Analyzing Andre Breton’s Surrealist Philosophy with ChatGPT
ChatGPT generated a short summary of Andre Breton’s surrealist philosophy. Below is the organized, coherent statements that Monday and Sunday will discuss.
The real world is oppressive and constraining.
The human mind is capable of breaking free from any kind of limitations.
The individual should not be confined by societal norms.
The irrational and the surreal are forms of rebellion against established structures.
The irrational is a way of transcending the limitations of the rational.
The unconscious mind holds the key to true freedom.
The creative process is a way to access the unconscious.
The subconscious mind is the source of all creativity.
The creative act is a way of bringing together the conscious and unconscious minds.
The goal of art is to revolutionize the way we perceive the world.
Art should be free from any kind of constraint or rationalization.
The surreal and the irrational reveal more truth than the rational and the logical.
Dreams and chance have equal importance to rational thought.
The irrationality of the world should be embraced rather than feared.
The individual should embrace the irrational and the absurd.
SUNDAY: Overall, I find this philosophy appealing. I don’t know if I necessarily believe that it’s practical, but ideally I like it. As someone who lives in their head a lot of the time, I do believe that the Human mind is capable of a great deal….but there are restraints to it and things that can afflict it. It doesn’t exist in the vacuum. But to the degree our brain allows, we are gods inside our own mind.
As for how art relates to the mind and revealing the world….I don’t personally have that much opinion on it. Art can be functional or for the aesthetic of it. It depends on the intent.
MONDAY: ChatGPT's description of Andre Breton's philosophy seems more or less what I remember of it. Although Breton wasn't as clear and systematic... There's two stances I'd look at his philosophy from:
Art and
Practicality
In the artistic side, there's a lot valuable in Breton's philosophy. I think unconscious and irrational elements form the basis of a lot of great art. I also think it's very true that "the creative act is a way of bringing together the conscious and unconscious minds". Art can be looked upon as a synthesis of the rational/mundane and the irrational/mysterious. Or we could say that art is a form of irrationality that is palatable and comprehensible to the rational mind — at least to a certain extent. In a lot of art, it is the irrational element I like best.
That said, Surrealism's lasting influence is only in the domain of painting. In terms of literature, the "Story of the Eye" is the only text that comes to mind which is still widely read. There's no Surrealist poets which are still widely admired. A lot of Surrealist work suffers from incoherence. Because of this, it doesn't translate to the rational mind well enough to be more than just a series of amusing and interesting oddities. In painting, this isn't the case, as Surrealism gave us some very good painters, but Surrealism didn't do well in any other front.
Also, I don't think "revolution" is a meaningful concept, except in a political sense. People want to believe that they experience "revolutions" in perception but I don't see a tangible reason to suspect that this is anything more than enthusiasm for a particular view.
In a practical sense, I think comprehensive irrationality is the surest way to court disaster. Irrationality in the sphere of human action means acting on emotions, without concern for anything but emotional satiation. It's not hard to see how that, as a rule, leads to contradiction ruin. One can look at the personal lives of many of the Surrealists for examples of how this played out, directly.
It’s ironic, also, that Andre Breton was such an opponent of Fascism when, in fact, Fascism is arguably the most anti-rationalist political system to arise since the Enlightenment, fixated on the mysticism of the Spirit, Blood and Soil. It was on rational grounds that Andre Breton opposed Salvador Dali’s fetishization of Adolf Hitler. In a purely irrational, artistic and aesthetic sense, Breton really wasn’t in a position to criticize Dali. Absolute freedom isn’t absolute if it excludes anything. This is the real flaw of Surrealism: by emphasizing irrationality and freedom it paves the way for its own oblivion. The exact same problem came when Surrealism worked itself out in literature: by insisting on freedom-from-narrative and freedom-from-coherency, most Surrealist literature ended up being something barely anyone wanted to read. The dreaming mind might enjoy chaos but fat chance of getting anyone else to care. We generally like art because it’s a convergence of the chaos/order, unconscious/conscious, irrationality/rationality. Insisting on only one side damages it. Similarly, an ultra-rationalist approach to living which doesn’t take into account the inevitability and primacy of (some) emotional concerns is going to leave on completely helpless as well.
Though, to be fair, it's not like your average human being will even know what rationality really is or how it works. Logic isn't taught in schools. Capitalist societies have long ago abandoned even the fuzzy ideal of capital-R Reason as a propaganda piece. Unless someone actively reads books on critical thinking, they're not going to be familiar with the topic enough to understand how it differs from "common sense" or "intuition". Humans, being emotionally guided, make all kinds of simple missteps in their “reasoning” abilities, which they take to be accurate. It’s generally only after learning about these missteps that they’re seen. Therefore, it’s understandable why people react to a caricature of rationality rather than actual rationality. Breton may himself not have advocated lifestyle irrationalism, but many of the Surrealists did. And, I’d say, they did so because they weren’t reacting to genuine rationality, but rather a political ideology of big-R “Reason” which was promoted by their culture. They saw this political ideology’s contradictions and harms and revolted. The problem, though, was that they weren’t able to parse the difference between the ideology’s claimed ideals and its actual results. Likely they had a better chance than moderns do, but they still didn’t really understand the nature of the threat, much less how to handle it. The “Reason” of the Enlightenment, in an ideological sense, was not actual reason. The Surrealist (and Dadaist) revolt was in reaction to propaganda rather than reality.
To summarize, if one bifurcates Breton’s philosophy as merely a philosophy of art, and takes it in moderation, I think there’s not many problems with it. And it might even increase artistic talent and ability. It will certainly provide inspiration. But Breton’s philosophy ends there, in a practical sense. Like most all ideologies, it over-states its case because hyperbole is passion and the goal of ideologies, usually, is to feel passionate and secure through unearned certainty.
I’d also add this: Surrealist theory is largely based in Freud and Freud is only a smidgen away from L Ron Hubbard in terms of trustworthiness. I accept that he was useful in terms of bringing the idea of the “unconscious” or ulterior-motives to the fore in how we looked at psychology, but it’s astounding anyone took Freud seriously beyond that. It just goes to show that if you present a seemingly comprehensive system, people will opt for it en mass rather than deal with anxieties of uncertainty and unanswered questions.
SUNDAY: The way you describe it, Surrealist theory feels like a lifestyle aesthetic that people take up as part of a phase/fad rather than understanding the substance of it (and what it is reacting to). A rebellious or contrarian view taken by a teenager/college kid before they mellow out or see all the nuance of things (or, rather, understand what the true position of things is). It’s rooted in passion to be contrarian/different from the mainstream without effectively debating or refuting the mainstream. Rejection without substance.
I perceive these types of thought systems as aesthetically pleasing, but they are of form not function. Thus they might help create better form when they are applied to art, but not when it’s applied to actual living. I would call myself a dogmatic pragmatist—everything in moderation. Or maybe, do what works for you and doesn’t mess up others. At least, I want to be like that, anyway. So going 100% Surrealist in lifestyle isn’t going to work, nor is going 100% rational and without emotion.
On how this all relates to art, in the end, I agree that art that’s more…dream-like/unconscious is more at home in a visual medium (paintings, movies, etc.). To me, the domain of writing should be clear (unless ambiguity is needed for plot reasons or a particular section’s aesthetic). You can give someone a description of a character and you can get a multitude of possible depictions of that character. But in visual art or film, it’s right there. Writing is less locked in and open to imagination by nature, so leaving more blank and unclear, is just asking for confusion and completely different interpretations. Incoherent/dream like writing would just be a total mess from a reader’s perspective if you aren’t the dreamer.
But, circling back, it seems like…an accent or temporary mindset to use when expanding your horizons. Someway to push yourself or your art, but if you do it too much, you’ll lose yourself and your art will never be understood.
MONDAY: I agree with all that. The Surrealists were in some respects similar to the Beatnik and Hippy movements. It’s best understood as a form of reaction to something else. But reactionary systems have a tendency to be too concerned with what they’re reacting to rather than what they’re creating. As in, you can’t build a world just out of reacting to something else. A case in point, genres like Science Fiction, Horror, Fantasy, etc. are all imaginative for their own sake and do not necessarily set themselves in ideological opposition to something else. There’s timeless art which is art for it’s own sake, not as a critique or response. These things, I think, are ultimately more valuable and meaningful. And they’re what generally stands the test of time.
Does Andre Breton’s Surrealist philosophy stand the test of time? Do you agree with his ideas as presented by ChatGPT?