The Ethics of Surrealism?

The Surrealists of France and the Automatists of Quebec sought to free themselves of everything that they felt bound them. They recognized the Catholic Church as a repressive and limiting power. They thought of the logical, rational thought of the enlightenment as cold and inhumane. Because of this they renounced these systems of thought. They refused the realities they were born into with the hopes of being free to define their own reality. These people wanted to find a new way to search for truth since “forbidden is any kind of search for truth which is not in conformance with accepted practices.” With the help of Sigmund Freud’s work, they put a great emphasis on the imagination. In Breton’s words: “The imagination is perhaps on the point of reasserting itself, of reclaiming its rights.” They wanted to focus especially on dreams, for they felt that this part of life was neglected and could be learned from.

These people are guilty of the same thing so many have been in the past: constructing and believing in a Utopia. Like Plato, Moore, Marx, and many more, they sought to define a world that was better than they one they lived in. Utopias are all well and good to think about, a great deal can be learned during such an exercise, but what kind of a Utopia have the Surrealists made? Plato has taught that, if one is going to dream up an ideal city, one must define justice and the ethics that make up justice. Plato defined justice as the proper ordering of courage, wisdom and moderation. Ethics are therefore intimately connected to justice since a just city requires the proper ordering of the individual soul according to what is just. Christian ethics are very similar to Plato’s since they address the proper relation of the individual to the community: do unto others as you would have done to you or love your neighbor as yourself. As I have mentioned in another blog when the world submitted to science and rejected Christianity in the Enlightenment, it found it difficult, if not impossible, to define ethical behaviour. The Surrealists, as mentioned earlier, have rejected both Christianity, and the rationality and scientific thinking of the Enlightenment; they therefore have rejected the foundations for ethics that accompany these belief systems (I say belief systems because I think it takes just as much faith to believe in the absence of a God as it does to believe in one). Where therefore is the justice that will order a Surrealist Utopia? What can be said of Surrealist ethics? The Surrealists place their greatest emphasis on freedom of the individual. However, an act of Surrealism is when one disrupts the status quo; firing a gun into a crowd is the ultimate act. I see a contradiction here: it appears they believe in freedom for those with the gun, not for those who stand in front of it. Indeed the difficulty with Surrealism is in the area of ethics and justice, they have not defined them and I do not think they can. When taking on the task of rejecting everything one loses a lot of ground in the area of ethics and justice, and these things are essential for a successful community.

Jason DeRoche

Beavers at a Ball…

I have to say that, when the ‘Beaver Ball’ was announced as an art exhibition I thought it was going to be just that! something relating to beavers at a ball. How surreal would that have been I thought until I found out the truth behind what a beaver ball really was.

Overall I thought the exhibition was quite interesting, especially Sara Petranik’s piece with the dripping wax into a wooden crate of pig ears enveloped in more wax. Although I am not really sure the meaning of the piece, im guessing it  may relate to consumerism in numerous aspects.

As the viewers began to pile in the studio space I was automatically driven back to Baudelaire’s comment on a over populated fleeting and abstract environment especially when the poet readings were in progress, one room was at complete silence, the craft tables were being fiddled with, visitors were casually sipping their beverages and the other room still conversating among themselves and occasionally being Hushed every now and again.

I would like to know if it was intentional or not how frequently plaster hands appeared in work throughout the gallery. Although I am sure their purpose was completely different they seemed very similar in arrangement and positioning of the fingers. My understanding of the exhibit was supposed to be geared towards the surreal and I had a difficult time in trying to relate the theme to some of the work  such as Kristina Jessome’s power graphite war scenes.

Overall the exhibit was great and it was a sucessful chance at getting out of the classroom into another interactive scene.

-Jessica Hay

Reality in Surreal?

In reading Gogol, I am curious to know the reason behind using the nose as the object lost by Kovalev, not the mouth, an ear, etc. Perhaps because it is one of the most noticeable features on the face and without it would be ’surreal’, but the  purpose of a nose can affix itself with more than just existing as a  respiratory aid. In relations to culture a nose can determine ones heritage (to an extent),  symbolically the nose coincides with attitude and ego, both which I find very relevant to the story. I thought it served Kovalev right to lose his nose, not only does the central object on his face become an outstretched pancake but his egotistical attitude becomes distressed and he becomes very self aware of his akward physical appearance. Although the loss of his mouth would have been equally surreal and comical, I have an even more difficult time imagining that, as an object itself,walking down the street as a higher class employed citizen.

What I think to be intriguing is once the object of the nose is removed from its body it is surreal, just as a nose itself, but when attached to its proper place it is realist. why is this intriguing? because its a nose! It seems so simplistic but I suppose that is what makes it surreal.

In both ‘the overcoat’ and ‘the nose’ I was in hopes that there would be an obvious moral to the story, a happy ending, or even proper revenge on whoever deserves it, but both short stories ended (for me) in disappointment. If anything the moral of the story was that we are selfish and desire petty object that are of no true necessity and if we lose those commodities we turn into agitated beings that may die because we cannot live without that desire or if it is returned to our posession we learn no moral lesson of being happy with what we have already. Sounds quite dismal but reality.

Essentially through the satirical, comical shorts stories of Gogol’s ‘overcoat’ and ‘the nose’, his stories represent reality through the surreal.

-Jessica Hay

a nose by any name?

So, in reading Gogol, I was struck by how much we take for granted. We are confronted by the absurd more and more each day, so that when one reads stories by people like Gogol, Havel, or even Kafka, we have no problem skipping past the wierdness in the search for deeper meaning. I think these stories lose something when the absurdities are ignored. People seem to have the tendancy to say “Oh, they’re surrealist” and jump straight into the plot , or the political message, (I know I’m generalizing). I really enjoyed how we delved into the deeper meaning of losing a part of one’s self, but I think it could have been more. I can see why a nose would have been chosen to go missing since it is such an obvious defect when it is gone. But why would it walk around the streets, get a job, pretend to be someone important, or try to leave town? I think that if the author has something to say, it makes more sense to say it than to try to prove how smart one is by trying to outsmart his readers.

On a different note, I was watching the Matrix last night, and there’s a scene where Keanu Reeve’s character has his mouth taken away. It was the most disturbing thing I have seen in quite a while. He ceased to look human. He was there, moving about, but he had lost a vital part of what we consider to be “us”. Now what would happen if it started walking around? Naturally, poor Keanu would want his mouth back. But what if it didn’t want to be part of him.

Looking deeper, we can say that Keanu lost his mouth because there was an oppresive force that was preventing him from speaking out, both literally and figuratively. So what can that tell us about the loss of the nose? Maybe Gogol was trying to say that something didn’t smell right in the government. Maybe the nose was trying to sniff it out.

Annaliese

surrealism

After visiting the surreal art show, I have come to terms with the fact that I don’t particularly like surrealism. At least, not surrealist art. I have known for some time that I didn’t like most modern art; things like readymades and installation art just don’t make sense to me. But strangely enough, most of what we now consider to be a part of our common culture seems to be based on surrealism in some form.

I’m a huge fan of sci-fi and fantasy movies and novels. The more I walked around the show, the more I realised that it is the imagination of people like this that make most of the things I read in my spare time. I mean, alternate worlds, what kind of mind makes that up? I find myself wondering if the sci-fi/fantasy genre would even exist without the surealism of the turn of the 20th century. Would we be able to think up fantasy movies like Blade Runner, or Alien; or comedies like Top Secret, or Hot Shots without the basis of the surrealists?

There seems to be so much that we take for granted these days. And it seems to me that most of what we look at on a daily basis has some form of surrealism to it. So I guess it’s kind of strange for me to say that I dislike surrealism, especially when it seems to have inspired so much in the arts that I do like. But I still don’t like readymades.

Annaliese

Beaver Ballin’

“loo, loo, loo, loo, loo, loo, loo, loo, loo… “

Wednesday evening’s Surrealism extravaganza was a fabulous taste of something new. For my past five years at Brock, I’ve felt that this city lacked a richness in culture. Wednesday’s Beaver Ball proved me wrong; creativity and originality oozed from every inch of that building. Where have these people been hiding?

I’m all for thinking outside the box and surrealism, based upon what was displayed on Wednesday night includes just that. Its wierd, wacky, abstract, thought provoking nonsense. Just the way I like it. And all while sippin on a cup of Id. What could be better?

As we noticed with Gogol and much of the artwork on Wednesday is, beneath some of the nonsensical and often comedical aspects of surrealism lies cultural commentaries and criticisms. I think what I like most about this movement is that it seems to involve a true sense of inhibition in its creation. As someone who has taken up an interest songwriting recently, I found myself inspired on Wednesday night to come home and attempt to write a surrealist piece which I created by using a stream of conscious method.  Anything that came to mind, I wrote down. Something cleansing about letting go of any reason or inhibition. How very Freudian.

Heather

Surrealism…?

            Surrealism is too damn political for me. What should be a philosophical statement about rejecting the ontological truths of being too often becomes a show case for urinals and nonsense for the sake of nonsensical.

 

            If you could simply take in nothingness for its essence, then that would be a statement. To fill nothingness’s void with thoughts and commentary is to acknowledge it, and therefore make something of it.

 

            Therefore, it is not enough to simply discard your surroundings and say “I reject”. Regardless of how comforting that would be. I can accept (but furiously disagree with) a nihilistic worldview that negates the relevance of being, but it must acknowledge a framework in which to showcase its arguments. You can not have your cake and eat it too.  Or maybe I am missing the point.

 

            I think it is a circular argument. To have relevance you must have a footing in the arena that you are rejecting. However, if your argument is to negate the tyranny of reason then how do you promote nothingness without defining being?

 

            The manifestoes presented so far have been more about renouncing the political past, and less about Art. It is tacit acknowledgement of the conquerors in its rejection of them than about artistic merit.

 

             Surrealism should have no anchor. Where an observer can tether it down is a point of weakness. It should always remain aloof, by definition.

Sean

Gogol & the Absurd

            Being our first foray into fiction, I thought Gogol was brilliant. I first read these stories years ago, but I couldn’t remember the details – only the impression. Despite being called “the greatest short story ever written” (blurb on the back of my copy of the book), I thought that “The Overcoat” was the weaker of the two stories. “The Nose” was absurdity done to perfection.

            Consider the above picture, Redon’s “Spirit of the Forest”, 1880. It illustrates the brilliance of “The Nose”; a bizarre notion portrayed so organically as it to appear “normal”. A man wakes up to a critical part of his psyche missing (the physical does not matter. After all, he would part with on the battlefield, but not without a good story), while another fellow is wondering what the hell happened to his perfectly good breakfast. These two paths are so intertwined, but the story continues without the parallel trajectories ever merging.

            This nose becomes multidimensional as it demonstrates piousness, manners, social mobility, and finally cowardness as it tries to flee. It is a nose that has lived more than many of us have, yet it is just that – a nose. Gogol made this a “modern” story because he took a bizarre story and with its themes made us forget just how absurd it really was.

Sean