Although Surrealism wasn't titled as such until 1924 -- the title gleaned from an earlier commentary written by Guillaume Apollinaire -- the first presages of the movement came as early as 1919 with André Breton and Philippe Soupault's automatic writing experiments -- some of which comprise the jointly authored manuscript, Les champs magnétiques (Magnetic Fields), published in 1920. By 1924, Breton's explorations of automatism culminated with the publication of Manifeste du surréalisme, the seminal pamphlet of the vanguard that would be simultaneously employed to detail the aesthetic and mission of Surrealism, positing "a new image of the artist as someone who [is] characterized by his availability to chance, to the promptings of the unconscious and internal impulses, who [welcomes] everything that [occurs] spontaneously" (Bradbury 292), and solidify Breton as its chancellor (or Pope, as he was called by some).
Posted prior to the jump is a facsimile of the cover of an original, working manuscript of Manifeste du surréalisme. Of particular interest on this cover is the subtitle, Poisson soluble, which serves as a missed connection of sorts, the ghost of a possibility, but as a symbol, the "Soluble Fish" (as it's translated in English) is seen as analogous to a sensibility of Surrealism and the role of the artist/poet under its influence. Originally, Poisson soluble was to be a book of poems for which Manifeste du surréalisme was to preface; although Poisson soluble was eventually published separately, its possible inclusion and pairing with the Manifesto brings together, for a contingent moment, the edifice of the movement along with a product (an Image) of its processes. This allegiance ignites the "soluble fish" with symbolic value. In Robert Short's essay on Dada and Surrealism, he addresses this symbol, writing:
...the Surrealist is confident in the capacity of the mind to sustain itself in the midst of chaos, to swim in the waters of discontinuity like some poisson soluble as if they were its natural element. (Bradbury 302)In the context of the facsimile, yes, the symbolic position of "soluble fish" may be opportunistic to descry, but it provides a window into which the lasting implications of Surrealist techniques can be seen.
Question 1: Who are the "poisson soluble"? Who is a Surrealist? What would it mean to be a Surrealist, now?
In the translation of Manifeste du surréalisme that we have, the last sentence of the second excerpt reads, "...the marvelous is always beautiful, anything marvelous is beautiful, in fact only the marvelous is beautiful" (Preminger 469). In most common speech, English speakers fluctuate their superlatives in accordance to the simple desire for variety -- rather than for the explicit purpose of saying-what-you-mean; for example, awesome is used interchangeably with incredible is used interchangeably with amazing is used interchangeably with marvelous is used interchangeably with gorgeous is used interchangeably with beautiful and so on. Somewhere in the desire for the variety found in language, meanings can be lost -- and doubly so when translation is added to the linguistic mix. Hence, in this translation, there is an obliquity that is not necessarily becoming to the original meaning of the phrase. In the original French, the passage reads as such:
...le merveilleux est toujours beau, n’importe quel merveilleux est beau, il n’y a même que le merveilleux qui soit beau.In comparing the translation, even without knowing the meaning of the French, cognates are easily paired with one another: "The marvelous" is "le merveilleux," and beautiful is "beau." The latter is a non-issue -- beautiful and beau are easily interchangeable and give name to the same, general notion -- but the translation of "le merveilleux" into "the marvelous" raises a serious issue as their applications and their connotations in their respective languages vary widely. The marvelous arouses wafts of decadence, visions of gilded ceilings and cliff-side mansions in Newport. And though it seems like its application would be for describing an actual marvel, it is usually reserved for things that are marvel-like, which we usually quantify through physical size or the size of its price tag. For instance, the Empire State Building is a marvel, but would we say that it's marvelous? No, it is not marvelous, or one of "the marvelous," simply because it is a marvel. On the other hand, le merveilleux, while also generically being "the marvelous," gathers its connotations from the realms of magic, fantasy, and the supernatural. Seeing the word from this angle brings it into a more lucid alignment with the later assertion that "Existence is elsewhere" (470). Le merveilleux is indeed the perceptible and the tangible but outside of the normal constraints of existence -- materialism as one these constraints, for instance -- and it's the power of poetic image and analogy that permits "the reclassification of experience in an emotional and intuitive way" and reveals "the principal of identity between the human mind and the exterior universe" (Bradbury 302) and, thus, the experience of le merveilleux.
Question 2: Are Surrealist poems counter-cultural? How so? Can they still be seen as such?
The following are a few short Surrealist films (including Un chien andalou, which we watched on the first day of class -- for those who were not present on the first day, I'd recommend watching it):
Man Ray - Le retour à la raison (1923) [Note: Turn your speakers off. This
film should be totally silent.]
Germaine Dulac - La coquille et le clergyman (1926) [Note: Turn your
speakers off. This film should be totally silent, too.]
Luis Buñel - Un chien andalou (1929)
Final Questions for Discussion:
In several of the poems selected (especially the Desnos poems), the process of composition is as much a part of the poem as the product of the process. Is the process evidenced working, in some way, toward a "reclassification of experience"? Is this the product?
In the life of a Surrealist, what role does Art play?
Between the films and the poems, is there a difference in how "le merveilleux" is experienced (through the reader or viewer) or emerges (via the artist)? Moreover, in the remaining poems by Tzara, Breton, Eluard, Prassinos, and Dalí, is the experience of "le merveilleux" a communal experience or does this experience manifest differently per each poet? If indeed the experience is completely relative, what's the use in reading it?
Works Cited:
Bradbury, Malcolm and James McFarlane, ed. Modernism: A Guide to European Literature
1890-1930. New York. Penguin Books. 1976.
Rothenberg, Jerome and Pierre Joris, ed. Poems for the Millennium. Vol 1. Berkley.
University of California Press. 1995. 2 vols.
From what I understand to a surrealist art is life, and life is art. Every waking second should be lived as an ongoing, living, breathing, work of art. Art doesn't belong locked away in a museum it belongs in the street, to the people.
ReplyDeleteI think each of the poems in our packet was an experience of le mervellieux each in its own accord. The point of reading them is to find the beau in each of them and to understand their specific type of beau singular to each of them.
Keisha: I think the poisson soluable are individuals who exist without reason or definate purpose. The surrealist is one who accepts that a certain kind of order is not always important but the understanding that disarray isn't necessarily wrong. I would say surrealist poems are counter-cultural beacuse it deals with the freedom of mind. In a surrealist's life art is is another pathway of expression.
ReplyDeleteBeauty deserves to be appreciated by the masses.
ReplyDeleteEach poem read has it's own meaning. Behind each word, phrase, stanza, sentence, whatever the case may be, there is something to appreciate about it. I think that's why it can be so hard to understand because, like the famous quote goes "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" and sometimes it can be difficult to understand where a surrealists idea of beauty comes into play when creating art. But there is a lot to appreciate when reading/watching such works.
As for "le mervellieux" and how it's interpreted...it goes along with I just said. The artist creating such works of art has their own idea of what's marvelous and tries their best to convey such an idea but to many of us (including myself) it can be hard to interpret what really is going on. To some people it may just be a string of words on a piece of paper of a series of shots that have nothing to do with one another. It may be baffling, idiotic, even confusing but that doesn't mean it can't still be appreciated.
I believe based off of Bradbury's excerpt that the "poisson soluble" are the lucky people who inherently can live in their own mind's regardless of their habitat. People who live in their own mind; a broad statement. It can be seen multiple times a day. One can sit on a subway car and clearly hear the music amplifying from another's headphones. That person, is in their own world and to relate it to Bradbury's quote they are confident and comfortable enough in their own mind, so they are confident and comfortable as an element.
ReplyDeleteWho is a surrealist? Someone who seeks to reach into their unconscious to release any type of creative medium. It could be literature, poetry, a painting or a film. However, it kind of seems silly that one would actively think of riding their subconscious, as a SUBconscious is so for a reason. I know personally, that like it or not your subconscious will peek through your writing, or your drawing, or your film. You won't realize it however, until you read it over, stare at it, or watch it. You gain a better understanding of yourself after you view the finished product, as it often times means something completely different than you thought you intended.
I think a surrealist today is any person who decided to not create from familiarity, or even think from it.
Poetry intrigues me, because I never thought I could actually write it. That said, I think poets in general are a counter-culture to the literary world, and surrealist poems are the provocative ones.
I also believe to the surrealist, art plays a role comparable to the air outside, the trees we see, the buildings we go into. Art, like nature or anything one is exposed to can provoke a memory, a feeling, happiness, anxiety, you name it.
A surrealist is a person with the skills to turn a chaotic situation, person, or object into a thing of beauty. This would be going beyond the norm and finding the beauty thats left in what is considered ugly. For instance in "Free Union" the wife is being compared to somethings that wouldn't be considered beautiful, but the author compares the wife to these things and does it in a way that shows "le merveilleux" although some people would see "my wife whose breasts are haunted by the ghosts of dew-moistened roses" as weird, the author speaks of it with admiration.
ReplyDeleteTo a surrealist, art and film are mediums for them to express their love for "Le Merveilleux" this is evident in my opinion of some of the films we've seen so far.
ReplyDeleteto my understanding, a surrealist is a person who expresses their own perspectives, in their own way and order. through film, art and poems. it is not really meant for the audience to understand, instead they want us to find the " la Merveillux" or the beauty behind the art. it is meant to leave the audience confussed with many unanswered questions, in my opinion.this is the beauty of the surrealist art.the movies above are purposely made this way in my opinion. i am a bit confussed as to what is going on in the films, what is the meaning behind it all. it seems as if everything is done in a unique and confussing manner. but i believe that this is intended because they are surreal films.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteToday's society is so much different then the 1920s. There is so much more diversity in today's society and a lot more is accepted. To answer the question, is surrealism counter cultural? I would have to say yes especially in Manhattan. There is so much diversity to New York for one thing to be set in stone. I think art is a great way for surrealists to express themselves so it definitely plays a huge part of the culture. I think surrealism is a beautiful thing. It opens new doors for thinking, art, poetry, film, etc. I believe it is filled with people who are extremely open minded. If it wasn't for people who thought outside the norm, our society wouldn't be where it is today.
ReplyDeleteSometimes certain art or poetry won't make sense to the person reading or viewing it. It may even mean totally different things to each viewer. The person who made it was expressing their thoughts and ideas and thats the beauty in it.