Cartier-Bresson - Surrealism and communism!

Ansel said:
Politically speaking, Surrealism was ultra-leftist, communist, or anarchist. To quote from the wikipedia entry:

The group aimed to revolutionize human experience, in its personal, cultural, social, and political aspects. They wanted to free people from false rationality, and restrictive customs and structures. Breton proclaimed that the true aim of Surrealism was "long live the social revolution, and it alone!" To this goal, at various times Surrealists aligned with communism and anarchism.

It seems that surrealism, and its disciples like Cartier Bresson were always aligned with the values of the left.
Click to expand...
Hmmm... Not sure. Yes, surrealism often does reject pomposity and formality, and these are perhaps more often associated with the right than with the left.

But pretty much by definition there are even more flavours of anarchy than of communism: one of my favourite cartoon shows an anarchists' meeting, with the man at the head of the table banging his gavel and saying "Gentlemen! Disorder, please!"

My suspicion is that the Wikipedia entry was by someone who didn't quite understand any of what he thought he was talking about: not surrealism, nor communism, nor anarchy, nor social revolution. Of course, such ignorance is hardly imaginable on Wikipedia.

Cheers,

R.
 
If you want to know about surrealism, read the Surrealist Manifesto and Nadja, by André Breton. Then read why Brassai and Picasso, who were close friends of many surrealists, never affiliated themselves with the group.

I recall being struck by lightning at the Cartier-Bresson show at MOMA a couple years ago. Suddenly I realized that most of the photographs looked the same, taken from the same height, same angle, same point-of-view. I mentioned it to the stranger standing next to me and he looked at me as if I had just been cast, simultaneously, into and out of Hell.
 
gdmcclintock said:
If you want to know about surrealism, read the Surrealist Manifesto and Nadja, by André Breton. Then read why Brassai and Picasso, who were close friends of many surrealists, never affiliated themselves with the group.

I recall being struck by lightning at the Cartier-Bresson show at MOMA a couple years ago. Suddenly I realized that most of the photographs looked the same, taken from the same height, same angle, same point-of-view. I mentioned it to the stranger standing next to me and he looked at me as if I had just been cast, simultaneously, into and out of Hell.
Click to expand...
But as with all religious texts, it is hard to take the Surrealist Manifesto literally. For that matter, to do so would be unfaithful to the precepts of surrealism.

Cheers,

R.
 
... I thought it was the Futurists that swung to the right ... perhaps we should have a Surrealism vs Futurism thread and argue it out eh?
 
My suspicion is that the Wikipedia entry was by someone who didn't quite understand any of what he thought he was talking about: not surrealism, nor communism, nor anarchy, nor social revolution. Of course, such ignorance is hardly imaginable on Wikipedia.
Click to expand...

Well, as they always say, if you think the Wikipedia entry is wrong, fix it; I just don't envy you or anyone else who tries to do so.

I spent a bit of effort on the Surrealists at one time and found out that, for every pair of writers on the subject, there were an indeterminately large number of descriptions. At the end of the day, I think that the best definition of Surrealism I've come accross, or at least, the only vaguely understandable one, is Philippe Halsman's photo of Salvadore Dali.

It's occurred to me that there might be a connection between Surrealism and Quantum Physics. However, as that link suggests, I'm far from the first person to think so. :D
 
Roger Hicks said:
My suspicion is that the Wikipedia entry was by someone who didn't quite understand any of what he thought he was talking about: not surrealism, nor communism, nor anarchy, nor social revolution. Of course, such ignorance is hardly imaginable on Wikipedia.
.
Click to expand...

Well that suspicion would seem to be unfounded. Good article on Politics of Surrealism and its relationship with the left here :

https://libcom.org/history/1919-1950-the-politics-of-surrealism

And another good one on Bretons relationship with Communism and anarchism:

http://www.surrealists.co.uk/breton.php
 
Sejanus.Aelianus said:
Well, as they always say, if you think the Wikipedia entry is wrong, fix it; I just don't envy you or anyone else who tries to do so.

I spent a bit of effort on the Surrealists at one time and found out that, for every pair of writers on the subject, there were an indeterminately large number of descriptions. At the end of the day, I think that the best definition of Surrealism I've come accross, or at least, the only vaguely understandable one, is Philippe Halsman's photo of Salvadore Dali
Click to expand...
Quite. As for Wikipedia, well, why would I bother to try to fix it? If you know anything at all about a subject, you can usually gauge the reliability of the entry in seconds. If you don't already have some basic knowledge, stay well clear of it.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Quite. As for Wikipedia, well, why would I bother to try to fix it? If you know anything at all about a subject, you can usually gauge the reliability of the entry in seconds. If you don't already have some basic knowledge, stay well clear of it.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...


That would also be my experience with newspaper reporting. We once did a comparison of the way a single story was written up, even the weather at the time was reported varying from fine and dry but cold to pouring with rain. We were there, it drizzled, which I suppose makes poor copy ;)
 
Roger Hicks said:
The link was off line, unfortunately. But as Sejanus.Aelianus says, there is not widespread agreement.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but link is definitely online. The relationship between the surrealists and communists/anarchists is a well supported; if you do any reading on the subject you will soon see.
 
Quite. As for Wikipedia, well, why would I bother to try to fix it?
Click to expand...

OK. That is either the most facile or the most profound question I've seen for a very long time and I don't feel qualified to judge which. :D

For anyone who feels they do wish to decide, and at the risk of initiating an infinite recursion, this Wikipedia entry is probably a good starting point. :angel:
 
Try as I may I cannot see a link between a photograph and politics. Taking a picture of our dear leader does not mean I went to Eton, etc, etc.

Regards, David
 
Ansel said:
Sorry, but link is definitely online. The relationship between the surrealists and communists/anarchists is a well supported; if you do any reading on the subject you will soon see.
Click to expand...
No, it was off line when I tried. It said "try again later". This happens sometimes on the internet.

And, it may surprise you, I have "done some reading" on the subject. I can see how you might mistake what I wrote, though. I do not deny that there was a lot of overlap between surrealism and communism. I merely meant that there is considerable disagreement about how much, and the extent to which the overlap is actually inherent.

Conflating "communists/anarchists" does not increase my confidence in your arguments.

Cheers,

R.
 
Whatever Wikipedia says Bob Holness did play saxophone on Baker St ... and was the first Bond, James Bond :nods-head-looking-sincere-face:
 
Oh. I didn't know that Bucks Fizz were surrealists, but, given what they say about The Land Of Make Believe, I may need to reassess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom