"Peter McCombs" <pmc### [at] xmissionxmissioncom> wrote in message
news:slr### [at] xmissionxmissioncom...

|
| common trait of Surrealism is that the objects are usually
| very recognizable, perhaps normal at first glance, but
| obviously there is something "strange" about them.

<http://images.google.com/images?q=%22Joan+Miro%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=
en&btnG=Google+Search>
<http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22Joan+Miro%22%
2Bsurrealism&btnG=Google+Search>

|
| the content is recognizable, yet bizarre. I found that
| most entries didn't match this criteria, hence lots of
| low concept scores.

It's because of this type of attitude that we see round after round
after round of "recycled old ideas from established artists in the
genre."

At the very high risk of making a fool of myself compared to some of the
more artistically aware people here like Jim and Gilles, I will offer
that I feel I'm at least in the ballpark when saying that abstraction is
an attempt to capture the essence or an essence of mundane things
whereas surrealism is an attempt to capture the perceptions and
"awareness" of states of mind where things are perceived which are in
opposition to mundane reality. How recognizable you feel the objects are
in the picture is of no relevance.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Peter McCombs wrote:

> 
> I think that a lot of people think of "Surrealism" as pretty much "anything
> goes."

So do I,... on both counts.

  And so I see a lot of images that I would term abstract instead of
> surreal. 

Historically surrealism had its abstractionist/formalist strain, 
epitomized by artists like Arp and Miro.  Indeed almost every major 
strain of 20th century art has some surrealist analogue.

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

Subjective and self-consuming.

> 
> 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. My own entry leaned on old cliches; perhaps
> the whole topic is a bit worn out.

Yet aren't these cliches precisely how we think of surrealism?

Surrealism had Dadaist roots and its agenda of attacking bourgeois 
values easily devolves into a general license to be garish.  Surrealism 
as an art movement had already become vulgarized when along came the 
psychedelia of the sixties/seventies.  Album covers, posters, and other 
vehicles of pop culture, celebrating the hallucinagenic experiences of 
the mind, revived surrealism in a doppelganger of organic whorls and 
pictorial contrivances. Our view of the movement, refracted through 
these excesses, has little hope of retrieving much. It all seems to 
collapse on itself when the introduction of randomness and process in 
raytracing takes the particular form of noise functions and their 
signature bozo patterns.  Yet with what other topic can we enjoy the
garish appeal?

> 
> Anyway - back to your comment - when I see those images that "don't
> relate to anything real," as you put it, I get very suspicious that what
> I am seeing is in fact an abstract work rather than a surrealistic one. A very
> common trait of Surrealism is that the objects are usually very recognizable,
> perhaps normal at first glance, but obviously there is something "strange" 
> about them. 

Basically that is how Dali revived surrealism the first time.  Art 
historians might point to the fondness for mixing visual and tactile 
pleasure.

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.

Well put. As if... with pictorial constraints lifted, we can juxtapose 
objects as ideas and finally manufacture a meaning? Not what the 
originators had in mind.  I agree with your analysis, yet with the 
devalued state of surrealism I even found that this approach could be 
permitted if I thought about it too much.

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

A decent attempt on your part to extract some kind of consistency. 
Maybe because I participated myself, or maybe because the topic turned 
out to be quite difficult, I found I was sympathetic to the plight of 
this round's entries. There were, as you say, some beautiful images. But 
I gave few high marks.  Oddly, in the midst of all my analytical 
confusion, I had no trouble deciding which pictures I liked and which I 
didn't.

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:
>
> At the very high risk of making a fool of myself compared to some of the
> more artistically aware people here like Jim and Gilles, 

Well I make a fool of myself here quite often.  But I like to think I am 
enthusiastic :)

I will offer
> that I feel I'm at least in the ballpark when saying that abstraction is
> an attempt to capture the essence or an essence of mundane things
> whereas surrealism is an attempt to capture the perceptions and
> "awareness" of states of mind where things are perceived which are in
> opposition to mundane reality. How recognizable you feel the objects are
> in the picture is of no relevance.
> 
>  

I think you could take that argument quite far.


-Jim

> 
> 
>

Post a reply to this message

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

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message
news:3f5e8a6b$1@news.povray.org...
|
| Well I make a fool of myself here quite often.  But I like to
| think I am enthusiastic :)

You are in a more dangerous position than I, actually. I always have the
option of pleading ignorance on the subject of art.lol

|
| I think you could take that argument quite far.

If my characterization is anywhere near correct, then I have certainly
shot my surrealist wad with just the one picture. I don't have much to
draw from in that department. I may like anyone else occasionally slip
gears at very high RPM, but I don't take drugs and very rarely remember
my dreams. The last dream I do remember was a "nightmare" about being
unable to tie my shoe laces without their breaking. Not much inspiration
to gain from that!

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

> You are in a more dangerous position than I, actually. I always have the
> option of pleading ignorance on the subject of art.lol
>

Did you just self-deprecate? ;-)

-- 
Jeremy

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:

> 
> If my characterization is anywhere near correct, then I have certainly
> shot my surrealist wad with just the one picture. 

The danger would be in defining too great a divide between surrealism and
abstraction.  The breakthroughs of early abstract painters fueled the 
creativity of surrealism and later, surrealism's interest in the 
subconscious fed subsequent breakthroughs in abstraction.  More of a 
symbiosis.  Abstraction is probably a little harder to nail down than 
surrealism.

Post a reply to this message

"Jeremy M. Praay" <jer### [at] questsoftwarecom> wrote in message
news:3f5f601b$1@news.povray.org...

|
| Did you just self-deprecate? ;-)

No, I really am ignorant compared to Jim on this subject.lol But I'll
only allow for this affecting the accuracy of my comments, not the value
of the consideration behind them.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Yeah, I'm trying to get in touch with my "inner-artist", but unfortunately,
my inner artist has atrophed for many years.

I feel inadequate to discuss the artistic merits of just about anything.
However, I do feel free to discuss how something makes me feel or appeals to
me (or not), which is really what art is all about, imho.

-- 
Jeremy
"Shay" <sah### [at] simcopartscom> wrote in message
news:3f5f7db0$1@news.povray.org...
>
> "Jeremy M. Praay" <jer### [at] questsoftwarecom> wrote in message
> news:3f5f601b$1@news.povray.org...
>
> |
> | Did you just self-deprecate? ;-)
>
> No, I really am ignorant compared to Jim on this subject.lol But I'll
> only allow for this affecting the accuracy of my comments, not the value
> of the consideration behind them.
>
>  -Shay
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Jeremy M. Praay wrote:

> However, I do feel free to discuss how something makes me feel or appeals to
> me (or not), which is really what art is all about, imho.
> 

I recently saw a taped interview with Kirk Varnedoe
(http://www.amacad.org/events/varnedoe_bio.htm)
on Charlie Rose.  He said that one of the roles art plays is that it's 
fun to argue about. Varnedoe could bring a lot of panache to the 
activity of gabbing about art.

Post a reply to this message