Dadaism Vs Surrealism

[The Feral Underclass]

Some people have been discussing how certain people favoured Dadaism over Surrealism or even that they are opposites.

I'd like someone to explain this apparent opposition that Dada had with Surrealism in a political sense.

I can't seem to understand why one opposes the other, necessarily?

[which doctor]

I believe surrealism has been recuperated into mainstream consumer society more than dada, which is one of the reasons Guy Debord was so critical of it. Guy Debord's perjorative use of the word "surrealist" was a bit uncalled for and irrational in my opinion.

I like them both.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 05:33 pm
I believe surrealism has been recuperated into mainstream consumer society more than dada, which is one of the reasons Guy Debord was so critical of it. Guy Debord's perjorative use of the word "surrealist" was a bit uncalled for and irrational in my opinion.

I like them both.
Well most academics agree that Surrealism was a continuation of Dadaism and in fact had a more far reaching political objective. Most surrealists identified themselves as Marxists.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+April 22, 2007 03:22 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ April 22, 2007 03:22 pm)
[email protected] 22, 2007 05:33 pm
I believe surrealism has been recuperated into mainstream consumer society more than dada, which is one of the reasons Guy Debord was so critical of it. Guy Debord's perjorative use of the word "surrealist" was a bit uncalled for and irrational in my opinion.

I like them both.
Well most academics agree that Surrealism was a continuation of Dadaism and in fact had a more far reaching political objective. Most surrealists identified themselves as Marxists. [/b]
I agree with that...

[black magick hustla]

Surrealism became the endeavour of proffessional artists. Fuck that.

Surrealism is the inbred, bastard child of Dada. Everybody can do dada, because the only thing to do dada that is needed is a love for destruction.

Dada will always be my dear sexual partner because she is all about destruction.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 05:17 am
Surrealism became the endeavour of proffessional artists.
Why is that artistically or politically unacceptable?

[which doctor]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+April 23, 2007 04:33 am--> (The Anarchist Tension @ April 23, 2007 04:33 am)
[email protected] 23, 2007 05:17 am
Surrealism became the endeavour of proffessional artists.
Why is that artistically or politically unacceptable? [/b]
Because the professional article turns art into a spectacle, something only the few are truly capable of doing. They cease making art when they become professional "artists" and begin producing commodities.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by FoB+April 23, 2007 01:01 pm--> (FoB @ April 23, 2007 01:01 pm)
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 23, 2007 04:33 am

[email protected] 23, 2007 05:17 am
Surrealism became the endeavour of proffessional artists.
Why is that artistically or politically unacceptable?
Because the professional article turns art into a spectacle [/b]
I don't accept that. It doesn't follow. It's not true either. In what sense has surrealist art or literature become a 'spectacle'?


They cease making art when they become professional "artists" and begin producing commodities.

I don't understand how, in a captialist society, it is unjustified for an artist to sell their work in order to live?

[black magick hustla]

More than it becoming something that proffessional artists happen to do--it became something that only proffessional artists could do.

just make a google search for surrealism and you realize how pretentious is that shit and how like only three people in the world can understand it. Also, it is well known circles like Andre Breton's were extremely selective on who could stay and who could not.

Nothing wrong with being a "proffessional artist", what is wrong is professionalizing art.

[lonebullet]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 09:03 pm
More than it becoming something that proffessional artists happen to do--it became something that only proffessional artists could do.

just make a google search for surrealism and you realize how pretentious is that shit and how like only three people in the world can understand it. Also, it is well known circles like Andre Breton's were extremely selective on who could stay and who could not.

Nothing wrong with being a "proffessional artist", what is wrong is professionalizing art.
agreed. Dadaism sought to reinvent and redefine what art was by defying everything that art stood for. Anybody could be a dadaist. Surrealism blended into the mainstream and made it so that there was a distinction from the anti-art the Dadaists were creating and transforming it into a "high art" form that completely alienated the original movement. They put a meaning to something that was supposed to have no meaning.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 05:03 am
More than it becoming something that proffessional artists happen to do--it became something that only proffessional artists could do.
I understand.


just make a google search for surrealism and you realize how pretentious is that shit and how like only three people in the world can understand it. Also, it is well known circles like Andre Breton's were extremely selective on who could stay and who could not.

I agree fully that many art movements are elitist, just as Guy Debord was with the Situationist International.

All art movements tend to be insular, including I'm confident, the Dadaists. Although I totally accept your point that art is for everyone.

Incidentally, I had a discussion with a friend at work last night about the nature of art and the elite inellectualisation of it. He agreed that art should be for everyone, but that it doesn't make it good art.

For example, if you understand a technique you can create a better picture than if you do not. I disagreed. Art is pure subjectivism. There is nothing, inspite of academics, intellectuality and formal tecchnique that makes art good or bad.

Also, I don't accept that the word "pretentious" is the right one to use? What were the Surrealists "pretending" to be?


Nothing wrong with being a "proffessional artist", what is wrong is professionalizing art.

I totally agree.

[bcbm]

in fact had a more far reaching political objective.

Yuck.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 24, 2007 10:49 am

I agree fully that many art movements are elitist, just as Guy Debord was with the Situationist International.

Yes, the situationists had many problems.

However, I think the situationists passed on a very important legacy. I don't mean the theory behind the spectacle, but I mean that the situationists understood that the fight for communism and against capitalism is by no means an ideological one, but a struggle against alienation, boredom, and for our hedonistic desires. They understood that the revolution needs to fundamentally subvert the everyday life of every individual, not just a political concept that stands appart from the individual itself.

Dada is my friend!

[The Feral Underclass]

You can all take it in turns to suck my cock.

Dada said it was important.

[BreadBros]

I don't accept that. It doesn't follow. It's not true either. In what sense has surrealist art or literature become a 'spectacle'?

Well it has become part of the spectacle. I suppose the idea is that its been fully integrated and absorbed into the mainstream art world and mainstream conception of art history. Its not longer 'dangerous' (assuming it once was, I'm not particularly knowledgable on art) but becomes a passive part of the inert history of society.


I don't understand how, in a captialist society, it is unjustified for an artist to sell their work in order to live?

I don't think Debord would have said it was "unjustified", but that commodifying art has certain political reprecrussion nonetheless. A worker working in a factory is also helping to reproduce capitalist production, but that doesnt mean its unjustified for them to work there since theyre just trying to earn a living.