Dale Houstman wrote:
>
> Matthew wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I am not a lable, but was born a labler. But the ladle that is my
> > mime has been particularly inspired by the broad spectrum of work of
> > Bunuel, gabriel Garcia Marquez, Ionesco, Beckett and Terry Gilliam.
>
> Don't think I'm not happy for you, but I don't see quite how this is
> relevant to whether or not the general run of the group lives up to its
> name. The vast majority of what makes surrealism interesting and still
> valid is entirely missing from the newsgroup. Marquez is not a
> surrealist, Ionesco is not, Beckett isn't. Terry's great, and Bunuel
> "the man" as they say.
Wouldn't it be better to say it doesn't matter? Should there be rules to
surrealism? This is what bugs me. Anarchy has no rules.
>
> >
> > I no i am very much against the established political ordeurve and if
> > these things make me a surrealist, bo see it. This seems to me as a
> > bewnie to be a great group, full of non sequiturs well done.
>
> Non sequitors have literally NOTHING to do with the overall aims of
> surrealism, fun or (as many of them are) ridiculously hollow of interest
> as thehy might be. It seems to me that the world is filled up to the
> gills with non sequitors and debasement of language toward merely
> absurdist or obscurantist goals. It's just blither.
>
> It's a group that has lost nearly all its meaning, and is now prey to
> the merely ridiculous in pursuit of some vague entertainment. This sort
> of pointlessness just simply isn't what surrealism exists for. One is
> grateful you are "against" the established political "ordeurve" but
> merely being anti-government doesn't quite cut it. Many Republicans are
> anti-government. What IS important is what you are FOR, and the
> processes you use to achieve those things, and how you transform
> yourself by those processes. no one's denying you your right to be
> amused, but the question here isn't whether or not one can find
> something "amusing" here (there isn't much), but whether or not the
> activities here justify the name "alt.surrealism." If one knows anything
> about surrelism (apart from the word's constant misuse) then they will
> also know this group fails to live up to its name. It's that simple: if
> a group were named "alt.quantumphysics" and all we got was giddy
> self-satisfied non-sequitors and weak attempts at humor, that group
> would not be living up to its name, no matter how enjoyable it was.
>
I feel you have hit the nail on the head that true surrealism in this
group is dead. But should not surrealism wish to destroy itself? It has
become acceptable and as such surely would wish to change?
> >
> > Gotta go, hair's on fire. Gotta find some moar gasoline real quick to
> > put tit out.
> >
>
> Like that: not funny, not original. It would scarcely pass muster on the
> cheapest vaudeville circuit.
>
> dmh
You still have vaudeville? We call them working mens clubs.
--
Paul. (I never agreed to be Your holy one)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Not what it seems...
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
|
| 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 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 |
| 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 |
| 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 |
| 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 |
|