Johamar wrote:
>
> On 11.2.2004 5:02, in article
> YHiWb.19468$F23.13359@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net, "Allsmoky"
> <allsmoky@yourhouse.not> wrote:
>
> >
> > In the past, I've had a lot of fun entering German poetry into my
> > wordprocesser and then altering it by means of spell-check. Then I would
> > edit just to smooth it out.
> > Would such an activity be considered surrealist? Since it's not really the
> > automatism, it's not really springing from the unconscious, it's probably
> > more of an abstract expressionist "wank", I suppose? It is a collaboration
> > between a dead German poet and a spell-checker -- and a proofreader. If I
> > recall it, one of them started with
>
> > I'm frothy fancying fluid surge, Daffodil breathes, I cannot feel my toes...
> >
> Someone would call this computer-poetry, others probably DADA, but my
> interpretation is that this kind of "poetry" is that it is just plain silly.
> This activity is surely not surrealism. But you are having fun, so why not
> call this what it is, a game.
surrealist research has taken the form of games.
About automatism, there is an automatism of seeing or recognition. A
chain of words can have potency no matter how randomly it was derived.
Such are the effects of chance.
-- Parry
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
|