File spoon-archives/surrealist.archive/surrealist_1996/96-08-21.184, message 110


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!"



   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005