sexyajax

de christ !!!!

I SEE THE LIGHT!

in my top three best horror directors!!!!

Ah you’re climbing the walls like Spider-Man, it would have been easier to go along with the joke and clarify your initial nonsense about “otticismo”. I haven’t even read all your fake comments where you bring up dates and data, not in a lifetime! Swallow the bitter pill and resign yourself, it’s been 5 years that I’ve been writing on this site of losers!
sexyajax just look and move on.. see you in the next reviews dear panapp

"Do not kill the moonlight, kill yourselves" sexyajax depressed 2010

@Aries are you all competing to see who knows the least about history???? Franco in '29 was still mister nobody, maybe you skipped the paragraph on the Spanish Civil War in high school! Try to dig deeper and have a great weekend everyone.

But here, no one denies your expressive clarity; the problem arises when you say that Surrealism is a fundamental stage but not a foundational one like Futurism. It makes me laugh because a revolution needs a tradition from which to free itself, and it implies, to put it simply, an overturning of a situation, a thought, a status quo.
Now, Futurism, though certainly excellent in its representatives (I saw the exhibition at the Scuderie del Quirinale with great interest where Duchamp was also present), in my opinion, falls short on an ethical level, exalting a completely anti-revolutionary, massifying, alienating lifestyle in all its most negative interpretations of a modernity that (linking back to McLuhan, Jameson, Baudrillard, Marx, Engels, Debord, and I'll also throw Eco in there) mystifies reality. This great "Simulacrum," instead of being destroyed or at least harshly criticized, becomes, by reading their manifesto, the center of a way of thinking.
I can only elect Surrealism as the greatest revolutionary avant-garde of the twentieth century, and Futurism as a grand and burdensome "Spectacle," a lasting and conservative offspring of our times.

IN CONCLUSION, WHEN IT COMES TO FUTURISM AND CINEMATOGRAPHY (BUT ALSO IN GENERAL), I DON'T SEE ANYTHING SO CLIMACTIC OR EMOTIONAL FOR A SOCIETY THAT, SINCE INDUSTRIALIZATION, COULD ONLY MOVE IN ONE DIRECTION, CONTINUING TO PROFESS A UNWARRANTED POSITIVISM TOWARD A TECHNOLOGY THAT IS DESTROYING THE PLANET AND ENSLAVING ITS INHABITANTS FOR THE WELL-BEING OF A FEW. I PREFER TO CONSIDER SURREALISM AS THE ULTIMATE REVOLUTIONARY EXPRESSION, SURREAL, PURE, AND PLAYFUL EROTICISM, ALONG WITH SOME SCATTERED ATTEMPTS HERE AND THERE IN EUROPE OF ANARCHIC EGOISM. IT’S UP TO YOU TO CHOOSE THE PLACEMENT OF ALL THE APOSTROPHES AND ACCENTS THAT YOU SEE!

But you say no, sexy does not know how to write art reviews, cannot, must not, makes accent errors, ignores Balla and Boccioni, and instead delivers yet another moral slap with the smile of someone who is engaging but does not want to show off culture or interests at all costs.
IN THIS MASS FILOBERLUSCONIAN SOCIETY YOU BRING ME AS THE FIRST AVANT-GARDE FUTURISM; BUT why??? I certainly do not deny the historical and artistic importance it has had, but from my distorted point of view, among all the European technological avant-gardes of the twenties, the Futurists excelled in flaunting capitalist consumption, while they mocked the respectable bourgeois-aristocrats preaching an art that aimed to erase the ancient laws of nature once and for all.
IN the manifesto of Futurist cinematography, which I do not deny is interesting, they criticize narration, propose a dynamic synthetic cinema of free-word chases and wars, but above all the popular comic cinema, the acrobatic games of foolish characters, the alter egos of De Sica, Boldi, and Er Cipolla, without psychological depth, along with 90 years of accumulated stupidity thanks to information. I do not want to blame the Futurists for the contemporary debacle, but a movement that professes itself as a cultural revolution cannot commodify women as Bragaglia does in "Thais," or claim that a roaring automobile was more beautiful than a Greek marble Victory. As an avant-garde, it certainly has a strong complexity, but on an ETHICAL level, it has failed. Surrealism in the modern age understands that we can no longer look at the world the old way; we have increasingly entered that society that presents itself as a great accumulation of image-goods.

Surrealism boasts illustrious ancestors, Guillaume Apollinaire—just think, the word "surreal" and not "spectacle" (as you suggested while flaunting your mediocre knowledge)—first appears in his play "The Breasts of Tiresias" (1917), where shadows detach from men and speak for themselves, and the walls of every room are filled with EYES watching the characters. Another ancestor is Rimbaud, who anticipates the theme of the double in one of his novels; moreover, Rimbaud was a lover of art considered to be second-rate, much like what you think of my recs. Thus, Rimbaud praised those genuine and primitive artists who scrawled on walls or sang old and simple songs. What was contained in the subtext is the great revolution of diving headfirst into everything considered non-artistic or popular. When modernism and capitalism were alienating audiences, radio, TV, and newsreels were creating our homogeneous culture; the surrealists saw it as in a state of hypnosis, between sleep and wakefulness. The eye that the surrealists want to pry open, to wound and cruelly sever, is meant to show us what we have not yet seen and what perhaps we would not want to see: the spectacular society of which we are a part.