apology

I feel like I owe surrealism an apology for the lame critique in yesterday’s post … this post is an attempt at reparations …

Gioia’s essay on Tate and “American Surrealism” ignores the political component of surrealism. Surrealism was/is anti-capitalist, anti-clerical, sexually open, and politically radical. How we forget that when we say a scene was oh – gee – so surreal or equate surrealism with dream logic and free association. No teeth there!

From this point of view, animated cartoons did not participate in the tradition of surrealism. Gioia’s essay is not very insightful on this point.

Dana Gioia is Chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts, I knew that.

And – other thoughts –

• what about “private” versus “public” subtext?
• who’s to say what is deeply communicative and what is not?
• what is communicated when the poet is non-communicative?
• why is the private kept private?

Power – communication – canon –

I am intrigued by private symbolism, private allusions, private resonance. I don’t like the paragraphs of Gioia’s essay where he dismisses Tate so quickly for lack of subliminal communication. It’s politically irresponsible, as is his discussion of surrealism.

###