In Surrealism in Egypt: Modernism and the Art and Liberty Group, Sam Bardaouil provides the first comprehensive account of the Egypt-based Surrealist collective’s artworks, literary texts and critical writings. This is an innovative analysis that invites us to reconsider existing definitions and understandings of the Surrealist movement, balancing detailed historical inquiry with provocative theoretical questioning, writes Johannes Makar

Makar, Johannes

LSE Research Online

2017-5-12Book Review: Surrealism in Egypt: Modernism and the Artand Liberty Group by Sam Bardaouilblogs.lse.ac.uk /lsereviewofbooks/2017/05/12/book-review-surrealism-in-egypt-modernism-and-the-art-and-liberty-group-by-sam-bardaouil/In Surrealism in Egypt: Modernism and the Art and Liberty Group , Sam Bardaouil provides the firstcomprehensive account of the Egypt-based Surrealist collective’s artworks, literary texts and critical writings. This isan innovative analysis that invites us to reconsider existing definitions and understandings of the Surrealistmovement, balancing detailed historical inquiry with provocative theoretical questioning, writes Johannes Makar.Surrealism in Egypt: Modernism and the Art and Liberty Group. Sam Bardaouil. I.B. Tauris. 2016.Find this book: In Surrealism in Egypt: Modernism and the Art and Liberty Group, SamBardaouil sets out to delineate the trajectory of the Egypt-based Surrealistgroup ‘Art and Liberty’ (al-Fann wa al-Hurriya –  Art et Liberté). Neither‘imitators of a European movement’ nor ‘upholders of an Egyptian identity’,Bardaouil examines Art and Liberty’s (henceforth AL) contributions outsidefamiliar paradigms and ultimately returns to a fundamental questionconcerning the historiography of Surrealism globally – how can wereconstruct an alternative canon ‘without forcing the art history of themarginal to operate in tandem with that of the dominant center’ (237)?Unfolding over eight chapters, Bardaouil offers an innovative account of theSurrealist movement in Egypt, with implications for the way we moregenerally construe cultural transfers beyond their immediate geo-temporalcontext.‘Art – as a permanent spiritual and emotional exchange between all ofhumanity – can no longer be bound by such arbitrary [national] limits’ (245).These words, extracted from AL’s 1938 Arabic-French manifesto, Yahya al-fann al-munhatt/Vive l’art dégénéré, capture one of the group’s centralobjectives. Amidst intensifying fascist sentiment and at a time when artists were implicated in the parading of statepower, AL was born of the desire to transcend the limits imposed on artistry by nationalism and cultural patrimony.Relying on Communist Internationalism and Freudian techniques of free association to achieve art’s liberation (aswell as that of society), AL developed a distinct aesthetic aimed at breaking down social barriers, ridding art of itsbourgeois esotericism and welcoming viewers into their space of creation. For instance, Bardaouil discusses AL’suse of the exhibition space, which it infused with subversive messages and opened up to a wider audience toproduce a ‘transfer of agency’ to the exhibition visitor.Throughout the book, Bardaouil is keen to highlight the Surrealist group’s internationalist orientation and carefullydocuments the artists’ diverse backgrounds. Brought together by conditions of war and humanitarian crisis, ALencompassed an amalgam of Egyptians and non-Egyptians who worked closely together in a ‘process of stimulationand appropriation’ (105). Indeed, AL conceived of a sphere of creativity that dismissed not only national difference,but also minimised the gap between literary and pictorial modes of artistic expression. To cite a prominent example,AL’s co-founder Georges Henein’s war poetry fuelled the imagination of fellow group members Kamel el-Telmisany,Ramses Younane and Inji Efflatoun. In interpreting Henein’s work visually – through their paintings, novels and othercreative works – they added shades and tones to Henein’s writings, thus collectively producing a style that wasimbued with poetic imagery and distinctly dialogical.1/3Image Credit: Tahrir Square, Cairo, circa 1940s (Wikipedia Public Domain)Besides shedding light on the group’s activities, Bardaouil charts AL’s connections to the international network ofSurrealists. The author calls attention to their shared anti-fascism and dissatisfaction regarding the bourgeois notionof ‘art for art sake’, but emphasises that AL did not partake in the Surrealist project without altering its texture.Through a meticulous analysis of previously unpublished correspondence, Bardaouil shows how AL, in contrast toprevious claims (see, for example, Don LaCoss), grew out of specific local concerns, leading them to disagree onurgent theoretical matters with movements including the International Federation of Independent Revolutionary Art(F.I.A.R.I.). Equally compelling is Bardaouil’s assessment of the notions of ‘subjective realism’ (Rames Younane) and‘free art’ (Kamil al-Telmisany), which emerge as part of the group’s efforts at renegotiating Surrealism’s conceptualparameters as well as, crucially, reinvigorating its call for revolution. For AL, as Bardaouil puts it:the true artist is one who creates an art that is first and last consumed by Humanity (with a capital H)not the individual, Existence (with a capital E) not citizenship, and the Universe (with a capital U) notthe nation (138).Bardaouil consequently encourages us to reconsider the very definition of Surrealism: ‘to write a history of the Artand Liberty Group is to imagine anew the definition, expression, and the canon of Surrealism’ (236). Rather than theEuropean movement it is often portrayed to be, Surrealism emerges as a crowd of international artists who, whileoccupying varying and evolving ideological positions, partnered in a shared struggle to bring about revolutionarychange. For AL, this culminated in efforts aimed at surmounting a theoretical contradiction between Hegelianismand Marxism à propos the relationship between abstract thought and empirical matter, leading the art collective todiverge from other Surrealist groups, notably the Paris-based Bretonian circle. This development, among others,prompts Bardaouil to call for a more nuanced understanding of Surrealism – one that sets the movement free from apriori uncontested labels and contributes to an:inclusive vision of art history where the particularities of the peripheral are no longer seen asdichotomous with the authority of the central, and perhaps even to an extent where such oppositions2/3are no longer visible (243).For this reason, the author himself is cautious neither to implicate AL in contemporary polemics within the Saidanand postcolonial paradigm nor depict its legacy as a passage in Arab art history. Drawing on Erwin Panofsky’snotion of aesthetic re-creation, he argues that contemporary debates would polarise its legacy and add salience toan identity politics that the group never invited.While Surrealism in Egypt enthrals, questions linger. At times, AL’s ideological position appears marred byinconsistencies, which Bardaouil leaves undiscussed. For one, the place of ‘the national’ remains ambiguous withinAL’s discourse. Despite the group’s adamant rejection of the ‘alignment of art with nationality’, it too reverted to apolitical vocabulary that re-inscribed (rather than overhauled) a national imaginary. Thus, when Georges Heneinclarifies the group’s internationalism in 1940 by arguing ‘Art has no homeland, no territory. Chirico is not more Italianthan Delvaux is Belgian, Diego Rivera is Mexican, Tanguy is French, Max Ernst is German or Telmisany is Egyptian’(267), his view of the world seems an inversion of the prevailing one – one that corroborates the nation-state as aunit of analysis in a call for a universal albeit territorially-indexed humanism, not a revolutionised worldview thattranscends geographical frontiers and renders the nation-state illusory. Perhaps the group’s ambivalence also helpsexplain why its revolutionary ambitions ultimately dissolved in the face of new attempts to unite art and nationalitycirca 1945. Again, however, Bardouil does not take up this critical point.Yet, there should no doubt about the value of Surrealism in Egypt. The book is dedicated to unearthing the history ofAL on its own accord, and it achieves this task with convincing clarity. Bardaouil carefully balances his historicalinquiry with provocative theoretical questions that will garner the interest of scholars of modern art in Egypt and arttheorists alike. Another testimony to the book’s resourcefulness are the images and excerpts of paintings, archivaldocuments, printed materials and photographs, which add important visual impressions to this rich text. It is alsoworth mentioning that the book’s publication trails two exhibitions putting on display AL’s work – one co-curated byBardaouil himself touring Paris, Madrid, Dusseldorf and Liverpool; the other organised by the Emirates-basedSharjah Art Foundation. Presenting two differing views, with the former echoing the book’s narrative and the lattercelebrating AL’s work as an example of ‘Egyptian Surrealism’ (a notion Bardaouil defies), this book is a potentreminder that a historical narration of the Art and Liberty group is best approached as an open-ended story: far fromsettled and resisting fixity, it will continue to provoke questions about an art history still in the making.Johannes Makar recently graduated from SOAS with a Master’s degree in Middle East Politics. Close toembarking on a PhD, he is interested in the role played by the bureaucratic state in shaping the categories andsensibilities of the social sphere, paying special attention to the place of religion in Egypt. Previously, he hascontributed to various media outlets, including Foreign Policy, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, andAtlantic Council. You can find him on Academia.Note: This review and interview gives the views of the author, and not the position of the LSE Review of Books blog,or of the London School of Economics.  Copyright 2013 LSE Review of Books3/3

Book review: surrealism in Egypt: modernism and the art and liberty group by Sam Bardaouil

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online