The second annual conference of the International Society for the Study of Surrealism, Exeter.

You may not be surprised to learn that, over the years, I have been more than a little wary of conferences on surrealism. This has not been the result of simple prejudice against academic events, I am, in any case, an academic among other things (albeit one near the bottom of the academic food chain) but my own experience has led to the conclusion that, while conferences of papers by scholars of surrealism are usually poles apart from surrealism itself, far worse in some cases is both an ignorance of current surrealism and an irrelevance contained in the papers to any meaningful relation to surrealism, current or historical. Sometimes even a strange hostility towards the supposed subject of study can manifest.
I had not given a paper at  a major academic conference for many years. I think the last one was Prague Platform, dedicated to the Czech surrealists, in 2004, although I had done postgrad conferences at my main employer, University of Greenwich, since then, but even so, not for a decade. So my decision to give a paper at the 2nd conference of the ISSS (International Society for the Study of Surrealism) held at University of Exeter 29th August to 1st September, surprised even me. I had no financial support for this, and financed myself, so not a scholarly jolly, I really wanted to get my subject properly on the map with a paper titled "The Accursed Science: Surrealism's Analogical Turn". I was greatly encouraged, initially by the knowledge that Penelope Rosemont would be attending, as she had the previous year at the inaugural conference of the Society, but also, when I approached the conference's organisers, a very enthusiastic reception from Felicity Gee.
In short, I registered for the conference and set to writing the paper. Initially it involved a bit of cutting and pasting from existing drafts and also a bit of help from Google Translate for passages in French (you try translating a discussion of Hegel in French - you try translating an English translation of Hegel into English!) but I laboured at it, cut a page or two, rewrote the translated bits the best I could and arrived at a twentyish minutes of material that had at least some flow and quite a lot of substance.
As I arrived in Exeter I foolishly decided to brave the slight drizzle (what they'd call a 'dinge' in parts of East Anglia) and just when it was too late, it turned into a downpour. I saw a woman coming the opposite way down the hill, equally ill-prepared for the Englsh Summer, and she turned out to be Karla Huebner, who has written on Toyen, who, if she's not my favourite surrealist painter is cerrtainly in my top three. (the exact hierarchy changes according to mood, but Toyen is always there). So we had a good conversation while standing under a tree, waiting for the rain to subside a little.
Cutting to the next day, a happily warmer, drier day and registration, followed by lunch, getting to meet people. It was a very, very large conference. Great to meet many people, some old friends along the way, but new people too, some known by reputation, others really quite new. It was really interesting to see how many of these scholars were women, and often young women, a new generation of scholars was quite evident.
What struck me throughout was, despite the endless bustle of rushing from one paper to another, and many conversations were consequently of extreme brevity, there was a warmth to the whole conference, a sense of community rather than of large egos on parade. People were genuinely interested in each other and happily making new friends while reconnecting with old ones. More remarkable in some ways was the willingness to connect with the actual surrealists, whether, active in academia or not, and without the condescension that I have sometimes noticed. (Oh...a surrealist, how quaint...especially as the movement ended in 19...fill in the blank...) It seems that this was always a part of the programme of the ISSS, both to examine more recent expressions of surrealism (and not merely supposed 'legacies') and to seek to involve actual surrealists in discussions of their history and ideas. The only weird thing about this openness is that it seems to be a radical move!
It's fair to say that many surrealists have treated overtures from the academic community with varying degrees of suspicion, not only because of the sort of attitudes I have mentioned, but for fear of co-opting surrealism to the academy. My own feeling on this has always been that it is better to engage, find allies and collaborators, but simultaneously to emphasise the distance between actual surrealist activity and the study of it, however scholarly, responsible and engaged. I'd say of conferences like this one that this necessary distance is respected, while unnecessary distance can then dissolve.
I don't want to paint the conference as some kind of well-informed surrealist paradise, there were papers that seemed less well informed or less relevant to the central matter, and some that were not delivered effectively, at least one where I may or may not have slept briefly...but a good number that were interesting, well informed and relevant to my own interests - unfortunately many seemed to be running at the same time and I missed many that I'd have loved to have seen. But highlights for me were papers on Czech surrealism by Kristen Watterott, speaking on the samizdat albums of the 80s and David Vichnar who had a lot of interest to say on among other things Skupina RA. I missed Karla Huebner's paper, regretfully, but she was a delightful person to meet and I was also very taken with her purse, which was a whole toad. Why don't I have one of those? My life is incomplete!!!
In no particular order then, some of the encounters with friends old and new included: Karla Huebner, Darren Thomas, Catherine Hansen, Donna Roberts, Vittoria Lion, Silvano Levy, Stephen Harris, Abigail Susik, David Greenslade, David Vichnar, Krzysztof Fijalkowski, Dawn Ades, Kristen Watterott, Laurent Douce, Robert and Aisha Shehu-Ansell. There were others, but that will do for now.
I haven't mentioned Penelope Rosemont there, but I did meet her during the conference, but had too little chance to speak until the last day. Penelope was running a bookstall with Irene Plazewska, on the final day they were joined by Sarah Metcalf and Kenneth Cox of the Leeds Surrealist Group, also running a stall for their publications, including their journal Phosphor. I hadn't seen them in ages and it was an especial joy to meet up and spend some time talking (missing a couple of papers along the way). The chance to just be with fellow-surrealists and catching up and getting to know both Penelope and Irene a little better was valuable, and even better, the poetry reading afterwards. We took turns to read our, or another's poems. The undoubted star of the session for me, and I think for others, was Claire Dean, with her House-book which generated poems, tiny books of perverse recipes and other wonders, very much in the spirit of Leonora Carrington. After that, I had to catch a train, made hasty goodbyes and dashed off.
So, setting aside my warm, fluffy feelings and enthusiasm for the event, was it all worthwhile from a surrealist point of view? Yes, I think it was. I realise all my previous comments point in that direction, but weighing it up, it does give us a forum that can be used for surrealist purposes in good faith, not quite a way out of the echo chamber I wrote of another time, but at least a step in the right direction. It is worth reiterating the necessary distance between actual surrealist activity on its many levels and scholarly debate of the same, but in observing that, we simply maintain good faith on both sides and sometimes find welcome crossings from the two realms.