Not so sure about that Tim. There was a massive exhibition at the Tate a few
years ago, which unfortunately cast them as high-brow pornographers. They
did have that going on, but it wasn't exactly what was most interesting
about them. But the exhibition did include many lesser-known (to English
speakers) Surrealists. First time, rather shamefully, I'd heard about Claude
Cahun, for instance . . . .
Its true though, their reception over here as been mainly as a visual art
movement. Which is stupid, of course. I've always thought what was most
interesting about them was their refusal to make distinction between their
activity: poetry, prose, painting, sculpture, film, 'research' and political
action. All, according to them, part of the same thing.
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 10:52:39 +0000, Tim Allen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>I think this is a bit of a myth, mainly down to Dali, the surrealist
>photographers and designers and the huge popularity of its main
>painters. The vast bulk of surrealism, including its 'literature',
>remains unincorporated.
>
>Tim A.
>
>On 23 Feb 2010, at 22:55, Alison Croggon wrote:
>
>> Even its subversion will become desirable, look what happened to the
>> Surrealists
|