I enjoy the paradox pointed out in the book that says "Surrealist art rested on the artist's conscious effort to capture unconscious experience." I personally am a little skeptical of this movement because any artist could draw whatever they want in whatever way they want and call it art from the "dream state." Since our dreams rarely ever make since, the art created during this movement did not make sense either. I do like how Rene Magritte understood this concept in saying "People who look for symbolic meanings fail to grasp the inherent poetry and mystery of the image. By asking 'What does this mean,' they express a wish that everything must be understandable." Although I agree that people try too hard to understand the images, I don't necesarrily agree that there is mystery and poetry within them in some cases.
A prime example of this is Joan Mirรณ with his painting called The Harlequin's Carnival. His painting is composed of completely random images randomly assembled on a canvas and none of it makes sense and isn't even supposed to make sense. I am no professional art critic, but I don't think there is much poetry going on in this painting. I guess I can understand if people commend him and other Surrealists for trying something new. I just feel like some people were trying a little too hard to be different, maybe even forcing it in my opinion.
I know a lot of people will disagree with me, but I don't think Rene Magritte was creative with his "The Betrayal of Images" painting either. I don't think that he was special in painting a pipe and then saying it wasn't a pipe, just because it's actually a painting. Maybe I could understand if he was the very first one to come up with this notion, but I highly doubt that. It's possible I am just being too cynical but the Surrealism movement just wasn't for me...sorry Surrealist fans.
