File spoon-archives/surrealist.archive/surrealist_1996/96-10-27.153, message 63


From: "barrett john erickson" <barrett-AT-skypoint.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 11:01:53 -0700
Subject: Re: what is a "Metaphysical Surrealist Artist" ?  


Hi all,

[I have posted this also to alt.surrealism]

Once again Frank has raised what I think is the most
important and immediate two challenges we face:

>1. How should we react to people abusing the word
>surrealism? 2. How should surrealist art develop further?



===========As for #1...
===========
The problem is that most of the abuse is lazily passive and
diffuse, rather than assertively intentional and focused. 
This presents a very difficult situation as any surrealist
reader of "alt.surrealism" soon discovers.  

That space is mostly populated by what one could describe as
the "well-meaning ignorant" -- those whose knowledge and
experience of the surrealist movement has been filtered
through the (grossly distorting) "popular" sources.  They've
learned just enough perhaps, to recognize affinity but not
yet enough to question with critical poetry.  

This is the soil from which all surrealists grow.

Then there are what I've called the "arrogantly ignorant" --
those who've decided (apparently on very little evidence)
that they _know_ what surrealism is.  These are the people
who adopt a resolutely defensive posture when challenged,
refusing to consider the possibility that their knowledge is
limited, or their conclusions in error.

We need to fertilize and weed concurrently.

Because "alt.surrealism" is one of the first places a person
will attempt to make contact with surrealists on the net, I
think it is important that we position our horizon in
contrast to the fluff drifting in all that inert gas. 
Perhaps simply posting an occasional message such as this to
it will help.

We should also work to counter the misrepresentations,
trivializations, or blatant abuse of "surrealism" which
occurs in other media.  Perhaps a standard group response
could be drafted, signed by all, and authorized for use
_immediately_ and _independently_ by any signatory whenever
such abuse is encountered.


===========As for #2...
===========
Anyone reading recent discussions on this list (or visiting 
the URL's in my "sig") knows that taking the surrealist 
project further (especially as it relates to art) is 
something that many of us have already given considerable 
thought.  

The key, as I see it, is to redefine the word "aesthetic"
and make it usable in a surrealist context, so we can
overcome the tiresome burden of those who would claim as
"surrealist art" all random scribblings.

Some of us at ARTlab (specifically William, Celine, and I)
made this effort in developing the concept of AESTHETIC
AUTOMATISM.  

This "aesthetic" is far different from the one usually
referred to.  It evolves naturally and uniquely, for each
individual, from the accumulated analysis and continuing
development of automatist explorations of, and experiments
with desire.  This is a self-creating "aesthetic" which can
expand to encompass the entire range of any person's
investigations, from art to science, painting to physics,
computers to sodomy.  

Because it is an "aesthetic" rooted in autonomous,
spontaneous, poetic action, it is not a "community standard"
against which the artifacts of such activity can be judged,
but remains open to critique on its own terms.  

It offers, therefore, no refuge in acquired values.



~~barrett


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
barrett: <http://www.skypoint.com/~barrett/>
ARTlab:  <http://www.skypoint.com/~barrett/ARTlab/>
Aesthetic Automatism: <http://www.skypoint.com/~barrett/aarc/>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005