tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20467797.post114928171915745587..comments2023-07-29T12:50:32.827+01:00Comments on THE ROBBER BRIDEGROOM: POETIC MATERIALISM AS PRACTICAL REVOLUTIONPearl Handelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08906994734745965505noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20467797.post-1149514740962452462006-06-05T14:39:00.000+01:002006-06-05T14:39:00.000+01:00Shibek: thanks, I would be really interested in s...Shibek: thanks, I would be really interested in seeing that thread if you can track it down. I think your comments/queries about graffiti etc. are very much to the point. I guess I would say -- tentatively, as I think all of this needs further discussion and my conclusions so far are provisional -- that what makes the difference is not the image itself, but how it is produced & situated. In other words, what is still potentially subversive about image-making is not the product (the image itself) but the process (participation in the activity of producing it, detourning it, or whatever, in the context of playful/experimental practice). I'm certainly not going to stop making images, either individually or with others, but what I find of subversive and poetic value in image-making is the experience of making the image. The image as such, as a stand-alone product, for me has no subversive power in and of itself, it merely acts as evidence of the poetic experience. The same can be said of graffiti: actually doing graffiti can be poetic and subversive, but I don't think just looking at it as a non-participant is so, and I certainly think that the recuperation of graffiti artists as, precisely, 'artists' (Banksy being the prime example in the UK) is an instance of that.<BR/><BR/>Robert: actually, no, I don't think this is exactly the same as what Breton was saying 70 years ago. For Breton and the early Surrealists, the image itself still retained some subversive power. The Madrid group are saying that that is no longer the case because the material conditions of capitalism have changed. I don't think that everything that can or must be said about Surrealist strategy was already said in the 1920s or 1930s.Pearl Handelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08906994734745965505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20467797.post-1149395045274673722006-06-04T05:24:00.000+01:002006-06-04T05:24:00.000+01:00Breton was saying much the same thing about 70 yea...Breton was saying much the same thing about 70 years ago, innit?<BR/><BR/>argh!!!!Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13466422798236611184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20467797.post-1149312958242389592006-06-03T06:35:00.000+01:002006-06-03T06:35:00.000+01:00This is something that the Madrid group has probab...This is something that the Madrid group has probably already dealt with, but what of transient mediums for conveying images into the public sphere? I'm not convinced that all imagery is already recuperated, regardless of how it is situated.<BR/> Graffiti, stickers, improvisational landscaping, and so forth have a place to play in a renewal of a surrealist practice that intervenes in the everyday milieu without using the habitual forms of museum, gallery, and so forth. <BR/> There was a (brief) discussion years ago about the essay "On the Subversive Power of the Poetic Image' from the Madrid group. Some found their position to be inflexible, but as the 'surrealist mannerism' the Romanians mentioned so long ago is still a problem, their critique and proposals could be timely. I'll see if I can find the discussion thread, if you're interested.<BR/> ShibekAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com