From: WDubin-AT-aol.com
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 16:18:45 -0400
Subject: re: Futility of Restraints


Pierre,

You are absolutely correct in stating that until surrealism can dive a wedge
between it and the burgeouis as great as there is between our current culture
and that of the Eskimos, it will not have succedded.

However, to accomplish this, Surrealism must FIRST OF ALL, un-harness its
PAST and jetison all its history in an attempt to rescuse SURREALISM from the
moriubond situation it finds itself in today.

I don't care at WHAT point in time you establish this as starting, for me, it
occurs with the first exhibition of Dali's works by the Julian Levy Gallery
in New York, SURREALISM became the dandy and the play-thing OF the
bourgeouis. Has there EVER been a movement with an assembled literature as
vast as Surrealism? Has there ever been an art mouvement as successful ($$$)
as Surrealism, and, finally, has there ever been a concept so fully
INTEGRATED into bourgeouis society (even though it IS a false understanding
of it), as SURREALISM?

There are even FALSE bourgeouis TERMS, like SURREALISTIC... which probably
gave Breton nightmares... in existance.

The bourgeouis took one look at surrealism, percieved its hostile nature, and
clipped its balls with the bait of ACCEPTANCE.

My evidence is clearly given in the responses made over the last week or so
on this list. Surrealism is nothing, if not RESPECTABLE.

I always wondered about all those SUIT AND TIE GENTELMAN who appear in group
photo's of the surrealists, are these the photo's of artists and poets, or of
politicians!

Now, if I have read your "Arts and Revolution" correctly, you START with the
premis that these suit & tie gentelman and the casterated nubs of their
mouvement, were ALREADY DEAD and had begun to small badly enough for the S.I.
to require birth. That the S.I. had its limitations, you admit, and, I
gather, it also developed a peculiar stench of rotted meat. And again, if I
understand, you end by saying only SURREALISM can un-do the situation and
re-establish the revolution (I'm sorry, I don't have your text in front of
me).

But to do so, Surrealism must first free itself from those who call
themselves SURREALISTS... because their movement is the one which was
co-opted and became the bourgeouis group we see today.

At an earlier point, there was a question of weather it would make sense to
use a different name, given the connotations and unfortunate baggage
Surrealism carried with it. I am curious, in light of your two last posts,
how you view that idea today.

Somewhere, in the 1950's, I came across something ATTRIBUTED to Breton... I
say it rhat way, because I can't remember if he actually said this. It had to
do with describing France as "a nation of small-shop keepers" (the bourgeouis
in other words), and the need for a revolution to over-throw this, but what I
specifically remember was MOST important to me, was his insistance on the
need for a NEW revolution EVERY (I think it was) TEN YEARS, to keep the old
one from getting stale. THIS was the Breton I was immeadiately interested in!

Wm.