solve et coagula,
william
gree...@designlink.com
--
Sent from Designlink, San Francisco. Design, Graphics, Photo, Portfolios Online.
Modem: (510) 933-9676; (510) 845-4187; (415) 241-9927. Voice: 930-6746
Internet Access: Via TCP/IP PORT: 3000; IP: designlink.com or 206.14.15.3
WEB: http://www.designlink.com
> Here is some text that I read recently that basically said that the
> women in the surrealist movement were hangers on, wives and
> girlfriends...
--------
[clip]
> Surrealism thus exalted the female, but the female imprisoned
> within a world of childhood and immaturity. And it perpetuated
> Western culture's dichotomous equation of woman with nature
> and the intuitive, and man with culture and the cerebral, thereby
> celebrating - according to the values of patriarchal society - a
> relationship of inequality.
--------
> So why is it so difficult for women to get recognition for their own
> work?
> Why is it that a movement based on typically female characteristics
> (intuition, dreams, imagination) is so defined by the men in the
> movement?
Because they lived in a phallocentric universe.
Ever seen this quote? (A collaborative effort by Paul Eluard &
Andre Breton): "To discover the nakedness of the one you love,
look at her hands. Her face is lowered."
They admired submissive beauty... The Marquis de Sade was one of
their favorite writers.
-Ross
Althought they may be surrealists, they are not listed in the history of
art movements texts as major surrealists. Remedios definitely hung out
with the Surrealists (escaped Europe with them) but in terms of status or
recognition: who? In fact, I cannot add to your mention of Carrington.
Art exhibits and texts describing the discovery of Surrealism and the
relationship of its authors mention no women (except through marriage or
circumstance).
My actual interest is how was a major movement that was exploring 'feminine'
qualities (dreams, intuition, unconscious, etc.) so well defined by men:
Breton, Ernst, Magritte, et al.