Date: Thu, 01 Aug 1996 10:06:18 +0000 From: Michael Vandelaar <hq06-AT-dial.pipex.com> Subject: Surrealist Impostor !!!!!!???????!!!!!!!!!!!! Carlos Martins wrote : > 'well well well! Nowadays surrealists or its friends seems to be very > affraid > to take a strong position against moralism and bourgeoise > hipocrisy...Frankly i don`t understand why you hesitate to take the > Michael` side. > It`s sadness i think. Are we really surrealists or just people > interested in surrealist art but is nothing to do with surrealist > principles? ' Wm Dubin wrote : > 'Surrealists of the past, seemed able to get together their forces, to > at least publish a tract against such incidents, or behaviours. I would > hope, that something that threatens us as writers, artists, and human > beings, could bring about at least some sort of counter-attack.' Michael B. wrote : > ' It's obvious to me that you don't > understand and have no interest in doing so. [What's of particular > interest > to me is that your position is the same as that of the Republican Party > in > the US -- a group never noted for their anti-censorship stance.]' Carlos Martins added : > 'Well, Republican Party for me as libertarian and surrealist really > stinks. They are very close to fascism and racism. How can we as > surrealists > are from the same side of them in this question so sensitive to us?' Wm Dubin wrote : > 'While its very nice to see the williness everyone has had to protect > the moral stance of this employee, I am troubled by the fact that as > surrealists, you are standing up for an individuals right to remain > prudish (I doubt there's a better word to cover, but I'll happily > accept one if you have one), and I see no difference between defending > this person's moral stance and that of a priest. At the very least, I > hope everyone is aquainted with the photo published in Surrealism a > Serivce to the Revolution, of Benjamin Peret hurrassing a priest, and > the explicit position surrealism took by publishing this photo.' Carlos Martins wrote : > 'But when > you put in question that those people are really censors are you saying > his > work is "porno" or "indecent" so, they are just defending themselves > from what they don`t like? Sincerely i am totally surprised. Even for > non- > surrealists in Portugal these acts will deserve without any hesitation > verya > strong protest and repugnancy.' John E. Barrett wrote : > 'There is, i believe, a very easy line to draw: > > we must stand against all acts which are "complicitous with > censorship".' John E. Barrett wrote : > 'You can use your time any way you choose, but you have > already used it to defend the action of Berry and Homer. > > Are you continuing to do so?' It seems to me that you have finally answered the last question from the exhibition questionnaire, 'How do you determine a surrealist impostor?' Congratulations and good-bye! Michael P.S As Daffy Duck said :"Ha!Ha! Very funny! It is to laugh!"
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005