I'm definitely getting the feeling that, as we progress through time with all these different avant-garde movements, the people behind them - that is, the people writing the manifestos, mainly, but also somewhat in the works of writing themselves - are expressing what they want to do with this movement more strongly. That is, the actual content of the Surrealist manifestos are much more straightforward than that of the Futurist and Dada ones, and they seem much more sure of themselves... whereas I felt that that Futurist manifestos were really whiny, and spending a great deal of time trying to sort of justify what they were doing with Futurism by beating down "traditional" works and basically saying over and over again "we have to do away with the old!!" etc., here are the Surrealists, who (in so many words) are actually explaining, in great detail, why we should get behind their movement.
Take Andre Breton's manifesto, for example - I felt that he was a little rambly (and not just because the page was gigantic, but... wow), but he definitely didn't leave you with any questions about the surrealist movement. It took me a little while to kind of "get" what he was saying, but he had a couple sentences that just knocked it all into place for me. Also: "When one ceases to feel, I am of the opinion one should keep quiet." Partly, but not solely, because of this quote, I realized I really can kind of get behind what he's saying, which I had a hard time doing Futurism and Dada - with those movements it felt more like, 'it's all about us,' it felt exclusive; but with this, it feels more like a call-to-arms for everyone - hey, why don't you look at things this way?
Although I think most people generally acknowledge Freud as a big crazy person for his discoveries in psychology, here is Breton giving him huge kudos for taking on the concept of the human mind, whereas beforehand it was widely accepted to only look at the "real;" "the more or less clever description of truths which already exist," as stated by Huidobro. On the same page, Huidobro said something about "truth in Art begins where truth in Life leaves off," which is interesting, as he's discussing the nature of 'what is art.'
If you look at it from this perspective, all these different movements going on in art and writing make perfect sense. Yes, there was a structure and a system previously set up, and there were reasons for the things that everyone did - but, I mean, why not look at things this way? If I lived in this time period, I would probably just as baffled as to why everyone was only focusing on the concrete, the nature of our waking lives and the tangible things that surrounded us there, when it's obvious that there's something to be said about dreams and the aspect of non-specificity.
Also, another quote from Breton (I really liked him): "The absolute rationalism that is still in vogue allows us to consider only facts relating directly to our experience. Logical ends, on the contrary, escape us." After I digested this for a minute, I had this huge "Oohh, I get it!" kind of moment. In such fancy language, Breton is pointing out the purpose of all art and creative writing; it's about our experience. Yes, being technical and specific and analytical can be appropriate for certain things, but in art and writing, it makes no sense. Why take things from the human experience, the things that matter to us, the only things we can connect with, and make it purely technical? That's not how we live, not even in this day and age. It makes us bored, and as he pointed out somewhere else, it often feels as if the writer is having a laugh at your expense, that you're bored by what he's writing or something.
Art's purpose is to help us take in all the things that can happen to us as humans and make meaning of it, to point out the connections and details that exist for every person, to remind us how other people enrich our lives. It makes no sense to try and make too much sense of it by putting it into language that is almost arbitrary, something that alienates us, and then still try to call it "art," to still try and say that it should have meaning and should make you feel moved - and that if you don't find meaning or feel differently somehow, that you are somehow the one at fault. It also doesn't make sense to ignore any one aspect of our experience simply because it doesn't necessarily make sense; as we've found between the time that these Surrealists wrote these and today, there's a lot more relevance and insight to dreams than one might expect.
Ironically, I guess I got a little lengthy with this. I'm kind of excited that we're looking at pieces and movements that have really obvious, tangible meaning to them, now - and it's meaning that wasn't just true for the time period. Looking at this movement, it's easy to see why it's a big deal that these people pushed for others to 'take the path less traveled,' so to speak. Without that want to look into things we didn't already understand, we would never have evolved, as a race, the way we have. On the contrary, though, I still believe that history is a part of our experience that we need to keep close, unlike the Futurists professed... taking Reznikoff's work into consideration, especially.
No comments:
Post a Comment