Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: Parry <parry@perfectOMITmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.surrealism
Subject: Re: A way for surrealists to take over the world
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 17:10:54 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: <4032916E.5EEB@perfectOMITmail.com>
Reply-To: parry@perfectOMITmail.com
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20040203235535.11576.00001255@mb-m12.aol.com> <DFQUb.16834$uM2.9084@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> <40271396.E99DAC57@cloud8.net> <PePVb.17458$F23.15448@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> <4028807A.3CC8B8DE@cloud8.net> <YHiWb.19468$F23.13359@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> <BC4F7F81.E3C%johamar@mi.is>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com
Lines: 33
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.surrealism:1059
Johamar wrote:
>
> On 11.2.2004 5:02, in article
> YHiWb.19468$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 |
|