Talk:Western art history
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Surrealism ≠ an art period/style/movement?
I see that it says here that Surrealism is not an art movement, and I have seen this elsewhere on Wikipedia, but rathers than saying something to the effect that Surrealists don't consider Surrealism to be an art period, it would be better to cite a specific Surrealist who says Surrealism is not an art period. Theshibboleth 21:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Saying there was a Surrealist movement that became particularly defined in a certain historic period isn't the same as saying there was a Surrealist art period. After all, nobody would claim that practicing Realism is confined to a certain era in history, even though it refers to a specific development of a "movement" in the late 19th century, just like Symbolism, or Naturalism, which refer to specific movements. So, I don't quite see the point of any objections. Most articles on artistic movements note that there is a more general meaning and more broader history to the specific styles in art. The understanding and appreciation of different styles in art usually is defined by historical movements which gain currency in their time because of intellectual focus, just like Surealism did. Why deny this. Brianshapiro