john adams wrote:
>
> "Dale Houstman" <dmh7@citilink.com> wrote in message
> news:40436E9A.6080503@citilink.com...
> >
> > > I'm gambling that Elag meant in spite of instead of "in light of"
> > > up above.
> >
> > Possibly. But one point still remains: nobody was saying they wouldn't
> > see Cocteau's films because of his "lifestyle" only that it was
> > impossible to consider him a surrealist because of same. After all,
> > surrealism is more than the "product" and Cocteau's celebrity-baiting
> > and war activities preclude his consideration, even if he had wanted to
> > hang with such a bunch of poor people. The films can be viewed on their
> > own merits, but his surrealist "credentials" cannot.
>
> And I suppose that was the point: to view the films on their own merit.
> There are things "surrealist" that can be found anywhere, high and low. That
> he wasn't in the good graces of Surrealists - for good reasons - is
> established and understood.
Sure, I'm not ignorant of the history, either. Some of his images and
techniques might be of interest to people studying the context of
Surrealism betweeen the wars... that is all.
--
replace "8" with "9" to reply
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 |
|