PREFACE TO THE FIRST ISSUE
Surrealism and the Cyborg: (Editor's Note)
Since 9/11, it seems to me that I hear or read a reference to the linguistic term Surrealism in exceedingly diverse contexts. Ranging from one article, "For A Body That Nobody Ever Had " by Roberta Smith in the New York Times describing the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Costume Institute exhibition entitled "Extreme Beauty: The Body Transformed" to an interview with the band Anthrax on their post-apocalytic fame to CNN’s commentary regarding missionary hostages in Aphganistan, the idea of surrealism as opposed to its historical coordinates is permeating the news. Already incorporated into the domains of advertising and animation, an extension of the boundary of this principle in juxtapositioning is being used to describe the uncanny, absurd and dangerous apparatus connected to the fall-out of America’s loss of virginity on 9/11. What I am saying here is that surrealism as a word has penetrated vernacular English, where its meaning is associated with horror, the dream-like, the extreme and unbelievable. At the same time, messages of hope and progress are espoused by clone-meisters and genetic engineers who propose to rid the body of its vulnerability, by rewriting the body’s script . What about the social script? Who writes that one? That vague apparatus we call rationality is once again a question of kind. To what ends are we willing to go to engage our desire (and need) for the irrational? What powers does the irrational harbor that may be of future use? For the historical avant-garde, Surrealism was a revolution in values. What does it mean for us today? |
|
 |
|
