Forthcoming
Research Articles

Violently Vibrant, Obscurely (Un)Alike: Surrealist Representations of Plants in the Avant-Garde Magazine 'Minotaure'

Marion De Schepper
Ghent University

Published 2026-02-04

Keywords

  • Critical plant studies,
  • Surrealism,
  • Plant humanities,
  • Minotaure,
  • human-vegetal relation

How to Cite

De Schepper, Marion. 2026. “Violently Vibrant, Obscurely (Un)Alike: Surrealist Representations of Plants in the Avant-Garde Magazine ’Minotaure’”. Plant Perspectives, February. https://doi.org/10.3197/WHPPP.63876246815919.

Abstract

This article investigates how artists depict and relate to plants in the early twentieth-century surrealist magazine Minotaure. I will illuminate the diversity and continuity of the textual and visual engagements with plants of Roger Caillois, André Masson, Max Ernst and Benjamin Péret. Some of these surrealists highlight physical and behavioural areas of overlap between humans, animals and plants, thus blurring hierarchical taxonomies. Others reflect on the obscure and radical otherness of plants, which inhibits their connection-seeking endeavour and leads them to question the place of humans in a vast, potentially indifferent and violent vegetal world. Ultimately, through their engagements with plants, these surrealists rethink traditional world views and push imaginative boundaries in ways that resonate with the twenty-first-century endeavours of plant critics. The centrality of the vegetal realm to surrealist thinking, which this article underlines, contributes, firstly, to the wider investigation of scholars into surrealism’s ecological and anti-anthropocentric attitudes, and, secondly, to the central endeavours of critical plant studies of removing plants from their neglected positions.

References

  1. Aloi, G. 2019. ‘Introduction: Why look at plants?’. In G. Aloi (ed.), Why Look at Plants? The Botanical Emerge in Contemporary Art, pp. 1–38. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.
  2. Bennett, J. 2010. Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things. Durham: Duke University Press.
  3. Bru, S. 2018. The European Avant-Gardes, 1905–1935: A Portable Guide. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
  4. Cahill, J.L. 2019. Zoological Surrealism: The Nonhuman Cinema of Jean Painlevé. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
  5. Caillois, R. 1934. ‘La mante religieuse: de la biologie à la psychanalyse’. Minotaure 5: 23–26.
  6. Caillois, R. 1935. ‘Mimétisme et psychasthénie légendaire’. Minotaure 7: 4–10.
  7. Caillois, R. 2008. Oeuvres. D. Rabourdin (ed.). Paris: Gallimard.
  8. Conley, K. 2013. ‘Surrealism, ethnography, and the animal-human’. Symposium (Syracuse) 67 (1): 1–5.
  9. Ernst, M. 1934. ‘Les mystères de la forêt’. Minotaure 5: 6–7.
  10. Ernst, M. 1937. ‘La conversion du feu’. Minotaure 10: 30.
  11. Ernst, M. 1937. ‘L’ange du foyer’. Minotaure 10: 30.
  12. Ernst, M. 1938. ‘La nature à l’aurore (chant du soir)’. Minotaure 11: 58.
  13. Juarez Cruz, M.P. 2022. ‘The surrealist experience of Indigenous North America: a second “discovery” of the Americas’. In K. Strom (ed.), The Routledge Companion to Surrealism, pp. 329–237. New York: Routledge.
  14. Kalaidjian, W. 2021. ‘Chapter 15: The surrealist bestiary and animal philosophy’. In N. Lusty (ed.), Surrealism, pp. 272–290. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  15. Keetley, D. 2016. ‘Six theses on plant horror; Or, why are plants horrifying?’. In D. Keetley and A. Tenga (eds), Plant Horror: Approaches to the Monstrous Vegetal in Fiction and Film, pp. 1–30. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  16. Lusty, N. 2021. ‘Introduction: Surrealism’s critical legacy’. In N. Lusty (ed.), Surrealism, pp. 1–28. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  17. Mahon, A. 2021. ‘Chapter 6: Surrealism and eros’. In N. Lusty (ed.), Surrealism, pp. 112–128. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  18. Marder, M. 2013. Plant-Thinking: A Philosophy of Vegetal Life. Columbia University Press.
  19. Masson, A. 1939. ‘La métamorphose des amants’. Minotaure 12–13: 15.
  20. Noheden, K. 2022. ‘Toward a total animism: Surrealism and nature’. In K. Strom (ed.), The Routledge Companion to Surrealism, pp. 53–61. New York: Routledge.
  21. Parsley, K.M. 2020. ‘Plant awareness disparity: a case for renaming plant blindness’. Plants, People, Planet 2 (6): 598–601.
  22. Péret, B. 1937. ‘La nature dévore le progrès et le dépasse’. Minotaure 10: 20–21.
  23. Rentzou, E. 2013. ‘Minotaure: On ethnography and animals’, Symposium (Syracuse) 67 (1): 25–37.
  24. Roberts, D. 2016. ‘Surrealism and natural history: Nature and the marvelous in Breton and Caillois’. In D. Hopkins (ed.), A Companion to Dada and Surrealism, pp. 287–303. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons Incl.
  25. Rudosky, C. 2021. ‘Chapter 8: Surrealist objects’. In N. Lusty (ed.), Surrealism, pp. 151–175. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  26. Ryan, J. C. 2018. Plants in Contemporary Poetry: Ecocriticism and the Botanical Imagination. New York: Routledge.
  27. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. 2022. s.v. ‘Psychasthenia’, 5th ed., Harper Collins Publishers. https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=psychasthenia. (accessed 30 May 2025).
  28. Ubl, R. 2013. Prehistoric Futures: Max Ernst and the Return of Painting between the Wars. Translated by E. Tucker. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  29. Wandersee, J.H. and E.E. Schussler. 1999. ‘Preventing Plant Blindness’. The American Biology Teacher 61 (2): 82–86.