Talk:Surrealism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Surrealism is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
July 20, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

	This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
	This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Additional information: B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. Feel free to make short comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. This article is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	Class: This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

To-do list for Surrealism:	edit · history · watch · refresh
Add pictures Add references Make this into a featured article! Add a section on "Contemporary surrealism", or "21st century surrealism" as appropriate Add sections on surrealism in other parts of the world. Make a Surrealism and media page Double check the sources quoted in the article

Contents 1 External link to delete 2 Previous discussion 3 Automatism? 4 Straw Poll 5 Should there be an article on contemporary surrealism? 6 Impact on Literature 7 Merge Surrealism, History of surrealism and Surrealism in the arts 8 Automatism Section? 9 Surrealist Groups and their notability? 10 Black Surrealism and negritude 11 Victory for Surrealism 12 Why is this here? 13 Bob Dylan 14 Worldwide View 15 Eric W.Bragg is TEXTURE SAVANT and he is using Wikipedia to promote his friends in SURREALIST GROUPS 16 A list of expulsions and other comments 17 Surrealist groups 18 Keith Wigdor's vandalism & surrealist groups 19 Surrealism article 20 Edit War 21 Neither war nor peace 22 Please stop using this article to promote and attack 23 Keith Wigdor's Sockpuppetry confirmed 24 Post Breton 25 Dylan's stream 26 Impact of Surrealism 27 edits 28 WP:NOR 29 David Lynch -- not a Surrealist? 30 Surrealism and comedy 31 "A List of Surrealists" definitely should be discussed further 31.1 Proposal to replace "List of Surrealists" with a chart of membership 32 Surrealism and theatre 33 Surrealism (music) 34 Surrealism Art Links 35 Towards another definition? 36 Merge proposal 37 Article Improvement 38 Louis Aragon 39 Introductory Paragraph

[edit] External link to delete

I have deleted the following link *Surrealism Collective. The link takes you to a gallery of current german surrealist artists. I can't see the relevency of how the link contributes to this page. It also seems to be advertising as oposed to educating. Thanks Mike Lawrence Turner 09:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Can I put in an external link to surrealist book covers held at the smithsonian digital libraries which have given permission? Lexowgrant 15:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi I have deleted the surrealist time line at the pompidue (external link) as it is a broken link. I've found a site called allbuyart.com which specialises in art information such as the art movements. There is a good page on surrealism with a surrealist movie clip: www.allbuyart.com/art-movement-surrealism.asp I will add it unless anyone has objections.Mike Lawrence Turner 21:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me for deleting the pompidue link, when I checked it out it wasn't working. For that reason I won't delete the surrealism server link which is on the external links list. Could someone check it out?

Should *(French) Surrealism be on the external links list? Seeing as this is an english speaking wikipedia article, maybe it should be deleted?Mike Lawrence Turner 22:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mike, I appreciate your edits but you are deleting a valuable link that has important information. I am hoping that you will please refrain from deleting it again. I appreciate your returning the link, Timeline of Surrealism from Centre Pompidou. Thanks Modernist 23:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Mike, I think you might delete this link though - Surrealism (article explaining Surrealism and how it started). It looks like spam and I notice that you've put it and other similar links on several related articles. The information contained there is somewhat redundant, simplistic and is contained elsewhere in the article. Thanks Modernist 23:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I thought it was I nice little overview of what surrealism is about. I have deleted it from this page but I have kept it on others becaus it summerises surrealism as opposed to giving detailed info. In regards to that french link, the link is still there. the info that it takes you to is all writen in french. Is this what we are looking for on an english speaking wikipedia article? ThanksMike Lawrence Turner 18:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mike, Thank you for your recent edits. The Pompidou site is in French and English if you look on the top left there should be a link to English. On my computer the site already is in English, with a link on the top right to French. Thanks, Modernist 19:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Previous discussion

Talk:Surrealism/Archive 09/contents:

• First Paragraph Rewrite, Definiton of Surrealism
• History of Surrealism
• Surrealism in the Arts rewrite
• Surrealism in theater correction
• Feminist Critique?
• External Links
• Request For Comment: NPOV link dispute
• Mediation Cabal
• Links
• Surrealism and its history after Breton died
• Hi everyone!
• Just to put the case in perspective
• Surrealism in the arts section
• FYI
• Frank McCort and the dublin surrealist group from 1979
• Sparkit, why did you remove the SURREALCOCONUT Link
• Simulated reality

[edit] Automatism?

Can there be an added section on Automatism?Overwork 23:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

As I recall the sub-articles, History of surrealism and Surrealism in the arts, touch on automatism. And there's the article, Surrealist automatism. --sparkit^TALK 14:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Straw Poll

[edit] Should there be an article on contemporary surrealism?

Should there be an article on contemporary surrealism? Or does it end in the late 1960's as all the history books say.Worldeater 18:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Impact on Literature

I feel like I've stepped into something that's a big mess (which is kind of appropriate to Surrealism) but I couldn't find any mention of Surrealism's impact on literature which is quite significant. I didn't know whether to put it on just the "Surrealism" page or "History of Surrealism" which also has a duplicate of the "Impact" section without the Giger stuff (by the way, is Giger really all that significant? I like him, but is one of the significant impacts of Surrealism the guy who designed the Alien? I'm not saying take him off but I can think of about a dozen things not on this page that are more significant than Giger). I thought maybe it should go in the "Surrealism in the Arts" thing under the literature and poetry section, but that would seem kind of random. I think Surrealism's impact on literature (and I would say impact on art, but I'm an English teacher so I can't really say anything with authority) is definitely significant enough to have up here. And I had a beef with the "existentialism" page because they were making it seem like Ionesco was an existentialist. Ionesco hated existentialism and considered Surrealism to be his biggest influence. Anyway, I put something basic up there -- feel free to cut it out or put it in the appropriate place because I couldn't for the life of me figure out the appropriate place.

F. Simon Grant 19:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

A whole lot of the "impact" stuff doesn't make sense without the history being here.

I propose we join Surrealism, History of surrealism and Surrealism in the arts back together. --sparkit^TALK 15:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Surrealism, History of surrealism and Surrealism in the arts

Discussion of merging Surrealism, History of surrealism and Surrealism in the arts:

• Support. Not only am I in favor of merging these articles, I would really like to rewrite the main Surrealism article. The insistence that surrealism is primarily a political movement and secondarily an artistic movement is weird. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Surrealism is "multidisciplinary", with artistic expression being only one component of surrealist intervention. Unfortunately, most of the world only cares about surrealism's artistic contributions, while ignoring all the rest. The danger of having only one article is that the art-bias will overpower everything else.--TextureSavant 17:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

But this is what I'm talking about. If "most of the world" (i.e., most reliable sources) conceives of surrealism as an artistic movement, then Wikipedia must follow suit. To do otherwise is to give undue weight to an idiosyncratic point of view. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support. The article can most certainly — must — reflect the various points of view. Fragmenting the topic doesn't seem to me to have clarified anything. --sparkit^TALK 18:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support, it makes no sense to have the reader jump from one article to the next when he can have the information by scrolling down the page. Great care should be taken not to create a monster article though. Alf^Photoman 18:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Its really the art that stands out in the history books and also as recognized by the public. Granted, the poetry and literature is extremely important, but its the art and artists that stand out. This TextureSavant appears to be pushing a point of view about 'art bias'. I also recommend that you keep out any 'groups', I looked at these online blogs and they are not at all credible sources.Worldeater 20:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou, Keith. Started another sockpuppet account?--TextureSavant 20:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hunh? What are you talking about?Worldeater 20:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Previous problems with sock puppets and this article cause folks to be suspicious of users who only edit surrealism articles, particularly new users. --sparkit^TALK 14:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

A draft merge with notes

User:Sparkit/surrealism is a draft of a merge with notes. Comments and changes to the draft are most welcome. --sparkit^TALK 19:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I've merged the articles, as well as rearranged and rewritten parts of it. Hopefully it reflects the core aspects of Surrealism.

It is indeed long, but I think it's arranged such that the latter parts could be spun off into separate articles (Impact, Criticism, TV, Theatre, etc.) if need be. I already made a separate article from the "Film" section which has a lot of potential for a good size article in it's own right.

Also, considering the movement started centered around literature, the article is pretty sparse in that area.

Have at it. :) --sparkit^TALK 05:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Automatism Section?

Should there be a section on Automatism?Overwork 15:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Surrealist Groups and their notability?

I have read the comments and disclaimer regarding the issues of making any edits to this article without talking to others first. Is there any notability of these surrealist groups today? I think it wise that we leave them out of the article and off of Wikipedia. All we have to go on in regards to studying them is online blogs, that does not cut it. I think we should remove that section, and mention only the Paris surrealist group and the other groups that were active from 1924 to 1969. I only mention this, because due to the nature of the Internet, its easy for anyone to claim they are in a surrealist group, then create a blog, then mention their group on Wikipedia. Remember, there are people that are studying Surrealism and we should only consider what is notable.Worldeater 22:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Any group that can show newspaper articles/books/etc... written about them is notable enough to be mentioned. dime-a-dozen blogs don't cut it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with user T. I can accept the inclusion of The Chicago Surrealist Group and The Stockholm Surrealist group, because there does exist newspaper sources on both groups, limited yet sufficient. Its the surrealist groups with online blogs that just doesn't cut it. There is also another article on Surrealist groups, where the groups with blogs are mentioned as well. They all need to be removed except for the groups who were notable from the past, like Breton's Paris group and also the group in Britian, and a few others during Breton's lifetime. After his death, it really goes downhill from there, but the Chicago and Stockholm can hold their merits, though the sources are limited, they can stay. As T "dime-a-dozen blogs don't cut it". Lets have a consensus on this issue.Worldeater 00:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the surrealist groups that were non-notable.Worldeater 14:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This Daniel C.Boyer is reverting my edits and calling it vandalism. All I did was remove non-notable information from the article. These groups are non-notable.Worldeater 17:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The groups themselves may or may not be particularly notable, but what is notable is that they exist and there are practicing Surrealists nearly 40 years after Breton's death. I've edited the passage to reflect that. --sparkit^TALK 20:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Well done, Sparkit! The article now is suitable. By the way, when you refer to groups or any surrealists collectively or any individual surrealists, you are refering to those who work in groups, those who work soley as artists, and those work who solely as writers, or a combination thereof. What is evident is that there is a rift in the contemporary surrealist movement of today as evident in what is presented online on the Internet. When any of these parties do become notable, does that make their work worth the effort?Worldeater 20:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Also one more question out of curiousity. What are the standards that makes one a practicing Surrealist? I am just asking.Worldeater 20:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The million-dollar question! For which I don't have an answer, and I could use the million bucks. --sparkit^TALK 20:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

--sparkit would you really like to know the answer? I have it, let me know if you want it.Worldeater 21:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, Keith, being an emerging internet artist and posturing oneself as a surrealist isn't enough to justify calling oneself surrealist. But I'm sure you knew that already. There are many "surrealists" out there who are nothing but artsy opportunists, who are not the least bit revolutionary.--TextureSavant 13:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Can there be a section for Automatic surreal art with food coloring?Overwork 21:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Keith, the answer is "no". Likewise, it would be tempting to add a section about peter-pansurrealism in Staten Island, but its relevance to the surrealism article would probably be dubious, at best. Methinks users Overwork and Worldeater are Keith Wigdor, the famed sockpuppeteer once known as "Classicjupiter2". If need be, another usercheck could be requested. Would you be up for that, Keith?--TextureSavant 21:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

A checkuser was already run, and was inconclusive: see WP:RFCU page on "Classicjupiter2". However, I think it's apparent from previous experience that User:Overwork and User:Worldeater are socks. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Notice his recurring fixation with getting rid of the surrealist groups links.--TextureSavant 16:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not Keith Wigdor, thank you.Worldeater 23:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Those surrealist groups are not surrealist, they are a sham.Overwork 16:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Black Surrealism and negritude

This section is a little overated. Granted that there was interest in African art and other races, but the input of blacks in surrealism is severely limited. Surrealism is predominately a white movement, there is very little input from the black and hispanic, very little, if you count Wilfredo Lam. Ted Joans was really a beatnik gypsy who hated whitey, he confused surrealism with his anti-white rants. Aime Cesaire was a legitimate surrealist and so was Rene Menil, but there overall contributions to surrealism was sparse too, yet welcome. Lets face it, surrealism is dominated by whites and was originally created by whites. There is obvious interest and influences from primitive art, etc, but the blacks and hispanics really have no interest in surrealism, they are caught up in there own problems.Worldeater 15:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I thoroughly disagree, Wigdor. Your perspective is racist, not to mention non-objective. See if you can do some research on Latin-American surrealism. There's quite a bit out there. You're also overlooking the collaboration of surrealists and black musicians in the 70s.--TextureSavant 16:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not Wigdor and my perspective is NOT racist, its the truth! Look at the history, also, the black musicians of the 1970's had NOTHING to do with surrealism, they were into drugs and alcohol. The Chicago Surrealist Groups fake attempts at uniting surrealism with black radicalism is a total farce. Blacks and Hispanics have so little to do with surrealism, they just do not care. Its a white movement, always was, though I do dig Aime Cesaire, I loathe Ted Joans for his stupid rants on the master Dali! Blacks and Hispanics have very limited input into surrealism, they are too lazy to engage the marvelous. Show me the evidence of these blacks and hispanics involvement in surrealism, show me!!!Worldeater 00:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Blacks and Hispanics "are too lazy to engage the marvellous"? What an incredibly racist thing to say, Keith. Racism doesn't belong in an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. You're just playing sockpuppet games, rather than being genuinely concerned about amending the surrealism article.--TextureSavant 02:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The section is vague on some points, but it's a significant topic regarding the political influence of Surrealism as well as Surrealism's international scope. Clarification can be written.

Some Latin American connections that come to mind are the Diego/Trotsky/Breton thing, and Matta. --sparkit^TALK 02:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course, that we know. Its the American blacks and hispanics that have no interest in Surrealism.Worldeater 22:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I know this is an old topic, but I just can't let this pass without commenting on how astoundingly racist and elistist your comments were, Worldeater. I'm surprised there was so little backlash. So elitism/racism doesn't keep you from engaging in the marvelous, but the sort of laziness you find in blacks and hispanics does? Your opinion, of course, is grossly un-encyclopedic (what does it matter how much you like Ted Joans?), but I can't let it pass without pointing out how reprehensible it is on a deeper level. The laziness comment is the most obviously reprehensible statement, but your overall equation of everyone who is "black" with primitive art is also quite racist -- it's a common kind of racism, but that doesn't mean comments like that should pass unchallenged. I'm also ashamed of the lack of outrage it elicited. It's one thing to say there's little evidence of involvement by Latin Americans within the United States in surrealism proper; it's another thing entirely to say they're insignificant because they're lazy. One is a question of relevance; the other is straight forward racism.

F. Simon Grant 19:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Victory for Surrealism

Congrats to JON BEINART and his new METAMORPHOSIS Book!, This will generate the notability that contemporary surrealists need for the article! Surrealists Bernard Dumaine, James Sebor, Ernst Fuchs, etc all agreed to be in this project. This is something that will generate news that will generate notability, you will all see!Overwork 15:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

METAMORPHOSIS! Well Done! Good to see Sebor collaborate with Prof. Fuchs and the others, well done. A new chapter in current surrealism.Worldeater 02:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Once notable and noteworthy references evolve from the release of Jon Beinart's METAMORPHOSIS book, we should add this to the article, if that is ok. To see the surrealist James Sebor collaborate with Prof Ernst Fuchs and the artists from Brave Destiny is historic and significant. Oh, lets not forget about the surrealist Bernard Dumaine as well, to see him collaborate with Prof Ernst Fuchs and the Brave Destiny artists that are in this book, is NEWS!!!! Hopefully deemed notable, someday and soon!!! VIVA FUCHS!!! VIVA SURREALISM!!!Worldeater 02:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why is this here?

It randomly says: "Skatefojesus@hotmail.com" in the Bureau of Surrealist Research section of the article. Why? Manga_King

[edit] Bob Dylan

Dylan wrote/sang surrealist songs and made a surrealist movie, "Masked and Anonymous" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.151.167.250 (talk) 13:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Worldwide View

I have removed sections of the discussion below that were taken from my unpublished original research and used without my permission or citation. I have made wikipedia aware of the situation. MNKM

I recognize the importance of Breton and others in forming the Surrealist movement which was particular to its situation in the first half of the 20th century. Where else in the world have there been surrealist movements, and how closely connected have they been to this 1920s-60s movement? LordAmeth 13:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

At the very least, I think a brief mention that there was a surrealist movement in 1930s Japan, including links to several of the relevant artists, would be quite keen. I do not know where or when else there have been such movements, but they of course should be included too. Thank you. LordAmeth 13:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Lord Ameth - I agree and I disagree. I don't think Surrealism at the outset was anything but European. I agree that this article should at the very least mention and discuss other Surrealist movements elsewhere, in Japan, South America, the United States. I disagree with the idea that Surrealism wasn't French-centric, Paris-centric, - it was. Paris was the center, and thats where people looked. Surrealism today is global, but it originates as an important 20th century movement in (gulp) France. Frankly I am not aware of Chinese surrealism, or Japanese surrealism of the 1930s. Please add wiki links to artists and/or movements as you find them. Latin America should be mentioned, the Magic Realists, Frida Kahlo is, Miguel Angel Asturias and other writers should be. For now I'm taking down the banner, although if you feel it should remain then return it, I have no objections although I'd like you to include text that you think belongs. Thanks Modernist 14:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

There was a Surrealist movement in Japan during the 1930's.Madsurrealist 15:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. No worries. It's an excellent article, and I don't doubt that it is indeed a movement which originated in France - I just wanted to stir the pot a tiny bit so that such assurances as your own, Modernist, would come forth. As for the Japanese movement, I do not know enough really to add anything worthwhile to the article. Thanks. LordAmeth 16:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know if there are any contemporary surrealist groups or surrealist activity in Japan right now? --TextureSavant 19:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

TextureSavant, there is a surrealist group currently active in Tokyo, run by Inishiro Honore. Inishiro speaks very little English but you can get a hold of his surrealist comrade, Babek Andimashid, or Bruno Jacobs, they can help. Have you seen Brandon Freels, "A Better World" pictures? Such marvelous beauty, the old broken down fireplace, the old abandoned building, the old doors, such marvelous treasures. Is Morgan still bartending?Madsurrealist 01:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eric W.Bragg is TEXTURE SAVANT and he is using Wikipedia to promote his friends in SURREALIST GROUPS

TextureSavant is Eric W.Bragg from SURREALCOCONUT.COM and he is using Wikipedia to input his friends from non-notable surrealist groups (those unknowns who keep online blogs) into the SURREALIST GROUPS Article. Upon doing a study of these people, they are all friends of Eric W.Bragg, who is,TextureSavant and TextureSavant has only made surrealism edits while he, Eric, has been on here and he is constantly been trying to promote his friends in contemporary surrealist groups. Lets please prevent him from using Wikipedia for easy online promotion.Madsurrealist 13:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about, Keith? If you have a dispute with the addition of certain contemporary surrealist groups, then you should post your temper-tantrum on the "surrealist groups" discussion page, but not this one. Doh! --TextureSavant 20:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Eric W.Bragg is confusing me with someone else. The surreal groups cannot stay, they are not notable.Madsurrealist 23:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A list of expulsions and other comments

The other day I was reading Conversations: the Autobiography of Surrealism and it suddenly occured to me that a really useful thing would be a comprehensive list of all the expulsions including the justifications. There are so many dozens and dozens of members in the group that by far the most confusing thing is keeping up with who's in and who's out. For example, I found myself thinking, "When was Masson kicked out and when did Tzara join back up?" It could be a list with bullets, but it should probably also include when people joined and that could get jumbled and confusing. Maybe a color coded list or a chart with two tables or something. But I don't know how useful that would be because I don't know how common a desire for a simplifying chart like that really is, so that's why I'm asking if anybody else thinks that's a good idea.

Two more brief notes: Though I know Breton loved Picasso passionately, I thought he lumped Cubism as whole into the bad category with Impressionism because they focused too much on how the consciousness percieves things. I don't remember where I read that. I'm just wondering because in the "Expansion" section it says the painters were influenced by Cubism. How accurate is that? Also, while I'm nitpicking about stuff I'm not sure about, while the influence of Kandisky is pretty clear, I've heard Paul Klee's name mentioned more often as an influence. A very, very minor point. One more thing: Is it just me or is the "toward another definition" section very pov (the exclamation point for example) and very original-research-ish. I like the section and I think it's useful information, but I think the phrasing needs to be changed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by F. Simon Grant (talk • contribs) July 13, 2007.

The "toward another definition" is extremely POV, you are correct. The phrasing needs to be changed. About the original Paris Surrealist Group, Andre Breton had many differences with so many members of the Group, from its inception until his death, that its extremely difficult to have a "list" of those expelled or those who came back. Granted that in the historical sense, Andre Breton had the "moral authority" to dismiss those artists, poets, and writers, etc, who he felt betrayed the Surrealist cause, but he really never had the final say, it was always left up to chance really, especially considering the great Dali, who still wrote to Breton up until 1941, almost three years after his alleged explusion. Its just a matter of Breton getting bored with the person and moving on to the next one. What would be a good list to create would be those surrealist who made significant contributions but fall under the historical analysis radar. Also, let's consider that Breton did not posses all the inclusive power to say who is and who is not surrealist. When Breton died in 1966, the remaing Paris Surrealist Group, those new members who came on in the late 50's to mid 60's, tried to keep the group going up until 1969, but it all fell apart. That is the official record of when surrealism as an organized movement stopped. If you want to have an accurate categorical timeline and place some kind of grid box here on Wikipedia, start with the years 1924 and end with 1969, and list all the members that came and went, it will be hard to state for the record what year, say, Max Ernst left and came back, but you can give it a shot if you desire.Madsurrealist 14:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Surrealist groups

have been deleted! why is the fake surrealists made at Merl over Theo Van Gogh?Thikeboylove 17:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Why has this been deleted? "There were also groups who associated with both currents and were more atttached to Surrealism, such as the Revolutionary Surrealist Group or the Chicago Surrealist Group." I have reverted the vanda;lism. Please respond here. Paki.tv 23:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the edit as vandalism.Thikeboylove 23:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I returned the paragraph to the article. Please discuss before any further edit war. Modernist 04:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Keith Wigdor's vandalism & surrealist groups

Paki.tv & Moderninst: this NEW user "thikeboylove" is another sockpuppet of Keith Wigdor, who had in the past been trying in vain to sneak his website, www.surrealismnow.com into the surrealism article. Keith Wigdor has been trying to remove all other traces of current surrealist groups from wikipedia, since he himself cannot be represented. This is just a case of sour grapes. Another one of his new sockpuppets is user: Madsurrealist, who posted some of the above messages. If you want to learn more about Keith Wigdor and his NAMBLA sockpuppets, then you can visit this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Classicjupiter2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Classicjupiter2

In the meantime, you should expect Wigdor to be pulling more of these vandalistic stunts. He seems to enjoy it. It's a shame that Wikipedia doesn't have the resources to ban him permanently. Isn't it strange how the mention of a name, like "KEITH WIGDOR", can cause an explosion of hostility from these new sockpuppets like "thikeboylove" and "madsurrealist"? Wait and you will see! --TextureSavant 13:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

What is TextureSavant talking about? I only made an edit for cryin' out loud. If you want it in, then go for it. No need to attack!Thikeboylove 18:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

There should be an article on SLAG, The Robber Bridegroom, they have a real good blog.Thikeboylove 18:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Surrealism article

I disagree with this Thikeboylove, I have friends in the Chicago Surrealist group that want to be mentioned in this article. What can we do to get more mentioned in the article?BenjaminPeret 22:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for preemptively pointing out your conflict of interest. I encourage you to review the Wikipedia rules on the subject; as the page states, "(Conflict of interest) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote yourself or the interests of other individuals, companies, or groups ... COI edits are strongly discouraged." However, preemptive acknowledgement of a conflict of interest is encouraged, since it's a good thing for the Wikipedia community : editors generally appreciate knowing about conflicts of interest ahead of time, and though it may expose your own edits to increased scrutiny, other editors will often be happy to help you research and edit the areas you're interested in, with a neutral point of view. Best, -- Docether 14:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Docether, don't be fooled by all of this. Thikeboylove and BenjaminPeret are both sockpuppets of Keith Wigdor, who has been vandalizing this article for a long, looonnnnnng time. This is all just a big game to him. He used to also be Classicjupiter2, who was busted for sockpuppetry only a few months ago. Ta Ta, Fa Fa. --TextureSavant 14:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Docether, I apologize, but I think you may be wrong on your point of conflict of interest. My surrealist friends that are in the Chicago group, The Portland Surrealist Group, The St.Louis Surrealist Group, The Surrealist London Action Group, The London Surrealist Group, The Leeds Surrealist Group, the current Paris Surrealist Group are notable. If you go online and go to all their websites and online blogs, you will see that we are an active surrealist movement and that we should have every right to be mentioned on Wikipedia. The proof is in the online publications. Take for instance, Surrealcoconut.com, the website run by our surrealist friend and comrade Eric W.Bragg, who also deserves to be mentioned on Wikipedia along with all the current groups, Eric, was referenced in Ron Sakolsky's book, SURREALIST SUBVERSIONS, so that is just one example of proof that we are all notable. We deserve to be mentioned here on Wikipedia. Please show me some kind of evidence that we are not notable.BenjaminPeret 16:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

None of these current groups are notable!Worldeater 01:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth: There are currently in Wikipedia these separate articles - Chicago Surrealist Group, Surrealist Movement in the United States, 1976 World Surrealist Exhibition, and this - Category:Surrealist groups, the mention of the Chicago group in this article should redirect the reader to Chicago Surrealist Group. All of which I am adding to See also in Surrealism. Modernist 17:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Definitely good things to be added. Keith, er, "BenjaminPeret" & "Thikeboylove", I hope you don't mind that those were added. We all know how much the legendary Keith Wigdor hates the Chicago Surrealist Group. Does anyone have any news about the Staten Island Surrealist Group? Ta Ta, Fa Fa! --TextureSavant 19:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Modernist, but we would really appreciate it if you can get The Portland Surrealist Group, The St.Louis Surrealist Group, The Surrealist London Action Group, The London Surrealist Group, The Leeds Surrealist Group, the current Paris Surrealist Group, and Surrealcoconut.com mentioned in the article. Can you help us get mentioned here on Wikipedia? Our friends and comrades in Chicago have been on Wikipedia for a number of years, we want to get on too. We are notable. Have you read our online blogs?BenjaminPeret 19:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Keith or BenjaminPeret, I don't really think any of the people in those groups you mention above are clamoring to get their URLs onto wikipedia, like you have been. Instead of impersonating other people, why don't you just be yourself, the legendary KEITH WIGDOR? Being yourself is easy. You should try it some time.--TextureSavant 19:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Why are you calling me Keith? This is not the place for flames, let it go.BenjaminPeret 21:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are Keith Wigdor, and your extremely new BenjaminPeret account is another sock. If you generate enough of these new sock accounts, then maybe it will be time to do another checkuser analysis. Interested?--TextureSavant 21:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Really, you are being real difficult and a bit paranoid. Just because I want to help my surrealist friends, you are attacking me, makes no sense, let it go.BenjaminPeret 21:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

No, really, you are the one who is lying and trying to speak for others whom you have no right to speak for. You need to let this go, Keith.--TextureSavant 22:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place for flames. My name isn't Keith. All I did was talk to a person on here and you're attacking me for no reason. Whats your problem? I am talking to someone, why bud in? Whats this "Keith" stuff all about and who cares?BenjaminPeret 23:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you kindly keep this talk page relevant to the article per WP:TPG. If there are sockpuppet problems, take it to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets or WP:RFCU. Don't edit war. Propose changes on the talk page and supply references per WP:V and WP:RS. Then include material with regard to due weight per WP:NPOV, bearing in mind WP:NOR. Note that blogs don't count. Thank you. Tyrenius 15:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason to remove the reference to Chicago Surrealist Group in the section on P[ost-Breton Surrealism. I do not need to justify reversion of vandalistic removals of that reference. My comments have been made and no arguments raised against it, other than non-notabiliity of the group which is disporved by the existence of their own Wikipedia entry. Paki.tv 04:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring is never acceptable. See WP:3RR: you were right up to the maximum limit. Good faith edits are never vandalism, so please don't call them that - it violates WP:NPA. Wikipedia doesn't count as a reference (although references in an article may be usable); there is the "see also" section to use. You've been asked to supply verifiable sources for inclusion: if you don't then the material can be removed. What I see on the talk page is people wanting to include their friends. Tyrenius 11:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tyrenius. You need to cite specific and credible reference sources regarding the edit. History books that document what you are putting into the edit.Worldeater 17:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit War

• This is a great article. Stop the Edit War. If you disagree with this article, start another one. Thank you Modernist 15:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Very well said! --TextureSavant 16:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neither war nor peace

Those edits are in no way good faith, as the comments will show. In fact the history of removal of material also shows that. Furthermore, Worldeaters racist comments above ( see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Surrealism#Black_Surrealism_and_negritude ) also show his/her lack of good faith. Anyway, I've added new sources. Paki.tv 00:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Worldeater is also another sockpuppet of Keith Wigdor, who used to be Classicjupiter2. You can read all of Classicjupiter2's sockpuppet antics in the archives of this talkpage. You are right, Paki.tv, Wigdor is a racist. His main goal on wikipedia is to remove all traces of current surrealist groups, like the Chicago Group, for example, since he couldn't get himself and his personal website, http://www.surrealismnow.com , inserted in the Surrealism article. Wigdor likes to object to the inclusion of current surrealist groups like that of Chicago by citing lack of historical references, history books, etc, but actually his interest in creating an encyclopedic article is just self-serving. Don't be fooled by any of Keith Wigdor's games. --TextureSavant 14:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop using this article to promote and attack

Every post that user TextureSavant has made on this discussion page is solely dealing with attacking this Keith Wigdor artist, which clearly shows that TextureSavant has an agenda solely to attack and discredit, no more. Also if you were to notice and observe TextureSavant's obsession with using the Wikipedia discussion page and Wikipedia solely to attack is obvious. Now, about the edit, they are in good faith. Paki.tv still has not provided credible reference sources in regards to the paragraph in question. First, Ron Sakolsky is a close friend and associate of The Chicago Surrealist Group and has an investment in promoting his friends and comrades. Next, any reference that is actually written by the Chicago group themselves does not cut it. You have to provide documented and historical references from those that are not part of or connected to the topic in question. For example, if Henry Rollins were to edit the Wikipedia article on Henry Rollins, would you allow him to add his own books as references? No, you have to provide material and references that were written by scholars, etc, and especially reference material that is NOTABLE, not self-promotion of one's friends and comrades, etc. This is all about using Wikipedia to promote one's friends and themselves. From what is very obvious, TextureSavant has made the allegation that this Keith Wigdor is using Wikipedia to promote himself, not true. Have you see any edits in the last couple of weeks made to the article that added Keith Wigdor to it? No, yet TextureSavant still obsesses over his rants and attacks against an online artist that has nothing to do with editing this article. However, there obviously appears to be a whole lot of fuss constantly made by the user TextureSavant over this Keith Wigdor. As for Paki.tv, he has to stop making edits that solely deal with his tastes and only what he likes. He appears to be interested in Radical Islam, from investigating his edits on here. Maybe if he made some edits to an article on USA's Dept.of Homeland Security, maybe we would see some balance in his perspective, but I only disagree with his edits, as for Paki.tv's beliefs, that is not for Wikipedia. Islam has its own problems anyway. As for the article, he needs to provide credible references, NOT written by internal friends of the Chicago group and ,TextureSavant has to cool it with his obsession over Keith Wigdor and online witch-hunts about alleged sockpuppets.Worldeater 18:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste time arguing with racists. Your insinuations abou 'radical islam' are more of the same. You have not shown good faith and your edits are vandalism. friendshp is not the issue. verification is. Paki.tv 23:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to be calling me a racist, that is a personal attack and certainly not in good faith. All I am asking you is to provide the proper and credible reference and source information, historic, scholarly, etc, from those that are not affiliated or part of this Chicago group. I went to their site, and they write all their books themselves and sell them too. Wikipedia is not a platform to help promote and sell books and hook up friends of friends and their friends, can you understand.Worldeater 14:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Keith Wigdor's Sockpuppetry confirmed

The results are in:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Thikeboylove

It appears that users Worldeater, Madsurrealist, Thikeboylove & BenjaminPeret are all the same person: KEITH WIGDOR. Keith, please stop interfering with the Surrealism article, by creating an edit war.

It seems that user Paki.tv was correct in his assessment that the sockpuppets' edits were not done in good faith. Admins Modernist & Tyrenius, please take note of this: While the sockpuppeteer Keith Wigdor might have these latest sock accounts blocked, he will simply start some new accounts to continue with his interference in this article, as he as previously done. Apparently he has access to many different IPs. --TextureSavant 14:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I have also created a suspected sockpuppet report page, as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Madsurrealist --TextureSavant 14:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Good work and note taken. Modernist is not an admin by the way, but is an experienced user. Now the pattern is clear, it should be easier to stop this in the future, making use of this precedent. Tyrenius 00:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Post Breton

"Manifesto of Socialist Surrealism". This text needs a reference, surely? 82.44.147.220 18:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not change my edit, Modernist. I checked those references and they do not hold. You have to provide neutral sources not affiliated with these people in question.CoolRanch3 02:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Rrburke, the sourced reference material in question is written by friends of this Chicago surrealists. I haven't found any credible material on them that was not written by a friend of this group. This Ron Sakolsky is affiliated with this Chicago group, we need source material from art historians, not friends.CoolRanch3 02:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

In the spirit of WP:AGF I will watch and see what develops here. Modernist 02:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.CoolRanch3 23:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd be willing to bet that CoolRanch3 is another Keith Wigdor sock. If you read the introductory text on his user page, it resembles the intro texts of the the previous socks. And then the fact that he is renewing his quarrel with the Chicago group is suspect. As has been the case, time and time again, Keith is out to discredit the chicago surrealist group. Here's a message he left on another user's talk page regarding the newest dispute:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rrburke#Post_Breton

And if anyone wants to accuse me of rushing to accuse anyone too quickly, please remember that I correctly spotted KW last time (last month) before anyone else did. Welcome back, Keith. --TextureSavant 15:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but my name is not Keith or KW. Please be more than welcome to do an IP user check, you have my blessing.CoolRanch3 22:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dylan's stream

Minor nitpick. This Dylan line has a lot of little problems. Breton was fairly clear when he talked about Joyce that stream-of-conciousness was not surrealist. Stream-of-consciousness is crafted to mimic the flow of the conscious mind (not the subconscious). Confusing automotism with stream-of-consciousness is all too common, and I believe that's what Breton was getting at (by the way, the Surreal humor article needs a TON of help, I wouldn't know where to start fixing that thing, one of the big problems I addressed a couple of months ago was this stream-of-consciousness nonsense -- William S. Burroughs, for example, much more on the side of automotism than stream-of-consciousness). So indicating that Dylan used stream-of-consciousness techniques (and, really, did he? sounds like b.s. to me) is not relevant to his surrealist pedigree. A lot of the sentence is irrelevant. When talking about the influence of surrealism, Dylan is an interesting one to talk about, but is it really necessary to ruminate on the difference between his early and late stuff? Here's the original:

"In popular culture much of the stream of consciousness song writing of the young Bob Dylan, c. 1960s and including some of Dylan's more recent writing as well, (c. mid - 1980s-2006) clearly have Surrealist connections and undertones."

Here's my proposed edit with a transition from Ginsberg in the previous sentence:

"Much of the song writing of Ginsberg's friend Bob Dylan clearly has Surrealist undertones."

Not to mention that verb agreement problem. Reduced down that much it might make people wonder what's the point in talking about Dylan, so stuff should maybe be added, but if stuff is added it should be relevant -- the stuff about the years is not very relevant. F. Simon Grant 20:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Impact of Surrealism

The section on Surrealism's impact, an impact which has been felt in almost every medium of culture and the arts in the latter half of the 20th century, is very important but is also, unfortunately, full of a lot of cruft and nonsense. Such a section, by its very nature, is inviting of original research and a great deal of speculation, as people add all sorts of examples of people who were influenced (even if only vaguely) by Surrealism, or movies or tv shows that are considered "surreal" (all the better if the definition of said term is kept loose and vague). The television and comedy subsections, in particular, have a lot of junk. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 19:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

So then why don't we just get rid of that section? Or maybe put it all on a different page?--TextureSavant 15:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that it is necessary to delete the section entirely. What I am saying is that it needs to be edited, and then watched closely to see that OR/POV edits are not made. As it stands currently, a great many claims are made that are either unreferenced or have no basis in fact. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

well good luck, then. To prevent OR/POV additions to the surrealism article, the page needs a 24/7 watchdog. If you follow a lot of the verbiage on this talk page, you'll see what I mean. Often enough we have sockpuppet problems with a certain Keith Wigdor who is intent on putting his own personal links into the article, as well as deleting the links of surrealist groups he considers to be rivals. The best solution so far has been to keep the "contemporary surrealist" links and other content out of the main article. But if you're really up for the challenge, and if you've got plenty of time for a modern "impact of surrealism" section, then you've got my support.--TextureSavant 15:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] edits

The edit revisions I made are based on non-notability. I checked the reference sources and they don't hold.CoolRanch3 00:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Why, just because you say so? I am sick to death of the edit wars which have marred this article almost to the point of irrecoverability. If you have ideological axes to grind---and here I refer not just to CoolRanch3, but to anyone who intends to use this article as a battleground---do it elsewhere, and not on Wikipedia. I will be keeping a very close eye on this article, and edits I feel are ideologically-motivated will be reverted. If necessary, I will bring administrators and other editors into this. I say this now: Knock off the ideological skirmishing. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Here, here! This CoolRanch3 character is just another sock for Keith Wigdor. As you can see from his edit, he wants the Chicago Surrealist group removed from the article, and he has attempted to do this several times over the past couple of years. I really hope you can convince some admins to take a closer look at what has been going on here with the surrealism article. The problem is that as soon as a usercheck exposes Keith Wigdor's latest group of socks, he just goes out and starts some new wiki accounts.--TextureSavant 13:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyone have more information on the surrealist Ernst Fuchs and Dali?Radarst 16:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NOR

This text placed by IP 68.37.119.19 needs references. Modernist 02:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

There are two forms of Surrealism, automatism and verism. Automatism deals with the suppression of the consciousness, to use the subconscious. There is more of a focus on feeling, and automatism is unburdened with meaning. It has been described as “dictation of though without control of the mind”. Automatist paintings often have biomorphic (ameba-like) shapes, and give off a dreamlike feeling. Yves Tanguy's paintings are a perfect example of this form, like such as Multiplication of the Arcs.

The veristic branch of Surrealism allows the subconscious to surface in order to interpret meaning. It uses images as a link between abstract spiritual realities and real forms of the natural world. In other words, veristic paintings are much closer to reality than automatist paintings. They hold some truth, portraying recognizable scenes and objects that are taken out of natural context, resulting in a dreamscape. Salvador Dali is the most well known artist who portrays identifiable objects in strange settings. His “hand painted dream photographs” are so meticulously detailed, they almost look real, although they are so fantastic and dreamlike. He drew upon the terrors of his childhood to put his nightmares on canvas. Another veristic artist is Rene Magritte (The Human Condition, Portrait, and Time Transfixed are good examples of veristic Surrealism). The Human Condition I and II portray a canvas which lines up perfectly with the landscape behind it. Reality and the painting are so close, it makes you question the difference.

[edit] David Lynch -- not a Surrealist?

User RepublicanJacobite just removed David Lynch from the list of surrealists, with the comment "David Lynch is not a Surrealist." Lynch sure seems like one to me. At least the way he describes how he works strikes me as surrealist. --Nik (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

He is not a Surrealist, period. Is he influenced by Surrealism? Certainly? But, a number of other contemporary authors, artists, directors, etc., are influenced by Surrealism. None of those individuals belong in the list of Surrealists. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 19:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

So your argument that he's not a surrealist is to state "He is not a surrealist, period"? Could you, uh, be more specific? Check out the description of how he made Inland Empire. It sounds like a very surrealist approach to me. --Nik (talk) 21:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

People continue to nitpick apart the list of surrealists. And here, as I see it, is the issue -- do you need to declare yourself to be a surrealist in order to be one? If you're an artist that predates the surrealist movement, but use surrealist elements, can you be called a surrealist? Can you be considered a continuation of the movement, even if you don't call yourself a surrealist? Do you need an official surrealist membership card to join the club? I've heard tell of some surrealists arguing you have to be a communist to be a surrealist. Dali was "excommunicated" by Breton. Can we still call Dali a surrealist? I am reminded of the no true scotsman fallacy. MY BIG QUESTION: What criteria are we basing the list on? --Nik (talk) 14:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Surrealism and comedy

I cut the following paragraphs from the "Surrealism and comedy" subsection, and I bring it here for discussion:

Some branches of comedy (chiefly British, and also Japanese) are known for being very surreal. Perhaps the most famous example of Surrealist comedy can be seen in the late 1960s-early 1970s British sketch show Monty Python. Also influential as an earlier example of British satire was Beyond the Fringe a British comedy stage revue written and performed in London from 1960 through 1966, and in New York from 1962 through 1964, by Peter Cook, Dudley Moore, Alan Bennett and Jonathan Miller. The original cast was replaced in London after 1964.

During the mid-1990s the American television program Mr. Show on HBO and Comedy Central has been described as surreal and its main performers have acknowledged being highly influenced by Monty Python on Mr. Show's DVD commentaries.

First of all, none of this is referenced, which is often a red flag that the content is someone's opinion or is original research. The problem here, as I see it, is the difference between the overly-used, and poorly-defined, adjective "surreal" (taken to mean inexplicable, bizarre, or off-kilter), and the actual definition of "Surrealism" as postulated by Breton, et al. None of the above has anything to do with Surrealism, per se, even if it is (too) often described as being "surreal." There are certainly examples that can be found of Surrealis humor (T-Bone Slim would be a good start), but these are not it. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This ties into my comments above. What criteria does one use to determine if something is "Surreal" or not? How does one determine if something is truly surrealist in nature? If an artist uses a process that is "surrealist" in nature, but doesn't call themselves a surrealist, does that mean it's not Surreal? --Nik (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well put, Nik, this problem is precisely why Wikipedia has a policy of verifiability; we can't decide among ourselves if something is surreal or not, because we might disagree. So, we say we are concerned with verifiability, not truth; we simply report what reliable sources such as independently published books, peer-reviewed academic articles, newspaper reports etc say about it. Then we can write in the article that Monthy Python is surrealist and reference The New York Times or whoever. If the reliable sources disagree significantly, we simply report it and say "Sun City News says Monthy Python is not surrealist because surrealist applies to high art, while The New York Times disagrees, for reason x".

Where there are no reliable sources cited, as in the above excerpt, any material that is challenged can be removed at any time. This is why Republican Jacobite was right to remove the information. If you feel it should be included, you need to find a reliable source that backs up your point of view. Skomorokh ^incite 16:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "A List of Surrealists" definitely should be discussed further

That whole list seems to be a mishmash of Surrealist precursors, friends of Surrealists, people influenced by Surrealists, people who have no actual connection to Surrealists, and some actual Surrealists. In my opinion, people in that list should be actual members (anyone who was a member at some point, so Dali would certainly be included), people who are very frequently listed as Surrealists though they never actually joined (I mean people listed as Surrealists in the specific sense like Khalo and Cornell, not in the broad sense like David Lynch), and perhaps a few close associates like Duchamp. Precursors certainly aren't necessary on this list: Ducasse is relevant to surrealsim, of course, but he doesn't belong on this list. Others have a tenouous place: for example, can we really call Bataille a Surrealist? Also, Theodor Adorno, Michel Foucault, and Walter Benjamin are all philosphers who have no connection to Surrealism. Foucault wrote a book about Magritte, but that doesn't make him a Surrealist. If anyone has proof otherwise, please discuss it here. And "Nadja (novel)" is very clearly not "a Surrealist". Finally, how do you put it in alphabetical order? I mean is there some way to automatically do that?F. Simon Grant (talk) 14:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I quite agree. I removed Albert Camus from the list not long ago, which is only one of the most obvious examples. Bataille, I think, should stay, because he actually was, for a short time, a member of the Paris group, and his parallel activities are very much related. Adorno and Foucault certainly do not belong. Benjamin is an interesting case, because he was friends with Bataille, and through him was connected to and influenced by Surrealism. But, he was never a member, and, as influenced as he was, he does not belong on the list. As far as I am aware, there is no way to "automatically" put the list in alphabetical order. It has to be done by hand. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

About the alphabetical order: Why was it done alphabetically by first name to begin with? Fairly unprofessional.

I agree. I have no idea who did it that way, or why. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to replace "List of Surrealists" with a chart of membership

I've been considering for a while (see discussion with Madsurrealist above) creating a chart of membership, going year by year listing who joins and who's expelled for whatever reason. This chart could also include non-member associates: for example, the chart could say, "Marcel Duchamp frequently associated with the Surrealists but never officially joined" and the same sort of thing could be done for others like Picasso, Cornell, Khalo, Bataille etc. as mentioned above. It could perhaps reference Benjamin, but I'm not convinced that's necessary. Anyway, it's a big task and I was never sure how vital it was, so I haven't gotten around to do it yet. But now it seems like a much more informative alternative than an uncontextualized list. I can start a chart and post it on the talk page so others can help complete it, and we could perhaps then decide if it belongs on the page.F. Simon Grant (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that is a great idea. If I had seen the conversation above in which this idea was first mentioned, I would have said something then. Such a chart would be much more helpful than this current list, to which irrelevant individuals keep being added. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Excellent proposal. This sort of chart would be far more useful than what exists now. --Nik (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll certainly do that then. I have an idea of how to go about it, but I just need to get a minute of free time. Hopefully I'll be able to post it here for apporoval in a couple of days.F. Simon Grant (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's the beginning. I'm far from done, but I wanted to at least get the most tumultuous years out of the way. Feel free to fix stuff, add stuff, etc. Change around phrasing (I don't like the phrasing int he first one, for example). But this is the basic idea. A tiny bit of context for the year, but mostly focused on membership. I would eventually like to get all the people currently on the list, but it's a big job, tons of information, and it'll take some time. So please lend assistance. But also, if you think it's a bad idea, just let me know and I'll quit.F. Simon Grant (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

This is some really great work, Simon! A chart like this will help us avoid POV/OR issues like "I think this guy is a surrealist, so I'm going to add him to the list." You are to be congratulated! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought it needed to be done. I've updated the above chart a couple of times, and it's close to being ready. There are a few minor things missing. I wanted to include as many from the currently existing list as I can so we could just replace that list with this one, but I can't place some of them. However, I certainly agree that having to place somebody into a specific year will cut down on the casual two-second editors who add things without thinking much about it. I really wanted to go much more specific on some of the entries (the Cornell entry, for example, is the level of specificity I really wanted) but with hundreds of names that will be nearly impossible. Anyway, everybody feel free to point out absences or point out errors or go ahead and directly edit the chart. Hopefully we can turn it into a very useful tool, the sort of thing I really wished for when I was first researching, because I think this is one of the most confusing aspects of Surrealism.F. Simon Grant (talk) 21:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you should go ahead and add it to the article. I think that it is, even in its unfinished state, a huge improvement over the current list. Thank you for your great work. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I moved the chart to the page, but I wanted to keep the list available b/c I want to make sure I got all the really important names on the chart. It takes up a lot of space on the talk page, I know, but I'll delete it as soon as I make sure everything necessary is covered. And please, if you see someone major on this list who's missing from the chart let me know and I'll fix it as soon as I can. The chart still definitely needs some work (I haven't even gotten up to '68 as was the original plan). So please make suggestions or correct the chart as you see fit.F. Simon Grant (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Aimé Césaire Alberto Giacometti André Breton André Kertész André Masson Annie Le Brun Antonin Artaud Arshile Gorky Benjamin Péret Boiffard Bona de Mandiargues Brassaï Brion Gysin Claude Cahun David Hare Dora Maar Dorothea Tanning Eileen Agar Esteban Francés F. E. McWilliam Fernando Arrabal Federico García Lorca Frida Kahlo Gala Dalí Gaston Bachelard Georges Bataille Georges Hénein Georges Malkine

Gilbert Lély Giorgio de Chirico Gisèle Prassinos Gordon Onslow Ford Greta Knutson-Tzara Hans Bellmer Hans Ruedi Giger Henri Michaux Isidore Ducasse Jacqueline Lamba-Breton Jacques André Jacques Brunius Jean/Hans Arp Jean Benoît Jindrich Heisler Jindrich Styrsky Joan Miró Joseph Cornell Kay Sage Konrad Klapheck Kurt Seligmann Lee Miller Len Lye Léona Camille Ghislaine. Decourt alias Nadja Léonor Fini Leonora Carrington

Léopold Sédar Senghor Louis Aragon Luis Buñuel Man Ray Marc Chagall Marcel Duchamp Marcel Jean Maurice Blanchot Maurice Heine Maurice Tabard Max Ernst Max Morise Meret Oppenheim Michel Leiris Nancy Joyce Peters Nikos Engonopoulos Nusch Éluard Óscar Domínguez Pablo Picasso Paul Delvaux Paul Éluard Paul Nougé Peter Dizozza Philip Lamantia Philippe Soupault Pierre Mabille Pierre Molinier Pierre Naville Radovan Ivsic Raoul Ubac

Raymond Queneau Remedios Varo René Char René Crevel René Magritte René Ménil Robert Desnos Roberto Matta Roger Caillois Roger Parry Roger Vitrac Roland Topor Salvador Dalí Simone Kahn-Breton Sophie Taeuber-Arp Suzanne Malherbe Suzanne Muzard Toyen Tristan Tzara Unica Zürn Valentine Hugo Victor Brauner Vítězslav Nezval Wifredo Lam Wilhelm Freddie Wolfgang Lettl Wolfgang Paalen Wols Yves Tanguy

Thanks again, Simon, for your great work on this! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Impressive piece of work. Congratulations. Modernist (talk) 00:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Surrealism and theatre

The "Surrealism and theatre" subsection, like many of the other subsections, actually, is problematic. The biggest problem is that it does not say much about its topic, instead talking more about the Theatre of the Absurd---and making unreferenced claims about that, to boot. Surely, there is a great deal that can be said about Surrealism's impact in the theatre, yes?

I removed the following from that section, and I bring it here for discussion:

Today, Surrealist theatre continues to combine music, words, and movement, most ostensibly in works introduced by Peter Dizozza at the La MaMa Experimental Theatre Club Experiments Reading Series in Manhattan and often produced at the Williamsburg Art & Historical Center in Brooklyn.

The Dizozza surrealist works include "The Marriage at the Statue of Liberty" (after Cocteau), "The Last Dodo," "The Golf Wars," "The Eleventh Hour," "Hermaphroditism Through the Ages" and “Prepare to Meet Your Maker” inspired by religious mystery plays of the 16th century depicting the meeting of the exquisite corpse, Cementeria, and a gravedigger, Quasimodo, who, through contact with one another, are both invigorated and revitalized.

I have never heard of Peter Dizozza, and nothing in the article about him indicates he is a "surrealist," perhaps he is influenced by Surrealism, but he has no connection with any of the Surrealist groups, either here in the US or in Europe. These two paragraphs are unreferenced, as well, and read like they were written as advertising for this theatre troupe. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Surrealism (music)

I have started a discussion over at Talk:Surrealism (music) suggesting that said article be moved to a better title. Anyone with thoughts or opinions on the matter is encouraged to comment over there. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Surrealism Art Links

I found 2 surrealism art links I thought could be added to the links section of the page. What do you think? Surreal Art Forum and beinart.org --Grrrlriot (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I am familiar with both of these websites, and neither of them have anything to do with the Surrealist movement as discussed in this article. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 21:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Towards another definition?

I do not know how I managed to miss this section during previous editing, but have now removed these two paragraphs, and bring them here for discussion:

The English word "Surrealism" is a mis-translation of the French word "Surréalisme." The correct translation should be "Superrealism." Breton somewhere said that the "surréel is to the réel what the surnaturel is to the naturel." English-speakers say "supernatural". The reason why this matters is that the prefix "surr-" in English is often, not always, associated with the Latin prefix "sub" e.g. surreptitious (Fr. subreptice), surrogate (Fr. subrogé), implying exactly the opposite of the intended meaning.

Breton would later qualify the first of these definitions by saying "in the absence of conscious moral or aesthetic self-censorship," and by his admission through subsequent developments, that these definitions were capable of considerable expansion.

First of all, this is unreferenced, despite the fact that it has direct quotes---it is telling that the author of this section says "Breton somewhere said," admitting he or she did not know, or could not remember, where. The whole section, though, more importantly, both in title and in content, is speculative, seeming to reach toward and encourage a new definition. This not what we do at Wikipedia, though. We present the facts that are verifiable, we do not speculate as to "new definitions" for things. On the whole, unencyclopædic. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 05:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal

I propose that the Surrealistic Artists article be merged into the current article. There is no reason for a separate article on the people who are already dealt with here, and dealt with at greater length. The fact that artist Gary Huey was included as one of these "surrealistic" artists, after two articles on this individual, created by Lowe1 !2, were deleted, causes me to wonder what Lowe1 !2's reasoning was for creating the Surrealistic Artists article. Was it merely another attempt to advertise an artist who already been deemed nonnotable? Either way, the article in question says nothing that is not already said here. Thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 19:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and just turn the other article into a redirect to this article. No reason for its continued separate existence. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article Improvement

The surrealism article is really very poorly edited, it needs much improvement.Bonfireofvanity (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Would you care to be more specific about the improvements you think need to be made? Simply leaving this message here, without any details, is not terribly helpful. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is really poorly edited. There is little insight into the paris surrealist group from 1924 to 1929, its so poorly referenced, its too condensed and too limited. The specifics are in the good reference sources, most notably from Breton's own documents. You guys really have no idea what you are doing. Why spend so much time policing and editing this article when you are not even interested in surrealism?Bonfireofvanity (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Please do not assume to know what I, or the other editors who have worked on this article are interested in or knowledgeable of, thank you. As to your complaints, I can only say that if there is specific information you know, not believe, to be missing, and you can provide said information, or "insight" as you call it, please do so. The responsibility does not fall upon others to improve the article to your standards. This is a wiki, which means you can make those improvements yourself. However, I would advise that you adjust your tone and attitude if you intend to stay around. No one who devotes their free time to this enterprise appreciates being told, as you have done here, that they "have no idea what" they "are doing." Bad form, sir. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Its very difficult to adjust "tone" of data, I am only being honest, you guys have no idea what you are doing. The Surrealism article was ruined. You took total control of the article, which I don't think is fair. Look at your edits and your elitist position towards this article. The article is ruined. The timelime of "membership" is the most vague presentation of surrealism I have ever seen. You need to go by the specific documents and signatures of the paris surrealists year by year, this grid is so way off and not accurate. Its a total failure. If you were so sincere about the quality of the article, you would allow another approach to edits on here! Its ruined.Bonfireofvanity (talk) 22:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, you have no intention of assuming good faith or showing even a modicum of civility. Therefore, I have no intention of wasting any further time with you. When you are prepared to discuss these issues with a civil tone and some respect for your fellow editors, please do let us know. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Really, I am providing good faith, the "tone" is obviously off, but thats not important nor is it really harmful to Wikipedia or this article. The goal is to provide an exact reference point for the person who is researching Surrealism, this can be done. You have to start with the exact documents and publications, etc and build a foundation there. You are still off the mark, but there is hope. You really should allow others to edit.Bonfireofvanity (talk) 16:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Louis Aragon

Can anyone here on Wikipedia help me out with finding more information on Louis Aragon to put into this article?Mindscanner (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems no one wants to help.Mindscanner (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Introductory Paragraph

It seems to me that, in accordance with both Wikipedia and general encyclopedia style, the introductory paragraph should either contain no mention of specific works, or only works that are by general consensus considered world-historical masterworks and that have been around for some time. Not mentioning specific works seems like the normal and recommended way to go. But if specific works are to be mentioned, they could be something like The Andalusian Dog and Dali's The Pesistence of Memory and perhaps the poetry of Breton and Eluard, not recent works or cult works, unless they are part of a longer list of major works of the movement involved (i.e. in this case surrealism), and such a longer list shouldn't be in an introductory paragraph. So I am going to take out the references to Angel's Egg and El Topo. Since both of these are mentioned in the "List of Surrealist Films", that seems to be the more Wikipedian way to handle them. A reader who doesn't know anything about a specific movement -- surrealism, romanticism, realism, whatever -- is going to assume that any works mentioned in the introduction to an article about that movement are the most important, greatest, most noteworthy, or most influential works of that movement, and their subsequent sense of both the movement and the works may be affected by that mention. That is why such mention needs to be done in a particularly responsible and representative way -- but also why it is better, and more standard encyclopedia and Wikipedia style, to mention them, with appropriate context, in the body of the article. That is probably why the Wikipedia articles about expressionism, Romanticism, realism, etc., don't mention specific works in the introductory paragraphs or sections. And that's just normal and responsible encyclopedia style. Jjshapiro (talk) 17:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)