Dear friends, I received on February 13th the following statement written by the Argentine Surrealists. I thought I would forward it to this list.
Regards, Séamas Cain http://alazanto.org/seamascain http://seamascain.writernetwork.com http://www.mnartists.org/Seamas_Cain ____________________ RESPONSE OF THE SURREALIST GROUP OF RIO DE LA PLATA TO "A DIALOGUE ON THE IMAGE AND ITS TRANSMUTATIONS": SURREALISM WITHOUT WALLS. We must ask ourselves if the great efforts being made to defend "the exhibition of the image" (and consequently the image served up within the framework of an exhibition) are due to concerns of an intellectual nature, or if there are other interests involved here. We have the right to ask this question, as we have already seen in Latin America (Ref. Our text of 2006 Unmistakable Miserabilism Signs: Derrame Group from Santiago de Chile) where these debates lead to, that routinely, expound, in the best of cases, "acts of faith" (as so succinctly defined by Merl Storr), placing themselves above - or leaving on the margins - the least considerations of the political / social and cultural context. In a continent where, as in Africa, exists one of the highest levels of extreme poverty and inequality in the world, where the infant mortality rates reach frightening proportions, it's a fact - in appearance paradoxical - that the paintings most in demand, and recommended as "investments" are those of the surrealists Roberto Matta and Wifredo Lam, and likewise those of Frida Kahlo de Rivera…For the moment no poet is quoted on the stock market, or hardly re-edited. Curiously Enrique Molina, César Moro or Aimé Césaire have no emulators. For the rest, those of the supposed time of the "end of the great discourses" it's an abstract poetry that is produced, a flower of the air without root or substance. But through one of these marvels of the "universatility" of the image, for its particular situation in the Art Market, for its current or previous pathos, painting today - and especially surrealist painting - is a goldmine. Whatever opinion one might have over the decision whether or not to "mount an exhibition", it's impossible to do so these days without taking this fact into account. We say this because it is never mentioned, and it is never just a case of "hanging a few pictures". Of course, just as the "wind from the streets" or the "conditions of life" almost have the power to shake our very existence, to agitate our thoughts and direct our actions, so it isn't possible to ignore the underlying material conditions each time we invoke images of desire. Indeed they do not exist outwith the culture and society in which they manifest themselves. But if there is desire ("it is right to recognise that we have been given an absolute freedom", A. Breton) there is no doubt that it comes at the price of a rupture, and with much greater reason, of a victory - however small it may be - that we obtain over the generally wretched design of society, never through conciliatory or compliant gestures. Do the surrealist exhibitions of today maintain any of the dignity and spirit which we can recognise in those of the past, such as the provocation of "dance of the damned" (during that of London in 1937 -which took place by the way, in the context of "unprecedented" general strikes in France, and at the height of the Spanish revolution)? Can we see today the same faces of those that were reflected in the widows of the exhibition "L'Ecart absolu", that took place in the no. 1 of "L'Archibras", en Paris of April 1967? The comparisons are painful, and measure the distance of what has been lost throughout the length of our history. And also demonstrates, if we pay attention to it, the present situation of los Vasos Comunicantes (the Communicating Glasses), their relation between the social and the cultural, between the individual and the collective. We have had the opportunity acquaint ourselves with the contents of "El Falso Espejo", (The False Mirror), by our friends of the Surrealist Group of Madrid, and at first, we must confess, not without a certain amount of perplexity and confusion. Along with some others, who have lately come to read it or who have questioned it without even having done so, it had seemed to us that the radical mistrust they place in the current use of the image, could be in contradiction with the very idea we have of "total freedom", of the omnipotence of desire. As if, in this area, the slightest gesture of doubt could be transformed into a "self fulfilling prophecy", such as often occurs in Science Fiction of the gloomiest outlook. Nothing, except a lobotomy, can remove in any durable of definitive way, the potential capacity for freedom from within a human being. But of course this was not what it was about. And it is a great pity that the serious warning that the text carries in its deepest sense, has not yet, or perhaps does not want to be, recognised. Thus, what condition is the "work of art" and artists reduced to in a world saturated by "merchandise", and invaded by "products" and "consumers"? What type of subversive role can surrealism still play, and how can it avoid its definitive co-option by this system of "values"? We believe, along with our friends from the Madrid Group, that it is not by means of a regression to the artistic ideals of the Renaissance, nor by seeking inspiration through the nebulous conceptions of neo-platonic academia, nor by the elevation of the artist to some kind of demi god, not by maintaining him in the dependent slavery of a type of modern patronage system…No, the miracle will not be produced in this way! For us, the technical question of the production of the image, of its optical engineering within the framework of a poetic materialism (is there anything else or more it can deal with?), is an extremely serious question, a task that surrealism should undoubtedly take on board, and is in no way frivolous to pursue - but which should never be undertaken "in the abstract". Another problem, no less pressing - but which each one has to resolve within their respective terrain, is the cultural and political - social nature of their work: if the system with its infinite stratagems and adaptations of survival, ends up reclaiming tools that once served as instruments of liberty, and so enslaving those who employ them, then we must look for all means possible to put an end to this system - and not by chance, relying on some "magic formulas" for this process. How can it possibly be done exclusively by the use of the image? And for another part how can the system be defeated if its superstructure is not seriously affected, or seeing itself affected? (1) When we see the discourses turning endlessly in a vacuum, when we watch the "blue like an orange" eluardians multiplying into the stratosphere, the long winded cliches ordered in interminable rows, this should not lead us into confusion, or simple fascination: what doubt is there that we find ourselves here in the presence of ephemeral infra-realism. Created by their own precariousness or by calculation (for there are also notorious forgers, as we have already proclaimed), these "productions" reflect - at the very least - a lack of contact with reality. - And on countless occasions, are simply defective. (2) The same thing happens with that which tries to be apolitical (which, as has been said many times, only serves to disguise the worst servants of the system), the antimaterialism and the total absence of any critical spirit. But we never thought the day would arrive when surrealists would brand other surrealists as "authoritarian", as it suggests a type of behaviour which historically no surrealist would hesitate to find unacceptable, such as, for example, shameless compromises with the State (3). A label which seems to us out of all proportion and utterly misplaces, and is probably fruit of this conceptual desperation which claims more victims with each moment, and which still cannot realise its own contradictions, or its feeble "pacts of friendship or complicity", or justify its grossest blunders. But the vicissitudes of the image, in their endless changes and transformations, play their part here, however much we are told that we live in times of social "flexibility", which means in the sustained and ritualistic falsification of all values. However much any degree of ethical behaviour is branded "out of date", "authoritarian", "brutal" or "excessive". Neither "Popes" nor "authoritarians", then it is impossible to speak of a "Surrealist Exhibition" - or of surrealism in any sense of the words - if it is undertaken in the company of: "A policeman, a few bon vivants, two or three pimp pen pushers, several mentally unbalanced persons, a cretin, to whose number no-one would mind us adding a few sensible, stable, and upright souls who could be termed energumens: is this not the making of an amusing, innocuous team, a faithful replica of life, a team of men paid piecework, winning on points? SHIT." -André Breton, Second Manifesto of Surrealism. It is good that from time to time they are unmasked, that they are shown for what they really are. They also, and nowadays, frequently, contribute to the discreditation of our exhibitions! And who will do it? In the present day, given the worldwide dispersion of surrealism, given that there is no possible mediation capable of arbitration or of setting itself up within the Centre of the Movement, all and each one - individuals and groups - should be capable of assuming the responsibility for themselves. SURREALIST GROUP OF RIO DE LA PLATA Mariela ARZADUN, Celia GOURINSKI, Mónica MARCHESKY, Juan Carlos OTAÑO, Leandro RAMÍREZ, Ñancu RUPAY. Buenos Aires / Montevideo January, 2007 (Translated by Oscar McLennan) 1. It is never redundant or prejudicial to return and consider the basic of what unites us, what brings us together as a group, in definition, what hurts us as human beings in the face of the world, in the face of its shameless impunity. We call ourselves surrealists for a reason. We do not contribute to the emptying of ideological content typical of this era. We do not fall into the trap of historical revisionism, and of belittling the political importance of our acts. We must contextualise our actions, the sense of which emerges from the tension between that which we make public and that which we experience within our dreams, our desires and our discoveries. The image which emerges from our lives in the face of the harsh reality which overwhelms us. 2. To affirm, as does Stephen Clark, in "The Wineglass No Longer", that "in the language of Surrealism, the values of sacred and profane tend to do the same", is equivalent to granting a status of authenticity to "the sacred" as well as "the profane": it implies dealing with values which are intrinsically inherent to the human condition. It can be seen as a "transgression of the habitual" with a trait of "iconoclasm", at the same time as a demonstration of "imaginative possibility"….But we sustain that this forced opposition between "the sacred" and "the profane" can only plead in favour of a formal relativism, and in notions that are completely strange to the surrealist language. When Péret wrote a daily account of his sexual experiences, we don't think he believed he was engaging in "profane" activities; Leiris didn't believe, as Tutmosis at the foot of the Sphinx, that his dreams annotated in "Afrique Fantome", had the slightest connection with the "sacred". And it is not just a question of word games… Neither sacred, nor profane, the surrealist experience is about the human being it their totality, and doesn't belong in the dominion of conservative values disguised as revolutionary values, and never should approach life with a spirit ofindifferentiation, which seems to be one of the predominant signs of our epoch. (3) The letter which the Madrid Group sent to the Paris Group ("Clearing the Way"), regarding the "Derrame Affair", to the best of our knowledge was not even answered. Even the less than friendly Señor Lechuga, friend of the businessman Cecil Touchon, responsible for the multinational Massurealism, for the Museum of Collage and for other deplorable enterprises, even he had the courage to defend his "little shop of horrors"! But from Paris, not a peep.
