| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/09/2005 08:22:04 PM · #26 |
Surrealism was a departure from Dadaism which occurred about 1920. Dadaism started much earlier. Dadaism was simply meant to be nonsensical and did not have the Freud / Marx ideological support of Surrealism. Dali stood out as the only Fascist surrealist in basically a leftist movement.
Neorealism was an English philosophy led by Russell and Whitehead to oppose idealism and pragmatism. It insisted that things existed independent of consciousness.
Neorealism in Italian Movies stressed the common life of the lower class. That emerged following world war 2.
Neorealism in painting is a few decades old and utilizes photography in getting highly realistic images of chrome on glossily painted cars. |
|
|
|
03/09/2005 08:43:57 PM · #27 |
I was going to say something about this challenge too, about the lack of actual surrealistic photos. This is probably my favorite kind of imagery, and I was really looking forward to voting in this challenge, but I have only seen a few images that I thought represented surrealism.
I suppose I don't have too much room to talk since I haven't even entered this challenge, or any challenge for quite awhile because of being so busy with school, and all my shooting recently being with medium format film, but I just am kind of dissapointed with the images in this challenge. Not to say they are bad images, but definitely not surreal for the most part.
I think the winner of last week's challenge was more surreal than most of the images I have seen here. Sure, a bed on a beach is weird, but it wasn't the misplacement of a simple every day object in a bizarre setting that made it surreal. The entire of feel of the photo is what did it.
Message edited by author 2005-03-09 20:44:17. |
|
|
|
03/09/2005 09:24:07 PM · #28 |
Yes, Zoom's winning "separation" image is dramatically more surreal than most of the entries in this challenge. My own entry is technically a lot more surreal than most, but the voters don't agree. I think because everything is sharp and clear... I donno... Plus the title is weird :-)
Robt.
|
|
|
|
03/09/2005 09:29:40 PM · #29 |
All the points raised here work to a certain degree. It is no easy manner to box in a definition of any art form. A wrong premise can lead to schools of elitism. Man, as history shows has an insatiable propensity to label things and often the mustake is made of giving credence to the fact that what was just named never existed before. Consider the following:
Mankind has always been aware that there is a subconscious. That is, something hidden from his conscious mind which is trained to select what it chooses to entertain and then develops a censorship to repress.
The early Greeks new this concept and named Gods after emotions and passions. So anger was attributed to Mars, Communications to Mercuty, Love to venus, death, decrepency and all that is stagnant to Saturn, etc, etc.
Do we all not aggree that the poet speaks to that deeper part of us? Is Music not a medium that has a deeper appeal. Born out of the ageless past is the realm of symbolism. Consider mythology. All of these are aim more at the subconscious.
Surrealism does not have to invoke or be tied to any fixed value or philosophy or credence. In its classical sense it is associated with symbolism. You must keep in mind that while Freud did amazing work, his view was tainted mostly by sexuality. On the oyther hand, Jung brought the topic of symbolism to a higher realm.
My point is that it is no easy task to define an art form and preach the gospel according to its classical roots. Art is forever evolving and giving birth to school that keep pushing the envelope. It happens in all art forms. Take rock and roll and look at the way it has spread with so many branches. The same happens with Jazz.
Surrealism in one sense, is no more than a flight of fancy to mimic a fantasy which may evoke unconscious recognition. That is, it appeals to an inner and deeper part of the human experience. Yet, this age old entertainment is as old as the hills only without a formal name.
Deep back in history the concepts of fairies, gnomes, sylphs, angels and what not. Can you get more surreal? The point being that all of these forms of symbolism are rife and well usable in any form of art including surrealism. The symbol for Sun and Moon have a pronounced meaning. You can go on forever and see the strong ties between these symbols. Is the Sun not associated with the consscious mind and the Moon with the unconscious. Consider the Tarot: aimed directly at the subconscious.
Consider the work of Bosch back in the 15th century. Many of his images sing surrealism. I mean, think, how can anybody invent surrealism. Yes, as a formal definition ir helps to tie it all together, but surrealism always existed because when you were a kid those moments of daydreaming are indeed surreal. As a formal school it did not, but then counter point was used before Bach. Again, it is not safe to box in the evolving schools of any Art, otherwise you remain tied to the definitions of the scholars. They need everything tidy up even if it means not fully answering all the varied questions. Then one must consider how this surreal expression can be presented via photography.
|
|
|
|
03/09/2005 09:38:43 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
All the points raised here work to a certain degree. It is no easy manner to box in a definition of any art form. A wrong premise can lead to schools of elitism. Man, as history shows has an insatiable propensity to label things and often the mustake is made of giving credence to the fact that what was just named never existed before. Consider the following:
Mankind has always been aware that there is a subconscious. That is, something hidden from his conscious mind which is trained to select what it chooses to entertain and then develops a censorship to repress.
The early Greeks new this concept and named Gods after emotions and passions. So anger was attributed to Mars, Communications to Mercuty, Love to venus, death, decrepency and all that is stagnant to Saturn, etc, etc.
Do we all not aggree that the poet speaks to that deeper part of us? Is Music not a medium that has a deeper appeal. Born out of the ageless past is the realm of symbolism. Consider mythology. All of these are aim more at the subconscious.
Surrealism does not have to invoke or be tied to any fixed value or philosophy or credence. In its classical sense it is associated with symbolism. You must keep in mind that while Freud did amazing work, his view was tainted mostly by sexuality. On the oyther hand, Jung brought the topic of symbolism to a higher realm.
My point is that it is no easy task to define an art form and preach the gospel according to its classical roots. Art is forever evolving and giving birth to school that keep pushing the envelope. It happens in all art forms. Take rock and roll and look at the way it has spread with so many branches. The same happens with Jazz.
Surrealism in one sense, is no more than a flight of fancy to mimic a fantasy which may evoke unconscious recognition. That is, it appeals to an inner and deeper part of the human experience. Yet, this age old entertainment is as old as the hills only without a formal name.
Deep back in history the concepts of fairies, gnomes, sylphs, angels and what not. Can you get more surreal? The point being that all of these forms of symbolism are rife and well usable in any form of art including surrealism. The symbol for Sun and Moon have a pronounced meaning. You can go on forever and see the strong ties between these symbols. Is the Sun not associated with the consscious mind and the Moon with the unconscious. Consider the Tarot: aimed directly at the subconscious.
Consider the work of Bosch back in the 15th century. Many of his images sing surrealism. I mean, think, how can anybody invent surrealism. Yes, as a formal definition ir helps to tie it all together, but surrealism always existed because when you were a kid those moments of daydreaming are indeed surreal. As a formal school it did not, but then counter point was used before Bach. Again, it is not safe to box in the evolving schools of any Art, otherwise you remain tied to the definitions of the scholars. They need everything tidy up even if it means not fully answering all the varied questions. Then one must consider how this surreal expression can be presented via photography. |
Actually, it was the Romans that used those names for the gods.. the Greeks had Zeus, Athene, Hermes, Poseidon, Apollo, Aphrodite.. et al ;)
hehe.
|
|
|
|
03/09/2005 10:17:10 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by mrmojo:
This entire forum just continues my theory that all art styles should be abolished. They were created at first by pretentious art historians that wanted to make scientific sense of art, when they themselves have never produced a piece of artwork...You dont see Leonardo, or Michelangelo talk about being neo-classical, though they did talk about italian renessaince (i know I just butchered that spelling) because it was an idea and a way of thinking. I feel that art is subjective and should be more about feelings and personal thought, not these titles that get cramed down our throats at art school. These terms are to close toghether anyways, look at new objectivity for example, looks alot like surrealism, same goes with neo-realism, but as long as we use these terms we should abide by their meanings |
It may be wrong to classify something that wasn't ever meant to be put into a box and dissected, but the fact of the matter is, that these works of art DO have classifications. And if the point of a challenge is to replicate it, then anything that doesn't fall into that category isn't up for interpretation or eligible for Artistic License. It either fits in the category or it doesn't. If we're going to nit-pick each challenge and try to fit the challenge itself into a box that meets our needs, then what's the point of having the challenge?
Stephanie
Message edited by author 2005-03-09 22:20:05.
|
|
|
|
03/09/2005 10:42:17 PM · #32 |
| I guess it all comes down to what the meaning of the word is is. |
|
|
|
03/09/2005 11:10:19 PM · #33 |
My point is straight. Surrealism does not have to be tied to Freud or to any one one artist. Man has always placed high importance on his dreams. Dreams and its symbols are the fodder for surrealism. Surrealism does not have the monopoly of speaking deeply to the subconscious. All the arts accomplish this. So a challenge that is related to surrealism can use symbols from wherever. I do not see how this can be refuted. The symbols and imagary is not born out of any specific time period. All that I am saying is that in the style of what we consider surrealism, each artist has artistic license to use whatever symbols he pleases. Take classic surrealism. Here you have universal symbols presented in a novel fashion. You have windows, the famous tile floor, the high columns, creatures that transform before your very eyes and ideas and concept interrupted by their antithesis, etc, etc. Dali did contribute the melting clock to represent the phenomena of time or eternity. I had never seen a melting clock in my dreams but I can easily accept it. We can say that Dali's work was splitting from its classic root, much like Picaso. The classic artist of those times could say the same thing that the classic photographers of today accuse the digital artist. And of course, the images of dreams is more quickly realized in the digital realm.
So how do you represent a surreal image in basic editing and maintain the photographic integrity? It can be done but the limitations stare you in the face. Not so easy unless you resort to the arsenal of special effects and then you are told that the image is fudged and not real classic photography. The purist will not even enter the challenge.
So again, the face of the surreal (outside of digital manipulation) has many limitations and out of here is where a new school is born to work within its limitation. But a direct comparison with classical surrealism is not easily or impossible to attain. |
|
|
|
03/09/2005 11:29:59 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by atsxus:
Originally posted by mrmojo:
This entire forum just continues my theory that all art styles should be abolished. They were created at first by pretentious art historians that wanted to make scientific sense of art, when they themselves have never produced a piece of artwork...You dont see Leonardo, or Michelangelo talk about being neo-classical, though they did talk about italian renessaince (i know I just butchered that spelling) because it was an idea and a way of thinking. I feel that art is subjective and should be more about feelings and personal thought, not these titles that get cramed down our throats at art school. These terms are to close toghether anyways, look at new objectivity for example, looks alot like surrealism, same goes with neo-realism, but as long as we use these terms we should abide by their meanings |
It may be wrong to classify something that wasn't ever meant to be put into a box and dissected, but the fact of the matter is, that these works of art DO have classifications. And if the point of a challenge is to replicate it, then anything that doesn't fall into that category isn't up for interpretation or eligible for Artistic License. It either fits in the category or it doesn't. If we're going to nit-pick each challenge and try to fit the challenge itself into a box that meets our needs, then what's the point of having the challenge?
Stephanie |
AMEN! :) |
|
|
|
03/09/2005 11:38:03 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by canoe3k:
I guess it all comes down to what the meaning of the word is is. |
I have a whole tome devoted to this very subject. Would you like me to post it here?
|
|
|
|
03/09/2005 11:42:50 PM · #36 |
| Sure, zeuszen. Sounds like fun! |
|
|
|
03/09/2005 11:44:40 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Sure, zeuszen. Sounds like fun! |
It would contravene the most base forum etiquette. ;-(
|
|
|
|
03/09/2005 11:47:15 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by atsxus:
And if the point of a challenge is to replicate it, then anything that doesn't fall into that category isn't up for interpretation or eligible for Artistic License.
Stephanie |
i thought the point of challenge was to interpret, not replicate. I just got a comment that simply said, "it's not surreal." To me, it is. It's one of my many interpretations of sub-reality. It's definitely not real. Rene Magritte's pipe would probably have gotten the same comment had he entered it in this challenge. But that doesn't make it not surreal.
I did a research paper on Dali in high school. I studied art history in college. I know the meaning of surreal. I've known it for a very long time. I didn't just google and copy the definition or history into this post. It wasn't started by Germans, it was started by a Frenchman. Andre Breton. A poet. Andre Breton was friends and fellow surrealists with Paul Eluard, another poet. Paul Eluard was married to Gala. Gala eventually married Dali and is in numerous paintings by him. The circle begins and expands from here. Anyway, my point is, surrealism is more subjective than is being allowed here. And I don't think it's up to any of us to directly say, "this isn't surreal". Instead say, "this does not represent my interpretation of surrealism." |
|
|
|
03/09/2005 11:52:30 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
So again, the face of the surreal (outside of digital manipulation) has many limitations and out of here is where a new school is born to work within its limitation. But a direct comparison with classical surrealism is not easily or impossible to attain. |
Word. Thanks for that. |
|
|
|
03/09/2005 11:54:20 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Sure, zeuszen. Sounds like fun! |
It would contravene the most base forum etiquette. ;-( |
To hell with forum etiquette. :) By the way, I just read your bio... beautiful prose; I enjoyed it immensely. |
|
|
|
03/10/2005 12:31:38 AM · #41 |
03/09/2005 11:54:20 PM
Originally posted by zeuszen:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure, zeuszen. Sounds like fun!
It would contravene the most base forum etiquette. ;-(
To hell with forum etiquette. :) By the way, I just read your bio... beautiful prose; I enjoyed it immensely.
dont be shy zues, lets have it. |
|
|
|
03/10/2005 01:50:34 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by utro:
Anyway, my point is, surrealism is more subjective than is being allowed here. And I don't think it's up to any of us to directly say, "this isn't surreal". Instead say, "this does not represent my interpretation of surrealism." |
True, the idea of surrealism is up for interpretation insofar as it pertains to the individual, but what I'm saying, is a macro shot of a flower is not surrealist. (just an example) There are defining terms that make something surrealist in style, rather then rococco, or impressionistic, or photo-realistic. Just like there are reasons that a photo is in the style of Ansel Adams.
If EVERYING is up for interpretation by the individual, then in essence, every challenge is an open challenge therefore why set up rule to begin with? Why not just say, take your best photo and submit it?
|
|
|
|
03/10/2005 01:57:10 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by atsxus:
True, the idea of surrealism is up for interpretation insofar as it pertains to the individual, but what I'm saying, is a macro shot of a flower is not surrealist. (just an example) There are defining terms that make something surrealist in style, rather then rococco, or impressionistic, or photo-realistic. Just like there are reasons that a photo is in the style of Ansel Adams.
If EVERYING is up for interpretation by the individual, then in essence, every challenge is an open challenge therefore why set up rule to begin with? Why not just say, take your best photo and submit it? |
i agree with that. definitely. i was talking about the difference in what some deem surreal and neo-real.
thanks for the clarification |
|
|
|
03/10/2005 02:48:48 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by utro:
Originally posted by atsxus:
And if the point of a challenge is to replicate it, then anything that doesn't fall into that category isn't up for interpretation or eligible for Artistic License.
Stephanie |
i thought the point of challenge was to interpret, not replicate. I just got a comment that simply said, "it's not surreal." To me, it is. It's one of my many interpretations of sub-reality. It's definitely not real. Rene Magritte's pipe would probably have gotten the same comment had he entered it in this challenge. But that doesn't make it not surreal.
I did a research paper on Dali in high school. I studied art history in college. I know the meaning of surreal. I've known it for a very long time. I didn't just google and copy the definition or history into this post. It wasn't started by Germans, it was started by a Frenchman. Andre Breton. A poet. Andre Breton was friends and fellow surrealists with Paul Eluard, another poet. Paul Eluard was married to Gala. Gala eventually married Dali and is in numerous paintings by him. The circle begins and expands from here. Anyway, my point is, surrealism is more subjective than is being allowed here. And I don't think it's up to any of us to directly say, "this isn't surreal". Instead say, "this does not represent my interpretation of surrealism." |
Bravo... I kept my lips zipped re: the foudners of the Surreal movement, not wanting to come across as know-it-all in 2 challenges in a row. Also, the earlier comment that these are all labels applied by art historians is NOT accurate in the case of Surrealism, which was a thriving movement named by its own founders, and completely distinct from a "style" of art or architecture such as neo-classicism or whatever.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2005 09:43:02 AM · #45 |
| I have received comments that my entry is not surreal..yet, I know it does meet the definition..oh well, maybe some people aren't as literate as they assume when they make rude comments. |
|
|
|
03/10/2005 11:46:25 AM · #46 |
People make a mistake when they expect our voters to have an in-depth knowledge of what falls within the realm of Surrealism. Most of us know Dali and little more. Same thing happened in AA, most of us know the majestic B&W landscapes of the west and little more.
Caution: The rest of this post may be reprehensible wallowing in blissful ignorance. Read on at your own risk.
I haven't a clue on how to score someone else's attempt at Surrealism, unless of course it reminds me of the master Dali. I realy like his stuff, have for a long time, saw some works in the National Gallery when I was a kid, can remember seeing him interviewed on tv, and have visited the Dali museum in Tampa a few times. That's right, I actually paid money to go in and look at his paintings, repeatedly. But I don't know anything at all about other Surrealistists, or about the definition(s) of the genre. And I'm not sure if Dali was the best of the bunch, his position may be more a result of popular appeal, promotion and PR like AA. This is sort of like blind people judging shots taken by blind people.
End of wallowing. Thank you for your indulgence.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2005 12:24:48 PM · #47 |
Check out this Hieronumus Bosch and tell me that many of these images are not surreal? His era is that of the 1516.
Now, we can argue about the symbols, but look at this work and tell me that the images do not have the same surreal effect that the surrealist movement had. It is simply old wines in new bottles.//www.art.com/asp/sp-asp/_/PD--10020487/Garden_of_Earthly_Delights_(detail)_-_Hell.htm?sOrig=CRT&sOrigId=68&ui=FFF67F9E65884FE097B19EECCD5B1CF7
Message edited by author 2005-03-10 12:33:50. |
|
|
|
03/10/2005 12:34:35 PM · #48 |
| Sorry, i think i fixed the link. |
|
|
|
03/10/2005 02:25:13 PM · #49 |
Funkster,
of COURSE images that we call "surreal" now have been around for a long, long time. It's just that the TERM "surrealism" and its application to an artistic movement/style came about just after WWI.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2005 03:04:10 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Funkster,
of COURSE images that we call "surreal" now have been around for a long, long time. It's just that the TERM "surrealism" and its application to an artistic movement/style came about just after WWI.
Robt. |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yes, but my argument is not contesting the coinage of the word as a name to describe a special time and event and works. Consider an exhibit showing surrealist such as Dali and you see one of Bosch's images. Would you be able to identify it as not being surrealism? I do not think so. You can say that surrealism entails an era but it can not claim a unique monopoly in either the symbols or in presentation. The argument here is that surrealism deals exclusively with dreams, and many of Freud's concepts. My argument is that it was done before but is was not baptized. There is also argument as to the symbols that can be employed. I maintain that all symbols are game and there is a correlation between them from culture to culture.
When I think of Surrealism, I do not think of the founders or their schools. I merely acknowledge that I have seen similar styles in the past and that all symbols are open and that many of these styles can compete. So, are we sticking to a name that describes a movement or are we more interested in the execution of the art itself. |
|
