The Line Between Art as a Whole and Surrealism is Very Thin

“Making art precipitates self-doubt, stirring deep waters that lay between what you know you should be, and what you fear you might be.”

– DAVID BAYLES AND TED ORLAND, ART & FEAR: OBSERVATIONS ON THE PERILS (AND REWARDS) OF ARTMAKING

Surrealism in its absolute simplicity is imagination, emotion, knowledge of self. Is this not what the aim of art is as a whole?

You could say surrealism seems weirder on its surface. But could that not mean that the artist is more in touch with their inner self or that their psyche differs from the norm?

My pieces I made based on my dreams in 2013 were fully in touch with my unconscious, a surrealist pillar, but I wouldn’t look at the images, in all cases, on their own, not knowing the context, and place them under the surrealist umbrella. So where then is the line that signifies some emotive, imaginative, images of self, over others?

Or maybe, just maybe, this all goes to show how much of an impact the Surrealist movement had on art that came after.

4 Replies to “The Line Between Art as a Whole and Surrealism is Very Thin”

    1. I don’t deny that at all. It led to other important art movements as well. I’ve talked about it historically more in other posts. Here I’m talking more about modern uses of surrealism and how they don’t stray from the overall goal of artistic work.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.