Talk:Surrealism/Archive 08

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Archive 7

New archive at Talk:Surrealism/Archive_07. Please keep the posts on topic. Thanks. --HappyCamper 05:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Than you Happy Camper! Yes, that last bunch was really not on topic. In any case, the article looks ok so far. Surrealism of the 21st century is still fresh, and I can see some growth to the article in the next few years. Fortunately, the political aspect of it has run its course last century and now surrealism is strictly an art movement, but an exciting and evolving one.

As for the vestigial remains of the political aspect, FR and his followers, being concerned about non-whites, I could recommend that they join the NAACP or give to the United Negro College Fund. This would go a long way toward equalizing the playing field. Society has a long way to go, and I am personally for anything that gives all men and women the freedom to be what they want to be in a free society. We do not need dictators like FR who want to divide people and create dissention.

I should point out that the Asians and the Indians and the Middle Easterners are not particularly intimidated by the European “White Race.” They have all had great empires and will again. FR is simply trying to use non-whites in the West for his own obscure purpose. I do not see it working, because non-whites are pretty sharp about that kind of manipulation.

The white Euro-Americans have done some bad things, of course, such as planting a Jewish state in the middle of the Islamic nations. That was a clever thing to do to have an intelligent zealous anti-Islamic military nation to keep the oil rich countries disorganized so we could control them. Unfortunately for us it is uniting Islam instead! However, in the past, Islam, China and Japan have used similar methods of deceit to control their empires, so do not say that only white people use such methods.

It was also clever of the Euro-Americans, after abandoning colonies in Africa, to kindly supply arms equally to opposing military juntas. First, we make money by selling arms. Second, by being fair and equal to both sides, they will wear themselves down to a vestigial, starving disorganized mess, and we can then come to give hem aid and help them develop their resources once more as we have always done.

Anyway, let’s get on to the task at hand and promote surrealism as what it is today, an art movement, with no leaders, except those who help promote the genre for everybody's benefit.Surreal-one 14:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Jacques Derrida would have made a great surrealist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specters_of_Marx Classicjupiter2 17:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Black Surrealism: Negritude

So please comment here on the new section on Black Surrealism and Negritude, looking at Aime Cesaire and Franz Fanon. Fanon believed that such "cultural errors," as racism, could be corrected because racism is not a psychological law (1967a, 202). The psychology of racism is caused by "Negroes being exploited, enslaved, despised by colonialist capitalist society. That is only accidentally white" (1967a, 202). But he also insisted that negritude's subjective dialectic, as a reaction of the black within that accident, has a life of its own. Although a racial essentialism, established by Senghor or more specifically, if we accept René Menil's argument, established by Sartre's Orphée Noir (Richardson and Fijalkowsi 1996, 9) came to dominate negritude, Césaire's negritude as a form of black surrealism should not be overlooked.(FN2) A surrealism, Michael Richardson and Krzystof Fijalkowsi argue in Refusal of the Shadow, that is a critique of dominant cultural and social processes. Here, they add, a distinction should be made between "surrealism as living cultural praxis ... and as dead cultural artifact" (1996, 11). Like surrealism, négritude should also be seen in the context of the "lived experience of the black." During the war years, surrealism became synonymous in Martinique with the revolutionary opposition to the war. Kesteloot insists that it "was the only possible solution at the time for the cultural alienation of Martinique." " Poetry," Césaire argued, "equalled insurrection" (Kesteloot 1974, 256-60). Césaire's poetry remained a powerful metaphoric force for Fanon, but for a political/philosophic methodology, Fanon looked elsewhere. As David Caute has put it, Its emphasis on spontaneity and the unconscious, as well as involvement with metaphysics and the irrational, linked it to bohemian revolt rather than to any historically concrete theory of social change. (Caute 1970, 20) 62.25.106.209 09:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like an interesting addition. But kindly also leave my own comments on this talk page, at least as a balanced counter-position. Thank you.

Just to point out, what you are putting in as Black Surrealism has to do with 20th century black politics, which has adopted a "white" and "Western" idea. It has no relevance to 21st century surrealism, which has evolved into something else. id est, an art movement. That Black Surrealism has adopted a White idea is not bad. It is difficult not to be influenced by White Western ideas. All cultures that have become "world-beaters" have adopted the best of other cultures and prevailed in building great nations or empires. Russia loved French culture. "French style" is the predominant fashion style of palaces all over Africa, and South America, and, of course, Europe. The Mercedes 3 liter saloon, after WWII, was the preferred car of diplomats and dictators world-wide. It is hard to ignore great ideas from the White Western world. The question is, if you adopt White ideas, are you assimilated? Are you now "White" since, according to FR, Whiteness is only an idea, a way of thinking, an attitude of superiority toward non-white humans? Surreal-one 14:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, are the Chinese "White" because they have an attitude of racial and cultural superiority. They are very paitient and believe that they merely have to wait until the Dragon awakes once more to devour the world? Are the Black Muslims "White" for the same reason?Surreal-one 15:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

And mine too! "The term "Negritude," a common 19th century term, referring to "blackness," was also used by American Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and early abolitionist, to describe a hypothetical hereditary disease which he believed to be the cause of 'blackness'."Brunhilda 14:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I have added a section on Surrealism in Politics to complement and balance the sections on Art. 195.92.40.49 15:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but could you please check your spelling and grammar once moreSurreal-one 15:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanx have done a spell check. Your confusion around the physical and psychical states of blackness and whiteness is understandable. Checkout the Talk:Black people entry to see just how bad the problem is! In fact I think that maybe instead of 'Black Surrealism' a better title for this section would be political surrealism or for this section to be incorporated into the surrealism and politics or a revolutionary surrealism section... 62.25.106.209 15:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Add Robin D.G. Kelley as well to the Surrealism article!

I am all for it! I am the one who originally added Aime Cesaire and Rene Menil to the article two years ago into the article, the addition of them regarding their great surrealist publication TROPIQUES. I think it would be a great idea to add some more of our African-American Surrealist Comrades to the article, especially Robin D.G. Kelley, who I greatly admire! Black Surrealism is Surrealism!!! Don't forget an addition on the connections between Surrealism and the Labor Movement as well!Classicjupiter2 15:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Check this out for the addition too, http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/52/1/27 Classicjupiter2 15:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

A good idea regarding Aime Cesaire is to touch on CLR James as well.Classicjupiter2 16:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Also a mention of Albert Memmi along with Cesaire as well.Classicjupiter2 16:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Please made additions as you see fit, although maybe the negritude and the politics sections should be combined into a Proletarian Surrealism section? 195.92.40.49 10:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think a seperate Proletarian Surrealism passage is cool, lets see how that develops. We need solid resources, I am into it.Classicjupiter2 00:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the 'Black Surrealism' and Negritude is a great addition to the article, well done!Classicjupiter2 00:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


BRAVE DESTINY and SURREALISM IN THE 21st CENTURY

Its great to see the article shaping up with fairness to all additons made (including 'Black Surrealism' and Negritude) in the article!!! NOW, I think its also a good idea for a passage or section on BRAVE DESTINY and/or SURREALISM IN THE 21st CENTURY, or just BRAVE DESTINY, which was the LARGEST SURREALISM SHOW in the HISTORY of the ARTS! 500plus! Let me know. What do you think, Surreal-one?Classicjupiter2 00:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Classic, Although Brave Destiny was, and probably will remain, the largest and most glorious surrealist show ever throughout the 21st century, and although the New International Surrealist Manifesto represents that, and both have been touted in the highest circles of the mainstream art world as well as at major universities, yet…it is absolutely unnecessary to be included in the article. The mystery is that all of the self-promotion in the article, such as CSG, is seen as just that… self-promotion. It means nothing to the real history of surrealism as the major art movement and philosophical idea of the 21st century. As long as CSG, FR and followers make an “ass” of the movement in this article and on BLOG sites around the world, it is better not to be associated with them in any large sense. Just leave the mention of Brave Destiny in the article as it is. That is fair and does everything necessary.

When CSG, FR, and followers get their heads screwed on right, and this is doubtful since FR has been ruining himself for 40 years as a poor thinker (and strategist), then the article can be polished. Right now it is an interesting article since it covers some material not found in other texts, but not especially influential to the 21st century surrealism as a movement. According to TL, “The idea of revolution as a philosophical idea is the important issue to surrealism in the 21st century, and that is purely philosophical. The practical application of notions of surrealism as revolution in society is secondary and has nothing to do with the pure idea of surrealism, which must be taken from Breton and yet improved since he was ‘rolling in the mud with a bunch of socialists.’ Essentially we have reached a point in the dialectic when the dross (ideas revolving around Marxism, capitalism, racism, Negritudism, etc.) must burn away leaving only the pure idea of surrealism as “a method and a way, like Zen or the mysticism of the Kabala”. ..a tool as it were, perhaps the ultimate tool.” Fr and his followers are vestigial dinosaurs. Fascinating that they continue after their world has shriveled around them.

FR, CSG and the little one-person surrealist groups are not especially relevant. If they wish to list themselves in the article, it merely demeans the article, it does not elevate THEM. The problem for” them,” as “the Other,” is that it does nothing for them to be in the article. It would probably elevate the article and make FR & CSG more important to the 21st C. to expand it to include Brave Destiny and TR’s NISM. Amusing, is it not, that they become more important to the degree that they include their enemies in the article? It is an old idea “you are measured by the importance of your enemies.” In truth, it is whether you are respected and talked about in the higher intellectual circles and the arts that make you important. FR and followers may feel good at seeing themselves in the article here, but these are illusions of importance. Important writers and scholars generally ignore them. Let them dream!

Ps: You might want to ask 62.25.106.209 for that mysterious picture of FR with Breton. His style of writing resembles that of the “Great Buffoon.” But remember a picture of somebody with somebody does not prove anything about inheriting a legacy.Surreal-one 13:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)



Dear Daniel C Boyer,

So Daniel, tell us, how did your INTERNATIONAL SURREALIST SHOW in Spencer IA go? What was discussed during your "panel discussion" on Surrealism? Are there any pictures of You and Your Surrealist Friends at the show? Did Xtian and Lady Hannah show up? How many people attended? Any crowd shots?Classicjupiter2 23:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the mania for photographic documentation continues unabated. But these subjects are best discussed in a private e-mail to me, as as far as I know we aren't considering the creation of an article on the exhibit. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Basically, what Daniel C. Boyer is saying is that nobody showed up and there was no panel discussion. Well, at least they tried.Classicjupiter2 17:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Daniel: I think that all surrealist activity such as this major show should be documented for everyone to see. At some future time it may be historically important enough to include mentioning in Wikipedia. Although we oppose Classic on just about everything, in this we agree with him/her. Presenting it here documents it for future mention in the article. A summation fo your scholarly panel discussion might enlighten those who remain in the dark about our efforts. KindlyThe Chicago Surrealist Group 15:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Quote

Is there supposed to be a quote on the top of the page like that?--dannycas 02:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering that too. I've never seen a quote at the top of any othe wikipedia entry. Geedubber 15:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
i#ve removed it - theres enough bretonophilia in this article as it is. 62.25.106.209 11:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

How to improve this article?

Can we make a list of stuff that we need to do to improve this article? --HappyCamper 19:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

<posts by Surreal-one and posts by Classicjupiter2>

Um...not to be disrepectful - it's really important points you brought up Classic, but those posts sort of make this page more difficult to use. I've rolled it back into that link there, but if you would like to reinstate them that's okay too.

They need to be on this page, thanksClassicjupiter2 20:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I am glad that you are monitoring this article! In just the last day or so there has been a string of vandalizations. User 141.219.44.180 apparently is Daniel C. Boyer (judged by the fact that they are both are editing the same articles on wiki). He has stated antipathies toward successful surrealist artists and has removed references to Brave Destiny as the world's largest surrealist show as stated in Art & Antiques Magazine, a fully vetted article in the world's largest magazine of it's kind. Mr. Boyer and his crowd are amateur social surrealists who have a mission, apparently, to disrupt the article. Improving the article is difficult when there are so many vandals like that. However, it is moving along, thanks to people like Classic, Newberry, Sparkit, Shapiro, Infrogmation and others. I wish we had an arbiter like Caws to judge the article and improve it. Lacking that, Classic is a great monitor of things, and a fair and knowledgeable individual.Surreal-one 19:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Surreal-one, its good to know that the article is being monitored for fairness. By the way, 141.219.44.180 is Daniel C. Boyer, that is old news. Daniel has been using Wikipedia for years as a tool of promotion, there are Wikipedians who have busted him on this. AS for references and sources, you would think that it would not be so darn hard to verify anything that Daniel and his clan does. Its a real shame. I have been asking for years for any photographic evidence of a meeting between Andre Breton and Franklin Rosemont, and believe me, I would certainly change my tune on Rosemont, if I had something solid to go on. I have been researching Surrealism for years and years, and Franklin Rosemont is the most difficult subject to verify! Granted there is an abundant amount of written information on him and his group, all by him and his friends, (Ron Sakolsky, etc) but all I am looking for mainly is PROOF of this Historic "Meeting" between him and Breton. If I were to find a picture of them both together, I would consider this the "Holy Grail" of Surrealist Research. However, I read Peneople Rosemont's account of the alleged meeting, and considering that I have much experiece in Research and Statement Analysis, the account provided by Penelope Rosemont to journalist Danny Postel, had SO MANY Red Flags, that I just could not buy into the fact that the Rosemonts ever met personally with Andre Breton. This is TOO IMPORTANT a Fact to just pass over in such a fleeting manner. Daniel C.Boyer, who is supposed to be this important surrealist and promoter of his friends, does NOTHING to help us with this quest. The reason is simple, Franklin and Penelope Rosemont never met Andre Breton as they alleged. Not according to this tale of "Personally meeting with Breton and being accepted by him into the Surrealist Movement" it just doesn't hold any credit with me until I see either personal handwritten letters from Breton to Franklin or just one photo of the both of them. Also, consider the fact that his current 'icon' of Surrealism, Franklin Rosemont, is supposed to be this major figure in Surrealism, however, there is very limited visual material on his site. Why?????????????????? Also, consider Prof. Mary Ann Caws and Dawn Ades (and also noted scholar Jennifer Mundy) for a moment: I read practically all their written material on their research into Surrealism and you get more visual material on the most obscure surrealists from the past, than you do with Franklin Rosemont, note, that none of the above respected and established art scholars even mention Franklin Rosemont in their research. Maybe sometime in the future, but they have probably hit the same brick wall as I did. Also, look at Boyer and his friends, for a moment, that last "surrealist" show, did show pictures, but of the artworks only. NO Crowd shots of any people in attendance, NOTHING! DID anyone show up? Did any Surrealist or artist show up? I would support any mention of them, like I did with his friends in those groups that I added to the article, solely on the basis of Fairness and being a nice guy! After Dan goes and pulls this nonsense, maybe that wasn't such a good idea to add those groups. What do you think, SurrealOne?Classicjupiter2 20:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


Here's what I think - can we try to move on from that, and say, find printed references for the article? For example, if I read the first sentence, it makes surrealism sound very grand and exciting, but does surrealism really assert this? What I mean to say, is that when I read the article, I don't really have an understanding of the core philosophies and implications of the art form. Also, the political, social, and economic impacts haven't been mentioned. Can we make a to-do list of some sort?
As for the IPs and sockpuppetry, well, I am currently in discretionary block mode for accounts which only edit this talk page, and not the main article page. Suffice to say, can we try to get this to featured article status? :-) --HappyCamper 20:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

That would be splendid! I think this should be a featured article!!!Classicjupiter2 20:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

We need proper visual material and references that hold their merit!Classicjupiter2 20:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, well, I made a to-do list. I have a suggestion to start off with. The picture "Ceci n'est pas un pipe" - can that be moved to the top of the article? --HappyCamper 22:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

OK by me. Go ahead. Meanwhile, let's listen to Happy Camper. I think he is saying that when he reads the article, he is not arriving at a clear "necessary and sufficient" conditon (to use a logical expression) that defines surrealism, by which all the rest of the article might make sense or be enlightened. A good article leads one through clearly from one section to the next...the context is always apparent. This article appears to be "a giraffe," made by a committee of people who disagree with each other. It has a LOT of good material, and some clinkers too. The only person I know recently who has defined surrealism so that the rest makes any sense is Lindall, or Caws. Actually any other competent scholar like Arhtur Danto or Leo Steinberg could do as well. Lindall, of course, is banned from the article by Daniel Boyer and his henchmen (hence their attempt to vandalize "Brave Destiny"), and Lindall does not seem to care since his ideas are out there successfully anyway in the art world. So the article will probably remain less than the best. The problem with Wiki is the problem of vandals. What can we do? Ordinary (and less than capable people) can have their say here, and a few of them with a little computer knowledge (as we see here) can wreak havoc. It is the weakness of wiki. It is also a strength of wiki that knowledge of ALL people can be tapped.Surreal-one 22:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is another option. We can rewrite the article from scratch, get consensus that the new one is "better" and go from there. We can simply use the existing page as a guideline for a rewrite. What's the take on this one? --HappyCamper 23:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Surreal-one. A real good idea is to contact a noted scholar on Surrealism, with the proper balance between Literature, Theory and Art. Surreal-one makes good points on context, and also the article needs to flow in a consistent manner. I don't think starting from scratch will suffice, but a major re-edit. The 'groups' should go, that was a mistake I made by adding them. The online rants and blogs just do not cut it. Also, we need to keep the alias usernames and IP's from trashing the article and discussion page most of all.Classicjupiter2 23:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Prof. Mary Ann Caws would be a great source of credible reference material. This Rosemont is just too weak to validate. Lindall would be perfect for material on Contemporary Surrealism, after all, he writes for Arts and Antiques Magazine.Classicjupiter2 23:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

OK then, we won't start from scratch, but we'll do major re-editing. Let me think a bit more about how to do this. --HappyCamper 00:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe a well know image must be on top of the article, Dali's Persistence of Memory, i think is a fine one since it has been featured in plenty Pop culture materials.--MR.Tony

Can we get a GFDL version of it for Wikipedia? --HappyCamper 03:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

This page is getting rather long again. Would it be okay if we archive this, say within two weeks or so? Just to get an opinion on how to keep this page easy to use... --HappyCamper 03:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. If we can keep focused on the article now, I have some suggestions. I was only here to keep things balanced against termites and vandals. The article really ignores the phenomenon of the 1970's through today. It does not address Popular Surrealism or "Pop Surrealism." That is part of the reason that the article cannot be definitive on the subject and why scholars or students or even interested amateurs have to go elsewhere to research surrealism. The subject of surrealism of the 1970’s and beyond was addressed very well in the article recently in Art & Antiques Magazine in March 2006. It said, “The influence of surrealism in commercial mass media has been notable to everyone in the world of comics. In Europe, the adult fantasy magazine Metal Hurlant (known as Heavy Metal in the United States), which appeared in the 1970s, became a mass media outlet for surrealists, and artists such as Moebius, Rod Kierkegaard Jr. and Phillippe Druillet became well known. Japanese “mass surrealism” (Manga) burst forth internationally as a global phenomenon in the contemporary art market initiated by a new generation of artists who were absorbed by Pop subcultures. “

I know that there is something called inertia in scholarship. An unwillingness to start to move forward. The old guard does not want to recognize anything new. So we have, with regard to this article, some who think that surrealism remains what it was in 1960, and only an anti-war, anti-American social phenomenon. In fact, there is a vast upwelling of surrealist art and philosophy having nothing to do with the tired rhetoric of the Marxists and it is represented by Michael Bell, Jon Beinart, Keith Wigdor’s Surrealismnow.com, SAI, Terrance Lindall, Professor Phil Rubinov Jacobson, and a multitude of others world-wide with a plethora of web sites, seminars, articles and exhibits. Some of our greatest surrealists, such as Chris Mars, have had shows at major museums in the United States and others at museums in Europe.

Until the article addresses these, it will not be completely credible and does not advance knowledge of the subject that has already been covered in depth by the more conservative scholars and curators at our major universities and museums.Surreal-one 15:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like to focus on writing the article, and perhaps learning a little bit about the topic. Okay, then here's a proposal - what if we reorganized the article so that the "History of Surrealism" is presented first? And then, further down in the article, we can introduce the "Philosophy of Surrealism"? If these sections get sufficiently large, we can easily make subpages. --HappyCamper 16:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I like, this very much. We needed an overall organizational plan!Surreal-one 19:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is an idea. Let's get a clear statement from Daniel C. Boyer as to what he thinks Surrealism is and is not. I am not sure I know what his ideas are from all of his polemical statements and removal and addition of material. To tell the truth, I am not sure what Rosemont thinks surrealism is either, even with everything he has written (very ambiguous). I do not mind having a minority opinion mentioned. Then, if no one else with a balanced point of view is available, I will edit and rewrite the entire article myself with the help of several colleagues. Perhaps Happy Camper can provide a template page so I can submit the finished rewrite to the wiki community for opinions. After that, we ask Caws at NYU to do a final edit, if she is willing. Then we have a final professional article that wiki can be proud of.Surreal-one 15:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hm...well, we can simply have a page at Talk:Surrealism/Rewrite and go from there. Or, we can just boldly edit the existing article. --HappyCamper 15:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, "boldly editing what we have" is: exactly what we have already. It does not make for a consistent article. One of the problems is that we seem to have a time line of what happend in 1930, 1940, etc. That time line should include what happened in each decade in arts, politics, theater, etc., in the development of the idea of surrealism...and how the concept changed, if it did...who argued for and against the changes...what was the consequence. Then we have another idea going on apart from time lines: putting headings under politics, theater, etc. I have not examined it too closely, but something is wrong there in overall layout. Am I wrong? maybe what we need is an outline first, for approvalSurreal-one 15:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

An outline for consistency will suffice, I agree.Classicjupiter2 23:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so looks like surrealism is a really wide topic, and we need more focus in order to be more productive. There's the to-do list above. Let's focus on the history section. Would it be reasonable to break it down in to decades, starting from the 1800's to the present? --HappyCamper 15:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that might be a good start. 1800's might include precursors, Moreau, the Symbolists, etc., Blake. But, of Course, the very first paragraph has to be an overview of what surrealism is...that "necessary and sufficient condition" that every other statement in the article will NOT in any way contradict (except statements of people who are contrarians in some fashion). If we can get everyone to agree, including those who are vandalizing the article because they believe "Surrealism not an art movement," then we might have an easy entry into the rest of the article...and without vandalism. Also, I do not want to invest a lot of time in this if it can get nowhere because of vandals. Then unfortunately, the article must remain a less than professional achievementSurreal-one 16:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Start with History of Surrealism first!!! Make sure to touch on Paolo Uccello, Francisco Goya, William Blake, Hans Baldung Grien, Arnold Boecklin, Definitely HENRY FUSELI, Giuseppe Arcimboldo, Albrecht Durer, and Hieronymus Bosch.Classicjupiter2 23:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Classic: If you can contact Boyer, can you get him to define "Surrealism" in 500-750 words and post it here? It should be clear, concise and NOT an ostensive definition. That way we can try to figure out why the article continues ot be vandalized by him and his cohorts. Their web-sites are vague and mostly are commonplace diatribes against Bush, the war, capitalism, etc., nothing that makes them any different from any other Democrat running for office, but no defintion of surrealism that made any real senseSurreal-one 20:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Boyer will never co-operate on anything. According to Daniel C.Boyer, Surrealism is OWNED by him and his friends. They refuse anyone outside their circle, and its really small and disorganized, we will be wasting our time. I thought that Daniel and his friends would at least provide some kind of Document from their "panel discussion" at their last, "International Surrealist" Show at the Arts on Grande, but as usual, with this bunch, we get nothing. Typical.Classicjupiter2 22:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

OK Then, we must assume they do have any concept of what surrealism is, and they are pretending to know while not making anything clear...a tactic of ignoramuses in every scholarly subject. Unfortunately, they have adopted the tag of "Surrealists," and apparently, to them, it means mindless vandalism and personal attacks. They do say that "Surrealism is not an art movement," and they say that "Surrealism [is not a technique]" that can be applied to the arts or social philosophy. So what they themselves produce in art and poetry or social commentary is not surrealism. In other words, they are surrealists who do not produce surrealism. Right? And we can say this about them in the article. OK Happy camper, what can be done? You have an article wide open to vandalism by irrational people, and they will not cooperate on the article. Seems to me that I am better off writing a thesis for established publishers and I am wasting time here.Surreal-one 15:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, one important thing. If a Wikipedian has no intention of co-operating with others, then they have no place here. Simple as that. I'm going to be on blocking mode for diatribes which do not benefit this article. The talk pages for this article are at least 10 times longer than the article. This doesn't feel right. Compare this with History of unmanned aerial vehicles for example.
I noticed a comment up above about "Surrealism in the 21st century". This could be another noteworthy section in the article. --HappyCamper 16:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

OK Happy Camper. you give me hope. Let me see what I can do to help this article. I need to think about it. Many ThanksSurreal-one 18:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Just started the rewrite. Article has a lot of redundancies! A lot of unnecessary verbiage. Material is basically sound...so farSurreal-one 20:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Surrealism in the 21st Century is a real thing, I am new here, this is my first day on here and I can tell you that you guys should absolutely add Surrealism in the 21st Century.12.196.6.162 20:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Surreal-one and HappyCamper and User:12, you all have the right idea. We also need to have this article vandal-free. There is a lot of verbiage that really does not hold up to the integrity of the article, we all have a duty to the scholars, students, researchers, and interested public to give them a concise, factual and accurate account of Surrealism, its History, its beginning, its evolution during the 20th Century and also Surrealism in the 21st Century. There should be no vague references. If we cannot find adequate research material on current groups (online blogs do not hold their weight) then, they have to go. I gave them a chance by putting them in here in the first place. Also, If you guys want to support material on Surrealism, from the time that Andre Breton died, in 1966, we have to have solid material on FACTS. There MUST be mention, of the actual fact, that JEAN SCHUSTER disbanded the Paris Surrealist Group in 1969. Countless Scholars have documented that fact. Also, there must be mention of SURREALISM outside the sphere and influence of Andre Breton (I myself, worship Breton, but he was not correct on everything within Surrealism, especially, the foolish "explusion" of Dali from the movement, which the public, did not even care about). As far as the public was concerned, Dali, is and always was, a Surrealist, whether Breton and his gang, liked it or not, they could not stop Dali's influence on the world, that was more than obvious, and it drove Breton crazy. Anyway, back to the development of the article. We need solid facts, and if there is any material that does not hold its weight in the research department, like for example, in our investigations, if we all cannot find any visual or credible material on Franklin Rosemont, or any other surrealists of his ilk, than they cannot hold their weight for inclusion in the article. This is 2006, if all the best that a so-called surrealist can do, is place a website online called THE SURREALIST MOVEMENT IN THE USA, and yet provide some of the weakest reference material that has ever invaded the integrity of Surrealism, than we are doomed. We need solid stuff, like on SURREALISM NOW! That website has a HUGE REFERENCE Section on Surrealism, if you go to the SITE MENU and see the ENORMOUS Amount of material provided for research, besides the current stuff as well. That is just one good example. Anyway, any solid changes to this article to improve it, is worth it!Classicjupiter2 23:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)