SURREALISM BEYOND BORDERS - FIRST THOUGHTS

 Surrealism Beyond Borders - First Thoughts

The back cover of the Surrealism Beyond Borders catalogue, complete with barcode

Yesterday I made my first visit to the Surrealism Beyond Borders exhibition at Tate Modern, I'll be making several more. It's an interesting idea for an exhibition that is at least partially successful, but bound by several limitations regarding the point of view from which it is organised, the choice of works and the very nature of the exhibition.

So, to start, it is an exhibition about Surrealism, not a surrealist exhibition, and this point is crucial to understand, it has been formed in official institutions and regardless of the individual positions of its curators, remains an institutional exhibition. Although it frequently refers to Surrealism's radicalism, intellectual, artistic and political, this is nevertheless filtered through the institutional view of what is acceptable.

The choice of works gives a particular viewpoint that skews the impression formed by the exhibition as a whole. This is inevitable, but nevertheless must be stressed. I think it was important to open up the work of the Egyptian surrealists, but however important they were I don't think that they were less important than the Czechs who are almost invisible here.

There are two very small photographs by Jindrich Styrsky that really work best in the book they were published in "On The Needles Of These Days" and could easily be missed here, alongside a rather lovely photo by Vilem Reichmann. Opposite, there is a film-loop of Svankmajer's "The Flat" on continuous play, and that is that, until much later on, one gets one (superb) late Toyen. So no clear impression of Surrealism in the Czech lands can be formed, and really important works and artists and thinkers are simply absent. There should  have been something by Emila Medkova. She was at the very least as important a photographer as Reichmann, and more involved in organised Surrealism. To omit all of Styrsky's painting seems very odd, surely they could have got hold of something by this absolutely essential surrealist painter? Then there's nothing by Mikulas Medek, (Medkova's husband) or Josef Istler. I could, and at a later date probably will, go on. But my point is that these are artists who are crucial to the understanding of Surrealism at an international level, and whose absence distorts the image of Surrealism, and these might be far more necessary than various artists who are included that were never surrealists, but merely influenced by surrealist art. (Several times we come across an artist who we are informed was "not actually a surrealist but...")

A number of artists among the "not actually surrealist" do add to the overall impression of the extraordinary international reach of surrealist ideas, including Filipino artists, possibly something to discuss further in a future instalment, but the greatest problem with any exhibition of Surrealism is, simply that it is an art exhibition. As one can never over-emphasise that Surrealism is not, and never was, an art movement, despite being best known for the visual work generated by the movement, nor was, or is it a literary movement, despite the vast output of poetry by surrealists. The real importance of the poetic and visual work is in pointing to the body of ideas that constitute Surrealism which get frequent mention, but by the very nature of the exhibition, can't be properly developed.

Another problem with the choice of works is that practically nothing later than 1970 is included. This reinforces the popular idea that Surrealism ceased to exist after Breton's death. But if we consider, for instance, that Svankmajer's "The Flat" was released in 1968, two years before he joined the surrealist group, all of his specifically surrealist work is excluded from the exhibition and this is a great shame. I'm not complaining about the inclusion of "The Flat", it is a great little film and fully in the surrealist spirit, but it is symptomatic of the problems in this exhibition by dint of when it was released. Referring to my earlier point, it is also a shame that the show includes nothing by Eva Svankmajerova, women Czech surrealists are only represented by the single Toyen painting, magnificent though it is, which, incidentally, was painted about 20 years after she moved to Paris.

The catalogue, which I shall discuss another day, is big and expensive (£35) and has what promises to be a number of interesting essays in it, but I noticed that there's a number of works not included in the London exhibition, unless I simply missed them, I'll have to double-check this on my next visit as this too reflects on the scope of the show and what understanding it might provide to the visitor.

I think I will have a good deal more to say, in response to further visits, reading the catalogue, and, who knows? maybe reader's comments. I'll certainly want to discuss the inevitable media circus that will surround the exhibition. So this is far from the last word from me...you have been warned...

PS: Ted Joans' "Long Distance" is almost the only work to have been begun after 1970, the final installments added after his death in 2003. Nevertheless, it reinforces that odd deadline.