Hutto and Surrealism
zi...@interport.net
What Hutto is writing is poetic and helps explain the workings of a
sensitive mind. Someone who -if he gets this stuff into his art- has
the makings of an artistic voice.
But surrealism remains a historic style with a specific definition
given by Andre Breton the philkosophical leader ofthe movement.
It is not what Hutto says, but some of the things he says surrealism
isnot. What he really means is I paint this way. This is what I do and
I call it surrealism. HWat he does has a relation to surrealism, but I
reiterate, surrealism was a historic style in reponse to a specific
moment, its culture, its past and its hang ups. Just as you can't be a
Dada artist now, you can't be a surrealist. In fact such a modern
avant garde style, if repeated, would by the definitions of the people
who first were involved, be wrongheaded and bourgeouis! Probably their
worst word. Balthus, who was not let into the movement after a long
fight between its members, but who verges on it sometimes, as in the
first street painting, split up with his first wife, according to a
recent interview, in part, because he refused to live in a
"bourgeouis" apartment in Paris.
So, Hutto, forget the labels and say. This is what I believe in, and
want to do. I think it connects me with the surrealists. But you
aren't one. SupposeI called you a regionalist -like John Stuart Curry-
justbecause you and paint somewhere other than NYC? Would that be
true?
Gabriel
Andrew Werby
In article <6cv6f4$i48$1...@broadway.interport.net>, zi...@interport.net wrote:
...surrealism remains a historic style with a specific definition
> given by Andre Breton the philkosophical leader ofthe movement.
>
> It is not what Hutto says, but some of the things he says surrealism
> is not. What he really means is I paint this way. This is what I do and
> I call it surrealism. HWat he does has a relation to surrealism, but I
> reiterate, surrealism was a historic style in reponse to a specific
> moment, its culture, its past and its hang ups. Just as you can't be a
> Dada artist now, you can't be a surrealist.
[I know a few Dadaists who might disagree. I don't see why someone who
identifies strongly with a particular historical style can't use the label.
Can't you be an Abstract Expressionist if you weren't around in New York
in the
fifties? Can't you be an Impressionist if you want to be, even if you didn't
hang out with Monet? Are you saying that everybody has to paint in the style of
"now", whatever that is?]
In fact such a modern
> avant garde style, if repeated, would by the definitions of the people
> who first were involved, be wrongheaded and bourgeouis!
[Even if they did say that they disapproved of any possible followers, do they
have absolute posthumous veto power? I don't see why they should. Certainly,
being the first, they could define the rules of the game, but assuming
that one
plays by them why should there be a blanket bar on latecomers? After all, the
original Surrealists were fond of naming unwitting precursors, and had many
debates which ended by the extension of their movement in unforseen ways.]
Probably their
> worst word.
[Pardon my French, but they spelled it "bourgeois."]
Balthus, who was not let into the movement after a long
> fight between its members, but who verges on it sometimes, as in the
> first street painting, split up with his first wife, according to a
> recent interview, in part, because he refused to live in a
> "bourgeouis" apartment in Paris.
[So your position is that this was a private club, and no matter how you paint
- or dream- you can't be a Surrealist unless the original members voted you in?
If some of the surviving members got together and declared Balthus -or Mr.
Hutto- a worthy successor, would that satisfy you?]
>
> So, Hutto, forget the labels and say. This is what I believe in, and
> want to do. I think it connects me with the surrealists. But you
> aren't one. SupposeI called you a regionalist -like John Stuart Curry-
> justbecause you and paint somewhere other than NYC? Would that be
> true?
>
[True? If the definition of Regionalist was as you write above, then it might be
"true", the question is how useful is it, or any after-the-fact labelling of
artists by others. But the term "surrealist" is descriptive of a certain sort of
art, which is still practiced today in spite of your nay-saying. Many people
like to paint in various historical styles, so much so that it is difficult to
find a gallery if one can't be pigeonholed in this way. Walk around New
York- you'll find galleries full of latter-day Surrealists,
Impressionists, Geometric Abstractionists, Pop artists, AE holdovers, even
some young Old Masters. Think of the label as a marketing tool. Maybe
you'd have an easier time if he refrained from capitalizing it?]
UNITED ARTWORKS- SCULPTURE AND MORE
http://users.lanminds.com/~drewid
Useful Resources, Technical Tips
and Custom Art in Many Media
redi...@earthlink.net
> But surrealism remains a historic style with a specific definition
> given by Andre Breton the philkosophical leader ofthe movement.
>
> It is not what Hutto says, but some of the things he says surrealism
> isnot. What he really means is I paint this way. This is what I do and
> I call it surrealism. HWat he does has a relation to surrealism, but I
> reiterate, surrealism was a historic style in reponse to a specific
> moment, its culture, its past and its hang ups. Just as you can't be a
> Dada artist now, you can't be a surrealist. In fact such a modern
> avant garde style, if repeated, would by the definitions of the people
> who first were involved, be wrongheaded and bourgeouis! Probably their
> worst word. Balthus, who was not let into the movement after a long
> fight between its members, but who verges on it sometimes, as in the
> first street painting, split up with his first wife, according to a
> recent interview, in part, because he refused to live in a
> "bourgeouis" apartment in Paris.
>
> So, Hutto, forget the labels and say. This is what I believe in, and
> want to do. I think it connects me with the surrealists. But you
> aren't one. SupposeI called you a regionalist -like John Stuart Curry-
> justbecause you and paint somewhere other than NYC? Would that be
> true?
>
> Gabriel
And now from the horses mouth...to quote André Breton:
"There is no such thing as 'neo-surrealism.' Anything that presents
itself as such or, these days, sports the label 'revolutionary Surrealism'
is a counterfeit enterprise and must be denounced as an inposture. And for
good reason: from the sole fact that Surrealism, at the outset, claimed to
be the codification of a state of mind that has manifested itself
sporadically in every age and in every country, one cannot ascribe an end
to it any more than one can pinpoint its beginning. Goya was ALREADY a
Surrealist, as was Dante, or Uccello, or Lautréamont, or Gaudì. Centuries
from now, any art that takes new pathes toward a greater emancipation of
the mind will be Surrealist."
-interview with José M. Valverde
(Correo Literario, MAdrid, September 1950)
He claims differences, for example, between Surrealism in the 20s and in
the 50s is due to a widened field of investigation. He claims that it was
always community of like minded individuals with a free spontaneous
association. He claims it is possible to stop being a Surrealist , once
one has been one. Dali for example, in his opinion stopped being a
Surrealist, and his exclusion was simply a consecration of the established
fact. What motivates one in their youth may vanish, along with the
Surrealist spirit.
Surrealism is a can of worms, particularly when it deals so heavily with
'spirit', 'mind', 'adventure', 'love'. Visual stylistics is no
measure...one can paint a painting that looks Surrealist but has shared
non of the adventure of the movement, one can copy a style without
identification or participation. Surrealsm in the twentieth century is a
particulaly communal movement, a collective. Experiments were shared in a
group, hypnotic slumbers, unconscious explorations, the Exquisite Corpse
works, meetings. The communal element was central. They had little faith
in the conception and practice of the individual artist from the past.
They considered the latter artistic conception over and done with.
Breton had little patience for armchair Surrealists or armchair theorists
of Surrealism.
Rationalizing one's passions and actions is not conducive to the actual
practice of surrealism (keenly appreciated in the adherence to a position
of 'primacy' particularly vis-a-vis automatism).
About the longevity of the movement and its processes and those boasting
of domesticating it, he claims such individuals were domesticated long
before surrealism was.
-N.
barrett john erickson
[previously posted feb 20, 1998]
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
concerning Gabriel's baiting remarks (addressed to Hutto) ...
rather than reinvent the cattle prod, i've reposted "surrealist work
exists -- surrealist works do not" which you've obviously either failed
to read, failed to comprehend, or chose to obliquely ridicule.
even though it was a post critical of Hutto's explanations of
surrealism, he has demonstrated in that attempt an infinitely better
understanding than you.
for those of us who know better, to proclaim (and reiterate), that
"surrealism remains a historic style" is to declare the human
imagination trivial. to say "you can't be a surrealist [now]" is to
surrender that imagination to the toxic banality that threatens to
smother us daily in our own fecal complicities.
the truth is, the word "surrealist" _isn't_ very important -- except
when it is deliberately abused in so offensive a manner as to attempt to
deform its (historical) meaning and thereby mutilate the work continuing
around the world today in its name *(see note below).
on such occasions offense is taken.
-- 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
*note: there are groups and individuals (the oldest of whom were around
to recieve Breton's welcome) still active today in numerous countries,
including France, the UK, Sweden, the Czech and Slovak republics,
Portugal, Brazil, Canada and yes, even the USA.
zi...@interport.net
Now I have read this original posting forthe first time. I like the
quoting from Breton and the cautionary tone of it all. But I will not
make the original poster any happier by responding to it directly, or
understanding it. There is too much in my experience of the world of
art and my own work experience in art from 1949 to 1998 to make that
possible.
I still hold that today there can be no surrealist work produced by
artists, but work indebted to surrealists may be done.
The automatic process is so old that I remember teaching it to a
student at Skowhegan in 1969 or 70. I recall it because it was
important to her. I was just recounting something I had known about
and practiced in 1949 and which was perhaps of use to her. It seems to
have been her major influence afterwards.
I started doing such work in that year, influenced by Gorky, deKooning
and Hofmann. There got to be a huge number of people doing things like
that in the art world a few years later-related to the 1940s
deKoonings[say about 1952-62]. It was so much a part of the New York
art world that it was ubiquitous. The people doing it were not very
radical. They were more clannish and leaning against each other for
support. All were in some measure imitators of older or more original
artists.
Although they were influenced by a basic surrealist procedure, they
were none of them surrealists. I think a good claim could be made for
the surrealism of deKooning's Excavations at the Chicago Museum now.
By the way, in it many of the shapes have little teeth and are biting
each other.
Anyhow, I am even less taken with discussing surrealism now than in
1969. It is almost 30 years later and it ought to be a dead issue.
That does not mean that I do not acknowledge a whole series of
influences on my own work and the work of the people I most like from
that movement, but that they are just that, influences. None of us are
painting dreams and none of us believe that our dream and realities
meet and become one.
Gabriel
barrett john erickson <bar...@magneticfields.org> wrote:
>[previously posted feb 20, 1998]
>surrealist work exists -- surrealist works do not
>~~barrett
> www.MagneticFields.org
>"Everything tends to make us believe that there exists a certain point
zi...@interport.net
I never read any post but Hutto's, so I cannot be accused of
misunderstanding someone else's post.
Also, I do think that what Hutto says is surrealism is close to his
credo or he would be mad at me. And I think it is a viable credo. But
it is not surrealism, today. Just as you and I are not members of the
Abstraction- Creation Movement or the American Abstract Artists
Association. These were time bound movements between th the two world
wars. For all practical purposes, in terms of its major contribution,
so was Surrealism.
If you believe that surrealism is still with us, now as a viable
style, it goes together with the fact that it became the establishment
in Paris, and a secondary establishment elsewhere as academic painters
-academic in the sense that their voices were inherited- not merely
their techniques, became the rage in grant giving USA. For a period
during the 1950s through 70s, the major institutions, including MOMA
with their Images of Man show, seemed to be supporting nouveau
surrealists in the USA and abroad. Quite a few people whom I knew at
that time some of whom are still around, became part of this moment of
establishment support. The one great living artist who obviously had
surrealist roots and who was a big influence on many people was
Giacometti [a member of the group, I believe, during its heyday].
But again, since I have never read your post, I am talking about power
and not about ideas. The power elite proclaimed that surrealism was
what counted. A lot of the American surrealists came out of Chicago,
where they had been students of Matta, who seemed to have taken over
that town when he was teaching there.
All of this was anathema to the Surrealistes [with a capital S]. They
were not out to make it big with the bourgeoisie but to defame their
ideas, scandalize them, and produce living dreams as the true
realities. Can this be done, today with a backdrop of work by them and
their immediate and more distant followers since the 1920s?
Is this a movement capable of continued and sustained growth despite
the fact that its images once seen preclude the originality of those
which come after?
So, without meaning to harm your original statement, which I never
read. I think Surrealism like all recent avant-gardes is dead by its
own hand.
Is there anyone who wants to speak up for the perpetual continuation
of the Fauves, the Nabis, the Symbolists, the Impressionists, the
Hudson River School, the Heidelberg School, the Bloomsbury School, the
Vorticists, the Seven, the Eight or the Ten!
Rather, the continuing influence of each of these movements is real,
not their continuity as movements.
Gabriel
barrett john erickson
zi...@interport.net wrote:
>
>[...]
>
> I still hold that today there can be no surrealist work produced by
> artists, but work indebted to surrealists may be done.
this is not at odds with my position.
> The automatic process is so old that I remember teaching it to a
>[...]
> deKoonings[say about 1952-62]. It was so much a part of the New York
> art world that it was ubiquitous. The people doing it were not very
> radical. They were more clannish and leaning against each other for
> support. All were in some measure imitators of older or more original
> artists.
>
> Although they were influenced by a basic surrealist procedure, they
> were none of them surrealists. I think a good claim could be made for
i don't disagree with any of this either.
there was a fragmentation after WWII which branched along several
different growth paths. most of these ignored some important core
aspect of the pre-war movement (including what one might think of as the
"main" branch headed by Breton).
> Anyhow, I am even less taken with discussing surrealism now than in
> 1969. It is almost 30 years later and it ought to be a dead issue.
the reason its not a dead issue is that there are living surrealists and
their work continues. in my opinion, the most important work today is
the attempt to reunite these divergent "branches" and integrate the
sciences (so woefully ignored in the past) into a more comprehensive
view.
you don't have to pay any attention if you choose not to, and i don't
much care if you insist on artificially restricting your concept of
surrealism to art, but don't expect silence if you assert a falsehood in
a public forum.
-- barrett
http://www.MagneticFields.org/
barrett john erickson
zi...@interport.net wrote:
>[...]
> Association. These were time bound movements between th the two world
> wars. For all practical purposes, in terms of its major contribution,
> so was Surrealism.
applying "practical purpose" in this sense is the error.
>
> If you believe that surrealism is still with us, now as a viable
> style, it goes together with the fact that it became the establishment
no, it is the false concept of surrealism "as a viable style" that i
object to.
it was this "style" that hardened in the arteries -- not surrealism.
>[...]
> Is this a movement capable of continued and sustained growth despite
> the fact that its images once seen preclude the originality of those
> which come after?
"its images" are irrelevant to the question of "continued and sustained
growth," which _is_ a legitimate and troubling question for those
concerned.
> So, without meaning to harm your original statement, which I never
> read. I think Surrealism like all recent avant-gardes is dead by its
> own hand.
>[...]
> Is there anyone who wants to speak up for the perpetual continuation
> of the Fauves, the Nabis, the Symbolists, the Impressionists, the
> Hudson River School, the Heidelberg School, the Bloomsbury School, the
> Vorticists, the Seven, the Eight or the Ten!
>
> Rather, the continuing influence of each of these movements is real,
> not their continuity as movements.
i'm not at all sure there is a surrealist _movement_ today. there
certainly are surrealists, and surrealist theory in its global scope
remains vital, but i _would_ say that it's been severely handicapped by
the inbreeding of complacent surrealists.
recovering "movement" will require overcoming this complacency.
[please see my other post for comments on your response to "surrealist
work exists -- surrealist works do not]
Brother Alphabet
On Tue, 24 Feb 1998 zi...@interport.net wrote:
> So, Hutto, forget the labels and say. This is what I believe in, and
> want to do. I think it connects me with the surrealists.
I do not feel that I have applied a label to myself. I *do* believe in the
ideals collected and published by Breton and others simultaneously and
since. It does, in a very slight way, connect me with the members of the
historical movement, as much as any living artist can be connected with
the dead.
The reason WHY I feel this connection is also important...This is mainly
because, initially, I began the visual research I was doing not as
research but as just an idea I had. I had made certain visual
relationships on my own and had begun exploring some of the ideas in my
head by putting them down on paper.
It was remarked to me that I should investigate Surrealism.
I did so and it was then that I discovered that I had not a stylistic
connection as much as a philosophical connection. I will admit that
certain stylistic parallels subsequently developed as a result of chronic
exposure to images of the Surrealist movement, but just as many of these
existed in my work before my immersion in Surrealist image.
The difference between being a Dadaist and a Surrealist is that Dada was
in fact a confined movement which had a defined purpose and
defined objective. Surrealism by contrast was not a well-laid plan. It is
a creative philosophy. Just as the principles of any given philosophy
usually remain useful in more than historical ways, so do the various
aspects of Surrealist thought/vision. If one removes all reference
to Breton and all the members of the historical movement (the life of
which is the only confined aspect of Surrealism) the principles still
readily apply to modern times. Surrealism is a manner in which
one can understand, interpret or even invent relationships between
objects, events or ideas.
> But you aren't one.
I agree here. I would not call myself a Surrealist, nor would I be at all
comfortable with someone else seeing me as such. I do not know what I am
or if I am anything at all. I am simply on a path, as are we all.
Currently I am following not within but behind certain footsteps which
seem to be the same size as my own.
> SupposeI called you a regionalist -like John Stuart Curry - just because
> you and paint somewhere other than NYC? Would that be true?
I do not depict scenes of local interest. I do not even think my locale is
that interesing :)
I understand what you are saying, but I separate the Surrealist -movement-
from the Surrealist Ideology. Certainly there is no 'Surrealist Movement'
any longer, but there are still it's students/disciples. There are very
many collectives (some not all that noteworthy) who believe in the ideal.
Let's compare philosophy to philosophy.
(I don't intend this to be blasphemous)
Jesus Christ and the Apostles no longer walk the earth. Is this fact
reason to claim Christianity is but a historical belief? The religion has
it's history, and its historical beliefs...Some of these beliefs have been
refuted due to modern discovery, but there is still a modern Christianity.
Plenty of other belief systems can also be used in this comparison (not to
say that Surrealism is religion, but I think the point is clear.)
By all means, I wish to remain without label. I wish to make my own work
and grow from within, not emulate whatever is without. At this particular
time in my life, the Surrealist ideology is what allows me to understand
what my mind's eye shows me. I have learned a great deal from historical
study, but I have learned even more from the realization that the
philosophy is separate from the history and that it applies to my own
work.
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
Brother Alphabet
On Wed, 25 Feb 1998 zi...@interport.net wrote:
> None of us are painting dreams and none of us believe that our dream and
> realities meet and become one.
I work directly from dreams, or use matter based upon those
dream-based ideas. Random thoughts, day-dreams, fantasies - These are also
dream-thoughts.
I do not believe that, say, a large purple frog from a dream I might have
will suddenly appear before me on the street, but I do believe that
through one outlet or another, whether it be visual or verbal or aural, we
have the capacity to meld dream with reality.
It is about the transliteration of imagination, where anything at all can
be reality. Besides, 'reality' fluctuates.
O
This is a Surrealist Work.