Section V: Why Objects?
Thus far, we have discussed how Surrealists subverted the use-value, image, and perception of objects in order to create Surrealist Objects with unique significances, but we have yet to determine why objects were chosen for this purpose. Here, we analyze the intrinsic values of objects that offer themselves to political implications and the Surrealist theories that motivated the use of objects in their works.
As has been discussed, Surrealist objects were not created in isolation from or without consideration of society at large. Rather, the Surrealists’ objects were considered “collective” works, inspired and defined by the artists’ perception of the outside world, a source shared with the rest of society (Surrealist Situation of the Object, 262; Malt 2015, 3:50). According to Andre Breton, it is the artists’ “regrouping [of] these disorganized elements” of society and the daily experience, and the Surrealists’ theories of how regroup them, that allowed Surrealist objects to be both collective and individual. In other words, the objects were collectively created because they were inspired by aspects of a collective experience – a society created, experienced, and defined by everyone. As Breton argues, “I cannot too often repeat that for every object to be put in its place, every one of us must something of ourselves there” (Surrealism and Painting, 23). That is, an object’s relevance and value is not intrinsic, but rather, subject to its consideration in society. However, the Surrealists’ objects were simultaneously individual, in that the unconscious associations highlighted in the works were identified and revealed by an individual artist through his or her “regrouping” of the elements of the collective society to highlight belief systems and ideals that define it.
In the context of capitalist society, objects can be considered commodities. As art historian Johanna Malt puts it, “the products of the culture industry are straightforward commodities manufactured for the purposes of profit” (2004, p. 109; Malt 2015, 7:50). Although these products are manufactured for the purpose of financial profit, this value is displaced by the value of their place in society and their value in the context of exchange (Malt 2004, p. 111). In other words, the value of a commodity is not determined by its price or the labor involved in its creation, but rather, its societal value and relevance. However, as Walter Benjamin has argued, because they are created to fulfill an unsatisfied desire, commodities symbolize a desire for a better society and dissatisfaction with the current one (ibid, p. 111). That is, objects exist as critiques of the society that produced them, exposing those aspects in which the society is lacking. Together, these two social significances of the object (displacement and disavowal) constitute the two components of Freud’s notion of fetishism, a phenomenon referred to as “commodity fetishism” (ibid, p. 110-111; Malt 2015, 7:50). This combination of societal value and the potential for societal critique makes the object an ideal medium to address specific aspects of society that are dissatisfying in what they lack or promote.
Dissatisfaction for the Surrealists often lay with the psychical limits and preconceived associations imposed and promoted by society. In order to understand the Surrealists’ consideration of these aspects of society, it is helpful to understand Freud’s model of the psyche. For Freud, the mind consists of three parts: the id, or a human’s instinctual and unadulterated desires and drives, the superego, or the internalized rules, expectations, and limitations imposed by society, and the ego, which functions to suppress the id’s desires in order to keep them in line with the restrictions of the superego (The Ego and the Id, 1923). The desires of the id, then, are ultimately frustrated by the expectations of society as enforced by the ego. Furthermore, Freud theorized that the ego constrained the desires of the id to the preconscious, preventing them from becoming conscious and being acted upon (ibid). In order to release the id and overcome society’s limitations, then, these desires must be brought to consciousness or the limitations suppressing them must be made apparent. Indeed, Breton outlined this process as his central goal in creating Surrealist objects: “What I have wanted to do above all is to show the precautions and the ruses which desire, in search of its object, employs as it wavers in preconscious waters, and, once this object is discovered, the means (so far stupefying) it uses to reveal it through consciousness” (24-5). Objects, then, are able to perform the function of making conscious the id’s suppressed desires and thereby overcome societal limitations.
But what are these limitations, and where do they come from? The answer to this question can be reached by studying specific objects created by the Surrealists, particularly those that deprive everyday objects of their usual functionality. For example, Man Ray’s Gift, which consists of a flatiron adorned with a line of pins on the flat side, renders both the flatiron and the pins completely useless with respect to their usual functions. In taking an apparently useless object and assigning it a function as a piece of art, Man Ray not only invites the viewer to imagine using the object in its usual context, ruining another object (clothing) and challenging its societal value in the process, but also influences the viewer to realize that his or her preconceived notion of functional and valuable objects is tied to the societal value placed on the object, rather than being an intrinsic aspect of the object itself. Furthermore, Gift demonstrates that because of their societal values, objects are limited to their traditional functions and are judged by their ability to successfully perform that function.
Such judgment based on preconceived function in society is not limited to objects, but extends to humans as well. In the context of socialism and communism, the working class is expected to operate in society through hard work and consistent production. The ideal man is one who fulfills these duties. As a result of this imposed ideal, the members of society are judged based upon how well they perform their assigned functions – just as objects are – and the members of society in turn internalize the notion of such an ideal man. This ideal constitutes the superego that the psyche enforces through the ego’s suppression of the id, as those desires of the id that would threaten the attainment of such an ideal are suppressed. In this way, societal ideals impose the limitations and restrictions that the Surrealists sought to subvert.
Freedom from these limitations, according to Breton, can only be found in two states. The first is childhood, when “the absence of any known restrictions allows [a person] the perspective of several lives lived at once” (1924, p. 3). Without societal restrictions being enforced, the child is able to act on the desires of his or her id, enabling him or her to be driven by several different desires at once. However, as societal limitations are learned and enforced over time, one’s desires and perspective become limited to those which best align with the societal ideal. Additionally, as a child, one has yet to learn the societal value placed on elements in society, allowing the child to assign different values on these elements and to associate them differently. However, the same process of societal limitation eventually prunes these associations as well, limiting the person to make associations and see the world according to an externally imposed ideal, and denying the person the agency to develop their own perspective or associations.
The second state that lacks such restriction is madness, which “induces [a person] not to pay attention to certain rules – outside of which the species feels itself threatened – which we are all supposed to know and respect” (ibid, p. 5). In other words, members of society are expected to know and abide by society’s rules and ideals, and refuge from such restriction can only be achieved through insanity, which entails completely ignoring societal rules. However, in his later work, Breton states that the contemporary artist’s job is to: “liberate instinctive impulses, to break down the barrier that civilized man faces, a barrier that primitive people and children do not experience” (Surrealist Situation of the Object, p.273). This additional group of liberated people (primitive people) further supports the notion that it is civilized society that inhibits such liberation.
How, then, could the Surrealists identify such restricted associations and beliefs without reverting to a primitive state or (for the most part) going insane? The strategy for this was established in Surrealism’s self-definitions: “psychic automatism in its pure state… in the absence of any control exercised by reason, exempt from any aesthetic or moral concern… based on the belief in the superior reality of previously neglected associations” (Manifesto of Surrealism, p. 26). From the beginning, the Surrealists’ belief that the restricted, or “previously neglected,” associations remain “[wavering] in preconscious waters” of the subconscious inspired them to access them through unrestricted automatism. That is, because these associations were restricted by the “control” of societal ideals and expectations, allowing oneself to think automatically and without outside influence was thought to eliminate the restrictions placed on the id by the ego and facilitate the release of the id’s “previously neglected associations.” In this way, automatism constituted the Surrealists’ solution to overcoming societal expectations without going insane or reverting to primitivism.
To achieve such automatism, the Surrealists devised a number of methods that would enable them to access the contents of their unconscious by suspending reason and translating the otherwise restricted thoughts to the real world by automatically recreating them. Among these methods were automatic writing and drawing, the exquisite corpse, and decalcomania. As we have discussed, different categories of objects incorporated automatism in different ways (see section I for a review of these categories). However, in order for these objects to revolutionize everyday life for individuals outside of the movement, as the Surrealists intended, such products of automatism would have to be shared with the public.
Indeed, the Surrealists eventually realized this and entered what Dalí referred to as the “second phase of Surrealist experiment” (The Object as Revealed in Surrealist Experiment, p.238). Sparked by Breton’s desire to share his gnome-book dream object in the hopes that it would “add to the discredit of ‘rational’ people and things” and his suggestion to publicize “maps of immense towns such as can never arise while human beings remain as they are,” this phase of Surrealism progressed beyond simply producing or recreating objects and began to consider and explore the potential of objects to “interfere” with and revolutionize people’s perceptions of the world by demonstrating what is unachievable under contemporary worldviews and by motivating the public to embrace different ways of thinking and reject standard ones (Introduction to the Discourse on the Paucity of Reality, p. 23-5, as cited in Finkelstein, 1998; The Object as Revealed in Surrealist Experiment, p. 238). Importantly, the Surrealists desired to accomplish this by manufacturing and circulating their objects to the public on a large scale, an intention first suggested by Dalí and actively supported by Breton (The Communicating Vessels, p. 35). Interestingly, the Surrealists envisioned the most effective way to thwart and subvert capitalist and consumerist society to be through a central product and institution of that society: commercialization. By manufacturing and selling their objects on a commercial scale, the Surrealists believed they could circulate the revolutionary content of these objects as well, ultimately discrediting commercialist norms and prevalent attitudes towards objects.
However, unlike the realization of dream objects through recreation, the dream of revolutionizing everyday life through the commercialization of Surrealist objects was never realized. Instead, as Johanna Malt points out, the Surrealist objects have ironically become commodities within society, being bought and traded between museums and art collectors (2015, 10:30). The inability of Surrealist objects to translate from the automatism of an individual to convey the same messages in the context of a wider society may be a result of different associations across individuals, which would prevent viewers from interpreting the objects as the Surrealists did. Another possibility is that while the commercial platform would offer efficient distribution, it would deprive the objects of their original associations by placing them in a separate, commodity-based context from that in which they were produced. In other words, by promoting the objects to the status of commodities, the intended associations of the objects may have been replaced by those of objects-as-commodities. Interestingly, this would constitute the reverse effect of Duchamp’s ready-made, which magnifies or embeds associations of everyday objects by promoting them to the status of art. While Surrealist objects are still able to reach the public in art museums and exhibits today, these exhibits vary greatly from the Surrealist exhibitions that first introduced the objects to the public. In the next and final section, we take a look at how the Surrealists originally presented their objects to the public in their exhibitions as well as how they collected them for their own