interesting recent developments in congnitive
science [see in particular Francisco Varela, _The Embodied Mind_], but
is counter productive to an evolving surrealism.
~~barrett
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
barrett john erickson
Brother Alphabet wrote:
>
> On Thu, 19 Feb 1998, Al Strano wrote:
>
> > If I may add one more thing to your list of things that are NOT
> > surrealist: Salvador Dali
>
> You are correct. Salvador Dali has died.
>
[...]
> important one at that, of the movement. I don't think you will be able to
> cite any actual or functional reason why he was not a Surrealist.
[...]
> Whatever the case, I can't see how you can realistically claim that he was
> not a Surrealist.
one could realistically say that Dali _was_ a surrealist (the
paranoia-critical method and his work with Bunuel seem sufficient
reason), but probably ceased to be long before he died. the "actual or
functional reason" to accept such a statement is that the surrealists of
the time rejected him in the late thirties.
[this is commonly attributed to his political (admiring of hitler) and
religious (any affinity here is just cause) pronouncements as well as
his shameless self-promotion and posturing ("avida dollars" as Breton
dubbed him)]
not having first hand knowledge, i cannot say whether this was a
justified action or not, i only accept (with some reserve) the judgement
of those whose opinions on the matter seem trustworthy and who _were_
there.
mdeli
>> The final point I'll make is a reiteration of the false
>>limitations people place upon Surrealism. There is no style to which the
>>Surrealist must adhere. These principles can be applied to any form of
>>expression the artist desires.
ver real"... too real to be real?
>
>I prefer the definition supplied by Ramon Gomez De La Serna in an
>essay about Dali and surrealism ...
>
>"Surrealism is a glimpse of the unheard-of, the geometry of the
>mind with its thousands of half-formed images, a geometry of as
>yet unknown laws, apparently superfluous planes, phantasmagorical
>architecture."
>
Here is my view othe matter:
There are two approaches to realistic subject matter in painting
Painting realism in a realistic context and the other, in an
unrealistic context.
All paintings containing the illusion of form follow the above either
in a pure or combined manner. I believe this is the only definition
that is useful.
Tintoretto, Reubens and Bouguereau painted people flying around. The
people are realistic the scene is surreal. Dali occasionally painted
people parts turning to shit. Matisse sculpted heads that looked like
the were made out of shit. Its surreal because its unreal.
Notice that I haven't referred to the meaning of an artwork or how the
viewer is supposed to interpret it. The meanings of artworks are often
elusive and utterly subjective. A good example is Bosh. I have
read.three utterly different interpretations. Each sounded completely
plausible each contradicted the other.
Meaning is important in one respect . That is in relation to the
viewers perception of a piece. It is the artists business to attract
the viewers attention and make him think. If the artist is successful
he can get the viewer to fantasize about the image. In other words its
the artists task is to get the viewer to invent a meaning or to
associate it to something the viewer knows.
Most all surreal theory is endless talk about the meaning of subject
matter rather than its physical relation to reality.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
barrett john erickson
mdeli, in an otherwise unprovoking text mostly concerning the nature of
art, nevertheless wrote the following two sentences betraying a total
(and common) misunderstanding of surrealism:
>Its surreal because its unreal.
> Most all surreal theory is endless talk about the meaning of subject
> matter rather than its physical relation to reality.
the post "surrealist work exists -- surrealist works do not" clarify my
objection to these comments. specifically:
"The essence of the surrealist project was (from the beginning) and
continues to be (among living and acting surrealists) to fully integrate
the liberated imagination into all aspects of daily living."
it's _all_ about the relationship of the imagination to the limited (due
to the exclusion of the imaginary) experience normally refered to as
"reality". hence: _sur_realism.
Erik Johnson
On Fri, 20 Feb 1998 22:53:29 GMT, hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
>On Thu, 19 Feb 1998 17:33:07 GMT, er...@phidias.colorado.edu (Erik
>Johnson) wrote:
>
>>> The final point I'll make is a reiteration of the false
>>>limitations people place upon Surrealism. There is no style to which the
>>>Surrealist must adhere. These principles can be applied to any form of
>>>expression the artist desires.
>ver real"... too real to be real?
>>
>>I prefer the definition supplied by Ramon Gomez De La Serna in an
>>essay about Dali and surrealism ...
>>
>>"Surrealism is a glimpse of the unheard-of, the geometry of the
>>mind with its thousands of half-formed images, a geometry of as
>>yet unknown laws, apparently superfluous planes, phantasmagorical
>>architecture."
>>
>Here is my view othe matter:
>
>There are two approaches to realistic subject matter in painting
>Painting realism in a realistic context and the other, in an
>unrealistic context.
>
>All paintings containing the illusion of form follow the above either
>in a pure or combined manner. I believe this is the only definition
>that is useful.
>
>Tintoretto, Reubens and Bouguereau painted people flying around. The
>people are realistic the scene is surreal. Dali occasionally painted
>people parts turning to shit. Matisse sculpted heads that looked like
>the were made out of shit. Its surreal because its unreal.
>
>Notice that I haven't referred to the meaning of an artwork or how the
>viewer is supposed to interpret it. The meanings of artworks are often
>elusive and utterly subjective. A good example is Bosh. I have
>read.three utterly different interpretations. Each sounded completely
>plausible each contradicted the other.
>
>Meaning is important in one respect . That is in relation to the
>viewers perception of a piece. It is the artists business to attract
>the viewers attention and make him think. If the artist is successful
>he can get the viewer to fantasize about the image. In other words its
>the artists task is to get the viewer to invent a meaning or to
>associate it to something the viewer knows.
>
>Most all surreal theory is endless talk about the meaning of subject
>matter rather than its physical relation to reality.
Well, I think that your understanding of the term surreal (I don't
pretend to understand the capital S version) is more along the lines
of mine... realistic imagery in an unrealistic context without much
concern about meaning (or lack of) or the psychoanylitical
stuff.
Erik Johnson
Disclaimer: I did not write the following, but it was emailed to me by
someone who wanted it to be passed on to Brother Alphabet...
I figured simply posting it would have that effect.
So, from "holly" <trave...@worldatt.net>...
Okay, I stumbled on your conversation with someone, in my search for a
surrealism newsgroup. I am a novice at the net and don't yet know how
to post, or reply. I'm not quite sure how it works. I do know that
you were one half of the conversation. I don't know which half. I
would like to respond to both, so it you could forward this message to
the one you were talking with...that would be cool.
Do you know what I am talking about, or do I need to be more
specific?
Anyway, my responses from your back and forth:
The object is the meaning?
I thought the id is animal man...not the ego. And if the ego is
impulsive, it must be the surrealism root.
If your self is not the same as your ego, then what, or who is your
self, and how does the ego protect it? Does the ego, perhaps, only
think it is protecting, but actually causing harm and delusion?
Are you sure all memories stem from the ego? There must be more.
If the ego doesn't care about truth, how can it be protecting you?
Concerning the difference between fraud surrealism and the incidently
surreal, how can anyone really know the intent of the artist?
If the ego in art shows up, and is glaringly obvious, what does it
mean to acknowledge the ego, within the art? Is that surrealism?
Can't a writer be surrealist?
Unrealistic scenes as seeb by a small hairless cat seems obviously
nonsensical and thus fraudulent. I could be wrong. Of course.
Yes! Over real - to the point of nano, micro. Yes, yes, yes. NEW
amazing...*Real PLUS, etc.
I look forward to hearing from both of you and entering in on this.
--------------
end quoted material, remember, to respond to this person, email
trave...@worldatt.net and don't confuse her (?) statements
with mine.
Brother Alphabet
On Fri, 20 Feb 1998, mdeli wrote:
> Most all surreal theory is endless talk about the meaning of subject
> matter rather than its physical relation to reality.
Such as which theory, by whom?
Brother Alphabet
"holly" <trave...@worldatt.net>...said:
> The object is the meaning?
The image is its own meaning.
> I thought the id is animal man...not the ego. And if the ego is
> impulsive, it must be the surrealism root.
In the particular context, I was not speaking in terms of psychological
forms or manifestations..."Ego" in the context of my statement applied to
all manifestations related to the waking mind. I am afraid the term was
used quite loosely and was left wide open for psychological debate. It's a
good thing it wasn't a psychological discussion. :)
I have generally defined the 'influences' as waking-mind, dreaming-mind
and the hybrid of the lucid state of awareness between the two. (I have
defined these based mostly upon Surrealist postulates (based on Freud) and
in part from the study of Jung's study of the psyche and of dreams and the
dreaming mind.) The term 'ego' in my statement, applies to the
waking-mind (And anything that motivates the waking mind to actons - The
Id, ego (actual) etc etc etc...) 'Ego' in this context refers more to
elements of human superficiality.
Impulsiveness is not a prerequired aspect of Surrealist composition, while
it is also not disallowed. Certain automatic processes rely heavily on
impulse, but when the ego slides in, the process is no longer purely
automatic nor impulsive. It is like playing a timed word association game
in which you contrive an answer so as to beat the time limit.
> If your self is not the same as your ego, then what, or who is your
> self, and how does the ego protect it?
Your "self" (again, in this context, not in psychological terms...this is
not psychology) is the waking outward mind and the hidden dreaming mind
combined into the lucid state. This is more or less 'awake' at all times -
During the conscious 'day', the dreaming mind is only a background
influence, and vice-versa during the unconscious 'night', where the waking
mind is moved to the background.
The ego maintains our defense systems...which would be based on an
individual's concept of what is or is not acceptible behavior in certain
situations as well as learned examples of how to handle events...One
person might curse you out for something, while another might get huffy
and storm away from you (for, say, taking their parking space, who knows,
pick a stupid human event)...Whatever situation, whatever emotional
response, that is the domain of the 'defense mechanism'...
> Does the ego, perhaps, only
> think it is protecting, but actually causing harm and delusion?
Perhaps not harm, as much as a constant source of delusion.
One of my little quirks is being 'right' all the time. My self, on the
other hand, knows that I'm full of crap half the time. Like this stuff I'm
typing now. I'm just making this up as I go along because some person has
used psychological terms for which I have honestly forgotten the
meanings...Oh...Oops, did I type that out loud?
> Are you sure all memories stem from the ego? There must be more.
I didn't say that.
The ego is a 'spin doctor' for memory, but it doesn't store them up or
anything.
> If the ego doesn't care about truth, how can it be protecting you?
It doesn't care about external truth.
> Concerning the difference between fraud surrealism and the incidently
> surreal, how can anyone really know the intent of the artist?
It's tattooed on the back of their necks.
> If the ego in art shows up, and is glaringly obvious, what does it
> mean to acknowledge the ego, within the art? Is that surrealism?
Why of course. I was just teasing about that other stuff.
Surrealism is really about reflecting the ego and conveying secret hidden
messages to everyone.
> Can't a writer be surrealist?
Yes.
> Unrealistic scenes as seeb by a small hairless cat seems obviously
> nonsensical and thus fraudulent. I could be wrong. Of course.
Nonsense is not fraud.
Nonsense is a mandate handed down by the Manifesto.
If you had asked the damned cat, you would have seen this all before, you
know.
Brother Alphabet
On Fri, 20 Feb 1998, barrett john erickson wrote:
> functional reason" to accept such a statement is that the surrealists of
> the time rejected him in the late thirties.
This deals with the movement, though...
So, it can be said that Dali was an excommunicated member of the club.
> [this is commonly attributed to his political (admiring of hitler) and
> religious (any affinity here is just cause) pronouncements as well as
> his shameless self-promotion and posturing ("avida dollars" as Breton
> dubbed him)]
Breton dubbed him that because Breton was a communist. What else was he to
say? Dali was also well aware of the value of his art to the buying
public. Anyone who wouldn't sell is a fool.
> not having first hand knowledge, i cannot say whether this was a
> justified action or not, i only accept (with some reserve) the judgement
> of those whose opinions on the matter seem trustworthy and who _were_
> there.
I would rather believe Dali. I would hate to think that when I keel over
and die people wanting to know about me would believe the words of some
putz who met me once over something I wrote myself.
There is also the photograph which appears in a book called 'Dali's
Mustache' (Which was a photo-essay with the mustache) in which Dali was
asked 'Why do you paint?', Dali's answer was 'Because I love art', but the
corresponding image was of Dali suurounded by money and his mustache
formed into a dollar sign with the help of 2 paintbrushed.
The concept for this image was Dali's, so it is plain to see that he was
well aware of his contemporaries opinions about him, but he was able to
laugh at this, as well he should have done.
I have never really understood the way people moan and wail on one hand
about artists supporting themselves while at the same time people crucify
artists for making money off of their work. It IS possible to make the
work you love and have that work also be commercially viable. And again,
any artist who WOULDN'T sell is either independently wealthy or stupid.
The last interview question in that little book:
Dali is asked 'Are you crazy"
His reply: 'Not as crazy as the one who bought this book'.
Brother Alphabet
Someone said:
> surrealist work exists -- surrealist works do not
> SURREALISM IS PROCESS NOT ATTRIBUTE.
Splitting hairs.
I have said that Surrealism is not a style, but a way of seeing or
interpreting what is seen (Which relates specifically to image, for why
should I care about Surrealist cooking?)...
Way of seeing = PROCESS.
Not a style = NOT ATTRIBUTE.
Surrealist works do exist. They are the products of Surrealist
visualization, the direct result of applied Surrealism.
The difference here is that on one side we have useful tools for
getting past the surface and bringing forth real vision, and on the other
side, we have another way to waste a lot of time.
Theory is really GREAT. But it is not useful unless it is applied.
Surrealist works do exist, and they are the things that get done while the
theorists are in their teahouses wondering how to best describe Surrealist
Nonsense Opera in their next avant garde magazine.
> The essence of the surrealist project was (from the beginning)
When was the beginning? 1921? 1924?
> and
> continues to be (among living and acting surrealists) to fully integrate
> the liberated imagination into all aspects of daily living.
Pardon me, I must take a Surrealistic Sh*t, integrating my liberated
imagination into the bathroom so that I might wipe.
> Surrealism is _not_ about representation or expression (although
> Breton's original definition unfortunately muddies this point, a careful
> reading of the manifestoes and other theoretical endeavors, as well as
> any dialog with a practicing surrealist, will quickly lead to this
> conclusion).
So, let's just PRETEND I have carefully read these things as well as other
relevant writings and such as that...Lets also say that I have had at
least one or two dialogues with practicing Surrealists, and I have come
to the conclusion that the ideology is concrete, accessible and applicable
to expression?
Or, what if I have skipped it all and have discovered Surrealism on my
own? How can you or anyone say where a theory may or may not apply?
> Any objects or "works" resulting from surrealist
> explorations are artifacts of archeological value only.
So? What's new about that? That can be said of the entire art process in
general, but it's also still just a way of looking at what is, in effect,
art work.
> Intent is irrelevant and, _like all art_ (and all non-art for that
> matter), meaning is not a property of the image (or object, or
> performance, or text) but can only _emerge_ from the (en)active process
> of a viewer (even when that viewer is the originating artist).
Then how can intent be irrelevant? If I take this idea into consideration
when making a piece I could blatantly include references to various social
icons that will at least cause you to think certain things at least for an
instant...It wouldnt matter if you (en)acted a meaning or not, the base
meaning of a symbol/icon would trigger in your mind before you had time
to analyze it.
Besides, we cannot wander about in Surrealistic stupors pretending that
nothing means anything until we wish it to, or (en)act a meaning...A red
traffic light on the streets of America means stop. An American flag makes
one think of at the very least America. The Golden Arches equal McDonalds.
You cannot escape from those things without intentionally doing so.
> As for "egos", the "subconscious", and such...
> This kind of analytical (and reductionist) fragmentation not only runs
> counter to some very interesting recent developments in congnitive
> science [see in particular Francisco Varela, _The Embodied Mind_], but
> is counter productive to an evolving surrealism.
I care this much " " about cognitive science.
This is not science. This is not logic. This is not order.
I don't believe that Surrealism is evolving, nor that it has ever changed
from it's origin (which was not with Breton nor any other 20th century
thinker). Surrealism was a discovery, not an invention and it has been
discovered and rediscovered throughout time. When it is discovered it
begins at the beginning, and each beginning is as individual as any other
- There is no middle and there is no end - there is only the beginning,
that is repeated every time you pick up the pencil or the brush.
It is of no use unless put to use. Theory is for the fish.
There is no Surrealist auto-manufacturing industry, nor is there a
Surrealist laundromat around the corner.
While Surrealism is not about ATTRIBUTES of objects, it is also not
just a bunch of over-intellectualizations around some sort of cooked-up
pseudo-dada/utopian ideals. Hell, I just made that word up. Word Up.
Three nuts.
You are writing textbooks about things that fall from the sky and smash
small children on the lawn, so how will you ever explain it to them?
Surreality is an applicable philosophy.
This has been proven by the severe lack of Surrealist Works that don't
hang in museums around the world. There are also who knows how many
Surrealist poems and other non-writings not at all in print.
And, finally, your entire website it seems deals directly or indirectly or
not at all with art.
I can't figure that last part out. The one about Dave.
barrett john erickson
Brother Alphabet wrote:
>
> On Fri, 20 Feb 1998, barrett john erickson wrote:
>
> > functional reason" to accept such a statement is that the surrealists of
> > the time rejected him in the late thirties.
>
> This deals with the movement, though...
> So, it can be said that Dali was an excommunicated member of the club.
certainly, the "exclusive club" aspects of what one might call
"official" surrealism (under Breton thru 1966) deserve close critique --
and vestiges of this can still be found far too often today -- but such
critique would not be of "surrealism" but of specific surrealists'
behavior.
but the implication in your statement is that one could somehow identify
someone as a "surrealist artist" based only on the art produced. this
is true, however, only to the extent that a "surrealist artist" is a
_surrealist_ who makes art and therfore distinguishable, if one insists,
from a _surrealist_ who does not.
being an "artist" (in the specific context most people use it),
regardless of what the art is like, is/was irrelevant to the question of
whether or not someone is/was a surrealist.
[although, this is not to say that art is of anything less than critical
importance to the evolution (past and current) of surrealism.]
as for who is a "surrealist": a moving target if ever there was one,
and probably not a very useful excercise. i'm not sure i've ever
encountered a surrealist comfortable with this as a label.
it's much easier to address what i refer to as the "surrealist project"
(a bit easier to define).
-- barrett
http://www.MagneticFields.org/
barrett john erickson
in response to the comments of Hutto (Brother Alphabet):
Your rebuttal provides a wealth of new examples, but little new ground
to explore. So i stand by my original critique, and add only:
1) Theory (as i engage it) is not a tool.
Theoretical work is an investigation of creative human living -- a
process which continuously suggests further exploration and experiment
which may enhance both understanding and living.
Theory derives from human activity. It attempts to _de_scribe not
_pre_scribe. It evolves because it is open to its discoveries.
To apply any theory in the utilitarian manner your text suggests, is to
cease theoretical investigation and sever that theory's connection to
living, thereby rendering it ideology -- concrete and dead.
2) You speak of "surrealism" but your text implies that you see this
primarily (only?) as a means to the production of images.
Surrealism is not a tool. Attempts to use it as such hardens it into
something which is no longer surrealism.
3) The "product of surrealist visualization" or the "result of applied
surrealism" is no more a "surrealist work" than the product of a
surrealist shitting is a pile of "surrealistic shit".
Brother Alphabet
On Wed, 25 Feb 1998, barrett john erickson wrote:
> To apply any theory in the utilitarian manner your text suggests, is to
> cease theoretical investigation and sever that theory's connection to
> living, thereby rendering it ideology -- concrete and dead.
Why can't 'theoretical investigation' and 'utilitarian application' work
off of one another? Through the application of theory, one makes
discoveries, these discoveries add to the scope of the theory, or further
confirm the theory's validity (Or further serve to discredit the theory,
depending upon circumstance)...As in - hypothesis, experiment,
prove/disprove (succeed/fail), re-hypothesize. It is not an either-or
relationship, but a test-fail/succeed-learn cycle.
> 2) You speak of "surrealism" but your text implies that you see this
> primarily (only?) as a means to the production of images.
The tools I use to create imagery are my hands, my brushes, etc.
The point is: Where do I get the images?
I get the images from the relationship my mind/eye forms between objects,
events, ideas. The images are based upon the envisioned relationships, not
upon a Surrealism map or formula. The Surrealist 'method' has nothing to
do with the creation of object, but it is the root source of discovering
the image in the first place.
> 3) The "product of surrealist visualization" or the "result of applied
> surrealism" is no more a "surrealist work" than the product of a
> surrealist shitting is a pile of "surrealistic shit".
That would depend. What color is the shit?
You said yourself that an art work is a byproduct...An archaeological
artifact...
'Applied Surrealism' is not what gets the work done. When I said 'applied'
what I referred to was the production of (things) inspired or visualized
by the process.
An automatic process yields, say, words. In a poem.
"The little yellow whales of spring
lead barely normal lives.
Midgets laugh and eat their young
But do not touch their wives."
Granted, this is not an example of high literature, but it is a group of
words that was produced at random through a word-association excersize and
organized after the fact into a structure with the rhyme.
The process was not the writing of this 'poem' but it was the generation
of the group of words.
In terms of image, the process is not -painting- the picture, but it is
the generation of that picture's ingredients, whether they be colors,
shapes or whatever...The elements that go into a piece CAN be collected
from the Surrealist process and subsequently APPLIED to a work.
Of course...Of COURSE, this is a contrived visualization only BASED upon
what was the ACTUAL Surrealist experience, but then, this is the whole
difference between Applied and Theoretical Surrealism. It is putting
thought into action, or rather giving action to thought. Giving an idea a
physical form.
Hutto
>
>
>
>
> -- barrett
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-
barrett john erickson
in response to Brother Alphabet:
We may be approaching a more productive dialog.
What troubles me about your prior comments is that they describe a
process which flows _from_ surrealism _to_ art, while asserting that
such a flow transfers some kind of (what might be called) "surrealist
status or attribute" to the resulting work.
Surrealism, if it could be said to flow, does so in precisely the
opposite direction.
It hadn't been so clear to me until your last post, but this might be
the key to explaining the most common misunderstandings and
misrepresentations of surrealism.
For a surrealist, _the work (the art, text, theoretical research or
whatever) is the means_ to understanding and embracing a more complete
reality. It's the cummulative effect of this approach to life's work
(the intuitive experience of a more complete reality) which allows one
to be identified as surrealist.
Surrealism is indivisible. It's bigger and less solid than any
individual act. It, as i've said, _emerges from_ the acts of experiment
and exploration which can (but do not have to) take the form of art.
To use your example of the scientific method ("hypothesis, experiment,
prove/disprove (succeed/fail), re-hypothesize"), surrealism is not the
hypothesis, or even the scientific method, but more akin to the sum
total of spontaneous knowledge of the sort aquired from falling apples.
To refer to a painting, or a text, or an apple, or whatever, as
"surrealist" is to attribute a strictly human process (perhaps actually
a kind of meta-experience) to a nonhuman object, leaving surrealism
smaller and less coherent than it is. This is anthropomorphism, not
surrealism.
What you refer to as "applied surrealism" (as i begin to see it better)
may, or may not be a useful term (i'll have to ponder this) -- you
certainly describe a viable way for an artist to work -- but it can not
endow an object with an imaginative life.
Regardless what color the shit is, it's the human (each specific human)
that sees it as either marvelous or mundane.