Talk:Surrealism/Archive 3

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.

The Talk:Surrealism discussion page has been archived 9 times.

If you wish to reply to something that was said in an archived comment, please copy the relevant text to the current talk page rather than editing the archives.

I've archived most of this upto additions from the last couple of days. It was getting to about 80Kb. Barneyboo 00:14, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Contents

Cleanup / Call for Help

This whole article is a mess. It's unorganized and full of contradictory claims. It's pathetic that something more coherent hasn't come out of the months of edits here. I'm tempted to list this on Cleanup to get some more assistance clarifying and organizing it. Any objections? Does anybody think this article doesn't need to be reorganized? It's quite frustrating how certain non-logged-in users insist on adding poorly written sentences to the end of seemingly random paragraphs. Even if these contributions weren't hopelessly POV (and they usually are), they would still need to be rewritten to approach wikipedia standards. I think an increased number of experienced editors here would be helpful. ~leif ☺ HELO 21:16, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Standards???

I do not think Wikipedia is workable! Do not get more editors, get someone who knows what they are talking about.Standards, Haaaaaaa! If anyone can write on a topic, that's what you get: someone like Leif.

I'm inclined to note that you forgot to put a space before the word "Standards". That kind of thing is exactly what I was talking about when I complained about the low quality additions, above. Here on the talk page, I don't really care, but on the article page, that kind of typo is unacceptable and has to be fixed by someone. During one of your many previous revert wars, you continued to revert back to a paragraph you wrote that was full of typos like this, even after I had rewritten the paragraph to fix them. These are the kind of "standards" I am talking about, basic English writing standards.
And as I've said before, if you do not think wikipedia is "workable", why do you continue to pester us here? If you aren't on board for the same cause as the rest of us, ie cooperatively writing a free encyclopedia, why are you here? Judging from your edits and your comments in the archive of this talk page, I'd say you are here for the sole purpose promoting Keith Wigdor, Terrance Lindall, and your various points of view. You are not interested in cooperation, you are not interested in creating a fair and NPOV article about Surrealism, and you just stated above that you do not even believe in Wikipedia's premise. Why don't you spend your time elsewhere? ~leif ☺ HELO 21:55, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why am I here? For everybody's own good...to put things in perspective and give a differing point of view. It helps make people think rather than autonomously make statements based upon their personal dream states. I do not add that much to the article. I am a 'muse' trying to guide the message in the article to one that will be accepted by the majority. That is what Wikipedia wants to do, I am sure. I am skeptical about its working, but I hope it does. We do need people like you and Daniel and Frogmation and the rest to help work out ideas. Anyway, please accept my true good will as granted. SHR

Outlandish claim:

I tried to add Boyer as follows: "Daniel C. Boyer is an active spokesman for those who contend that "surrealism" does not refer to an art style, a notion which is in conflict with many scholars and curators at universities and major museums."

If you consult with the Metropolitan Museum of Art or the Guggenheim, maybe you will see that I am right. As I said, you guys are rewriting history on your terms. You need a lesson on how language evolves. First there is common usage ( a word connotes) and then the word comes to be accepted (the connotation becomes a denotation). The connotaion took place pretty quickly in the early 20th c. Now it denotes a style of art... as well as revolutionary thinking. I repeat, you are uneducated. Your ideas are not only unrevolutionary, they are just plain off the planet. You are not part of the civilized world.

Does your statement make sense in light of the fact that Boyer's self-written bio on his user page begins by saying "I am a surrealist painter"?
Obviously, Surrealism includes art, and obviously it also includes much more. I haven't heard Boyer say "surrealism does not refer to an art style" as you claimed in the article. I believe he did say, and I'm paraphrasing here, that as a movement it is much more than just an artistic movement. Assuming that that stance is what you are referring to, your statement would still be misleading, as that notion is not "in conflict" with any experts I've heard of. And of all Daniel Boyer's surrealist work, to mention him in one sentence that really only complains about your personal disagreements with him, is not acceptable. ~leif ☺ HELO 22:00, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's fine. No quarrel. Just mention Boyer. See, I can be a nice guy. Can I get directly from Boyer the suggested induction you make about his thinking that "BOYER ACKNOWLEDGES THAT 'SURREALISM DENOTES AN ART STYLE' among other things." Daniel, my friend?

Surrealism from South Africa

Keith Wigdor used to have this link on his old website last year, http://www.museums.org.za/sam/conf/enc/law.htm This is about a surrealist, Penny Siopis, you all should check this out and read the entire article. I am trying to work out an angle to create an article on Penny and Surrealism in South Africa, especially photomontage. Also, I am doing some digging into the strong link between labor struggles and surrealism, I need to see what I can turn up.24.168.66.27 03:42, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You should contact the great Christian De Boeck *[1] a former Franciscan monk who created the Fantastic Art Centre (includes surrealists) and who has been documenting great artists like Bosch, Moreau, and the moderns Ernst Fuchs, Lindall, Marlin, Giger, Venosa and others for decades. He dropped out of sight and everyone is looking for him. He lives in South Africa.

Just read your article. Very nice indeed. The fellows writing here on surrealism could use your scholarship! I will refer your article on to interested parties in NYC.

For the benefit of the public and everyone who uses the wikipedia service to research surrealism, the article, THE TREACHERY OF IMAGES, PHOTOMONTAGE AND THE NEW SURREALISM IN SOUTH AFRICA, was written by JENNIFER A.LAW.24.168.66.27 02:18, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Pansurrealism

These following styles belong to Pansurrealism they are "sub-groups"...the styles evolve out of dream states and the subconscious, autonmous re-aspecting of reality:

"Surrealism, Surreal/Conceptual, Visionary, Fantastic, Symbolism, Magic Realism, the Vienna School, Neuve Invention, Outsider, Naive, the Macabre, Grotesque, Singulier Art and Massurrealism."

If anybody cares.

More Rosemont-Infested Bias

I have a major problem with this passage from the Contents of the HISTORY Section of the Surrealism article. "and surrealist groups have also drawn on sources as seemingly diverse as Bugs Bunny, comic strips, the obscure poet Samuel Greenberg and the hobo writer and humourist T-Bone Slim." I feel that the above passage should not belong in the History Section, it should be placed later on in the article, more towards the diverse influences passage, where, FREE JAZZ(Don Cherry,etc), is mentioned.

I don't have any problem with placing this anywhere else in the article; I have moved it down with slight modifications but if you'd like it anywhere else feel more than free to move it. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:23, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is very misleading information anyway since it attempts to emphasize the distinctions of Bugs Bunny, comic strips, the obscure poet Samuel Greenberg and the hobo writer and humourist T-Bone Slim as relative to surrealism, while the topics are obviously bound to the sphere of appearances and illusion, mild entertainment. Daniel, please explain to me how the Chicago Group's flirtations with the above nonsense has anything to do with surrealism and why does it belong in the main article under the History section immediately following the introduction? Does Mary Ann Caws and Jennifer Mundy agree with this, "and surrealist groups have also drawn on sources as seemingly diverse as Bugs Bunny, comic strips, the obscure poet Samuel Greenberg and the hobo writer and humourist T-Bone Slim."?

May Ann Caws' complete incomprehension of surrealism has been exhaustively documented by the Surrealist Movement in the United States, and the numerous glaring factual errors in some of her writing laid out in Arsenal. In my opinion she is motivated by her hatred of the movement, but in any case, the sheer quantity of her errors and the great degree of her misinterpretations and misrepresentations leads me to ask, "Who cares whether she agrees or not?" --Daniel C. Boyer 18:23, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Daniel, when I attended the Surrealism, Desire Unbound exhibit at Museum of Modern Art two years ago, I had the time to ask people in attendance about the contributions of surrealist groups(Chicago, etc) after Breton's death and many of the answers from various people in attendance were the same. Only the Paris Surrealist Group with Jean Schuster and Jose Pierre and a few others tried to keep the flame of Breton's thought going, but everything really started to fall apart in 1969 when Jean Schuster disbanded what was left of the Paris Surrealist Group consisting of Breton's comrades and friends, what exists today as the, "Paris Surrealist Group" has me concerned.

The 1960s, far from being a period of "falling apart," was one of the most dynamic periods of expansion in the movement's history. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:23, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As far as anyone that I spoke to about your pals, Mr.Rosemont and his wife, many people did not know who they were. Daniel, what's the deal?24.168.66.27 02:42, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

So we finally have an intelligent voice who knows a little about the history of the surealists. Sir: can you please pick up this article and get it fixed. The fellows here are merely trying to rewrite history on their terms. They are building a dream castle for themselves to live in. Has nothing to do with reality or surreality. They forgot NPOV or as we used to say "objectivity.".-- SHR

For the record, I still suspect that "SHR" is the same person as 24.168.66.27 and 63.169.104.2 et al (I brought this up before and they did not deny it, though they go on "supporting" one another here). ~leif ☺ HELO 19:29, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No SHR is just SHR. The problem is that anyone who sounds as if they have more than a high school education is thought to be the same person. Why do you support Boyer so strongly with no allowance for any other ideas? You are supporting Boyer. Are you and Boyer the same person? SHR

Right on, SHR!

It is a well-known fact that surrealism did not start out as an art movement and its principles and beliefs are not determined by the art that is recognized as surrealist. However, from the significant truth(explicit full agreement in sensuous reality and subjective truth) that the public determines from the art, then the premise of the visual forms achieve the content that is considered by surrealism's aims and princples, thus satisfying the criteria for the dialectical consideration of surrealism's goals.

What are you getting at with this rambling? --Daniel C. Boyer 18:23, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What kills me is there is so little mention of the influence of Hegel,

So feel free to expand the mention. You are free to edit the article. Go for it! --Daniel C. Boyer 18:23, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

yet the heavy presence of radical modernism thought limited to Marxism(remember what Dali wrote to Bunuel in his letters?) that obviously lacks any substantial content, especially when one starts analyzing the, "surrealist strands" of Bugs Bunny! I can see the surrealist strands in the situations of the Marx Brothers, even Artaud did as well, in his brilliant work, "The Theater and its Double", but this article here on Wikipedia smells of Boyer's friends and it really stinks! How does a person who is researching surrealism consider the presupposed abstract notions which cannot be deduced and then presented as fact, when its content has not been scrutinized and examined by the experts in academia and the universities(and the public!) all over the world?

What about the University of Texas Press, publisher of Surrealist Women? (If this scrutiny had the slightest relevance.) Read about it here, including the comments of Professor Bronner from Rutgers: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0292770871/qid=1096653887/sr=8-5/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i5_xgl14/104-5880585-5523953?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 . --Daniel C. Boyer 18:23, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What I am saying here is, does the Musuem of Modern Art in New York City recognize Pathfinder Press as a credible source on Surrealism, I am referring to the Rosemont edited book, "What is Surrealism" by Andre Breton, it reeks of the Chicago Group's monopoly over surrealism?!

Even if what the MoMA recognized mattered one whit, several questions automatically occur to me: Did you ever read What Is Surrealism? Most of the viewpoints you present are emphatically contradicted in it, not by anyone from Chicago, but by Breton's writings themselves. And the notion that the Chicago Group has some kind of "monopoly over surrealism" is pure fantasy. What you mean by your complaints of "monopoly" is that surrealists and members of surrealist groups are critical of those who claim the "freedom" to be surrealists while claiming they are not surrealists, who say they are surrealists while expressing contempt for everything surrealism is about. If this be a "monopoly," make the most of it. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:23, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Art historians and academia consider much more than the art and visual subject matter of surrealism, they do GRASP the way in which the subject matter is presented and not everyone buys into Rosemont's communist visions of surrealist revolution! He is full of shit and the art world knows it, lets be real. That is why the Surrealist Movement in the USA today is so antagonistic towards art in the first place. We are still be railroaded by the stalling tactics and diversions and games of Boyer and his few friends when it comes to surrealism and its content. How does anyone in there right mind justify an article written on a subject who is supposed to be a contemporary author and surrealist, but there is nowhere to be found a simple picture of the person to know that they exist, I refer to Brandon Freel's article here on Wikipedia!? Also, Boyer's special priviledges that's granted to him in his control over the presentation of the material here makes me sick.

This is an utter fabrication. I have no more "privileges" on Wikipedia than anyone else. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:23, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Anytime, someone challenges Boyer, no real answers are given, just lame Wikipedia related policy issues, which we are all familiar with in the first place! SHR, has the right idea, give this article over to someone who has an expertise in Surrealism and its history and one who can VALIDATE what is going on in Contemporary Surrealism today!!! Mary Ann Caws and Jennifer Mundy would be perfect and I doubt it would be difficult. Obviously, the WAH Center has all the established connections and credibility, along with the expertise to provide a neutral person who can validate this terrible surrealism article. I wonder how many college students that are doing their research papers on Surrealism are getting C's and D's over the crap information that is on this article. Please explain the following passage, "and surrealist groups have also drawn on sources as seemingly diverse as Bugs Bunny, comic strips, the obscure poet Samuel Greenberg and the hobo writer and humourist T-Bone Slim."? This is utter garbage, come on! What Professor in his right state of mind would buy into this crap?63.169.104.2 17:42, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Arsenal pointed out that the basic errors of fact Mary Ann Caws makes (having Le Revolution Surrealiste published in the wrong year, for example, and on and on) would guarantee any undergraduate a failing grade. But the real point is that only anti-surrealists are entitled to be "experts" on surrealism. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:23, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A comment and an idea!

First I am not anti-surrealist, nor am I anti-Marxist, nor am I anti- capitalist. I have no idea about the others. Suggestions:

1) Give this article over to the Marxists and allow it to smear wikipedia's credibility as a balanced source of information. 2) Fight Boyer & his cronies forever when we could devote ourselves to more productive pursuits in other places. Look, these guys are DESPARATE for any kind of publicity as artists and communists. They will fight ot the end. I feel for them! 3) Have TWO artcles with two points of view...point and counterpoint. We will get ours written by a top scholar freely contributed to Wikipedia, A fair deal all around. SHR

P.S. Can I get from the horse's mouth Lief's contention that "BOYER ACKNOWLEDGES THAT 'SURREALISM DENOTES AN ART STYLE' among other things." Daniel, my friend?

Professor Bronner

Now read the following carefully, "Yet outside the movement, women's contributions to surrealism have been largely ignored or simply unknown. This anthology, the first of its kind in any language, displays the range and significance of women's contributions to surrealism. Letting surrealist women speak for themselves, Penelope Rosemont has assembled nearly three hundred texts by ninety-six women from twenty-eight countries. She opens the book with a succinct summary of surrealism's basic aims and principles, followed by a discussion of the place of gender in the movement's origins. She then organizes the book into historical periods ranging from the 1920s to the present, with introductions that describe trends in the movement during each period. Rosemont also prefaces each surrealist's work with a brief biographical statement." Let's be honest here, after all, this is for the benefit of everyone here, this is one professor's favorable reviews and it is nice, but lacking in any real scrutiny.

But if any professor favourably reviewed any work supporting in any way or to any degree what you see as "one view" of surrealism by those who are attempting to "monopolize surrealism," would you ever say that it didn't "lack any real scrutiny"? You want to set up a game in which you will always win. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:21, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

FACT: In the interview with Danny Postel, Penelope Rosemont states that she met Andre Breton when her and her husband visited Paris in 1965 upon the encouragement of the Paris Surrealist Group and Andre Breton. It is very obvious that Andre Breton had such an overwhelming influence on the young radical surrealist husband and wife duo from Chicago, that they dropped everything and went to visit Paris (Please read the interview). Now ask yourself this, it is a fact that Penelope Rosemont ADMITS that ANDRE BRETON met them and from what she has to say about him and his influence on her and her husband, that Breton was a role model for both the Rosemonts. SO, WHY NO PICTURES OF THE ROSEMONT'S WITH BRETON??? How hard is that to find? FACT: Mary Ann Caws is a recognized historian on surrealism and so what they she had the wrong dates, does that typo mean that she does not comprehend or grasp the bullshit that comes from Chicago? You wonder why Brandon calls her a ****. Anyway, this argument is sad and you know it. FACT: Yes, the 1960's were an active decade in surrealism and when I added THE WEST COAST SURREALIST GROUP and their history on Wikipedia, it was deleted then re-added!!! FACT: Where is the Picture of Brandon Freels like 63. was asking about? FACT: Yes, Leif pulled a major dud and refuses to accept that fact. FACT: Daniel goes and moves the Bugs Bunny Looney Tunes hobo nonsense down more, ONLY when he sees the obvious error in its placement.

I don't think it really matters where the info is placed; I didn't "see it as an obvious error" and in fact it may be better here but I really don't see it as a major issue at any rate. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:21, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

FACT: NO ANSWERS on any PICTURES! This goes to show you all, what is going on here. Oh, the University of Texas is one University, lets see more. By the way, it is an outrage for anyone to accept the credibility of those who make threats to established institutions. This is not the way to solve this infection by Boyer's friends. 1976 was a long time ago and the, "surrealismo commie shindig" was restricted to Chicago, more was being accomplished in Canada during the late 60's and Keith Wigdor's friend GREGG SIMPSON (who was in SURREALISM 2003, as well as GC ROUSH 2, who collaborated on an Exquisite Corpse with Bernard and Willem, as well as some with Keith) and his surrealist comrades are living proof of that fact!!!

The claims about the "'surrealismo commie shindig'" are simply a lie. The 1976 World Surrealist Exhibition had participation from many surrealists from many countries and was extensively covered in the press. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:30, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

CONTEMPORARY SURREALISM show in Barcelona, with GREGG SIMPSON and AMY ERNST(last name sound familiar?)and that is just the first of many surrealist shows, there was a SURREALISM UNBOUND show last year at the Ward Nasse Gallery that was a hit, so Dan and his friends obviously cannot contain nor contaminate surrealism with their toxic jive.24.168.66.27 00:18, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Another revelation from Daniel C.Boyer. Dear Daniel, please explain your statement?

"Mary Ann Caws' complete incomprehension of surrealism has been exhaustively documented by the Surrealist Movement in the United States, and the numerous glaring factual errors in some of her writing laid out in Arsenal. In my opinion she is motivated by her hatred of the movement, but in any case, the sheer quantity of her errors and the great degree of her misinterpretations and misrepresentations leads me to ask, "Who cares whether she agrees or not?" --Daniel C. Boyer 18:23, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)"

Ladies and Gentlemen, Daniel C.Boyer has graced us with this statement on Mary Ann Caws, "In my opinion she is motivated by her hatred of the movement,..." Now, Please look at this great woman's accomplishments and decide for yourself if she is the BEST candidate to arbitrate the Surrealism article and also Surrealism today. I have a feeling that T.L. and his people at the WAH can obviously try to open channels with such a highly respected peer like Mary who can also be a neutral voice on this matter. In the meantime, just look at these links and READ them, http://www.centerforbookculture.org/context/no11/Caws.html http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/author/default.asp?aid=149 http://www.maryanncaws.com/ http://www.theconnection.org/shows/2002/02/20020227_b_main.asp http://www.maryanncaws.com/articles.php http://www.nybooks.com/articles/4099 http://www.maryanncaws.com/books.php http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/15254.ctl http://www.lib.uiowa.edu/dada/assoc.html http://www.maryanncaws.com/bio.php http://www.maryanncaws.com/current.php http://www.nybooks.com/articles/10183

Then, take a look at this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Parallel_collage

What's the point? --Daniel C. Boyer 15:17, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I think that he is trying to point out something about you we already know. It is something we should recognize and take into account. Nonetheless you have a strong voice here...prehaps too strong for mainstream to accept the article. However, you have an interesting point of view, Mr. Boyer. But your opponents are scoring points by hitting their target with intellectual acccuracy. I think that the debate among "honorable" people on both sides should continue ad infinitum. It is raw material for me, at least, as more serious (and humorous) essays and articles are produced in other media. Meanwhile, Leif, continue to dot the "i" and place the comma correctly. We admire you!
A nice quote for each side to use against the other, " Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain," from the ancient Greeks. SHR

Very Cool, Indeed!!!

This is VERY COOL, INDEED!!! Noam Chomsky's piece in the same review as Mary's!!! This goes back to 1972!!!

Here take a look, http://www.nybooks.com/contents/19720518 I love Noam Chomsky's work!24.168.66.27 16:49, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Forces of Oppression

Surrealists should read this book by Noam Chomsky,"NECESSARY ILLUSIONS: THOUGHT CONTROL IN DEMOCRATIC SOCIETIES". I read it and its real good! http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/ni/

Fine, but what is the relevance of this to the article? This talk page is supposed to be about the development of the article. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:28, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Hey Dan, did you ever read the book?24.168.66.27 19:06, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

CRAVEN DESTINY REVOLUTIONARY?

"Would you sell your most favourite artwork, or keep it?"

"Well, since the Original is the Copy as regards Digital Art, I can actually sell and keep my art ! :-)"

Do you all want to know who the surrealist revolutionary radical is that graced us with these words of revolution?24.168.66.27 23:49, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

ZAZIE!!! http://www.artdept.com.au/contest03/Zazie.html

The first thing about surrealism and critic of surrealism, is not to be too much of an analphabet. The above was made by someone who does not know how to read. Just below Zazie's image is written NFS : "Not for Sale" but only people who know how to read can read it of course. :-)

Before accusing anyone, could ignorants check what is true or not true by asking first the people accused what they do and think.

Besides... How many historical surrealists sold their works ? ALL !!!!! They all did. Picasso - a tiny example - Breton, Ernst, Magritte, Duchamp even who made very officially copies and copies of his boxes Man ray who is also known to have made copies of his own photos... :-) How can people be so ignorant as the one who wrote the above ? Even currently alive surrealists sell their works. and not only this one... :-)

http://www.churnonline.com/features/keith.wigdor/image1.php

There is only one exception I am aware of and it is - strangely enough - the one who is here accused.


But... But... I think I know who this person very likely is. This person who wrote the above against zazie :-) And the major reason why he does that, is because some unpleasant events cancelled a little web exhibition on which he was a bit naïvely relying to become a famous painter :-). But there are other means and there will be other exhibitions. Why remain stuck on this precise one ? And as regards selling... Well, sell, sell my dear. No blame really :-) Greater surrealists than you did it and a lot.

Yet you are on a much better track with the beautiful web site you built about Brave Destiny. :-)

http://www.cinemavii.com/Events/BraveDestiny/SecondIntlSurFilmFest.htm

You should really be thanked for such a lonely, brave indeed and wonderful attempt. THAT is a target. And the right one. A good job really. You are welcome. Please, please go on !

Wigdor does not sell his art on Churn! The paypal goes right to them! http://www.churnonline.com/features/keith.wigdor/image1.php
Churn Art Magazine sells Keith Wigdor's Art on Churn and Keith Wigdor does not make a dime off any sales! That was the agreement that he had with the CEO(Jeff M.) of the magazine from what Wigdor told me. They gave him the exposure that he needed (plus Peter and Mike too and others) and Wigdor gave away all the rights of those digital mojo artworks to Churn to help them out.

Lady Evi, do your homework, you twist other's words around in your comfortable exile(Monique's Paris Surrealists) of containment. Just because you have NFS under that digital masterpiece of surrealism (or is it Webism, Lady Evi?)does not allow you to deceive the public with your dysentery of logic.

Come on Zazie, Bryce 5 artworks only take about 5 minutes to create and then, maybe, just maybe, around two hours for it to render in the program. Plus, what's the deal with the exile from Monique and her group? Please give us the real surreal scoop? We can put it in the surrealism article.24.168.66.27 02:51, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
What are you arguing about with Bryce 5 "only tak[ing] about 5 minutes" is completely antithetical to surrealism. The implication is that notions of craftsmanship or possibly aesthetics have some privilege here when the former is only relevant in certain limited circumstances and the second is wholly irrelevant. This focus on the time of execution suggests anyting but surrealism, as (for example) there are surrealist digital works, drawings and so forth, I've made that've taken a lot less than five minutes. Take, for instance, "movement of liquid down a vertical surface". Clearly this is a surrealist method, and it hardly takes five minutes to make one, more like a few seconds. --Daniel C. Boyer 12:48, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Dear Daniel C.Boyer, do you really think that it was a good idea to make this public revelation about how you(or Evi) create your surrealist artworks? So Dan, you admit that it only takes a couple of seconds to do some of your artworks!? Dan, maybe its not such a good idea to be so forward with information!
Dan, really, some surrealist methods do take a couple of minutes, but with some consideration for capturing any kind of wonderment and awe, don't you think it may be worth your effort to at least spend, maybe, a half-hour, the most!? Though I can see automatics taking a couple of minutes, but a few seconds! Dan, you are too forward with this information! Didn't you sell some of your surrealist methods? Dan, I really can't see charging around, say, $400 dollars for an automatic! Do you ever give away your surrealist methods? For free?24.168.66.27 15:25, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
What possible relevance does any of this have to the surrealism article (in which I am presently not mentioned, so there can hardly be any controversy discussed in it -- and if either were, my opinion is that we would be getting into an area of extreme granularity -- about how my, loosely speaking, "visual work" is created) other than that it exposes that 24.168.66.27's knowledge of the movement and basic things about it is practically zero (again, read the above and see if the sort of calculation he implicitly advocates has anything to do with automatism, the type of "consideration" he is talking about being antithetical to it)? (Have you ever read "Dialectique de Dialectique"? What is your assessment of entopic graphomania, movement of liquid down a vertical surface, the automatism of breath and so forth?) Then, further nonsense, "Didn't you sell some of your surrealist methods?" Well, they're hardly my methods and clearly, they're open for anyone to pursue who reads some books, or finds out about them online, &c. Once again, though thanking him for his concern, I would like to suggest that 24.168.66.27 focus on the article, and as I am nowhere mentioned in it, controversy about how I create the visible is out of place. Maybe in an article about me, but that no longer exists. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:22, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Formatting

Those interested in actually improving and adding information to articles should take time to familiarize themselfs with Wikipedia formatting and conventions; see for example Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers and Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Please do not make edits that put things out of chonological order or add redundant linkings. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 21:02, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Infrogmation

I have been on here a long time and I have been editing this article for the benefit of those interested in Surrealism. Please do not change my information without providing any explanation on why you changed it. That does not show good faith at all.24.168.66.27 21:10, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)


I fixed it in good faith. Cheers to you as well.24.168.66.27 21:16, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Since you ask, reasons include adding things out of chronological order, wikilinking the same name twice in as many sentences, POV problems, dubious attributions of motives. -- Infrogmation 02:42, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)


"marks the beginning of surrealism as public agitation for the 21st century and emphasizes the destruction of logic as one of surrealism's main objectives." According to who? This reads like a specific assesment of the work. If so, attribute it. -- Infrogmation 02:55, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Friendly suggestions

Anon editor, again I urge you to choose a user name and log in if you plan on sticking around Wikipedia. Perhaps you can help the Wikipedia's coverage of Surrealism by making a start on some of the articles linked (eg, you seem to consider Surrealism in 2004 to be important) or expand some of the linked articles that are still sad little stubs. Thoughts from Infrogmation 02:48, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)


I am working with you and providing total and sincere good faith and I thank you kindly, Infrogmation, for your last edit, which I do agree on!!! You see, I can be diplomatic and very understanding. I do agree with your last edit and revision here, "The surrealist Keith Wigdor's "Surrealism 2003" has received some international support, but has also received criticism. Wigdor's manifesto Surrealism in 2004 is claimed to mark the beginning of surrealism as public agitation for the 21st century and emphasizes the destruction of logic as one of surrealism's main objectives." Infrogmation, thank you for your input and help and I do look forward to any future contributions by you for the Surrealism article here on Wikipedia. Also, Congratulations on the fundraiser!!!24.168.66.27 03:09, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Dear Daniel,

Daniel, can you please be as so kind to show us or lead us to any photographs of Andre Breton with Franklin and Penelope Rosemont from the café Promenade de Vénus in Paris from 1965? Daniel, this would be of major historic value for everyone here and anyone who is researching surrealism and its history! Daniel, any photos of the Rosemonts with Breton is major, so can we please see them? I have been asking for months and I cannot find any pictures of the Rosemonts with Breton online. According to the Chicago Group's website, "Two founders of the Chicago group, Franklin and Penelope Rosemont, had gone to Paris in 1965 to meet André Breton, and took part for several months in the daily reunions of the Paris group at the café Promenade de Vénus".24.168.66.27 00:06, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Prisoner

You have to inlude TV in the article: Patrick McGoohan's cult TV series "The Prisoner", since it is about supression, revolt against the tyranny of order and reflects dream states where reality shifts freely. Remember The Village, Portmeirion, Rover, Patrick McGoohan, Ron Grainer, George Markstein, Angelo Muscat, Leo McKern, The Prisoner Theme, The Green Dome, Lotus Seven, Number One, Number Two, Arrival, The Chimes Of Big Ben, Free For All, The Schizoid Man, Checkmate, Dance Of The Dead, It's Your Funeral, A Change Of Mind, A, B & C, The General, Hammer Into Anvil, Many Happy Returns, Do Not Forsake Me, Living In Harmony, The Girl Who Was Death, Once Upon A Time, Fallout, John Drake, Danger Man and Secret Agent.

You might want to mention Rod Serling's Twilight Zone.

Thanks, SRH


SRH, there used to be an old website called NowSurreal UK(now it is called The Hammond Gallery), (that was run by the Society for the Art of Imagination's webmaster) which had a surrealist forum. The surrealist artist Ray Bartrip used to talk about the TV show, THE PRISONER, with the surrealist Keith Wigdor on there. They both discussed the overwhelming surrealist elements in the TV show, THE PRISONER! I agree with you, not only was THE PRISONER a great TV show, but I would have to say that it was Surrealism!!! Real Intense!63.169.104.2 21:03, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I could see including The Prisoner in a section of the article that also mentioned other shows, but to have it be the only TV show in the Surrealism article (as it is currently) gives it too much credit, I think. If we are going to mention television in the article (and I'd really rather not), some other shows I think should be mentioned are Farscape, Teletubbies, Aqua Teen Hunger Force, and Space Ghost: Coast to Coast (among many others). ~leif ☺ HELO 20:07, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
But none of these have attracted any surrealist interest to my knowledge. --Daniel C. Boyer 12:45, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

May I suggest then that you change the title here to "Popular Culture." Then include comics, advertising, fashion. The Japanese are considered players in "surrealist" anime and manga, Hayao Miyazaki who in the 1980s began a project which would take 13 years, "Nausicaa and the Valley of the Wind." With its themes of a struggling heroine, poignant depictions of a war torn world and themes of ecology. He won over many fans. Again, themes of nature vs. man appeared in his 1997 film "Mononoke Hime" or "Princess Mononoke" which was released in the West. And finally there was Rumiko Takahashi who got herfirst fame with a story about a slightly perverted teenage boy and an alien girl who loves him.

                  SHR

Wigdor was being harrassed on that Indymedia link you posted!

Wigdor was being harrassed on that Indymedia link you posted. In order to prevent further harrassment and defamation, I removed the link to that UK Indymedia site that you placed on here. Why didn't you just mention Indymedia, instead of going directly to a page that Keith Wigdor is being harrassed on? That is real sleazy, please do not ever do that again. By doing that, you are misleading people, the, "mixed replies" that you allege are by anonymous people who are using alias's and they are harrassing both Keith Wigdor and T.L. on that one particular Indymedia site by placing photoshop manipulated pictures of Keith to abuse and harrass him. You can obviously see that, and I will not allow the information or link to stay on the article page. I made a proper edit.63.169.104.2 23:14, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wigdor's Surrealism in 2004 statement is posted on numerous websites, and if it is worthy of mention in this article, the text itself should obviously be linked to. I picked the UK IMC link from the various sources available, because it was the first one I found where an indymedia community posted replies.
I am going to restore the indymedia uk link, and comment out the entire wigdor block pending further discussion here. You are welcome to link to a different source for Surrealism in 2004 if you have one that is more appropriate. ~leif ☺ HELO 23:54, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The user Leif is now asking for a, "more appropriate" indymedia link, since it is very clear the the UK IMC link that he first posted was very inappropriate as evident by the harrassment and abuse against Keith on that one UK page. It is a fact that, "Surrealism in 2004" is posted on many Indymedia newswires and Leif has admitted in his own words that, "I picked the UK IMC link from the various sources available, because it was the first one I found where an indymedia community posted replies", yet you can all see that the, "indymedia community" that Leif is referring to in this case is a group of anonymous alias names(like Daddy Snoops,Uncle Snapps,Grandpappy Hemlock,Dr. Straczynsky,Carry Wigdor,Father Beranski)made up to slander and harrass Keith on that UK link. Leif, you see that the post replies on that UK link are made up of photoshop manipulated (and stolen copyright protected) pictures of Keith and T.L. intentionally altered to slander and harrass Keith(and T.L.) yet, you still posted the link here on Wikipedia!!! That is not the kind of research that the public needs to be exposed to and Keith does not deserve the abuse that was on that one site!!! I think that you should apologize to Keith and everyone here, before you screw up another edit to this article. What you did was wrong and you can see what was on that page!!! You do research, correct?24.168.66.27 03:10, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It appears Wigdor is now also "being harassed" at the other indymedia links you put in the article. Seeing as how indymedia sites are open forums, I think that all the various sites where Keith posted his manifesto are "at risk" of also hosting replies to him. How do you want to deal with this? Will you keep on changing to link to forums at which nobody has replied yet?
I think we should probably just drop mention of Surrealism in 2004 from the article all together. Since this is already a controversy that has been reverted upon repeatedly, I hereby propose a poll to decide the issue. ~leif 01:14, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia Information very important to this article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiable#Degrees_of_verifiability "At the other end of the scale are facts that can only be verified by subject matter experts.

In general, consider the kinds of people who are likely to edit the article in question: the article should be verifiable by these people. Therefore, an article on a sociology topic might include content that can only be verified by a sociologist - perhaps referencing some standard sociology text."

Now, Leif, are you providing fairness and good faith in your most recent attempt at establishing expert and credible information in regards to the Surrealism article? All you are doing is trying to remove Keith from the article without any consideration for content of the surrealism article and those who are researching surrealism and contemporary surrealism today.24.168.66.27 22:02, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wigdor Poll

Because this poll was replied to here on the archive page, I moved it back to Talk:Surrealism#Wigdor Poll for further discussion. ~leif 20:26, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Daniel C.Boyer's surrealist friend and comrade, and what he did to Keith

You will see a picture of Keith Wigdor(taken from the Churn website) altered and manipulated in photoshop and placed on top of a gorilla to mock and humiliate him! This is the kind of abuse that Keith has been suffering at the hands of Boyer's friends. http://surrealcoconut.com/doorwig1.html 24.168.66.27 03:28, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It eludes me what possible influence this satire would have on the development of the article. I don't even think this detail would be relevant in an article on Keith Wigdor, it wouldn't be relevant in an article on Eric Bragg, and it certainly isn't relevant to the surrealism article. What'w your point? --Daniel C. Boyer 12:44, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Hey boyer, why is that on a surrealist website and one of your friends? After all this is a surrealism article and surrealism is being discussed on this page. Your friends have a history of harrassing innocent people from what I have seen from the above link and the Craven Destiny threat.63.169.104.2 22:06, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This page is not for the general discussion of surrealism, it is for the development of the surrealism article. I think it is highly unlikely that something like the following is going to be incorporated into the article: "On his web page, Eric Bragg satirises Keith Wigdor by using Photoshop to place his head on a gorilla's body and calling him a "dorwig."" Really, this detail has no place in a general article on surrealism. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:43, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Hey Dan, what are you talking about? We are talking about surrealism and the surrealism article? This friend of yours is harrassing Keith for no reason. By the way, are there any pictures of Brandon Freels online, there is an article on him, but no pictures! Is he a real person?63.169.104.2 20:44, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
No, this talk page is not intended to be a general discussion of surrealism; we are not "talking about surrealism and the surrealism article," only the surrealism article. Once again, unless you are interested in having this extremely, extremely minor episode in the history of surrealism, the satirising of Keith Wigdor by Eric Bragg, included in the article and we are discussing how to characterise it, this discussion has no place on this page. I doubt it is even significant enough to include in an article on Keith Wigdor or Eric Bragg. --Daniel C. Boyer

Daniel C Boyer, how do you justify your contributions to the surrealism article as valid? Are your contributions automatic? Does your contributions to the surrealism article provide the facts that the investigative researcher is looking for in a coherent manner?24.168.66.27 20:13, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Could you please move this discussion somewhere else? This page is for discussing the article. "user 24.168.66.27" (get a username), The way to find out wether any of our contributions to the Wikipedia articles are "valid" is by doing research. This is a community and no one has "control" over one, single article. It's all community work. Contribute with your knowledge, be bold, NPOV and expect to justify your input. In my eyes, on an article generally about Surrealism, this whole Keith Wigdor ordeal isn't even minor, but far from interesting when discussing Surrealism; hence it has no place here. Feel free to make a page about Wigdor. - Sigg3.net 10:22, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Sigg3, really that is your point of view. Keith is a surrealist and even though you find him to be far from interesting when discussing surrealism, it appears that the public recognized him to be a surrealist, considering the activity that he has been involved in with Surrealism 2003 and NowSurreal UK and The Hammond Gallery and his recognition as a surrealist by other surrealists and other artists as well. You need to do your research more extensively which you do not from what you wrote above. Also, it is not mandatory to have a user name and to log in, until that becomes a rule, then I will. The signature with four octets will suffice in good faith.24.168.66.27 20:10, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
(I moved parts of the offtopic discussion that followed here to User_talk:24.168.66.27#Identity ~leif)
The world has many surrealists, but in an article dealing with Surrealism itself, its historical origins and providing a general outline of the matter, I'm sceptic about adding too much detail. Not even author of "Philosophy of Surrealism" (Ferdinand Alquié) can be closely related to this article. And that's not because he, as Wigdor, ISN'T important, THEY obviously ARE. But this is a 'pedia. We can't list the names of _everyone_ related to a field, because that would disrupt the whole "encyclopedia genre". Say a regular student wants some basic info on Surrealism, then he should be able to log on to wikipedia and read the article without having to put himself into every detail of the aspect. I still believe a seperate article about Wigdor would be more efficient, so readers who found a particular interest in him could read more there. I do not have to do research on Wigdor to say that he isn't an essential part of an article dealing with the "tip of the iceberg" of surrealism. I've been researching Surrealism four five years and I haven't even heard about Wigdor before he was mentioned here. Before the Rurssian invasion of Poland, they had a great surrealist there: Stanisław Ignacy Witkiewicz 'Witkacy'. Even though I think he's excellent (POV) I don't add him to the article. It doesn't help acchieving the goal. - Sigg3.net 09:09, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
(more offtopic discussion about user's identity moved to User talk:24.168.66.27#Identity)

Still no response or apology from Leif

Leif, can you please read this entire page before you attack others here on Wikipedia, Thank You. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks 24.168.66.27 22:53, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Anon, no one is violating your rights. If you have a personal conflict with Leif, please take it to Leif's talk page. Let's keep this discussion about the article. Gamaliel 23:14, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Gamaliel, thank you, I have no conflict with the good gentlemen Leif. I thank you for your sincere and kind input. I would kindly ask of the good gentlemen Leif, to please be more respectful of those who post here on Wikipedia's surrealism article and also Keith Wigdor. He did admit in his own words to having bias against the surrealist Keith Wigdor. Thank You Gamaliel for your input and concern.24.168.66.27 23:21, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My posts from #27 to #30 specifically relate to the Surrealism article, please do not remove them

Leif, you are not allowing me to address the issue of the Surrealism article. This is what the discussion page is for. You insisted on the discussion of Keith Wigdor in the surrealism article and now you are trying to avoid the topic that you started.24.168.66.27 04:35, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The posts of yours I am deleting from this page consist mostly of you recounting what I have said earlier on this same page, with you inserting your own comments like "and then you follow up with" and "Please read Leif's exact words". While I appreciate that you want readers of Talk:Surrealism to read my exact words, I would much prefer if people read my words as I've written them, without having them presented in a dialog format narrated by you. Please stop randomly quoting me in this manner.
Furthermore, after I moved some text to your talk page, you copied it back here and removed all the formatting in the process. This makes the already lengthy discussion here much harder to read. I am again removing posts of yours and mine that are offtopic here, which have been moved to your talk page. Please don't move them back again. And in the future if you do move text, please copy the source, so you get the formatting too, instead of copying from the rendered page. ~leif 11:07, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)