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/> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005