20107991

8/11/2019 20107991

1/22

The Situationist International, Surrealism, and the Difficult Fusion of Art and PoliticsAuthor(s): Mikkel Bolt RasmussenSource: Oxford Art Journal, Vol. 27, No. 3 (2004), pp. 367-387Published by: Oxford University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20107991.

Accessed: 13/05/2014 17:21

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Oxford University Pressis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Oxford Art

Journal.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ouphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/20107991?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/20107991?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup

8/11/2019 20107991

2/22

The Situationist

International, Surrealism,

and the

Difficult

Fusion

of

Art

and Politics

Mikkel Bolt Rasmussen

This article has

two

inter-related

aims.

Firstly,

I want to

contribute

to

the

growing

debate about the

politics

and

political

theories

of

the

Situationist

International

and

Surrealism.

Through

a

presentation

of

an

episode

where

the

later

situationists

distanced

themselves

from

the

surrealist favourite

Chaplin,

I

will

attempt

to account

for the

way

the

surrealists

and the

situationists

respectively

engaged

in

politics,

how

they

tried

to

locate

themselves

on

the

left

and

tried

to

navigate

in

a

environment

dominated

by

the French

Communist

Party.

After

a

discussion

of the

complicated relationship

between Surrealism

and the Communist

Party

and

Trotskyism,

I

analyse

how the situationists after

World

War Two

attempted

to

continue

the

project

of

the

inter-war

avant

garde

without

repeating

what

they

considered

to

be failures

of

Surrealism.

I

present

the

situationists'

repudiation

of

the

unconscious

and their

conscious

effort

to

leave

the

art

world

in

favour

of

ultra-left

politics

outside the confines

of

the Communist

Party.

Secondly,

I

want to

offer

some

hypotheses

as to

why

the Situationist

International

has been

marginalised

within

theories

of

the

avant-garde. Through

a

discussion

of Peter

Burger's

important Theory of

the

Avant-Garde,

I

look

into

the

strange

omission

of

the

situationists

within

accounts

of

the

avant-garde

and

I

unravel the

roots

of

the situationists' and

Burger's categorical

critique

of

the

neo-avant-garde.

I

On

29

October

1952,

Charlie

Chaplin

held

his final

press

conference

in

Paris

after the successful French

premier

of his

new

film

Limelight.1

The

previous

week

Chaplin

had been

in

London,

where he

opened

the

European

launching

of his

new

film.

In

London,

as

in

Paris

and

Rome,

Chaplin

was a

sensation,

and

at

the

gala

premier,

200

policemen

were

called

out to

keep

around

10,000

spectators

at

a

distance.

The

BBC

was

present

and

recorded

the

entire

scene,

where

long

rows

of

Rolls-Royces

and

Bentleys dropped

off

public

figures

such

as

Princess

Margaret, Lady

Mountbatten,

the

Duke of

Alba,

Vivien

Leigh,

and

Douglas

Fairbanks

Jr.

It

was as

if

everyone

of

importance

in

England

had

gathered

to

celebrate

the

homecoming

of the exiled

king

of film.

Chaplin

was

in

exile

because he

had

been refused

automatic

entry

to

the

United States after his tour in

Europe;

he had

paradoxically

become a

pawn

in

and

victim

of

a

political

game

at

a

time

when he

had otherwise retracted his

former

controversial

political

viewpoints

and

created

a

melancholic

auto

biographical

love film. While

Chaplin

had

openly expressed

sympathy

for

the

International

and

domestic communism

in

the

1940s,

around 1950 he

began

to

resist

making

political

comments

and

attempted

to

dissociate himself from

his

former

viewpoints.

Throughout

the

1940s,

Chaplin

had

repeatedly

aired his

support

and

admiration

for

the

Soviet

Union

in

interviews,

and

he

had been

active

in

the

left-wing

environment

in

Hollywood

that

arose

among

exiled

Europeans

like

Harms

Eisler

and Berthold

Brecht.

The

film Monsieur

Ver

oux

from 1947 thus

presented

a

social

critique

of

capitalistic

society

and,

unlike

Chaplin's

previous

films,

contained

few

traditional

comical elements.

Rather,

1. For

accounts

of

the

events

surrounding

the

release

of

Chaplin's

Limelight,

see

Charles

J.

Maland,

Chaplin

and American

Culture: The

Evolution

of

a

Star

Image

(Princeton

University

Press:

Princeton,

1989),

pp.

221-313,

and

Kenneth

S.

Lynn,

Charlie

Chaplin

and his Times

(Simon

&

Schuster:

New

York,

1997),

pp.

472-91.

Oxford

Art

Journal

27.3

?

Oxford

University

Press

2004;

all

rights

reserved

OXFORD ART

JOURNAL

27.3 2004

365-387

This content downloaded from 163.178.101.228 on Tue, 13 May 2014 17:21:21 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

8/11/2019 20107991

3/22


the

comedy

that

it

contained

was

macabre.

The

film

was

also

a

financial

fiasco,

and

shortly

afterward

Chaplin

began

pulling

away

from

his

former

obvious

political

commitment.

However,

at

that

time

the

FBI

had

already

registered

him

as

a

communist

sympathiser,

and

two

members

of

Congress

had

demanded that he should be deported from the United States. Even though

Chaplin

manifestly played

down

the

political

viewpoints

he

previously

advanced,

and

despite

a

major

ad

campaign

focusing

on

his

traditional

character

?

the comical

and

loveable

tramp

?

he

became

entangled

in

the

wide-ranging

shift

in

public

opinion

that took

place

in

the

US

from 1947

to

1951.

Once

the

enthusiasm after

the

defeat of

fascism

in

World

War

Two had

abated,

there

was

a

return

to

the

anti-communist

atmosphere

of

the

1930s,

and the Cold

War

became

a

reality.

After

a

number of different

events

?

the

USSR

detonates

an

atom

bomb,

the

Maoists

in

China

win

in

1949,

the

Korean

War breaks

out,

Klaus

Fuchs,

Ethel and

Julius

Rosenberg

are

revealed

as

spies

?

a

xenophobic

anti-communist

atmosphere

achieved

a

hegemonic

status in

the

US.

Joseph

McCarthy,

who

headed

a

witch-hunt

against

assumed

communists

from

1949

onward,

incarnated

an

extreme

form of anti-communism.

It is

in

this

enflamed climate

Chaplin

attempted

to

salvage

his

status

as

a

star,

as a

loveable,

funny,

and

hard-working

comedian.

In

interviews,

he

refrained

from

expressing

support

for

the

Soviet

Union,

saying

instead:

'I

am

not

political

. . .

I

am an

individualist and believe

in

liberty.

This is

as

far

as

my

political

convictions

go

...

In

modern

times

where

everything

is

being regimented

the

artist

must

more

than

ever

think of the internal

life

of the

individual,

of this

unique

phenomenon

which

is

a

human

being,

the

artist

must create

for

him'.

But

regardless

of

these

measures,

the

US

revoked his

permission

to

return

after his

tour in

Europe.

In

contrast to

the

treatment

he received

in

the

US,

Chaplin

was

celebrated

like

a

king

in

Europe.

According

to

Variety,

at

the

premier

in

London he

received

more

applause

than

Princess

Margaret,

and

a

few

days

after the

premi?re

he

was

received

in

audience

by

Queen

Elizabeth.

Nor

in

Paris

was

pomp

in

short

supply.

Chaplin

was

admitted

as a

member

of the

Legion

of

Honour,

received

by

various

public

officials

including

the Paris

police

chief,

and the

newspapers

were

overflowing

with articles

on

him.

Thus,

on

29

October,

Chaplin

held

his

final

press

conference

in

Paris

at

the

Ritz

Hotel.

In

the middle of the

session,

four

men

suddenly

started

shouting

and

began

throwing

flyers

out

over

the

entire

gathering.

The

flyer,

an

A4

sheet

written

on a

typewriter,

carried

the

heading

'NO

MORE

FLAT

FEET',

and

read:

Sub-Mack Sennett

director,

sub-Max Linder

actor,

Stravisky

of

the tears

of

unwed mothers

and

the little

orphans

of

Auteil,

you

are

Chaplin,

emotional

blackmailer,

master-singer

of

misfortune

.

. .

Because

you've

identified

yourself

with the weak and the

oppressed,

to

attack

you

has

been

to attack the

weak

and

the

oppressed

-

but

in

the shadow of

your

rattan

cane some

could

already

see the

nightstick

of a cop. You are 'he-who-tums-the-other-cheek' - the other cheek of

the buttocks

-

but for

us,

the

young

and

beautiful,

the

only

answer

to

suffering

is revolution

. .

.

Go

to

sleep,

you

fascist insect.

Rake in

the

dough.

Make it

with

high

society

(we

loved

it

when

you

crawled

on

your

stomach

in front

of

little

Elisabeth).

Have

a

quick

death:

we

promise

you

a

first-class funeral. We

pray

that

your

latest

film will

truly

be

your

last... Go

home,

Mister

Chaplin.3

At

the bottom of the

page

were

four

signatures:

Serge

Berna,

Guy-Ernest

Debord,

Jean-L.

Brau,

and

Gil

Wolman.

The

four

men

had

signed

on

the

behalf

of the

Lettrist

International.

The

Lettrists

argued

that

Chaplin

and

his

film

practised

a

kind of emotional

blackmail,

merely

compensating

for

a

boring

life and

not

creating

the

possibility

of

a

new one

filled

with

excitement

and

adventure.

Chaplin

belonged

to

the

past

and

was

an

obstacle toward

creating

a

2.

Cited

in

Maland,

Chaplin

and American

Culture,

p.

281.

3. 'Finis les pieds plats', reprinted in G?rard

Berr?by

(ed.),

Documents

relatifs

?

la

fondation

de

l'internationale

situationniste

(?ditions

Allia:

Paris,

1985),

p.

262.

368

OXFORD

ART

JOURNAL

27.3 2004


8/11/2019 20107991

4/22

The Situationist


and the Difficult Fusion

of

Art

and Politics

new

life without alienation and

suffering.

He

signalled

passivity

and weakness

and

a

lack of desire

to

change

this situation. His lack of

self-awareness

was

na?ve,

making

it

possible

to

separate

the

human

from the social and

to

pin

one's

faith

on a

Utopian

salvation of

mankind.

The

event

did

not

manage

to

create

any major

debate

in

the

newspapers,

and

Chaplin

did

not

comment

on

the

episode

in

his

autobiography.

Even

so,

the

episode

was

significant

since it

was

not

only

the

birth of

what

later became

the

International

Situationist,

but

it

also

heralded

a

shift

in

the

history

of

the artistic

avant-garde.

On

the

face of

it,

the

event

confirmed

the

break between

Isidore Isou's

lettrist

group

and the

international lettrists who

were

behind the

flyer

and the

action

against Chaplin.

Lettrism

arose

when

the

Romanian artist

Isodore

Isou

arrived

in

Paris

shortly

after World War Two

with

a

suitcase

full of

manuscripts

and

a

megalomaniacal

artistic

project

comprising

poetry,

painting,

film, theatre,

music,

and

so

on.

According

to

Isou,

it

was

time

to

honour the

destruction

of the artwork

that had been

undertaken

by

radical

modern

art.

A

new

life

should

now

be

constructed

on

the

ruins

of the old

one.

Isou

had

developed

a

theory

of

history

based

on

the idea

that

what drives

history

forward

is

the

will

to

create.

Creation makes the

world

possible,

makes the

world

exist.

The

sense

of

human

action

was

to

create

oneself

and the

world.

Through

the

act

of

creation

man

became

God,

according

to

Isou,

who

thus

logically

called himself

the

new

Messiah.

In

other

words,

Isou

and Lettrism

radicalised

one

of the

most

long-lasting

myths

in

the

history

of

modernity:

the

narcissistic

idea

of

autogenesis

and

complete

(self-)

mastery.

Miraculously,

modern

man

generates

himself

out

of

nothing.

Ex

nihilo,

homo autotelus

extrapolates

himself. There

was

nevertheless

a

logic

in

the

procedure

of

creation:

according

to

Isou,

all

forms thus

went

through

a

'phase

amplique'

and

a

'phase

ciselant';

that

is,

first

a

period

when

the form

developed,

became

meaningful,

created

its

stylistic

vocabulary

with

which

it

became

capable

of

expressing

more

than

just

its

immanent

content,

then

a

period

when

it

disintegrated,

imploded,

and

thus

began

to

concentrate

on

the

forms and

techniques

of

the medium

itself.

Isou

applied

this

grandiose

genesis

to

various

art

forms,

so

that,

for

instance,

within

literature

it

was

Victor

Hugo

who had

completed

'le

phase amplique'

and

Baudelaire who had

initiated

'le

phase

ciselant'. After

Baudelaire,

Rimbaud,

and

Verlaine,

then Mallarm? and

Val?ry

and

finally

Tzara and

Breton

had

destroyed

poetic

language

so

that

it

ended

up

not

meaning

anything:

Dada.

Now

it

was

up

to

Isou

to

reconstruct

an

entirely

new

alphabet

consisting

of

new

letters,

new

basic

elements,

hence the

name

of the

movement:

lettre-ism. Isou

succeeded

in

convincing

the

publishing

house

Gallimard

to

publish

several

of his

manuscripts;

and with the

help

of

staged

scandals,

Isou

succeeded

in

creating

awareness

of

Lettrism

in

Paris in

the

1940s

and 1950s. He

gathered

a small

group

of

young

people

around him and

together they

created

lettrist

poetry,

music,

film,

painting,

dance,

philosophy,

architecture,

and

so

on

and

so

forth.

Basically,

the

group put

all

media

to

use,

subjecting

them

to

either

a

'phase

amplique'

or a

'phase

ciselant'

according

to

how

far the

individual medium

had reached

in

its

development.

It

was

this

mixture

of

budding

youth

culture

and

avant-garde

group

that

Guy

Debord,

Gil

Wolman,

and

the other

international lettrists

had

challenged

by

criticising

Chaplin.

Isou

and the

other

lettrists

criticised

the

attack

on

Chaplin

in

a

letter

to

the editor

in

Combat,

characterising

the

four men's

action

as

'outrancier

et

confus',

and

writing

that

even

though

the

celebration

of

Chaplin

was

marked

by

hysteria, they

in

no

way

wanted

to

take

issue

with

Chaplin.

'We

are

not

in

solidarity

with

our

friends'

tract

and

we

join

the

4. See Isidore

Isou,

Introduction ?

une

nouvelle

po?sie

et

?

une

nouvelle

musique

(Gallimard:

Paris,

1947),

M?moires

sur

les

forces futures

des

arts

plastiques

et sur leurmort (Cahiers del'Externit?:

Paris,

1998).

OXFORD

ART

JOURNAL

27.3

2004

369


8/11/2019 20107991

5/22

Mikkel Bolt

Rasmussen

homage

everyone

has rendered

to

Chaplin.'

The international lettrists

responded:

'We believe

that the

most

urgent

expression

of freedom

is

the

destruction of

idols,

especially

when

they

claim

to

represent

freedom.'

Thus

Isou

and the lettrists

were,

according

to

the international

lettrists,

no

longer

abreast

of the

times

and

had

themselves become

reactionary.

Like

Chaplin

and

all other

idols,

Isou should be

destroyed

in

order

to

make

room

for

a new

generation.

But

not

a new

generation

of

artists.

As

Debord

wrote in

a

response

to

Isou:

'We

have

so

little

interest in

the authors and their

tactics

that the

incident

is

almost

forgotten;

it

is

really

for

us as

if

Jean-Isidore

Isou

had

never

existed;

as

if

there

never

had been his lies

and his

renunciation.'

This

was

no

longer

the time for literature and

art. Isou

was

hanging

on

to

the

past

while

Debord and

the international lettrists

had

already

forgotten everything

about

Isou,

Chaplin,

and literature.

That which

had

previously

been the

artistic

avant-garde

was now

impossible.

The

true

revolutionaries

had

moved

out

of

and

beyond

art.

The

true

revolutionaries

no

longer

had

anything

to

do with

art.

II

The idea

of the failure of the

avant-garde

played

a

pivotal

role

in

the theories

and the

practice

that first the international

lettrists

and

later

the International

Situationist

developed.

According

to

the

Situationists'

genealogy

of the

avant

garde,

the

period

between

1910

and 1930

was

the culmination

of the

150

year-long disintegration

of

art

and the artwork.

With Dada and Surrealism

it

became

obvious that

the

only

true art

was

anti-art,

that

the authentic artwork

carried

its

own

negation.

Dada and

Surrealism

had

each

driven

art

beyond

its

limits and carried

out

the self-transcendence

of

art.

Since then

nothing

of

relevance

had

been

produced

as

art.

The

period

after

1930

had been

characterised

by

an

expanding

repetition

of

previous

destructions

and

experiments.

In

a

report

whose title

was

'Panorama

intelligent

de 1'avant

garde

?

la

fin

de

1955',

a severe

critique

of

contemporary

art,

politics,

and

philosophy

was

made:

Poetry:

The

almost

complete disappearance

of

this

activity

. . .

Cinema:

It has been

years

since

we

have

seen a

film

of

even

minor

novelty

. . .

Philosophy:

IDIOTS,

stop

being.

Read Marx

. . .

Visual

arts:

All

abstract

painting

since Malevitch

have been

forcing

open

doors. This

activity

is

off-course,

uninteresting

and

perfectly

mediocre

. . .

Politics:

Nothing

new

. . .

Literature: One is

never

without substitutes

that

can

preserve

the

publishing

industry

and

consumption.8

Since

Dada

and the

surrealists,

modern

art

had

merely

repeated

itself and had

ended

up

as a

mocking

compensation

for

an

alienated life.

Modern

art

was

dead,

a

death that

occurred

around 1930.

From

then

on

no

artistic

experiments

had

managed

to

live

up

to

art's

demands for

a

different

life.

They

had been satisfied with merely re-presenting already accepted and circulating

forms without

understanding

the

very

historical

situation

and

development

that had

made

it

possible

to

transcend

art

and

integrate

it

directly

into

everyday

life.

By

criticising Chaplin,

the

situationists made

it

clear that

the

time had

now

come

to

transgress

Dada

and Surrealism.

They

made

it

clear

that

they

perceived

themselves

as a

post-Dadaist

and

post-surrealist

movement.

For

the

surrealists

had

expressed

great

enthusiasm

for

Chaplin

on

several

occasions,

culminating

in

1927

when

they

delivered

a

grandiose

defence of

Chaplin

in

their

journal

La

Revolution Surr?aliste. Under

the

title

'Hands off

Love',

the

surrealists

defended

Chaplin's

right

to

live

as

he

pleased.

Chaplin's

wife

at

the

time,

Lillita

Grey,

had

applied

for divorce

and demanded

$1

million

in

5. 'Les lettristes desavouent les insultes de

Chaplin', reprinted

in

Berr?by,

p.

147.

6.

'Position

de l'Internationale

lettriste',

reprinted

in

Berr?by,

p.

151.

7.

Guy

Debord,

'Mort

d'un

Commis

Voyageur',

reprinted

in

Berr?by,

Documents,

p.

149.

8.

'Panorama

intelligent

de

l'avant-garde

?

la

fin de

1955',

Guy

Debord

pr?sente

Potlach

(Gallimard:

Paris,

1996),

pp.

209-18.

9.

The defence

was

originally

written for the

journal

Transition,

'a

monthly magazine

presenting

the modern

spirit

of various

continents

to

the

English-speaking

world',

which

presented

the

text

as

'a

terrific Document

defending

Genius

against Bourgeois

Hypocrisy

and

against

Modern American

Morality'.

But

the

surrealists

were

not

satisfied with the

presentation

of the

text

and

reprinted

it

in

La

R?volution

Surr?aliste.

See

Jos?

Pierre

(ed.),

Tracts

surr?alistes

et

d?clarations

collectives

(1922/1969).

Tome

I

(1922/39)

(Le

terrain

vague:

Paris,

1980),

pp.

414-6.

370

OXFORD

ART

JOURNAL

27.3

2004


8/11/2019 20107991

6/22

The Situationist


and

the

Difficult

Fusion

of

Art and

Politics

alimony.

Her

attorney

and

uncle,

Edwin

McMurray,

made

public

a

40-page

long

indictment

in

which

Chaplin

was

accused

of

having

affairs,

living

a

perverted

life,

and

neglecting

his wife

in

favour of

his

films.

'Plaintiff

alleges

with

regard

to

sexual relations heretofore

existing

between

said

parties

that the

defendant's attitude, conduct and manifestations of

interest

therein have

been

abnormal, unnatural,

perverted,

degenerate

and

indecent.'

The

public

did

not

react

in

favour

of

Chaplin,

and

he

came

under

heavy

fire

on

account

of the

affair.

The

surrealists

did

not

react too

late and directed

a

scathing

attack

on

the

bourgeois

morality

they

wanted

to

get

rid

of.

As Breton

wrote

in

Manifeste

du

surr?alisme:

'a

new

morality

must

be

substituted

for

the

prevailing

morality,

the

source

of all

our

trials and

tribulations.'

They

wrote

that

marriage

was

nothing

but

a

prison

designed

to

restrain

true

passions

and

that

bourgeois

morality

restricted

the

natural

freedom of

feelings

and

suppressed

the

ability

to

create.

Chaplin

was an

ideal

because

he

followed

his

desire

wherever

it

took

him.

In

the

apology,

which

had

even

been made the

leading

article

of the

issue,

they

recalled

in

admiration how

in

one

of

his

films

Chaplin

had

dropped everything

in

his

hands

to

follow

a woman

passing by.

This

scene

made

a

considerable

impression

on

the

surrealists,

to

whom

desire

was

the

greatest

virtue.

Spontaneous

actions

were an

expression

of

unspoiled

creativity,

while

consciousness

destroyed

the fantastic

and

imprisoned

it in

the

sterile forms of

art.

Art

and

poetry

were

only

relevant

to

the surrealists

insofar

as

they

were

manifestations

of the

fantastic.

Considered

formally

and

stylistically,

art

and

poetry

were

without

value,

but

as

an

expression

of

the

fantastic

they

were

indispensable.

They

therefore

possessed

no

immanent

value,

but

were

important

as

media

in

which

the fantastic

was

awakened.

Transcending

the

self

was

pivotal.

Man

should allow himself

to

be

subjected

to

objective

accidental

occurrences

and

to

be

open

to

the

singularity

of

coincidences,

where

a

corner

of hidden

meaning

in

life,

a

higher

necessity,

was

exposed.

For

the

surrealists,

mankind

was a

sensitive receiver

of

an

already

existing

poetic

inspiration

that

it

was

a

matter

of

setting

free.

This

liberation

could take

place

on

walks

through

city

streets,

where

encounters

with

the

objects

of

yesteryear

or

strange

characters constituted emotional

shocks,

or

through

automatic

writing,

in

which

a

discursive

flux

was

released.

The surrealists'

operations

were

risky

and Breton

himself

wrote

that

Champs

magn?tiques

was an

attempt

to

'write

a

dangerous

book'

?

dangerous

not

only

to

those

who

allowed themselves

to

be

possessed

by

automatic

writing,

but

also

linguistically dangerous,

in

that automatic

writing

questioned

the

authenticity

of all other

means

of

communication.12

Automatic

writing

was

an

attempt

to create

transparent,

total

communication

without ulterior

motives. Behind the

enunciation

there

was no

subject

to

address

a

reader.

It

took

place

without author and

reader,

all

alone

in

the

world,

and

was

thus

innocent communication in the absence of

intersubjective

relations. In

automatic

writing,

all

dialogue

faded

and

turned

into

monologue.

Authentic

communication took

place

when there

was no

longer

an

T

addressing

a

'you',

but when

polyphonic

'speech'

was

exposed.

Breton

triumphantly

wrote

in

Man

feste

du

surr?alisme:

SURREALISM,

n.

Psychic

automatism in

its

pure

state,

by

which

one

proposes

to

express

-

verbally,

by

means

of

the written

word,

or

in

any

other

manner

-

the actual function of

thought.

Dictated

by

thought,

in

the absence

of

any

control

exercised

by

reason,

exempt

from

any

aesthetic

or

moral

concern.14

With the collective

monologue

of automatic

writing

the surrealists

attempted

to

reveal

a

paradoxical

community

where

communication

takes

place

when

no

10.

Lita

Grey's

divorce

complaint

against

Chaplin, quoted

in

Lynn,

Charlie

Chaplin

and his

Times,

p.

310.

11. Andr?

Breton,

Manifestoes of

Surrealism,

trans.

Richard

Seaver and

Helen

Lane

(The

University

of

Michigan

Press:

Ann

Arbor,

1969),

p.

44.

12.

Andr?

Breton,

'En

Marge

des

Champs

Magn?tiques',

Change,

no.

7, 1970,

p.

25.

See Laurent

Jenny,

La

parole

singuli?re

(?ditions

Belin:

Paris,

1990),

pp.

146-54;

Marguerite

Bonnet,

Andr? Breton:

Naissance de

l'aventure surr?aliste

(Jos?

Corti:

Paris,

1975),

pp.

160-97.

14.

Breton,

Manifestoes

of

Surrealism,

p.

26.

OXFORD ART

JOURNAL

27.3

2004

371


8/11/2019 20107991

7/22


one

expresses

himself.

Automatic

writing

made

it

possible

for the

subject

to

disintegrate

in

an

authentic

process

of

communication,

to

obliterate oneself

in

order

to

allow

a

real

community

to

appear

beyond

any

social

and

psychological

alienation.

Walks

through

the

city

were

supra-textual

versions

of

automatic

writing,

a

pure

automatism

exposed

in

life.

Walking

and

automatic

writing

were

to

the surrealists what the divan

was

to

psychoanalysis:

a

place

for

transference

to

take

place,

a

place

where

the

patient

and

the

analyst constantly

switched

places

until

an

'it'

appeared

and

was

read

by

an

'us.'

Ill

Like

the other

groups

in

the

historical

avant-garde,

the surrealists

were

sceptical

about the

institution

of

art

and enthusiastic about the revolutions

taking

place

in

Russia,

Hungary,

and

Germany.

The

surrealists identified

themselves with

the

revolutionary

wave,

seeing

it

as

their task

to

bring

about

a

revolution

in

the

people carrying

out

the

revolution.

In

contrast to

the

Soviet

Russian

avant-garde,

which

strived

to

develop

an

accessible,

egalitarian,

and

radical

anti-aesthetic

production

art,

where

art

and

industry

merged

in

the

service

of

the

revolution,

the

surrealists

concentrated

on

the unconscious

dimensions

of

the

subject

and

on

releasing

as

much

creative

power

as

possible.

Whereas

production

art

turned

art

into

technology

and

science,

the surrealists

turned

art

into

a

means

for the

fantastic,

wanting

to

re-mythologise

life.

The

surrealists

were

sceptical

about the

widely-held

view

that the

rest

of the

world

should follow the model of

American

industrialisation.

Marxists

like Antonio

Gramsci

were

convinced that

American

industrialisation

was

the

way

forward

for the

proletariat,

which should

be

streamlined

and

disciplined.

Not

just

the

bourgeois

world,

but

the

worker

as

well

should be reformed

according

to

the

predictable

and

effective methods of Fordism and

Taylorism.

The worker

should

keep

his

animal drives

in

check and affirm

a new

mechanised

life

controlled

by

rationality

and

Puritanism.

The

surrealists

were

of

the

opinion

that industrialisation and

functionalism

created

a

sterile and dead

world.

The

surrealists

were

romantics in

so

far

as

they

were

drawn

to

the cultural

forms of

a

pre-capitalist

past

and

rejected

the

cold and

abstract

rationality

of

modern

industrial

civilisation.

This

interest in

the

outdated and

the

magical

did

not

mean

however that the surrealists

melancholically

mourned

the

passing

of

time

and

worshipped

the

paradise

of

the

past.

Instead

they

used their

nostalgia

as a

weapon

with

which

the

present

world could be

transformed.

Despite

the

opposition

toward the

contemporary

technological

and

economic

utopia

of

development,

the

surrealists

considered themselves

as

Marxists.

But their 'Gothic Marxism'

was

different from the

dominant

version,

which had

metaphysical

materialistic

tendencies

and

was

contaminated

by

an

evolutionary ideology

of

development.17

Their Marxism was a

materialism fascinated

by

the fantastic and interested

in

enchantment.

The

magical

dimensions

of earlier cultures

constituted

a

reservoir

for the

revolution

of

the

subject,

a

revolution that

destroyed

identity

and

exposed

the

fantastic.

The

marginalised

objects

of

modern culture

were

not

delusions

that

had

to

be driven

away

but

both

potentialities

to

be mobilised

in

a

revolutionary

battle and

ingredients

in

a

re-enchanted

life.

According

to

the

surrealists,

it

was

a

misunderstanding

to

believe that

politicising

and

criticising

bourgeois

society

meant

that

the

revolutionaries had

to

give

up

the

magical

and

the libertine

in

favour

of what

they

thought

was a

dilettantish confidence

in

progress.

The

trivial

objects

of

modern

life

should be

torn out

of their usual

surroundings

and

rational

use

and

be

endowed

with

a

life

of

their

own.

15.

For

an

account

of

the

impact

the

idea

of

industrialisation

as

historical

progress

made

in

the

twentieth

century,

see

Susan

Buck-Morss,

Dreamworld and

Catastrophe:

The

Passing

of

Mass

Utopia

in

East

and

West

(MIT

Press:

Cambridge,

2000).

16. Antonio

Gramsci,

'Americanism

and

Fordism',

Prison

Notebooks,

trans.

Quintin

Hoare

and

Geoffrey

Nowell

Smith

(Lawrence

&

Wishart:

London,

1971).

17. The

term

'Gothic Marxism' has been

conceptualised

by Margaret

Cohen

in

Profane

Illumination: Walter

Benjamin

and the

Paris

of

the

Surrealist Revolution

(University

of

California

Press:

Berkeley,

1993)

and

by

Michael

L?wy

in

L'?toile du

matin:

Surr?alisme

et marxisme

(Editions

Syllepse:

Paris,

2000).

372

OXFORD

ART

JOURNAL

27.3

2004


8/11/2019 20107991

8/22

The Situationist

International,

Surrealism,

and the Difficult

Fusion

of

Art

and Politics

According

to

the

surrealists,

the

objects

and

techniques

of

the

bourgeois

world

dictated

how

man

should

live,

thereby

transforming

the world into

a

prison.

Man

was

trapped

in

an

alienating

structure

he

was

unable

to

escape

from.

By

drawing

attention

to

the

marginalised

and

irrational

objects

in

rationalised

society,

the

surrealists

tried

to

equip

the

alienated

human

being

with

tools

with

which he

could

break

out

of

his

prison

and

regain

freedom.

The

peculiar

Gothic Marxism

of the

surrealists

meant

that

they

had

a

complicated relationship

with the

established Marxism

in

France,

in

particular

the French Communist

Party.18

The

Communist

Party

had

come

into

existence in

1920

as a

fusion of

different

French

militants

who,

inspired

by

the

events in

Russia,

wanted

to

transfer the

Bolshevik

experiment

to

France. The

importation

of

Leninism

from

the

economically underdeveloped

Soviet Union

was

mixed with

elements from

the

long

French

tradition

of

popular uprisings

dating

back

to

1789.

In

the first

years

of the existence

of the

party

there

was

no

contradiction

between

the Leninist

Bolshevism

and

the

French

revolutionary

heritage.

The

theory

and

practice

of Leninism could be

synthesised

unproblematically

with the

different

currents

of

the

French

left

such

as

Jacobinism,

Syndicalism,

and

Utopian

Socialism.

For

the French

Communists,

the

revolution

in

Russia

was

just

the

latest

example

of the

revolutionary

spark

that had

already

exploded

in

1789,

1848,

and

1871

in

the

streets

of Paris

and

Lyon. During

this

first

period,

the Communist

Party

was

characterised

by

great

diversity

and

internal

doctrinal

confusion.

This

confusion

or

openness

slowly disappeared

during

the

1920s,

as

the

party

concentrated

more

and

more

on

defending

the

policy

of

the

Soviet

Union.

By

the

end of

the

1920s,

more or

less

all

the

'non-Bolshevik'

elements

had

been

excluded from

the

party

and

the

party

was

characterised

by

conformism

and

uniformity.

The

surrealists

experienced

the

increasing

Stalinisation

of

the

Communist

Party

at

close hand

and

it

eventually

made

the

connection

between Surrealism and the

Communist

Party

untenable.

In the first

year

of the

group's

existence it was

only

poetry

?

by

expressing

a

transgression

of

that which

already

exists in

the

direction of the fantastic

?

that

was

considered

liberating.

After

a

very

short

time,

the

group

nevertheless

made

a

political

turn

and became

aware

that

creating

another life

also

implied

changes

in

the

material

basis

of

life.

Events

such

as

the

revolution

in

Russia,

the

war

in

Morocco,

and

the

arrival

of Fascism

put

pressure

on

the

intuitive and

ethical idea of

another life

that

characterised

the

group,

supplementing

it

with

a

need

to

express

the

revolutionary

demand

in

political

actions.

Gradually

the

surrealists became

politically

conscious

and

found

out

that

most

people

that

were

against

nationalism,

imperialism,

and

bourgeois

morality

were

Marxists

of

some

sort.

The

surrealists

had

become

acquainted

with the

journal

Clart?

in

1924,

when

the journal, like the surrealists, distanced itself from the

widespread

national

mourning

over

the

death of

the Grand

Old

Man

of French

letters,

Anatole

France. Clart?

originally

started

out

in

1919

as a

humanist and

pacifist

journal

run

by

the

writer

Henri

Barbusse,

but the

journal

turned

leftward

and

was

oriented

toward

revolutionary

action

under the

leadership

of

a

group

of

young

Marxists

like

Jean

Bernier,

Eduard

Berth,

and

Marcel

Fourrier.20

The

journal

started

publishing

articles

on

topics

like

economy,

war,

and

fascism

and

worked

with the Communist

Party

without

however

becoming

an

official

organ

for

the

party.

Like

the

surrealists,

Clart?

was

an

avid

critic

of

war,

nationalism,

and

capitalism,

and

the

two

groups

started

collaborating

in

1925

after the

outbreak

of

a new

colonial

war

in

Morocco. The

two

groups

issued

a

joint

manifesto,

'La

R?volution

d'abord

et

toujours',

in

which

they

criticised

18.

For

an

account

of the

relationship

between

the

surrealists and the

French

Communist

Party,

see

Helena

Lewis,

The

Politics

of

Surrealism

(Paragon House Publications: New York, 1988);

Maurice

Nadeau,

Histoire

du surr?alisme

(Editions

de

Seuil:

Paris,

1964);

Robert

S.

Short,

'The

Politics

of

Surrealism,

1920-1936',

Journal

of

Contemporary

History,

vol.

1,

no.

2,

1966,

pp.

3?25;

Andr?

Thirion,

R?volutionnaires

sans

r?volution

(Robert

Laffront:

Paris,

1972).

19. See David

Caute,

Communism and the French

Intellectuals

1914-1960

(Macmillan:

New

York,

1964).

20. For

a

discussion

of

Clart?,

see

Nicole

Racine,

'The

Clart?

Movement

in

France,

1919?21

',

Journal

of

ContemporaryHistory,

vol.

2,

no.

2, 1967,

pp.

195-208.

OXFORD

ART

JOURNAL

27.3 2004

373


8/11/2019 20107991

9/22


the French

government

for

its

imperialistic aggression

and saluted

Lenin

for his

demand

for

a

total disarmament.

'We don't

think

jour

France will

ever

be

capable

of

following

the

magnificent

example

of

an

immediate and

complete

disarmament

that

Lenin

gave

the world

in

Brest-Litovsk

a

disarmament

whose

revolutionary

value

is

indefinite.'21

During

a

short

period

the

two

groups

focused

on

their

common

enemy

?

bourgeois

culture and

the

imperialist

war

in

Morocco

?

and

even

planned

the

publication

of

a new

joint

journal

called

La

Guerre Civile

that

however

never

materialised,

because

the surrealists

were

not

ready

to

abandon

the

surrealist

experiment.

The

termination of the collaboration

with

Clart?

did result

in

the

surrealists

abandoning

politics.

The

question

of

political engagement

remained

central

within

Surrealism,

and

the

surrealist

group

experienced

several

rifts

during

the

next

years

on

that

very

question.

From

1925

to

1929

the

group

was

marked

by

controversies

inwardly

and

outwardly

with

respect

to

the Communist

Party

and

to

the

different

para-communist

groups

with

which

they

cooperated

for

a

brief

period.

The

political

turn

and

the

concrete

collaboration

with Clart?

resulted

in

the

formation

of

three

fractions

within

the

surrealist

group:

one

desired

to

dialectically

sub?ate

the

division

between idealism and materialism

(e.g.

Breton,

Aragon);

the second refused

to

subordinate

the

spiritual

revolution

of Surrealism

to

a

political

agenda

(e.g.

Artaud,

Desnos);

while

the

third wished

to

privilege

political

activity

(e.g.

Naville,

P?ret).

These fractions

were

an

expression

of the

heterogeneity

characterising

the

practice

of

Surrealism,

and

they

demonstrated

that

Surrealism

was

not

a

coherent

theory

and

practice

but

rather

a

field of

overlapping,

often

conflicting,

tendencies

at

that

moment.

For

a

short

while,

Artaud

was

at

the

centre

of

surrealist

activity.

He

was

at

the

head of

Le Bureau

central

de

Reserches

surr?alistes

and

wrote

several

letters

published

in La

R?volution

Surr?aliste

in

which

he mocked and

provoked

traditional culture

and

every

conceivable

institution

in

the

world.

In

'Adresse

au

Pape'

the

Pope

was

ridiculed,

in 'Lettre aux m?decins-chefs des asiles de

fous' he

demanded

all

mental

patients

be

released,

in

'Adresse

au

Dalai

Lama'

he asked

the Dalai

Lama

to

teach

the

surrealists

the

art

of

l?vitation,

and

in

'Ouvrez

les

prisons,

licenciez l'Arm?e' he

ordered the

French

government

to

open

the

prisons

and close down

the

army.

The

Utopian

anarchism

of Artaud

only

dominated the

surrealist

group

for

a

short while

and,

after

Artaud

had left

the

group,

Aragon,

Breton,

and Eluard

entered

the

Communist

Party

in

January

1927.

At

that

time

the

surrealist

Pierre

Naville

had

already

been

a

member

of

the Communist

Party

for

a

year,

he

had

joined

the

editorial

board of

Clart?,

and had

written

the

pamphlet

La

R?volution

et

les intellectuels.

Que

peuvent

faire

les surr?alistes?

Position

de

la

question,

in

which he tried

to

fuse Surrealism

and

Marxism. Surrealism

and

Marxism

converged

naturally,

Naville wrote in his

pamphlet,

because the surrealist

goal

of

realising

freedom

necessarily

implied

a

critic

of the

bourgeoisie.

According

to

Naville,

it

was

only

the

proletariat

that

was

able

to

realise

the revolution

the

surrealists

strove

for.

Therefore

it

was

necessary

for

the

surrealists

to

ally

themselves

with the Communist

Party

who,

for

its

part,

needed

the rebellious

attitude

of the surrealists.

If

the

surrealists

were

not to

remain

an

ineffective

group

of

intellectuals

they

had

to

join

the

communist

movement

and

'realise

that

the

spiritual

force

...

is

intimately

connected

to

a

social

reality.'

Naville's

pamphlet

raised

some

important

questions

concerning

the

political

engagement

of

Surrealism

and

Breton

was

obliged

to

respond

to

Naville's

challenge.

In

his

text

'L?gitime

d?fense'

Breton

thanked

Naville

for

raising

the

important

question

of the

relationship

between

Surrealism and

communism.

21.

'La

R?volution d'abord

et

toujours',

La

R?volution

Surr?aliste,

no.

5,

1925,

p.

32.

22.

Antonin

Artaud,

'Ouvriez

les

prisons,

licenciez

l'Arm?e',

La R?volution

Surr?aliste,

no.

2,

1925,

p.

18;

'Adresse

au

Pape',

La R?volution

Surr?aliste,

no.

3, 1925,

p.

16;

'Adresse

au

Dalai-Lama',

La

R?volution

Surr?aliste,

no.

3,

1925,

p.

17;

'Lettre

aux

?coles

du

Bouddha',

La

R?volution

Surr?aliste,

no.

3,

1925,

p.

22;

'Lettre

aux

m?decins-chefs

des

asiles

de

fous',

La R?volution

Surr?alistes,

no.

3, 1925,

p.

29.

23. Pierre

Naville,

La

R?volution

et

les

intellectuels.

Que

peuvent

aire

les surr?alistes?

Position de la

question

[1926]

(Gallimard:

Paris,

1975),

p.

92.

For

an

account

of Naville's

position,

see

also

Pierre

Naville,

Le

temps

du

surr?el.

L'esp?rance

math?matique.

Vol 1

(Galil?e:

Paris,

1977).

374

OXFORD

ART

JOURNAL

27.3

2004


8/11/2019 20107991

10/22

The

Situationist

International,

Surrealism,

and the Difficult

Fusion

of

Art

and Politics

According

to

Breton,

the surrealists

supported

the

headlines of

the

communist

program

with

enthusiasm,

but

were

unsatisfied

with the

cultural

policy

of the

French

Communist

Party.

The

Communist

Party

was

only

concerned with the

socio-material

aspect

of

the

revolution and had left the

question

of

art

and

culture

to

the

bourgeois

forces

in

society.

The

party newspaper

Humanit?

was

an

example

of this

tendency

and Breton

characterised the

newspaper

as

'unreadable'

and

absolutely

unsuitable

to

educate the

working

class.

Breton

was

sceptical

towards

the

tendency

of the

Communist

party

to

focus

only

on

the material

aspects

of

existence. The

revolution

was

also

to

be

a

mental

revolution

and

this

was

what the surrealists

strove to

realise.

'There

is

none

of

us

who do

not

wish for the transfer of

power

from

the

bourgeoisie

to

the

proletariat.

In

the meantime it is

according

to

us

necessary

that

the

experiences

of

inner

life

proceeds

without

outside

control

even

Marxist.'25

On

behalf

of

Surrealism,

Breton

stepped

back from

the

explicit

Communist

engagement

of

Naville and

stressed the need for

a

certain

autonomy

in

which

the

surrealists

could continue

their

experiments.

The

question

of

the

relationship

between Surrealism and

communism

remained

on

the

agenda

during

the

fall of 1926

and

Breton

tried

to

mediate

between

the

more

explicit political

surrealists like

Naville and the

spiritual

surrealists like

Philippe Soupault.

Surrealism

was

for

Breton

precisely

the

fusion

of

these

two

tendencies,

the

spiritual

and

material

revolution.

This

view

was

concretised

when

several

surrealists

led

by

Breton

joined

the

Communist

Party

in

the

beginning

of

1927.

At

that

time

Naville had

already

left the

party

and had

joined

a

small

Trotskyite

group.

However Breton

and

the others

stayed

within the Communist

Party

and

continued

attempting

to

supplement

the

theory

of class

struggle

with the

idea

of

a

transcendental

mental

revolution.

The delicate

balance between

political

action

and

surrealistic

activity

was

complicated,

since

the

Communist

Party

was

characterised

by

a

rigid

materialistic idea of

reality

?

in

which

only

the

ownership

of

the

means

of

production

was

important

?

while the

surrealists refused

to

accept

politics

as a

separate

area.

But

the criticism of the

Communist

Party

remained

mild

until

1935,

inasmuch

as

the surrealists

believed

to

have found

a means

of

revolutionising

society

with the Communist

Party.

However,

the surrealists

had

difficulty

coming

to

terms

with

the

centralistic

and

dogmatic

Stalinism

of

the

Communist

Party,

which

meant

that

the

party's

most

important

activity

was

to

provide

unqualified

support

to

the

Soviet

Union

and

to

support

the

theory

of 'socialism

in

one

country'.

As

the Soviet Union

started

to

praise

the

bourgeois

ideas

that the

surrealists hated

most

of all

?

family,

nation,

and

the

political

leaders

?

they

had

more

and

more

difficulty uniting

their desire for

a

global

existential

revolution,

which

was

to

destroy

the

predominant

forms

of

representation,

with the Communist

Party's

desire for

a

material

transformation. Surrealism's determined efforts toward the total freedom of

man

did

not

correspond

well with the Communist

Party's

praise

of

work,

productivity,

and

nation.

Without

leaving

communism,

the

surrealists started

to

take

an

interest

in

the

rival

communist

movements,

which

were

based

on

Leninism

but criticised

Stalinism

for

opportunism

and for

betraying

the

Leninist

principles.

Leon

Trotsky

became

the

centre

of

attention

for the

surrealists

early

on,

and Breton

wrote

a

laudatory

review

of

Trotsky's

book

on

Lenin

as

early

as

1925

in

La

R?volution

surr?aliste

no.

5.

'Long

live Lenin

I

salute

Leon

Trotsky'.

Trotsky

had

played

a

leading

role

in

the

October

Revolution

of

1917,

becoming

the

first

Minister of

Foreign

Affairs of

the

Soviet

Union,

and

as

the

organiser

of

the Red

Army

he

played

a

crucial

role

in

the

victory

in

the

24. Andr?

Breton,

'L?gitime

D?fense',

La

R?volution

Surr?aliste,

no.

8, 1926,

p.

30.

25.

Breton,

'L?gitime

D?fense',

p.

35.

26.

Andr?

Breton,

'L?on

Trotsky:

L?nine',

La

R?volution

Surr?aliste,

no.

5,

1925,

p.

29.

OXFORD

ART

JOURNAL

27.3 2004

375


8/11/2019 20107991

11/22

Mikkel

Bolt

Rasmussen

civil and

interventionist

war

from

1918

to

1921.

In

the

battle

carried

out

against

Stalin from

1923

to

1927,

Trotsky

was

defeated,

and

after

having

been

deported

to

Kazakhstan,

he

was

banished from

the

Soviet Union

in

1929.

Before

the

Russian

Revolution,

Trotsky

was

critical of

Lenin's

military

party

structure

and

fought

to

construct

a

democratic,

unified

party

that could

accommodate all

the

social-democratic

tendencies,

as

he

was

afraid that the

party

would

establish

its

dictatorship

over

the

proletariat,

the

party

leadership

would

establish

its

dictatorship

over

the

party,

and

finally

the

head

of the

party

over

the

party

leadership.

The

main

idea of

Trotsky's theory,

which

appealed

to

the

surrealists far

more

than

Stalin's 'socialism

in

one

country',

was

the idea

of

'the

permanent

revolution',

according

to

which

a

socialistic revolution could

not

be

thoroughly

carried

out in

Russia alone and

therefore

had

to

'jump

over'

to

the

developed

countries

in

order

to

be

completed

there.28

Trotsky

nevertheless

adopted

Lenin's

conception

of the

party

in

connection

with the

October

Revolution,

and

together

they

headed

not

only

the

conquest

of

power,

but also

the

many oppressive

measures

taken towards those

who

thought

differently,

leading

to

the

creation

of

the first

totalitarian

state in

1921.

Pursuing

the idea of

the

permanent

revolution,

Trotsky severely

criticised

Stalin

for

surrendering

world revolution

for 'socialism

in

one

country'.

It

was

impossible

to

carry

out

a

socialistic revolution

in

the

Soviet

Union if the

rest

of the

world remained

capitalistic.

Left

to

itself the

Soviet

Union would

develop

in

reactionary

directions

and the

party

into

a

bureaucratic

dictatorship

that

would

stand above

the

classes

and take

advantage

of

these.

Trotsky

opposed

these

tendencies

as

well

as

the

rapidly

growing

economical

inequality

in

Stalin's

system,

but maintained that

thanks

to

its

'socialistic'

property system

and

plan

economy

the Soviet

Union

needed

a

political

revolution

rather

than

a

social

revolution.

In

other

words,

he

considered

himself

as a

loyal

opponent

to

the

Soviet

Union,

which

he

still

regarded

as

a

workers'

state.

Trotsky's

theories

of the

permanent

revolution

and

the

world

revolution

were

not

the

only

aspects

of

Trotsky's

writings

that

appealed

to

the

surrealists.

Trotsky's

considerations

on

art

and

art's function

in

the class

war

were more

useful

for the surrealists than the bleak

and

rigid

dogmas

about socialist

realism

that the

Communist

Party

advanced

at

that

time.

According

to

Trotsky

art

should

not

be

submitted

to

external

restrictions.

The freedom

of

art

was a

precondition

for

creativity.

Even if

art

did

not

have

an

explicit

revolutionary

content it

could

serve

the

communist

revolution,

Trotsky

wrote.

If

on

the

other

hand

art

were

made subordinate

to

censorship

or

external

conditions

it

would lose

its

vital freedom of

expression

and

in

the final

instance

work

against

the

revolution.

Art did

follow

the

development

of the

economy

but the

relationship

between art and

economy

was so

complicated

that is was not

possible

to

dictate

an

artistic

norm or

create

a

certain

proletarian

style.

'[A]

class

finds

its

style

in

extremely

complex ways.'

Trotsky's

writings

on

art

and

revolution

made

a

strong

impression

on

the

surrealists

who,

even

after the

expulsion

of

Trotsky

from the

Soviet

Union,

kept

referring

to

his theories

and

never

stopped

paying homage

to

him.

Even

after

Trotsky's

expulsion

from

the

Soviet

Union

the surrealists

continued

to

refer

to

his theories

and

praise

him

as a

true

revolutionary.

But

in

spite

of

attempting

to

balance

between

Stalinism

and

left-wing

dissidents

(Breton

wrote

in

Second

manifeste

du surr?alisme that Stalin

and

Trotsky

represented

two

equally

valid

revolutionary

tactics),

it became

increasingly

clear that the

surrealists could

not

be

united with

the Stalinism

of the

Communist

Party,

27.

For

presentations

of

Trotsky's

life and

theories,

see

Isac

Deutscher,

The

Prophet

Armed

(Oxford

University

Press:

Oxford,

1954)

and

The

Prophet

Unarmed

(Oxford

University

Press:

Oxford,

1959);

Duncan

Hallas,

Trotsky's

Marxism

(Pluto

Press:

London,

1979).

28.

Leon

Trotsky,

The

Permanent

Revolution,

trans.

John

G.

Wright

(Pathfinder:

New

York,

1969).

29. Leon

Trotsky,

Literature

and

Revolution,

trans.

Rose

Strunsky

(The

University

of

Michigan

Press:

Ann

Arbor,

1969).

30.

Trotsky,

Literature

and

Revolution,

p.

206.

31. Besides

recognising

their

revolutionary

aspirations

in

Trotsky,

the surrealists

were

fascinated

by Trotsky,

the

revolutionary

dissident. 'Without

a

doubt the

new

generations

does not fell the electrification in this name:

Trotsky,

long

charged

with

revolutionary

potential.'

Entretiens,

1913?1952,

avec

Andr?

Parinaud

(Gallimard:

Paris,

1952),

p.

190.

376

OXFORD

ART

JOURNAL

27.3

2004


8/11/2019 20107991

12/22

The

Situationist


and the Difficult

Fusion of

Art

and Politics

which insisted that

art

should

realistically

portray

the life and

struggle

of the

proletariat

according

to

party

principles.

In

the

eyes

of

the

Communist

Party,

Surrealism

was

just

another

modern

art movement

without

connection

to

the

proletariat,

the real

agent

of transformation. The

exploration

of

dreams and

the

unconscious did

not

go

well

with

the

Communist

Party

who

was

unable

to

see

any

revolutionary

potential

in

the

suspension

of one's self. The surrealists

nevertheless remained

party

members and

in

1930 made

a

new

attempt

to

be

affirmative towards

communism

when

they

renamed

their

periodical

Le

surr?alisme

au

service

de

la

R?volution.

During

the

following

years

several

incidents occurred

in

which the surrealists

were

critiqued

by

the

party

for their

suspect

behaviour and

writings.

Louis

Aragon

left the

group

after

great

disorder and

Breton

was

several

times

forced

to

explain

himself

in

front of

party

tribunals.32

In

1933

Breton,

Eluard,

and Crevel

were

finally

thrown

out

of

the

Communist

Party

and

two

years

later,

when the

French

Foreign

Minister

Pierre

Laval

signed

a

military

assistance

pact

with

the

Soviet

Union,

the break

was

final.

According

to

the

surrealists,

the

pact

betrayed

the international

aspirations

of

communism

and turned the French

Communists

into

traditional,

'Jacobian'

nationalists.

After the

failed

attempt

to

work

with

the

Communist

Party,

the surrealists

formed the

Contre-Attaque

group

with

former

surrealists

like

Georges

Bataille

and

Jacques-Andr?

Boiffard.33

Contre-Attaque

critiqued

not

just

the fascist

movements

but also attacked

the

Communist

Party

and

the

Popular

Front.

The

end of

the

troublesome collaboration with the

Communist

Party

necessitated

a

new

forum

in

which the

surrealists could advance

revolutionary

ideas;

but

following disagreements

?

especially

between

Breton

and Bataille

?

the

group

fell

apart.

Cut off

from other French

allies,

the

surrealists referred

from

then

on

to

Trotsky's

theories,

culminating

with

Breton

visiting

Trotsky

in

1938

in

Mexico,

at

which

point

they

wrote

the

text

'Pour

un

art

r?volutionnaire

ind?pendant'

and formed

Federation

Inter

nationale de l'Art R?volutionnaire

Ind?pendant.34

It was the

hope

of Breton

and

Trotsky

that F. E. D.

I.

could

become the

platform

of the anti-Stalinist left

and

unite artists

and intellectuals

in

a common

fight

for freedom and

peace.

The

periodical

and

the

organisation

would

not,

however,

survive

the outbreak

of

the

war.

IV

As

when the

surrealists

were

active,

the French

Communist

Party

predominated

in

the

years

following

Wo