HELEN SCARSDALE:
First of all, what does ozeanische gefuhle translate as exactly, and how do you see that translation relate to the music itself?

Secondly, what does surrealism mean to you? More specifically, do you identify yourself or irr. app. (ext.) within that context? If so, what is it that you are attempting to describe. If not, how does your work differ from the proponents of Surrealism (e.g. Hans Bellmer, Andre Breton, Tristan Tzara, etc.)?


MATT WALDRON:
My understanding is that Ozeanische Gefuele translates as 'oceanic feelings'; the term was used by Freud (although it may not originate from him) to describe a specific psychological state of well-being and connection to the world. I do not have much interest in Freud, myself - I came across the term in a book by Wilhelm Reich (in whom I have a great deal of interest), who was a pupil of Freud's during his early career. Reich referenced the term to decribe the natural state of every healthy organism: connected to and engaged with the world around it, with its energies flowing from the center outwards. This is in direct contradiction to the prevailing state in most societies: closed, anxious, and rigid, with energies directed inward. These tendencies are caught up in a closed loop that brings about most social problems, both causing and been perpetuated by the high occurrence of depression, psychological disorders, prejudice (fear), apathy and lack of compassion. Human beings only know what they are taught, and when most individuals find themselves immersed in unhealthy attitudes from the moment of their birth, it becomes very difficult to even recognize - much less remedy - the situation. Mass media has created a very tricky twist, cultivating the idea in many that they are still engaged with the world when in fact they are wholly detatched, passively absorbing impressions from the outside through a variety of sterile and unreal media. A generation that has never known other circumstances is now reaching adulthood, and the consequences are just beginning to make themselves known.

As to how it relates to the music, the core idea (of being (or recognising the importance of being) engaged with the world) was simply the guiding principle when I began putting it together. I try to avoid imposing too many restrictions on creative work, and prefer to get things started and then allow them to follow whatever direction they want to follow.' Ozeanische Gefuele' was just a 'starting point'. Many of the sources are derived from field recordings, so some minor materialisation of the core idea takes place in that, I suppose.

My relationship to surrealism (or Surrealism) is similar to what I just described above: it was a starting point. Exposure as a teenager to the work of, first, Dali (having the most mainstream exposure of the group), and then Magritte (also fairly high-profile), and later more obscure (and, to me, much more exciting) practitioners like Max Ernst, Hans Bellmer and Yves Tanguy was an important catalyst to developing my own creative freedom. I don't have much interest in Dali anymore, but the others I still thoroughly enjoy. I have never been able to get much more out of Breton than the idea that he was a pompous idiot. Ultimately, I think surrealism as a movement was a failure because it became Surrealism. It started out attempting to break down the extreme repression of creativity that existed in the first half of the 20th century: a good and important thing, and I don't think many of us alive today in the Western World can truly understand what life was like before movements like surrealism loosened things up (as bad as things may still be). It ended up being another worthless dogma - and how could it have turned out otherwise? It's participants were born out of a deeply repressed society, and, that being their education, were forced to resort the methods of a repressed society to fight against the repressed society. Although championing sexuality it remained largely sexist; although striving to break down the rules and boundaries of formal art, it did little (little being better than nothing) more than come up with "better" rules and boundaries to replace the older ones. Regardless, I think something useful was definitely accomplished - a step forward from which further steps can be made.

I don't think of myself as a surrealist at all, despite my appreciation for the work of many individuals that do/did. I don't want to cut myself off from any creative avenues by becoming entrenched in a formal genre. My view of the state of surrealism is that it quickly progressed from being an exciting new viewpoint into (as mentioned before) a worthless dogma before making its leisurely way into becoming an empty media term used to make something sound interesting. Someone like Svankmajer strikes me as an exception to this: he calls himself a Surrealist, and while calling himself a Surrealist does work that I think is brilliant. But he could call himself a Shoe Shine Boy and it would still be brilliant. My own creative efforts differ from that of the Surrealists in that 1) I'm not interested in establishing (or perpetuating) any formal methods or philosophy or movement (exactly the opposite), and 2) I am a beneficiary of positive developments in society to which they in some part contributed, and am therefore free from many of the obstacles that prevented them from fully realising their ideas. No one is likely to attack my exhibitions of visual work or riot at my performances - or throw me in jail or a concentration camp. Not quite yet, anyway. What I do share with many Surrealists is the willingness to let intuition and accident play an active role in what I create.