The Nature of Art, Surrealism and An Andalusian Dog

 by Thomas Krol

The Temptation of St. Anthony by Salvador Dali

An Andalusian Dog, (Un Chien Andalou in its original French) could be one of the most influential and mould-breaking films of the early 20th century. In his first film, Luis Brunuel, who co-wrote the screenplay with artist Salvador Dali, attempts to depict several dreams that the two men had over their lifetimes. The film is completely devoid of plot or structure, instead choosing to adhere to ‘dream logic’. Characters and locations change and interchange fluidly, years pass with no effect on anyone, and objects appear and disappear in characters’ hands like magic. 

My first instinct was to try and understand what was going on, to try and analyse the decisions of Bunuel and Dali. However, quickly, I learned this was almost impossible. There are no recurring themes, there are no motifs that one can cling on to. It is simply a series of slightly disturbing scenes with occasional title cards with seemingly no relation to the film being shown.

Although I had made my mind up by this point that this film is unanalysable, a small part of me, still holding out hope there was a deeper meaning, was shocked when I read that Bunuel himself said: “Nothing, in the film, symbolizes anything. The only method of investigation of the symbols would be, perhaps, psychoanalysis."

One cannot mention psychoanalysis without mentioning the writings of Sigmund Freud. And one can definitely argue that this film is very Freudian. In his 1939 autobiography Bunuel said: "In the film the aesthetics of Surrealism are combined to some of Freud's discoveries. The film was totally in keeping with the basic principle of the school, which defined Surrealism as 'Psychic Automatism', unconscious, capable of returning to the mind its true functions, beyond any form of control by reason, morality or aesthetics". Additionally, Freud’s The Interpretation of Dreams, was the main source of inspiration behind the surrealist and abstract impressionist movements in the arts, showing his inextricable link to the creation of the film.

I learned to appreciate the film though, when I realised its influence on cinema as a whole. It represents a ground-breaking departure from more traditional narrative structures and demonstrates Dali and Bunuel’s bold embrace of surrealism. The film completely rejects the concept of linear storytelling and, by doing so, challenges the very essence of cinematic conventions. Its impact, however, extends beyond the realm of cinema. It left an inerasable mark on the landscape of artistic expression and influenced a plethora of avant-garde movements. 

In a way, this film is challenging the very nature of art. And debating, within itself, what art is. Must art be thought-provoking, or should it simply provoke a thought? Does art require a deep meaning to be known as such? Is something art even if it cannot be understood? This is what happens when one tries to explain the irrational by means of the rational. Although it is confusing, ugly and incongruous, it is also beautiful, with the calming simplicity of the irrational being described by Bunuel as the return of the mind to its “true functions”. This implies that our nature is not to think at all, instead to take things in simply as we experience them and gift them no amount of higher thought. However, it is the very ‘higher thought’ that separates us from animals and primitive species. Could stripping oneself of all things modern such as thought and speech make us to more blissfully experience art in its very, concentrated essence? Brunuel described the writing process as follows: “We did not dwell on what required purely rational, psychological or cultural explanations. We opened the way to the irrational. It was accepted only that which struck us, regardless of the meaning ... We did not have a single argument. A week of impeccable understanding”.