Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 11:55:44 -0400 From: Michael Betancourt <mwb2-AT-mosquito.com> Subject: Re: I just like to draw pictures. I have a couple of (trouble making) questions... >>"But a surrealist should never be taken seriously" what on earth do >>you mean? Why not? If it is more than a bad joke, surely it requires >>seriousness. On the other hand, it should not be taken ONLY >>seriously, as some humourless dead thing. Seriousness does not rule >>out humour, it requires it, and vice versa. > >This is a purely personal judgement - I am not forcing it upon you. I don't >think life should be taken seriously, so I see no problem with suggesting >that surrealists not be taken seriously. This is meant to be provocative, >you should not be asking me to justify my statement "...a surrealist should >never be taken seriously", you should be trying to convince ME of the >contrary - which you have not done. Why should we need to convince you? (You're the one making the assertion without apparent grounding...) >Who cares! Certainly not Hilter, The Marx Brothers or Edmund Hillary >either!... Who says? I DO! You probably think I show disrespect for other >surrealists, I do not, I simply imply that surrealism is a vast arena, >surely there is room enough my opinions? Even if no-one joins me, I shall >stubbornly plod on alone, from "first principles" as it were. > >Do these aforementioned individuals OWN surrealism? or did they help >DISCOVER surrealism? My definition is the most succint I could formulate, >surely it has SOME merit? I am trying to REdiscover, REinvent... is there >only one kind of surrealism? or many? Do you think we should be BOUND by the >past? or that we should simply take HEED of the past? It seems to me more a matter of operating within an already established paradigm -- Surrealism -- which means something quite specific, just as working with Epistemology is specific. >>Surrealism has always sought to go beyond itself, you say "We are >>trapped within current perspectives" but what are those perspectives? > >It seems that you must tell me! Again, which perspectives? We (on this list) had this discussion earlier... >Because [as I thought was obvious] I see Jung's psychology as much more >pertinent than Freud's as regards surrealism. How so? -- Michael Betancourt E-mail: mwb2-AT-mosquito.com Index to Web Sites: http://www.mosquito.com/~mwb2
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005