America responds to Pornography!
(And you just know that we do... !)
Remember, just because it's Degenerate, doesn't make it Art!
Surrealism offers such a perfectly contemptible excuse for puerile self indulgence such as this...
But I'll take it gladly!
So, just click the links.
<You can guess where they are...
Q. Is Surrealism truly "as beautiful as the chance encounter of a sewing machine and an umbrella on a dissecting table"?
"Being the right thing in the wrong place and the wrong thing in the right place is worth it because something interesting always happens."
— Andy Warhol
A."The surrealist use of games, like that of art and literature, is primarily focused on the subversion of premeditation and rational constraints, but in addition it is also a subversion of the artist's ego with the potential for revealing the Marvelous heavily relying on the release of collective creativity."
The objective of Surrealist artistic and writing exercises, experiments and techniques, after all, is to expand cognitive and experiential perception via the unfettered imagination, divine change, psychological exploration of the unconscious, eroticism, Absurdist disjointed juxtaposition of images, and even sheer Nihilistic alienated amorality uninhibited without self censorship or taboo and in dreamlike suspension not merely of disbelief but of critical reality testing whatsoever, all with the goal of liberation from the normal confines and paradigms of reality into bold new horizons.
According to Salvador Dalí, the "simulations of mental diseases" in Surrealist works of art "systematizes confusion. . . and so assist[s] in discrediting completely the world of [everyday] reality."
For better perverse, the surreal has become that category of experience expressed via fantastic imagery and incongruous juxtapositions, seductive, fantastical, to horrific or even humorous effect, in art, fiction and parable, enfolding weird uncomfortable irreconcilable incongruity and estrangement from the ordinary and banal or even of powerful situational forces and conflicting realities, pressing and confusing ordinary people into ego-alien behaviors, as well as the name for any kind of art or performance of the unusual and impossible in order to so vividly reproduce or evoke just such perverse peculiarity and humorous or grotesquely overt bad taste.
The very essence of the Fairytale is not just how wishes come true and problems resolve themselves, but even intractable contradictions in plot logic and every dilemma of human ambivalence as well, all resolve and melt away as a matter of course, even taboo into the impossible and surreal, by transformations, by gaping plot holes and transparent slight of hand, even dreamlike, unreal, characterized by fantastic imagery and incongruous juxtapositions, fantastical, to horrific or even humorous effect, in art, fiction and parable, even all such as may be distinguished from any more rational and ironic narrative happy ending of satori wherein the solution may be hidden in plain sight all along.
Verily, the Zen, as the quest for emptiness amid enigma, may even resort to the surreal, non sequitur, enigma and contradiction, replete with surreal nonsense and incongruous juxtapositions.
Indeed, likewise, because Surrealism either seeks to disorient an audience unless they are slyly in on the gag, either way, Surrealism demands it's own blithe conviction, never overt superiority. Hence, the true relevance and impact of Surrealism is only undermined by vastly unfunny adolescent smug camp.
Taboo often serves as an heteronymous reinforcing mechanism of unconditional allegiance to hypocrisy, authoritative denial, manipulation, coercion, oppression and persecution of pariah. A taboo is different from an explicit prohibition that can be examined and challenged, because what is taboo is an unspoken injunction against even speaking of whatever is so taboo. Indeed, there are even forbidden thoughts. Unspoken expectations of taboo are detrimental to transparency and open agenda setting. Items barred from open agenda become Transactionally ulterior malagenda. Taboo evokes crimestop demanding the rejection by silent neglect, of interesting and important matters. Taboo is unspoken injunction against even speaking of whatever is so taboo. Indeed, as taboo an expression of sych ambivalence, there are even forbidden thoughts. Taboo is challenged by setting an open agenda in direct violation of whatever said taboo. But arguing with people who can't think straight and won't say what they really men, is frustrating. They seem like fools, not to be suffered gladly.
The memplex of taboo, first and foremost, recursively prohibits by behavioral conditioning, all explicit expression of of taboo. Hence, vagueness may be the instinctual danger signal of taboo, awkward questions and worse answers. Indeed, lip service notwithstanding, that after all, we only learn from our mistakes, formal education systematically rewards right answers and punishes mistakes. The resultant taboo upon questions towards clarification of whatever may not be fully understood, relegates conversation to the comfortably familiar, ruling out novelty and discovery in the Dialectics of conversational adequacy in cooperative miscommunication detection and repair, even active reading and listening at all. This amounts to an effective taboo upon reason itself and honesty as well.
Taboo is an expression of ambivalence. Small wonder then, ambivalence regarding taboo, and taboo upon ambivalence. To begin at the beginning, some opine that taboo begins from sympathetic magic, even most innocent and benign, wherein it is deemed that like produces like, and any part or representation of anything or other, even howsoever shorn, separated and distant therefrom, remains nevertheless forever part, connected and bound thereto no less. And furthermore, what is there that is more part and semblance than one's own name? Therefore to speak of the devil directly, is tantamount to summoning him up, and can only tempt grizzly fate! More prudent, then, by far, ever to speak thereof only in euphemism and epithet.
All such ceremonial spectacle of pageantry as so often entailed notwithstanding, is after all, merely quaint as to render incongruous and even mysterious, the arising sense of menace associated with the thinking and the practice of taboo.
Most dramatically, taboo as mass psychological denial mechanism, wholesale cultural bad faith, and all protected by ostracism and persecution, is by far the more actually perilous. And even more specifically, it is very taboo, rather, upon disturbing ideas, much less action thereupon, that undermines all sagacity and compassion. Hence aversion to taboo might not be deemed entirely inappropriate, for all of the bad karma of hateful unreason embodied in the generally poisonous meme of taboo. But what profit can there be in such virulence even such as approaching veritable taboo upon taboo itself? For though the person embracing taboo, thus assumes the rearguard, nevertheless the person who scorns taboo, is by no means thereby automatically Avant-garde. Worse: those who scorn taboos are indelibly part and parcel of precisely the social mechanism summarily hoisted upon its own petard for observing them. Thus, in that famous Galilean Rabbinical turn of phrase: How can the devil cast out the devil?
Indeed, as regards admonition of guarding one's tongue, true enough as to the power and danger even in mere words, such as false alarm and panic, incitement of riot and pogrom, secrecy or privacy compromised, and certainly just of thoughtless gossip generally, and the wisdom to think twice before tempting fate and calling down the curse of calumny upon ones neighbors. Therefore, instead let cooler heads prevail. Whither, then, emancipation from the tragedy of taboo? Surely, by the salient honesty about reality of just dragging important ideas out into the sanitizing lucidity of daylight, even kicking and screaming, gentle but firm, out at long last from the murky and muddled shadow of taboo and ambivalence. Therefore, avert not thine eye, gentle reader!
There may be a tendency to evaluate actual events from any socially normative standpoint: what is taboo beyond acceptance, and what, to the contrary, is taboo from scrutiny and criticism and controversy. But much goes on between people that isn't supposed to, and much of approved and expected interaction is sham and hypocrisy. Considerations of relationships, encounters or interactions, actual or hypothetical, may tend to raise the question: Can this be licit? But so what either way? Is there no better question that as to what we have become accustomed? Whereas, from a democratic attitude of autonomy, the better questions might to be: Does this actually happen? What is really going on? How commonly and pervasively, statistically? What is known about such events and circumstances? In general, and in whatever specific case, is this beneficial or detrimental to each partner? Is there consent reciprocally? In the face of distress and vulnerability, what is exploitation and abuse and what is nurture and succorance?
When any sort of a veto or indefinite tabling of discussion is not, in turn, for any practical purpose, open to revocation, and when every discussion of such obstruction is itself subject to similar obstruction, this effectively constitutes a TABOO (also sometimes spelled: TABU or TAPU). Because beyond even the most dire cultural or personal shame, embarrassment or simple bad manners, let alone even sheer fairytale unpremeditated magical realism and the provocation of horror and ambivalent denial and projection, a taboo is frequently not merely any cautionary restriction or particular open and explicit prohibition and not merely any howsoever sacred or blasphemous or otherwise an object, meme or notion of whatever awe, dread and reverence, but typically being so fraught with deep denial, often even forbidden from very mention or certainly to cogent question even for better definition, thus either characterized by subtext of unspoken common understanding and even conspiratorial bad faith antirationally shrouded in relentless obscurantism. By the Metaphor of newspeak, in '1984' Orwell also most famously noted how a culture in systematic denial may actually strip the very language of expression of whatever taboo ideas and observations. A challenge to taboo must either be ignored or the challenger or some scapegoat attacked. And this too, must be somehow however vaguely surreptitiously rationalized and disguised.
Surrealism partakes in a tradition of the flouting of taboo extending back from antiquity as in Stoicism or even Zen and the rabid taboo against ego. But all such influences of Nihilistic value destruction in every dishonest guise are eventually replete with taboo of their own, as evidenced from antiquity in the Zen and Stoicism, up up the bleeding edge of Behavior Modification that so welcomely infiltrates what passes for education, manifesting also in the veritable latter day cult of exhortation to willful positivity that so shamefully taboos not only the admission of unhappiness but autonomy in any relevantly meaningful exploration in quest for happiness.
Indeed, as Dr. Chen Yehezkely likes to point out, the most effusive praise can be a far more frustrating and devious diversionary tactic away from taboo realizations FNORD and instead for the enforcement of taboo and truth suppression, than any the most virulent condemnation, baiting and Appeals to Humor, Ridicule and Spite or social mockery, ostracism and persecution, as mad, foolish, stupid, unintelligible and pretentious. Much as all such taboo is so often readily enforced by exactly the latter devices of bullying and flaming in the suppression of dissent towards the concealment of controversy. Indeed, squeamishness regarding Cryonics and even radical life extension so vividly demonstrates how taboo supersedes and undermines even sheer survival instinct, let alone reality and pleasure principles.
But what is there important for people to discuss that isn't therefore taboo?
Copyright 2007 - 2016 Aaron Agassi
OR if its private