Surrealism and the Surrealists

[Art-lover]

In October will round date - 40 years from the day when the manifesto in Le Monde declared the end of the surrealist movement. As concrete historical movement of surrealism ended. The funeral passed quietly. Breton-based company by then had become an anachronism: surrealism no longer needed a guardian and long ago started an independent life - with different masks and different manifestations. So, adherents of the flow could justifiably vosklinut: "Surrealism is dead. Long live the surrealism!"

By the anniversary of the adoption to sum up. It would seem, a retrospective of forty years - enough time to crystallized definition of at least most of surrealism. But something here standstill - as if trying to grasp the concepts of a network of phantom.

Are you satisfied, for example, the definition of the authoritative French dictionary of art:

"Surrealism - is a moral and aesthetic doctrine, which owes its origin from the symbolism, transformed psychoanalysis and, in a political sense, references to Marxism. ...
Surrealism is neither an aesthetic school, or plastic formula. At its core, this appeal to the romantic spontaneity and a higher awareness of the moral effort of creativity. "

?

Читать дальше... 

I find this mixture of negative definitions and links to other isms evidence of extreme uncertainty of the object, because there is no reason to suspect the authors - certainly respectable professionals - of incompetence.
Everything related to proper "moral and aesthetic doctrine" - is contradictory and vague. Confused speech Surrealists, their supporters and opponents, a motley hodgepodge of diverse and often of dubious facts, fiction is classified at the surrealism of the grounds are not very clear - this is the material of which the wish to understand the surrealism to make up their
vision phenomenon. Not surprisingly, such a vague subject matter of confusion in the minds.

True, there are well-defined and shared many of the surrealism - is a common opinion about him as a practice of piling up in the paintings of fantastic images in fantastic combinations - like Dali, Magritte, or ... (the list of names). But it is the opinion of those who have not delved deeply into the question.
Well, if you want to dive deeper, you risk to make a myriad of "facts" of surrealism in favor of the sampled image to which is your soul - whether full of piety, or causing confusion or laughter.

Therefore, any judgments about surrealism should preface the question: what surrealism is meant?
Unlike the case of the elusive Joe, we will not get rid of the obsessions of surrealism question "A Fig whom he need?". God knows why, but almost everyone needs. Who as a scarecrow, who as a favorite area of art, who as something inexplicably catchy - but necessary. And some are downright desperately needed as a screen:

Сообщение от Ninni

For this style hides many of lack of talent and people are absolutely not smyslyaschie in the art. This was a very, very helped Dali, Magritte, Ernst, etc ... ...
Surrealism is a kind of temptation, and many "hidden" in it like an ostrich in the sand, completely forgetting that they are all the same is visible.

Soblaz exactly is, and what more: D:

"Those who are addicted to surrealism, the latter does not allow to leave it at will. There is good reason to believe that it affects the mind, like drugs, like drugs, it forms a kind of man is a compelling need and can provoke him to the terrible outbreak . If anything, this is another, purely artificial paradise, and thrust him bodlerovskoy subject to criticism in the same way that attraction to any other drugs. puzzling is why the analysis of the effects and the extraordinary pleasures that he may deliver (by many of its aspects surrealism appears as a new vice, which does not seem to be the privilege of a select few, like hashish, it is designed to meet all the refined kind) can not find a place in this work. "

(André Breton, Secrets of the magical surrealist art)

There is no objective reason to speak about surrealism in general? It would be nice to deal with this matter, if we want to decide for themselves

Сообщение от Meister

Who then is a true surrealist, and who is not?

It is a pity, but such a comprehensive definition, as
"Surrealism - Surreal is the myth of surrealism" (c)
does not provide guidance for distinguishing the goats and sheep, I mean the Surrealists and hangers (who are sheep - decide for yourself). LCR, is likely to say that they are all goats. But we had here not accept and we will dig further.

It is tempting to assume that "Surrealism - theory and practice of the Surrealists". Then the question would have dared elementary: "Surrealists - that adherents of Surrealism".
Alas, in a pair of these definitions do not make it clear that it was before - the chicken or the egg, and individually each one of them is beaten by the facts.

Where do go from here?
Apparently, surrealism too contradictory phenomenon, and can not be clearly defined.
From the well-known stretch of the imagination it can be considered in a concrete historical terms - as a set of events and phenomena associated with the leaders of the surrealism movement surrealist, but in the theoretical aspect - as a probability space (or field) concepts and intentions, declared in the texts of the movement leaders and /or manifested in practice, these leaders recognized as surreal.
(Taki egg!: P)

We will be interested mostly the latter, the theoretical aspect. It was he who gives us hope to find out who the artists and to what extent involved in surrealism, not relying on statements by the artists themselves or others.
But we will deal with this later.