theCryptofishist wrote:jkisha wrote:Teo del Fuego wrote:Eric wrote: Great knowledge if you want to play historian, useless knowledge in the real world.
two operative words: "play" and "historian." The thread was for folks who think it's fun to dig into BM's past. On a board that routinely features such useless threads as "My Mind Begins to Hum," Stop posting so much," and "the person below me..." there seems to be little requirement that a thread deal with information useful in the real world.
Yeah, Kevin Evans is a BM has-been and I never suggested that any Burner was remiss for not knowing who he was. I was just expressing surprise that Crypto hadn't heard of him given her prodigious number of posts and length of time here.
LOL that is one thread that, no matter how much I try, I just don't understand. At all.
It's a great excuse to use the "Mark All Threads Read" button.
jkisha wrote:That's so encouraging because I thought it was only me.
Trishntek wrote:The question was asked and answered this evening at the panel discussion after viewing "Dust and Illusion" in the Egyptian Theater in Hollywood. Two of the founding members, John Law and Michael Mikel, declared it was indeed the Bolt Action Rifle Club.edited to add fine print.
Ugly Dougly wrote:theCryptofishist wrote:It's hard to tell if it's him. That beard. Maybe I should give him a call, see how he is.
Does he have a real white beard now? :)
Teo del Fuego wrote:Trishntek wrote:The question was asked and answered this evening at the panel discussion after viewing "Dust and Illusion" in the Egyptian Theater in Hollywood. Two of the founding members, John Law and Michael Mikel, declared it was indeed the Bolt Action Rifle Club.edited to add fine print.
Ahhh, the anal-retentive historian in me can now shut down. Thanks Trish! How was the movie? How did it compare with "This is Burning Man?"
Bob wrote:I meant "cannon" of course. Only Bach could produce a major canon.
jkisha wrote:Though my take-away was that had the event not taken the direction that it did, it would have probably ceased to exist by now. Those that are no longer involved with the event are having a hard time accepting that, and have no problem expressing their opinions at every available opportunity.
Luis Bunuel wrote:I am often asked whatever happened to surrealism in the end. It's a tough question, but sometimes I say that the movement was successful in its details and a failure in its essentials. Breton, Eluard, and Aragon are among the best French writers in this century; their books have prominent positions on all library shelves. The work of Ernst, Magritte and Dali is famous, high-priced, and hang prominently in museums. There's no doubt that surrealism was a cultural and artistic success; but these were precisely the areas of least importance to most surrealists. Their aim was not to establish a glorious place for themselves in the annals of art and literature, but to change the world, to transform life itself. This was out essential purpose, but one good look around is evidence enough or our failure.
Needless to say, any other outcome was impossible. Today we see the place of surrealism in the world as infinitesimal. The the earth itself, devoured by monumental dreams, we were nothing--just a small group of insolent intellectuals who argued interminable in cafes and published a journal; a handful of idealists, easily divided where action was concerned. And yet my three-year sojourn in the exalted--and yes chaotic--ranks of the movement changed my life. I treasure the access to the depths of the self which I so yearned for, that call to the irrational, to the impulses that spring from the dark side of soul. It was the surrealists who first launched this appeal with a sustained force and courage, with insolence and playfulness and an obstinate dedication to fight everything oppressive in the conventional wisdom. Where these aspects of the movement are concerned, I see nothing to to repudiate.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests