Peter McCombs <pmc### [at] xmissionxmissioncom> wrote in message
news:slr### [at] xmissionxmissioncom...
> I think that a lot of people think of "Surrealism" as pretty much
"anything
> goes." And so I see a lot of images that I would term abstract instead of
> surreal. On the other other hand, I see some images that use abstract
> components that are arranged in a surrealistic manner, and this makes it
> difficult to judge, and it gets really subjective at that point.

Variety is the abstract spice of subjective surrealism?  There did seem to
be a lot of 'anything goes' entries, but that goes back to the point Shay
made earlier about scoring in the context of the entries, rather than in the
context of a subjective definition. My subjective take on surrealism before
the round was probably based more on 60's psycho-delic album covers more
than anything else :-)   After doing some research on the art and the
surrealist movement, I adjusted it to focus less on the image and more on
the process, as the idea seemed to be to let the subconscious dictate the
image. (And I have to say I found the process interesting... I will probably
do more 'surrealist' things based on what I developed from this round.)  And
after viewing the entries I've adjusted it again to include somewhat more
abstract concepts than I started with, since I hardly consider myself an
authority on someone elses subconscious ...   and some of the works of Arp
are more abstract than surreal.
>
> My biggest problem with this round is that many of the really
surrealistic-
> feeling images recycled old ideas from established artists in the genre.
> I got particularly tired of the clock theme from Dali, and one particular
> image that I had rated very highly on the first pass, moved down
considerably
> after going back to it later.

Yes, there were some overused themes, and I didn't feel I was being too
critical if I knocked off points for it.  While I don't pretend to know
someone's subconscious, I'm pretty sure I know when they're 'borrowing'
Dali's.


The best surrealistic images, I thought, were the ones where the
> author wasn't exactly sure what it meant. Some artists tried to tell a
story
> with their entries, or tried to make every little thing significant. Upon
> reading their descriptions, their work moved from the surreal to the
concrete
> because the whole thing had been explained to me.

There are a couple that the artist tries to go through and attach a meaning
to every single object and I find that tedious and it does spoil some of the
effect. On the whole though, I prefer some kind of explanation. After all,
this is a competition, and I'm trying to make some kind of judgement.  If
there is nothing to tell me what the artist is at least trying to say, then
I find it hard to judge how well they said it.  One I saw just said "You
figure it out". Sorry, but I don't have time to figure out 103 entries.

>
> Significance in surrealism is accidental, the content is recognizable, yet
> bizarre.

Hmmm... in looking at the works of Dali, Miro, Magritte, I see significance,
but accidental doesn't really come to mind. Dali in particular seems very
much thought out and carefully constructed.   And I personally don't really
find them bizarre either.  Max Ernst though I found bizarre.

I found that most entries didn't match this criteria, hence lots
> of low concept scores. I must admit that there was some beautiful art this
> round, though. I gave out a number of 20s on that aspect. :)

Yes, some very nice stuff in this round.  Even after my third and fourth
times viewing.  I always appreciate an entry with staying power ;-)

RG

Post a reply to this message