Surrealism vs. Neorealism - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

03/09/2005 06:24:55 PM · #1

After voting for the recent contest, I realized that 90% of the people that submitted photos have no idea what surrealism is or got it confused with Italian neorealism.

Surrealism came out of the german art between the wars, ie: dadaism, and New Objectivity. In fact some of the earliest pioneers of surrealism came out of dadaism (man ray) and new objectivity (salvador dali). Surrealism is based on the studies of Sigmund Freud on the basis that our dreams are the gateway to our subconcious. Dali took this to heart, and so did Luis Bunuel. The idea is that they create art based on an alternate reality, a sub-reality. This is why dali claims he is the only surrealist because only he can connect with his sub-reality. Surrealism deals with dreams and items in abnormal situations, usually with a meaning behind it, (Freud claims that a crab in a dream is subconciously your boss). So shooting a photo of a city street in a juxtaposition is not surrealism, even though there is a juxtaposition. This is called neorealism. Same thing goes with beautiful beaches with fog rising up.

Neorealism takes real life happenings and brings them to a fantasy-like state... whether it is dreamlike or in dismay. Neorealism is like how you remember something, it is kind of the truth but has been twisted slightly by your mind. So juxtaposition plays an important part in neorealism.

an example: A donkey with a silhouette of light around it is neorealism, a donkey being attacked by a crab while a half man half woman plays golf with a tiger while a group of dogs play poker is surrealism.....

or at least that has been my interpretation of what they are.... correct me where I am wrong.

phreakon

Olympus C-740UZ

03/09/2005 06:37:25 PM · #2

Well, you're right. Unfortunately, the topic of surrealism is extremely difficult to capture in a photograph, much less for a challenge that is limited to a week's time to put it all together. For the entries that are closer to neo-realism, with elements of surrealism, you just kind of have to use your imagination when voting. Give the benefit of the doubt when possible.

edit - just wanted to add that the foggy mountains, or morning lake shots are by no means to be voted by using the imagination. ...just wanted to clarify.

Message edited by author 2005-03-09 18:41:00.

animes2k

03/09/2005 06:40:00 PM · #3

Thanks for the great post. I think your example illustrates why we're seeing more neorealism than true surrealism - the simple viability of such a photo. Every idea I had that I felt was truly along surreal lines was just not practical to execute, much less in under a week with basically zero budget. Where am I going to find a donkey, a crab, a model made up to be convincingly half man and half woman, a tiger (!) and a group of dogs playing poker?

To capture the true essence of surrealism in a photograph is a difficult prospect at best, made easier by tools such as photoshop. Of course the most compelling features of photoshop as they relate to the execution of a true surreal shot are barred in basic (and even advanced) editing challenges.

With all of this in mind, I don't think most people will vote on the true essence of surrealism, but (as usual) on the overall quality and aesthetics of the photograph in a far less rigid frame. The challenge was a good idea, but highly dependent on a number of unlikely assumptions to be executed with true surreal meaning.

03/09/2005 06:41:14 PM · #4

but isnt that the problem of every challenge. I find myself rushing to get it done, and it doesnt reflect my abilities. Also there is only so much we can do with a digital camera, surrealism would have been much more interesting if i could have used film and then scan it with my film scanner (cause remember that is how digital photography started)

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

03/09/2005 06:46:26 PM · #5

i find photoshop to be a crutch to too many people. I love it and it does great things, but it has been overkilled in the last 5 years. I like this site because it forces me to do it in camera. Like for instance my surrealist submission is [entry] I could have easily done it in photoshop, but I wouldn't have quite the same feel as the grain due to the long exposure, [...] Plus it wouldnt have been as much fun!!!!!!!!!!!

Message edited by mk - edited to remove reference to entry in challenge.

whagerbaumer

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

03/09/2005 06:48:03 PM · #6

Freud drew a distinction between the unconscious and the conscious. The conscious is inhibited by logic and convention. The unconscious is not so inhibited. A goal of many artists who were considered surrealists was to attack the inhibitions of consciousness. It was a political movement built in support of Freud's ideas. These surrealists not only used their dreams but also other means to attack the logic and convention of the conscious. See, for example, Magritte who attacked the logic of an image of a pipe being a pipe with a very non dream like pipe. Dali attacked convention with overt religious sexuality which may have come from a dream but more likely from a rascal.

Message edited by author 2005-03-09 18:54:09.

animes2k

03/09/2005 06:53:16 PM · #7

I don't mean to insist that photoshop is the only way to achieve a surrealistic photo - a lot is, of course, in the concept and execution - much of which was not possible (or rather, likely) within the contraints of this challenge environment. Most true surrealism is painted, though - not straight out of a camera - where anything is possible and your example is easily achieved. The "correct" use of photoshop in an artistic way would make otherwise impossible solutions available, without relying exclusively on the application to do the grunt work.

That was my point, in an attempt to pinpoint why surrealism is not mostly seen in this challenge and neorealism rules.

BruB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

03/09/2005 07:29:40 PM · #8

I think that voting someone down because he couldn't give 100% surrealism and instead it gave an expressionism or Neorealism is being a bit over the top. After all this is a photography site, so please judge by the photography, not the render of the artstyle. The problem with DPC, and it's always been for what I've seen it's people taking a bit to seriously. I was a art history student for a few years at a Montreal University and quite frankly, I'm not being stupid about voting, if the picture as a hint of surreal to it, than it's in the challenges rules to me.

Thanks for showing the difference MrMojo, it's always a good thing to educate people, but I hope that you are not using this for voting a good picture down?

03/09/2005 07:35:25 PM · #9

Let me try to explain my definition of Surreal in relation to everyday life. I can walk down the street at any given time and will happen upon something that strikes me as surreal. It can be as simple as a piece of paper flying into the air and hovering for an unlikely long period of time as if it were alive just dancing around before me. Maybe the light is just right and with reflections and shadows I get that feeling that things are not real, they appear surreal.
I can look at a picture of a cow smoking a pipe with bricks for teeth and small flowers with tongues sticking out flying around like the Blue Angles and I do not get that feeling of Surrealism. Just sticking a bunch of stuff together and naming it something is meaningless. The definition of something is not the something; it is just a bunch of words with no meaning.
My 2 cents.

03/09/2005 07:36:45 PM · #10

im not saying vote down people... What i am saying is that the reason there is guidelines is to keep the photos somewhat similar to compare them. If it was up to me i would have more just open challenges to see what people come up with because i think that is when true creativity happens... this limits us to only 1 certain aspect. There alot of good photos in this submission and some of the worst. I just think people need to do their research, and the forums i read never really explained surrealism at all. I know what surrealism is and their explanations confused me. Thats all...

03/09/2005 07:40:51 PM · #11

jmritz, what you are explaining is neorealism, this is a perfect example of the confusion of surrealism. You are looking at life through a fantasy dreamlike feel, but it is still reality. Surrealism is sub-reality

Dali is not the only surrealist out there, and for some reason he is the only one everyone keeps making refrence to (me included) they dont have to be absurd but it does have to deal with the subconcious.

03/09/2005 07:48:17 PM · #12

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

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

03/09/2005 07:53:18 PM · #13

Maybe true but who's to say the subconscious isn't what is coming through when I have these moments? Maybe it is a sub-reality that one feels not neo-whatnot. I like Dali. In fact long ago I delved into painting some Surreal paintings. That was long ago and a galaxy far away. I get your meaning but I must stress some of the people having entered this challenge might not have your art history knowledge. By the way when did Neorealism begin.

dahkota

Canon EOS-7D

03/09/2005 07:54:21 PM · #14

Not to start a disagreement or anything, but from what I have read here, what I have studied, and what I found on the web, Surrealism is subjective. What is surreal to one person may not be to another. To argue that people should all have the same idea of surrealism is kind of surreal in itself. Everyone knows of Dali and Magritte but to say surrealism has to mimic their style is removing the surrealism from the work entirely.

just my .02

Dahkota

"literary and art movement influenced by Freudianism and dedicated to the expression of imagination as revealed in dreams, free of the conscious control of reason and free of convention."

"Salvador DalÃ and Yves Tanguy used dreamlike perception of space and dream-inspired symbols such as melting watches and huge metronomes. Max Ernst and RenÃ© Magritte constructed fantastic imagery from startling combinations of incongruous elements of reality painted with photographic attention to detail. These artists have been labeled as verists because their paintings involve transformations of the real world. "Absolute" surrealism depends upon images derived from psychic automatism, the subconscious, or spontaneous thought. Works by Joan MirÃ³ and AndrÃ© Masson are in this vein."

03/09/2005 07:57:57 PM · #15

funny part is Dali got his metronome from Max Earnst's famous Dadist piece...

Just a little sidebar
I think styles are to closely linked to be individual styles

03/09/2005 07:59:13 PM · #16

Dahkota

"literary and art movement influenced by Freudianism and dedicated to the expression of imagination as revealed in dreams, free of the conscious control of reason and free of convention."

That sounds like my life.;0

03/09/2005 08:01:28 PM · #17

I dont know when exactly neorealism started. It is used mostly in relation to film and literature and as far as film goes Roma, cittÃ aperta (Open City) 1945 was the first neorealist film according to my film history book from last year

03/09/2005 08:05:35 PM · #18

Originally posted by mrmojo:

Just wonderinig which started first Surrealism or neorealism. I had fun doing my picture for the challenge and am getting both responses. A couple have told me they see no surrealism here.But so far 10 have said good job.

03/09/2005 08:11:32 PM · #19

i believe surrealism, Ill look it up sometime, but they are real close toghether, within the same decade. The main difference that seperates them is that surrealism is german, and neorealism is italian. Both started around the time of wwII... Hmmm I wonder why these two countries would have art that is distortions of reality or sub-reality at this time?

03/09/2005 08:12:04 PM · #20

which picture is yours?

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

03/09/2005 08:15:00 PM · #21

Originally posted by mrmojo:

Makes a lot of sence...

dahkota

Canon EOS-7D

03/09/2005 08:15:20 PM · #22

Mine too. Particularly "free of the conscious control of reason." I thought everyone was that way until I was about 18. Then realism hit me. :)

Originally posted by jmritz:

03/09/2005 08:18:27 PM · #23

by the way i love your self portrait shot you took. It is one of the best photos I have come across in this site. It is a gorgeus shot and would look even better had it been a film shot so you could do a platinum print.

03/09/2005 08:18:54 PM · #24

Originally posted by dahkota:

Mine too. Particularly "free of the conscious control of reason." I thought everyone was that way until I was about 18. Then realism hit me. :)

Originally posted by jmritz:
Dahkota

"literary and art movement influenced by Freudianism and dedicated to the expression of imagination as revealed in dreams, free of the conscious control of reason and free of convention."

That sounds like my life.;0

I'm not aloud to mention Reality in my home. There are to many definitions to the word these days.