#subrealist

[djchorlocontrolection]

Dj Fen - Subrealistic Surroundings (Tech Break Remix) 2013

[tojena]

Wallpapers

[wolbachioso-blog]

Handstand & Salvador Dalí

[theorocworld-blog]

Y luego hizo boom ~ . . https://www.deviantart.com/shootingstar20shine/gallery/ . . . . . . #anime #artistoninstagram #digitalart #artist #dibujos #drawing #painting #painttoolsaiart #insane #animecrazy #animedrawing #oc #originalcharacter #fantasia #subrealist #devianart https://www.instagram.com/p/Bx06nMdAzOp/?igshid=1qpwdnodb6ctw

[wrathstears]

[reveurrome]

[rottenblackheart]

[plantitaalcuadrado]

I'm not a piece of cake. . . . . . . . . ##artwork #scifart #wip #artist #artista #artistsoninstagram #grafito #lapiz #drawing #drawingsketch #drawinyourstyle #illust #ilustration #sketch #boy #lgbt #pieceofcake #subrealism #subrealist https://www.instagram.com/p/CT28k6KriE-/?utm_medium=tumblr

[marcosmion]

About last weekend. @artspansf and @artexplosionstudios OPEN STUDIO - MARCOS MION Thanks everyone for visit my Studio #111 It was wonderful. I'm really excited. You can see my #Artwork online. Link in bio. #ContemporaryArt #artoncanvas #art #artwork #detail #acrilic #artcollector #collector #arte #sketch #workinprogress #Artist #Painting #abstract #figurative #Expressionism #naif #subrealist #colorful #MarcosMion #the366greendoors #Las366PuertasVerdes (at Mission Dolores) https://www.instagram.com/p/B4Oprr7g5pR/?igshid=2nwhwwm46xbu

[carlosehj]

Skull girl

[collectivebrandmovement]

Subrealist Union of Philadelphia, meeting at "Salon Via Subreal", 1306 Pine Street, 2005 #subreal #manifestofromthesub #drmalcolmk #freesubrealuniversityofphiladelphia #subrealist #subrealistunionofphiladelphia #philadelphia #subrealalchemy #xerograph #drnopibbles #collectivebrandmovement #salonviasubreal (at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania)

[fuegodisonante]

[find-youre-here-find-youre-gone]

"I painted for myself...I never believed anyone would exhibit or buy my work.” #leonoracarrington #subrealismo #subrealist #creatures #reforma (at Museo Nacional de Antropología)

[thekcmcus]

Roberto Montenegro,  Majorcan Fisherman, circa 1915.    

  Portrait of a Mexican, 1930. 

Symbolism, Art Nouveau and Cubism, “Subrealist.”  

[wrathstears]

[distinctinside]

passim, a blurb from a network

“A coup d’état is sanctioned as it were in the opinion of the people if it is repeated” – says Hegel in the “Introduction to The Philosophy of History”. This opinion is a serious stake, for with the sanction in question the history leaps forward. “Thus, Napoleon was defeated twice and twice the Bourbons were driven out. Through repetition, what at the beginning seemed to be merely accidental and possible, becomes real and established”. Then we see Marx opening his “Eighteenth Brumaire” with famous “Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce”. There’s a strong drive, in other words, in the world of the mortals to “get real” by means of caricature. The event is not enough, nor is the myth. A debasement is needed, be it only through a remark – found passim, with dignity of at most a gossip – which nonetheless points at something that's, seemingly, grounded and, apparently, operative. Con-firmed. Now – could we perhaps, in a provisionary way, take the psychoanalytical endeavour as means to flesh out our exaggerations? swarming, yet not palpable? Like a cartoonist who picks on the recognizable and leads it to the constatation “that’s true!”, and one that is palatable at that? Here’s a pick from the very discourse. Bracha Ettinger remarks somewhere that the deep model revealed in Lacan’s exposition of the lamella myth is the libidinal model of subject versus object – since the maternal in it, for a subject, is an object, and her body a partial object – a setup Ettinger aims to “shake a bit” with the matrixial approach. Neologisms are among the means put to the task. But also questions: is the basic human erotic tendency towards the object? or is it towards linking with objects? or is it perhaps towards the linkage itself? „What we miss is not an object but a type of linking”. This resounds with Aaron Schuster’s remark, made elsewhere, that what we’re lacking is not an object of desire but the very ground from which we could, finally, desire. The surplus value of these remarks lies, paradoxically, in grounding the elusive nature of that weird concept which is lamella, rendering an organ whose function is to go further than the body’s limit (through collapsing the boundaries of the individual autonomy). A closer inspection reveals a question that’s still, in its core, Lacanian – that is Freudian – only that now it is pushed – and pushed again, mind – into the farcical dimension. For the sake of the argument we use the term “caricature" in a non-partisan, if benevolent, colouring. Exaggeration of a model’s features buttons up our understanding, prepares us to embody the concept; to face it really. Ettinger is careful enough to prepare the ground before making us face her own exaggerations, like, say, „borderlinking”, or „borderspacing”. She takes heed of Freud’s lines in „Beyond the Pleasure Principle”, based on Plato/Aristophanes caricature, which Lacan will then himself caricaturize in his delicious man-omelette myth. It’s where Freud arises the case of death instinct and, being troubled by its discovery, he asks how could we possibly postulate this. He points at the „life instincts already operating in the simpliest organism” – this amoeboid which we will later find turned into lamella – speaking of a “conjugation, which works counter to the course of life and makes the task of ceasing to live more difficult” and about death instincts “associated from the very first with life instincts”, admission of which forces us to work upon an equation “with two unknown quantities”, addressing, as Freud himself does, science, philosophy and poetry simultaneously. Here we’re groping in “darkness into which not so much as a ray of a hypothesis has penetrated”. The darkness is called sexuality. Nothing more than a split in the unified being. Like, we may finally pronounce it, literature. “In quite a different region, it is true, we do meet with such a hypothesis; but it is of so fantastic a kind, a myth rather than a scientific explanation, that I should not venture to produce it here, were it not that it fulfils precisely the one condition whose fulfilment we desire. For it traces the origin of an instinct to a need to restore an earlier state of things". That’s it. The stage is all set now. Enters Plato. In the “Symposium” we find the split between the male and female, and the union of the two. That theory “which Plato put into the mouth of Aristophanes (...) deals not only with the origin of the sexual instinct but also with the most important of its variations in relation to its object”. So much for Freud. From here onwards Ettinger will lead us towards her border, introducing, by the way, new characters, inviting us to follow the hint given us by the poet-philosopher, and [still Freud] “venture upon the hypothesis that living substance at the time of its coming to life was torn apart”, but [and now Ettinger] “not torn apart between male and female (and you see how lovely and Deleuzian this is)”, but [Freud again] “into small particles, which have ever since endeavoured to reunite through the sexual instincts”. What we have here are not two human beings trying to reunite, but the particles – and that’s very subrealistic, in Ettinger’s terms – those different underground particles – whose desire, moreover, to reunite, does not correspond to our desire to live our life in the world. “They’re doing their own thing and this is frightening – this lamella – you can find it everywhere doing its work, but it’s not my work”. And we’re finally in the psychoanalytical imperative, aren’t we. As Ettinger underscores, Freud doesn’t take it to the place where these particles would like to communicate between different figures. In his take the basic arrow would be the desire between different cells, of different amoeba, to become more amoeba, and then “create a border around them and, little by little, we have creatures that defend themselves through their boundaries; and we are the collection of these particles and so on”. The arrow that Ettinger offers is pointing to another level: “when I talk about the matrixial (...) these particles are sustaining their life instinct and so on, but [can the separate collections of these particles] be imagined [as not having to] fight one another in order to exist but already filtering the transconnectedness, the crossinscription”. But here, as Freud would put it, the moment has come for breaking off. Asking: was our primordial state a caricature of sex? We are repetition of amoeba and amoeba is tragedy of ours, forced to copulate. Let’s take a bypass here. „Real humanism”, says Marx, “has no more dangerous enemy in Germany than spiritualism or speculative idealism, which substitutes “self-consciousness” or the '”spirit” for the real individual man and with the evangelist teaches: “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing.” Needless to say, this incorporeal spirit is spiritual only in its imagination. What we are combating in Bauer's criticism is precisely speculation reproducing itself as a caricature. We see in it the most complete expression of the Christian-Germanic principle, which makes its last effort by transforming "criticism" itself into a transcendent power”. This excerpt from “The Holy Family” seem to admit another property of the blunt reproduction/repetition – the need to fight it. But maybe in a way a sculptor struggles with the material at hand. Thus “the more completely Critical Criticism (the criticism of the “Literatur-Zeitung”) distorts reality into an obvious comedy through philosophy, the more instructive it is”. The problem however arises with a strange inversion that may be observed in the course of analysis, that we could term “who caricaturizes whom?”. There’s change of vectors occurring when the caricature, the set of pronouncements on the face of the object, reveals the vital obsessions of the caricaturist. Rebecca Comay in her lecture “Hegel remarks somewhere...” speaks of Marx “outhegelianizing” Hegel, i.e. doing an even fancier dialectical maneuver than one normally attributed to Hegel. Marx reminds Hegel that repetition is not simply repetition, it is a farcical one (in  Hegel it is repetition of Caesar by cesarism), but then it is through Hegel we get an explication of what would a parody in Marx be: a crisis caused by hypertrophy of signification – via representation – like when the second revolution, masquerading as first, is stalling the motor of history, which then stutters in the empty repetition of simulacra. Marx: “If any section of history has been painted grey on grey, it is this. Men and events appear as Schlemihls in reverse, as shadows that have lost their bodies”. But then – the regime of parody as pure excessive signification without any ground, the condition of stasis, seems nonetheless the occasion for overcoming this stasis. Repetition deepened, exaggerated and prolonged, becomes prolegomena for a radical novelty. There’s difference looming. The wager of psychoanalysis, its concern with the speaking being, its definition of the subject and of experience as bound to the realm of signs, comes to haunt us as the lamella-like blobs, that cannot be properly signified. And this in turn appears to be shaping the language in a way that is not without a caricatural charm – psychoanalysis the lacanian psychoanalysis just like the swiss font also carries an excess of beauty that cannot be attributed only to and analysed in terms of rationalisation, the right/wrong dong but one is not mistaken who say that it rests wholly in its content Aren’t, in their analytical aspect, Ettinger’s elaborate neologisms but a pronouncement of Lacan’s own structuralist elaborations of Freud? Which doesn’t mean, of course, that the Lacanian orthodoxy shouldn’t fight back. Marx did, being a good Hegelian, against the Holy Family of the Bauer brothers and their supporters. The Freudian orthodoxy didn’t make it easy for Lacan either, though it was only “back to Freud” at stake at the beginning and “be Lacanians if you wish: I’m a Freudian” in the end. Our point lies, however, elsewhere. And it is a literary one, coming from a Lacanian affinity rather than from the Lacanian field. Namely, a certain degree of liking. (We could observe such in the recent Žižek-Peterson debate, where Peterson started with “The Communist Manifesto” and was disappointed that Žižek didn’t talk about Marxism that much). There’s a big risk that comes with any liking; but this is nonetheless supportive of the libido model and the Lacanian take on the lamella. “Libido is this lamella that the organism's being takes to its true limit, which goes further than the body's limit. Its radical function in animals is materialized in a certain ethology by the sudden decline [chute] in an animal's ability to intimidate other animals at the boundaries of its “territory”. This lamella is an organ”, lest we forget, “since it is the instrument of an organism”. And yet there is something not unlike liking that seems to permeate the matter. Take the affinity itself. Firstly, it names a natural liking for and understanding of someone or something. But then, in biochemistry, affinity stands for the degree to which a substance tends to combine with another. Dictionary seems an unruly beast sometimes. “It is sometimes almost palpable [comme sensible], as when an hysteric plays at testing its elasticity to the hilt”. This caricatural liking we bring to the table.

Yet, we remain careful. A self-debasement might be a power-move. Convictions? “(...) I am not convinced myself and (...) I do not seek to persuade other people to believe in them. Or, more precisely, (...) I do not know how far I believe in them. There is no reason, as it seems to me, why the emotional factor of conviction should enter into this question at all. It is surely possible to throw oneself into a line of thought and to follow it wherever it leads out of simple scientific curiosity, or, if the reader prefers, as an advocatus diaboli, who is not on that account himself sold to the devil”. One can’t resist it. Liking drives in. It’s perhaps far-fetched to offer caricature as means of analysis. Neither tragedy nor farce, as one might put it, but history (i.e. desiring subject) remains here the main focus. But as a method of sharpening the tools these exaggerations may prove good enough. [Friedrichshain/Neukölln, April 2019]