• frank
    14.6k
    "Neo-proletariat politics based on the ever inflating ethics of anarcho-organized government, a system of circular dissentation to promote the growth of rice mutations within the arctic circle. A question of well-planned drainage from Gleneagles golf course to South Chile only to enter the hole of the poles with Stratoproads from recent outerspacial recent artifacts.

    "That the general public are now adequately informed on the simple but arduous projection of the Artist from the humid warmth of genealogical gestation to the dizzy freezing point of oil paint on canvas in well established Morphology going from one vicissitude to numberless combinations of zoological color gnodes to ambivalent orquestration of strangely timed psyclograms deftly intershot with sparrowhawks pressed into the tablets of concentrated malice only to explode here and there with the soundless perversity of zero sirns in an incalculable gesture of suspended astonishment."

    This is an artist's statement from one of Leonora Carrington's exhibitions. It's a soft and kindly "fuck you with all your machinations."

    Stop making so much sense.
  • Shawn
    12.6k
    :party:
  • T Clark
    13k
    This is an artist's statement from one of Leonora Carrington's exhibitions. It's a soft and kindly "fuck you with all your machinations."frank

    And the point is.....?
  • frank
    14.6k


    I've become obsessed with this painting by Carrington. It's called And then we saw the daughter of the Minotaur.

    ?resize_to=width&src=https%3A%2F%2Fartsy-media-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com%2FCoCII5QKUZJC0LkbxJROjg%252Fleonora-carrington-and-then-we-saw-the-daughter-of-the-minotaur-2011.jpg&width=1200&quality=80

    Carrington painted without any interest in communicating with her audience. She just painted the images that came to her. She didn't expect to become a famous artist because gender bias in the art world so strong in her lifetime, so her art was first and foremost personal to her.

    Surrealist philosophy is along the lines of this:.

    Surrealism is a cultural movement that began in the early 1920s, and is best known for its visual artworks and writings. Artists painted unnerving, illogical scenes with photographic precision, created strange creatures from everyday objects, and developed painting techniques that allowed the unconscious to express itself.[1] Its aim was to "resolve the previously contradictory conditions of dream and reality into an absolute reality, a super-reality".[2][3][4]

    Works of surrealism feature the element of surprise, unexpected juxtapositions and non sequitur; however, many surrealist artists and writers regard their work as an expression of the philosophical movement first and foremost, with the works being an artifact. Leader André Breton was explicit in his assertion that Surrealism was, above all, a revolutionary movement.

    Surrealism developed out of the Dada activities during World War I and the most important center of the movement was Paris. From the 1920s onward, the movement spread around the globe, eventually affecting the visual arts, literature, film, and music of many countries and languages, as well as political thought and practice, philosophy, and social theory.
    — Wikipedia
  • T Clark
    13k
    It strikes me that any artistic endeavor where the meaning comes first and the work follows along later is likely to be unsatisfying. I like surrealism. It's fun to look at and interesting to try to understand the culture it grew up in and the philosophy behind it. But I've never been moved by any surrealistic art.
  • frank
    14.6k
    I'm just the opposite. Surrealist philosophy is only slightly interesting to me. I don't think there is any pressing need to bridge the conscious and subconscious realms.

    But I find surrealist art to be somehow familiar. Like a truer home. Maybe I'm already bridged. :smile:
  • ssu
    8k
    Surrealist paintings themselves are nice.

    Yet I find the surrealist painters to be annoying charlatans that try desperately to be more than they are.

    Carrington painted without any interest in communicating with her audience.She just painted the images that came to her. She didn't expect to become a famous artist because gender bias in the art world so strong in her lifetime, so her art was first and foremost personal to her.frank
    Yet she was a hang around member of the Bloomsbury group. (Lucky to you that she had friends that came famous like her.)
  • frank
    14.6k
    That was Dora, not Leonora.
  • ssu
    8k
    :yikes: My bad.
  • T Clark
    13k
    That was Dora, not Leonora.frank

    I looked them both up. Leonora was much cooler.
  • frank
    14.6k
    :up: :up: :up:
  • god must be atheist
    5.1k
    I understood probably only the first half of the first paragraph of the OP. The rest spake eloquent Greek to me.

    This post by me did not rely on prior research of the works of Kant, Popperl, or Buckler Jones.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.