Talk:Surrealism/Archive 11

"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)

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)

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)

I'd like to propose adding Tennessee Williams' Camino Real to the list of surrealist plays. Though I understand to list all the surrealist plays would be ridiculous, I think that as one of the most influential American playwrights of the 20th century, this often-overlooked work of his fits the categorization pretty well (surprises, non-sequiters, the examination of the unconscious mind, etc). What do people think? ---ellieilluminate (talk) 04:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

- Hello... I am the author (many years ago) of the first paragraph here ... about the English coinage/translation of "surréel". I just tried looking (online) for the source of this quotation about naturel/surnaturel being the same as réel/surréel, but I could find little available in PDF or other form by Breton. I **think possibly** it might be the Second Manifeste du Surréalisme. I don't even have this in book form, and not having as a file either makes it impossible to do a search for this phrase.

I don't think I was proposing a new definition, really, although I do contend that the word should have been translated into English originally as "superreal" and "superrealism".

The main point I was trying to get across, and this doesn't really need textual evidence, although if that particular quote can be located it would corroborate that, is that to French speakers' ears the term "surréel" produces pretty much exactly the semantic and literary resonances that "superreal" produces for an English speaker: the prefixing of "sur-" in French corresponds to the prefixing of "super-" in English. Whereas there is something much more mysterious and obscure conjured up by the term "surreal" for English ears. There is a clarity to the French adjective and noun to which English speakers are completely oblivious.

Indeed I contend that the word "surreal" suggests something "under" or "beneath" the real, rather than "on" it as with the French. This is because the Latin prefix "sub" often becomes "surr..." in English (but not in French): e.g. "subreptice", "surreptitious".

I remember at the time posting this and it gradually got whittled down and other extraneous bits got added (like the second paragraph here). I don't think people generally seemed to agree with my view of how important this matter is! There is a VAST gulf of understanding between the French-speaking and English-speaking worlds as a consequence: whereas the French terms are immediately identifiable as being in a philosophical, intellectual category, the English terms "surreal" and "surrealism" are impenetrable and obscure. It is noteworthy, for example, that the humorous use of the adjective in ordinary life simply has no parallel in French: "wow, that was such a weird situation, man, positively surreal!".

Anyway, enough banging on about this. If I can one day find the quote with chapter and verse I shall return! (as someone once said). [Chris, 2019-08-22]

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)

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)

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)

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)

paragraph-- "off the mark"-- comments?
"As they developed their philosophy they felt that while Dada rejected categories and labels, Surrealism would advocate the idea that ordinary and depictive expressions are vital and important, but that the sense of their arrangement must be open to the full range of imagination according to the Hegelian Dialectic. They also looked to the Marxist dialectic and the work of such theorists as Walter Benjamin and Herbert Marcuse."

Too philosophical and academic-- misleading.

These influences--certainly Hegel (Frankfurt School?) are real but they are deep background and should not be in the forefront of an article on Surrealism.

Radical poesia needs to be infused into this description of Surrealism-- anything less is once again misleading.

john writer 22:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

J.W. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnwriter (talk • contribs) 12:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed your crossouts per WP:MoS. I think the first paragraph is fine, before eliminating or crossing out any text, wait for consensus, and sign your remarks with four of these tilde's ~ in a row, thanks....Modernist (talk) 12:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Question: Surrealism lead paragraph problem
article's first paragraph--" however many Surrealist artists and writers regard their work as an expression of the philosophical movement first and foremost, with the works being an artifact."

Can someone give me a background for this description of Surrealist intent?

In my opinion this puts a Surrealist artist like Max Ernst or Robert Desnos in a passive creativity reacting to a philosophical outline imposed from the outside. The core artists of the Surrealist movement, while capable, like Breton of deep philosophical thinking were acting out of their... dream state...open and free...

john writer 22:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

clarifications requested
"But — as in Breton's case itself — much of what is presented as purely automatic is actually edited and very "thought out".

Can someone cite a source for this statement-- that seems to be saying that Breton misrepresented his own writing? Is the "thought out" a direct quote from a source?

"Breton himself later admitted that automatic writing's centrality had been overstated, and other elements were introduced, especially as the growing involvement of visual artists in the movement forced the issue, since automatic painting required a rather more strenuous set of approaches."

Once again the implication here is that Breton misrepresented "automatic writing" and that he finally admitted--confessed--that there was more to the story. Can someone cite the source material here--interview,essay, manifesto-- where this confession takes place.

john writer 01:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

some general concerns about this article
The word "poetry" I believe and I may be mistaken occurs only once in this article.

Andre Breton, who is the very soul and spirit of the Surrealist movement-- understood himself as alive with poetry and understood Surrealism as possessing-- certainly more then a philosophical context-- a poetic context. This context, or as I prefer to understand it-- this momentum is clearly embodied, among many others, by Rimbaud, Baudelaire, Mallarme' and Apollinaire. Even the literal embodiments of Surrealism like Vache or Craven-- are a poetic physiology of what Breton called the "marvelous." Philosophically, if one wants to go there, Surrealism has more meaningful roots in Nietzche and the "Gay Science" then Hegel's dialectic.

The non-French speaking world commonly over-visualizes Surrealism because it does not have meaningful access to it's poetic body, furthermore, it reacts to this barrier by philosophizing the movement often in comforting rational terms-- like "Hegelian dialectic."

This article needs more attention given to the poetic background of it's early core group and the influence of their writings on the subsequent history of modern poetry.

Second, the philosophical background of Surrealism needs its own section to play out more subtly the different strains from Nietzche, to Hegel-- to Marx-- the Frankfurt School not to mention impact on post WWII French thought-- Post-Struct-Post-Modernism.

john writer 03:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I am amazed that the Surrealist infobox at the top of the page lists Surrealist music, films and humour but that there is no separate article for Surrealist literature. My solution to this would be to separate out visual arts from literature and have one overall general article on Surrealism linking to the different arts. fluoronaut (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Limbour and Surrealist Periodicals
Hi.

I noticed that, for whatever reason, there was no longer an article on Georges Limbour, so I started one. The page still needs some work, so anyone who would like to assist is more than welcome.

Also, I added on the Surrealism page Le Surrealisme au service de la revolution to the list of Surrealist Periodicals. (I also rearranged the list in chronological order.) Le Surrealisme au service de la revolution was the follow-up to Le Revolution surrealiste, published in Paris by Breton & CO. from 1930 to 1933. This periodical, which had a more political slant than Le Revolution surrealiste is mentioned in the great majority of studies written about the Surrealists, and copies of the various issues were published (and are still available) by Jean Michel Place in France. Le Surrealisme au service de la revolution (1930-33) is the bridge that came in between Le Revolution surrealiste (1924-1929) and Minotaure (1933-39).

To my knowledge, there is not currently a Wikipedia article on Le Surrealisme au service de la revolution. In the future, if I have time, I'll create one. If there's anyone else out there who is interested in doing it, feel free!

Last, I was also considering adding Literature to the list of Surrealist Periodicals, but wanted to run it by the contributors to the Surrealism page first. It was the first periodical created by Breton, Soupault & Aragon, published in Paris from 1919-24. During its later years, I would certainly consider it to be a surrealist periodical. However, when it first started, it only featured hints of what was to come, and also went through a Dada phase. So it wasn't FULLY a surrealist periodical, but it was certainly the precursor that led up to the Surrealist Manifesto and the publication of Le Revolution surrealiste, and featured contributions by many of the future surrealists.

Let me know what you think. Thanks.

Stanislaw brecht (talk) 17:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Nihilists
With good imaginations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.9.164 (talk) 09:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Chronic Vandalism
This article is in need of administrative attention to help resolve chronic vandalisation. Chimerinn (talk) 18:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Avant-garde art vs. Category:Surrealism
Category:Surrealism is itself a category within Category:Avant-garde art. — Robert Greer (talk) 17:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

What was the justification for the removal of the timeline of membership?
What was the justification for the removal of the timeline of membership? I neglect to check the page for a comple of months and suddenly the timeline of membership is gone with no justification given. It's not perfect of course but the burden is to make it better, not simply erase it with out a given reason. Please somebody let me know why it was erased, and I'll give my reasons for keeping it and improving it instead of simply (and lazily) getting rid of it. If the justification for removal is valid, I'll accept it, but I need at least a justification.F. Simon Grant (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion about adding external link
I wanted to discuss the possible addition of the following external link:



This site has more info about the history of Surrealism than any other I've come across. It includes:

and so on.
 * An Overview of the Surrealist Movement;
 * A Detailed Chronology of the History of Surrealism;
 * Bios for most of the writers mentioned in the Wikipedia Surrealism article;
 * A detailed Book List relating to the classic surrealist writers;
 * POETRY by Desnos, Artaud, Peret, Breton, Eluard, among others;
 * Breton's First Manifesto in its entirety;
 * Prose works by Breton Artaud, Dali, Aragon, Bunuel, among others;
 * A List of Surrealist Artists;
 * Photos of the Surrealists in Paris during the 1920s and 1930s;
 * Surrealist Art by Dali, Magritte, Miro, Ernst, Tanguy, De Chirico, Ray, etc.;
 * Surrealist Photography & Architecture;
 * Surrealist Films (including works by Bunuel & Dali, Man Ray, etc.);
 * A page devoted to Bunuel;
 * A page devoted to the Belgian Surrealists;

There is an ad for a collection of contemporary surrealist plays on the site. I'm not sure if the presence of an ad disqualifies it from being listed here. But considering the wealth of info included on the site, I thought I'd mention it on the talk page for discussion and consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.74.185 (talk) 17:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Range block
The entire 204.100.181.* range of IPs has been blocked for one day because of repeated vandalism to this article. J I P | Talk 17:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

What is surrealism?
The entire article contains very little explanation about what surrealism actually is. Only in the lead paragraph does it briefly mention that surrealism concerns the element of surprise and the unlikely juxtaposition of images. The bulk of the article consists of the history of surrealism and famous surrealism artworks. J I P | Talk 18:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be useful to quote the Surrealist Manifesto's encyclopedia definition of the word? "Surrealism is based on the belief in the superior reality of certain forms of previously neglected associations, in the omnipotence of dream, in the disinterested play of thought." Gives a basic idea of what the movement is after in art and literature as well as philosophy and politics, since the Surrealists of the past and those that identify as such now were/are adament about it not being limited to any specific area.--Vlad the Impaler (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

In the discussion on Salvadore Dali, it says, "While Dalí may have been excommunicated by Breton, he neither abandoned his themes from the 1930s, including references to the "persistence of time" in a later painting, nor did he become a depictive pompier." What is "a depictive pompier?"Nikkirainbolt (talk) 14:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Dali
I am in the middle of writing a paper on Dali and I find it disturbing that his politics are mentioned in the article as supportive of Fascism. While he was supportive of Francisco Franco (who was not a Fascist) his specific position was to remain apolitical. In fact, it is probably much more interesting to note that one of the leading surrealists specifically chose to stay out of politics, if you need some proof, go to the Dali page. sorry not to suggest edits or even really cite sources, but like I said I am in the middle of a paper. Bottom line: Dali not a fascist, he was apolitical, AND he was "kicked out" of surrealism in 1934 but people still try to tie his death to the death of surrealism.84.77.2.94 (talk) 19:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Surrealism and Counterculture?
I removed the following long quote from the article and bring it here for discussion:

Surrealism remained a powerful element in bohemian art and culture long after it had lost its novelty. It always remained an attractive option for leftist artists and writers who were not comfortable with the Stalinist cultural model. Among them is the Martinique poet and playwright Aimé Césaire who served on the editorial board of VVV, a surrealist journal based in the USA. Breton was an avid admirer of Césaire, whose 1955 "Discourse on Colonialism" was republished recently by Monthly Review. Along with CLR James, Césaire served as a revolutionary alternative to Stalinism for an entire generation of Caribbean intellectuals.

Another editorial board member at VVV was Philip Lamantia, who was to become best known as a leading figure of the new poetry of the 1940s and 50s that included the beats and the San Francisco Renaissance writers. It would not be much of a stretch to argue that Lamantia represents a link in the chain between the counter-culture of the 1930s and that of the 1960s. Surrealist poetry and culture were definitely read by young people in the 1950s and 60s, who were searching for an alternative to the Rationalism of their time, which amounted to Cadillac tailfins, the H-Bomb, conformity and Madison Avenue for all practical purposes.

This was placed in the article by an anonymous user, under the heading "Surrealism and Counterculture," which seems inaccurate to me considering the content. The quote is certainly relevant, but should be split up and used in different sections. We already have some content relating to Aimé Césaire, in the "Surrealism and international politics" section, and VVV is discussed in the "World War II and the Post War period" section, though more information would certainly be welcome. I would like more information about this source, though, before adding it to the article. Anyone have any thoughts on this? ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 02:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The author (who is already cited at least 13 times in WP) lists as his Sources:
 * Robert Hughes, "Shock of the New"
 * Franklin Rosemont, "What is Surrealism"
 * Jennifer Mundy, "Surrealism: Desire Unbound"
 * Leon Trotsky, "Culture and Socialism" (in Deutscher's collection "Age of Permanent Revolution")
 * The rewrite gets around the long quote problem. -12.7.202.2 (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The rewrite does not get around the long quote problem, and the issues I mentioned above are not addressed at all. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 01:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The author, Proyect, wasn't talking about "Surrealism and international politics." "Surrealism and Counterculture" is what he focused on, above, as counter to the dominant cultures, not politics, of the USA and USSR. He has citations at Proletarian Orientation Tendency, Nicaraguan Revolution, Gedaliah ibn Yahya ben Joseph, Communist Organisation in the British Isles, Midaq Alley (novel), Gabriel Kolko, Ellen Willis, New York Film Critics Online, John L. Hess, African Blood Brotherhood, Elections in Cuba, History of Soviet and Russian espionage in the United States, and Escambray Rebellion. If the long quote thing isn't fixed, rewriting it is better than killing all that info. -74.242.254.187 (talk) 05:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I made suggestions above as to where different parts of that quote could be places, i.e., where the information would be relevant, and mentioned that Aimé Césaire is discussed in the section on "international politics." Another citation indicating her influence would be helpful, and that's one place it could be placed.  Regardless of what that author concentrated on, we can use the material in a number of different places.  But, a section on "Surrealism and Counterculture" would need to have a lot more information and more references.  I have never suggested "killing the information." ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  14:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Subcategories under "Impact"
Upon request, I'm going to work on sourcing a lot of the literature stuff under "impact" which I should've done when I first put it on there -- that's going to take me a while, so please help, anyone willing to help -- but I wanted to first mention that the titles for the new subcategories just don't work. "Postmodern and Beat fiction" doesn't work because the section is about postmodern fiction, sure, but also the plays (not fiction) of Beckett and Ionesco, etc., and most of the Beat lit in that section is poetry, not fiction. Calling it "Postmodern Literature" instead may cause some disagreements, but it works a lot better as an umbrella label: saying Ionesco and Ginsberg write fiction is obviously and inarguably wrong; saying they are postmodernists may be arguable, but it's not a settled argument. Then there's "Pop" under which is listed information about Bob Dylan, The Beatles, and Magic Realism. Calling Bob Dylan "Pop" is arguable but understandable, but Magic Realism just doesn't fit there ... quite obviously. How about we shift Magic Realism to the postmodernism section and call the section "popular music" or something like that. These are problems so obvious I'd have changed it already, but editors on this page tend to be revert/delete happy, so I figured it was better to discuss it first.F. Simon Grant (talk) 12:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Appreciate your efforts - please make the best changes that you can, I am not fond of the recent subdivides either, thanks...Modernist (talk) 14:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's official: one third of all the citations on this page now belong to the section still labeled as lacking citations. I love Wikipedia.F. Simon Grant (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, miscalculated, now over half of the citations on the page are from the section with the needs citation tag. My goal at one point was to get 200 citations on the Theatre of the Absurd page before anybody took off that tag. I think this shining example of Wikipedianess is even more entertaining.F. Simon Grant (talk) 14:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Postmodernism and Theatre
For the delete-happy posters on this page, I want to make clear something I'm (slowly) working on so that it doesn't automatically get reverted: I'm working on citing parts of the "Impact" section that I wrote, specifically the section now called "Postmodernism and Popular Culture" (though I'm sure there's a better title for it) and I noticed -- somehow for the first time -- that there's a section below that about theatre that's mostly about Artaud but briefly about Theatre of the Absurd (though it seems to say more about movie comedy than ToA). I had inserted ToA stuff into the Postmodernism section a long time ago. Whether or not I did mine first or I was just an idiot and didn't read the whole page, I'm going to try to correct this by merging the ToA paragraph under "Pomo & P.C." with the theatre section (though I haven't decided where to put Beckett in that case, any suggestions are welcome). That means the "Pomo & P.C." section will just have the beats, Pynchon, Bob Dylan, and some vague thing about Magic Realism (the vagueness is my fault, sorry, working very slowly to fix these things). I'm going to work on adding stuff about Burroughs, Barthelme, Rushdie -- maybe something about Oulipo, Eco, and Calvino, etc. It'll take a while. I welcome help, but consider it a work in progress. If you have any objections to my plan, please let me know.F. Simon Grant (talk) 13:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As I stated above I appreciate your efforts, thanks for adding the references so far...Modernist (talk) 13:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the encouragement. Two more points: I'm looking over the page for a substantial reference to Oulipo.  They definitely deserve a sentence or two.  I was going to reference them to tie in Eco and Calvino (and maybe furthur tie in Ionesco) but I can't find where they're referenced at all.  Secondly, I question the Virginia Woolf reference in the theatre section.  If it's just surreal with a little "s" then we'd have to open it up to hundreds of plays, wouldn't we?  Woolf, as far as I know, was like other so-called "high" modernists in that she didn't have much interest in big "S" Surrealism.  That's a candidate for deletion, but there are many other plays and theatre movements with a more valid place within the lineage of Surrealism.F. Simon Grant (talk) 14:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that ToA probably doesn't belong in the Pomo section, since arguments can be made for it's belonging to mod or pomo, Beckett being the most obvious, as you say. I fleshed out the surrealist theatre section a little and removed the Woolf info--yes, you're right, it doesn't belong. I then split the theatre section into Surrealist theatre proper, which I've moved up into the main body of the article, and the Influence of Surrealist theatre, for the ToA material. DionysosProteus (talk) 15:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a great change. I wish I would've noticed earlier that the info didn't really belong under impact, but you can only focus on so much at a time I guess.  I also didn't notice before that Gertrude Stein was in that section.  She had some very anti-Surrealist opinions, and critics calling her play "American Surrealism" doesn't seem, in my opinion, to qualify her as a Surrealist.  More rightly, as the original author noted, Stein aligned her self with the Cubists.  There are millions of plays that have been called "surreal" or "surrealist" -- it's impractical to include all of them.  I question if Stein belongs there, but it might be worthwhile to include her as a negative critic.  I know specifically in The Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas she had some bad things to say about the Surrealists.  I'll look that up and post it here for consideration.  The so called "high" modernists were generally down on the Surrealists.  Could we have a section under criticism about the "Other Modernists"?F. Simon Grant (talk) 14:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that cubism is a more meaningful categorisation for her; I added her here because her opera is listed and discussed under the category "American Dada and Surrealism" in the anthology cited. That is, both the editors of that volume and Bay-Cheng, whose essay on her is included, use the term (capitalised, and explicitly linked to the movement). I think that we are meant to understand a more substantial relationship than merely "surrealistic"; I assume something along the lines of: as American Expressionism is to German Expressionism, so... That is, a re-working in a distinct milieu that takes on new forms/functions. They point to her interest in William James' psychology and experiments in automatic writing. I agree that it would be interesting to add the material you describe; though whether in a footnote to the theatre section, in the criticism, or both, I'm unsure. There's lots more to go into the theatre section, of course. Guillaume Apollinaire and Parade most obviously. August Strindberg's dream plays probably also should be mentioned as precursors. I notice that the re-titled criticism section now probably needs changing... it wasn't really the influence of Surrealist theatre as such, so much as Surrealism in general. Will alter it. I realise too from the talk sections above that I'd misunderstood your point about Beckett. DionysosProteus (talk) 14:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm unaware of the anthology you're referencing, but I can certainly see how you can make the case. It's a classic problem Wikipedia editors face with topics like this: critics use terms inconsistently, so how can we cover a term consistently when we're relying on them? I think it would be useful to include the stuff you mention here in the body of the article.  I'm still intending to look up that stuff from Toklas abt Surrealism -- if I remember correctly, she says it approaches what she likes but doesn't quite get there as well as Cubism.  I'll post it here for consideration. I like the idea of a section where we address the reactions of other artists and writers.  A separate Joyce/Beckett section might be interesting, but how relavant is it?  We also need to figure out the best place for a Queneau/Oulipo tie in.  Would that be considered criticism or spinoff(j/k)? But seriously, these are things to think abt as we progress.F. Simon Grant (talk) 14:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Add or don't add
This timeline was originally removed in January 2009 for lack of sources. I would support to it's re-entry into the article if it can be sourced and referenced, although it can use some new input as well. What do others think?...Modernist (talk) 14:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just as a bit of context: I made this chart originally, didn't source it just as an oversight because the chart itself was a beast to make, my bad, and it was one of those things I've always intended -- and still do intend -- to get back to. The person who originally deleted it said we needed to go back to the original writings or something, but the sense I got from what this person was saying was that there were glaring flaws. Well, all of it came directly from reliable sources -- it's not like I made it up, just neglected to cite it -- so I wasn't sure what the problem was. Not that I'm biased, but I think that it's a helpful chart -- well cited and checked for complete accuracy, it can be something very useful to your amateur researcher.F. Simon Grant (talk) 22:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Timeline of Membership
