File spoon-archives/surrealist.archive/surrealist_1996/96-06-28.151, message 83


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




   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005