Talk:Surrealism/Archive 5

Topic
The topic of Talk:Surrealism is the wikipedia Surrealism article, and how we can improve it. This is not the place to copy and paste lengthy texts or engage in arguments about non-wikipedia topics. Thank you for cooperating.

Wikipedia Policy
Wikipedia Policy does stipulate that a consensus is not binding.24.168.66.27 00:20, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Please link to the policy you are referring to. Of course, the 6/1 consensus in the informal poll could always be overridden by a larger consensus in another poll (and I have encouraged you to start a new poll if you are not satisfied with the old one), but until such a time that there is a consensus apparent here that differs from the one on Talk:Surrealism/Archive 04 promotion of Keith Wigdor should not be re-inserted in this article. Please do not revert on this issue again.  ~leif &#9786; HELO 03:22, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Sir, you appear to be very intent on refusing my right to edit. The Wikipedia Policy regarding consensus can be found here on Wikipedia. Why don't you know about it?24.168.66.27 03:32, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I replied at User talk:24.168.66.27 because this thread is now more about users and policy than about this article.  ~leif &#9786; HELO 04:11, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Keith Wigdor paragraph is about Surrealism, why do you want to have me banned, instead of just polite disagreement?24.168.66.27 19:06, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Surrealist film and television
I propose that the Surrealist film section should be merged with the brief TV section. The film section could also be cleaned up a bit, and one film that I doubt anyone would object to adding is Waking Life. ~leif &#9786; HELO 22:48, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In what context to you wish to place the film and tv information within the surrealism article? Any information on Bunuel and Dali's film collaborations is perfect for this article, so that can stay. I do not object to the TV show, "The Prisoner" because that was a show with strong surrealist influences, plus I really liked the show too. Leif, it appears that your interest in surrealism is very limited to material that exists outside the surrealist project, why don't you try to find a picture of Andre Breton with Franklin Rosemont, or how about trying to validate much of the information already within this article.63.169.104.2 21:11, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I love the TV show, "The Prisoner". It is very surreal.24.168.66.27 18:40, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Surreal Films

This is probably the best version of this article
This is probably the best version of this article now, thanks to the new recent revisions and additions by this user Sterling. It is certainly good to see different people inputting information into this article that has been dominated by too much vague information by Daniel C.Boyer. Way too many references to the likes of his friends have ruined this article as well as surrealism. That book by Franklin Rosemont, "What is Surrealism" is the most blantant misrepresentation of facts regarding surrealism and how it should be researched.


 * Why do you say this? Can you support even one single thing you are writing?  --Daniel C. Boyer 20:25, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Rosemont dominates way too much of his own likes and dislikes and here Boyer has been trying to monopolize this article with the terrible versions as well as the other pages. Well done, Sterling! It's good to see fresh input! I love the third paragraph on Dali in this article! There is way too much Dali-bashing by this bogus, "surrealists"! There really should be more information on Salvador Dali and how he saved Surrealism!24.168.66.27 20:30, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Modernism template
I've added a template feel free to add new articles to it. Stirling Newberry 00:32, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Artistic Movement
Stirling Newberry's POV that surrealism is an artistic movement is not borne out by facts yet he persists on reinserting it. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:29, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Facts, it is the most common usage of the word. Wiki rules clearly state that articles must represent in proportion to presence of points of view. This article does not, yet, meet that standard. You can complain all you like, but acting in bad faith is not going to help your cause. Stirling Newberry 16:56, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * If you are implying that I am acting in bad faith there is a certain irony here as you are the one who is acting in bad faith (pointedly ignoring every single primary source on the subject). Moreover, the cited standard certainly couldn't be true across the board.  The man on the street, when pressed, would probably not have the POV that Stalin was born in Gori, Georgia, but might well have had him born in Russia.  Should we acknowledge this as the primary POV?  If people in general used the word "communism" to refer to an artistic movement, despite the fact that no such artistic movement exists or has existed, how should this be dealt with in Wikipedia?  --Daniel C. Boyer 17:48, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The second paragraph by Stirling in, "Impact on Surrealism" has nothing to do with Breton
Dear Stirling, you are really new to this article and I do welcome any edits made by you and anyone else. However, you will definitely cause a severe scandal and outrage when you start making references to, "brainstorming" and the writing process that takes place in all those capitalist prisons that you mention: the business world and universities, etc. as being somewhat influenced by Breton's automatic writing and thought at the beginning of this century. Now, that I think about it, Daniel C.Boyer's input was more credible to the facts regarding Breton. Sterling, you need to read the book, "What is Surrealism" by Andre Breton and Edited and Introduced by Franklin Rosemont and decide whether it is a misrepresentation of facts or the most credible book on the subject, but you need to read it! You also need to denounce everything that surrealism seeks to destroy, in order to show that your edits are sincere to the article topic. Stirling, surrealism is a weapon and form of social revolt.24.168.66.27 18:14, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * That's one POV, there are others. Wikipedia is here to document them, not to be an annex for any particular organization or POV.  Stirling Newberry 18:32, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * What you are saying is true so far as it goes, but a POV that says that surrealism is not (amongst other things, not including "an artistic movement") "a weapon and form of social revolt" is a novel POV not espoused by surrealism itself, merely imposed upon it by the confused and those deliberately misrepresenting the movement. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:41, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why do you insist on vomiting on your keyboard? Stirling Newberry 20:23, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Stirling, this should help you understand, look for the interview Andre Breton gave to Rene Belance that appeared in the Haiti-Journal(Dec.12 and 13, 1945) and also in Entretiens. This will enable you to have a more clear understanding of the aims of surrealism and its use of automatism to maintain and achieve total human freedom, which you will never find in the business world (CEO's and staff, "brainstorming sessions) and universities. Also, try to get a hold of the essay by Breton, "Words without Wrinkles", and one of the main sources of influence on surrealist theory on automatism, FWH Meyer's, "Human Personality and its Survival After Bodily Death" which should be mentioned in this article.24.168.66.27 20:48, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You can push your POV all you like, it won't change the mountain of documentary evidence treating surrealism as an artistic movement that had broad impact out side of Bretonisme. Stirling Newberry 21:06, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Dear Stirling,
 * You can push your POV all you like, but supporting it by lies is really questionable. www.surrealcoconut.com is not a group, and right on it it says "How many times must it be reiterated that surrealism is not an art movement?"  So calling www.surrealcoconut.com a group of "self-identified" surrealist artists is either a knowing lie, or you can't be bothered to read the websites you reference.  --65.174.34.14 17:24, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Stirling, "surrealcoconut" website is a total fraud and is run by the above user, obviously. It is the worst website on surrealism that I have ever seen.63.169.104.2 18:14, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Whether or not "surrealcoconut" is a "total fraud" (whatever that means) is irrelevant to my objection that in saying (apparently) that those who participate in it thus "self-identify" "as surrealist artists" when right on the home page it says that surrealism is not an artistic movement. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:54, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dear Stirling, Stirling, I must kindly disagree with you on your above statement that I am trying to, "push" my point of view. I am not disagreeing with you on the aspects of surrealism as an artistic movement, Stirling, that I do fully support your edit addition there, but your input into the second paragraph regarding the automatic process, I do kindly disagree. If you feel so strong about it, then please explain in more detail the consequences of how, "brainstorming" sessions in the business world relate to the extreme revolutionary impact that surrealism and its use of automatism had on the world, then and now. I can tell you are a little upset and I do want to work with you, so I am awaiting your response. I do feel that it is vital to this article's integrity that everyone must focus on the foundation set forth by Andre Breton, and those who followed. I do wish that there was more EMPHASIS on Salvador Dali's IMMENSE impact and contribution to Surrealism.24.168.66.27 21:23, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Stirling, about the website, "surrealcoconut"....
Stirling, the website, surrealcoconut.com that user 65.174.34.14 is talking about is a total scam and completely full of bogus information. Stirling, please do not let the self-promotion of a scam hack artist, Eric W.Bragg, (a fugazi self-appointed surrealist) attempt to influence your right to edit the Surrealism article. Your information is very helpful to students and researchers who study surrealism. This website, "surrealcoconut" is one of those do-it-yourself free websites that is so no-budget and sophmoric(and full of lies), plus it has nothing to do with the true aspects of surrealism, that its only more of the blantant self-promotion that you see online. Surrealcoconut is a site run by a marginal nobody, Eric W.Bragg, who is trying to influence the public that he and his very small number of friends are the real surrealists. Stirling, please keep on editing this article and obtaining more of the good information that you have uploaded. Surrealcoconut is a fraud.63.169.104.2 18:01, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * It has both traffic and google hits, and therefore isn't "nobody". However, it is perfectly reasonable to include critiques - so long as they have documentable currency. There's nothing wrong with reporting the down side of what people are doing.  For example, what could be wrong with


 * The commercialization of the word surrealism has lead (Fill in the blank who) to criticize such "do it yourself" efforts as being amateurish, ungrounded in the fundamentals of the surrealist movement as outlined in (fill in the blank) and the result of being "crass self-promotion" that debases the meaning of the word. Stirling Newberry 20:06, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Or some such. Stirling Newberry 20:06, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dear Stirling, your edits have really...
Dear Stirling, your edits have really distorted this article. You literally saturated this article with SO many art references that are really not completely true to the aims and principles of surrealism. With all due respect, you are editing this article like some kind of art critic or museum curator. I do understand that you have the right to add information, but you completely leave out ALL the most important facts and details regarding the true aims and principles of surrealism. Also, you saturated this article page with so many links to paintings, it is beyond me that you would deny any links to any collage artworks by Breton or anything by Toyen. Stirling, plus, I doubt that you even care about mentioning the MOST important figure in all of surrealism, Lautremont! Stirling, do you know who Gerome Kamrowski is? If you can add any art links on him to this article that would be nice. Or E.F.Granell.24.168.66.27 01:30, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you want to add more material, by all means do so. However, it must be balanced and NPOV. The anonymous pove vandalism, so far, has not been either.Stirling Newberry 01:42, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Stirling, yes, the article should be NPOV, so please help this article by uploading the necessary facts with the integrity that the aims and principles of surrealism stands for which has been established in its history to now, and is also documented in depth. Also, when someone removes or reverts your art paragraphs, it is not vandalism. Why do you even mention Pop Art in the surrealism article? This is killing it.24.168.66.27 02:22, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dear Pov Troll
So? Stirling Newberry 02:29, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What. Stirling Newberry 02:30, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Stirling, you know absolutely NOTHING about Surrealism! You are real lame. The article was better with Daniel Boyer's edits.24.168.66.27 18:13, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Proper surrealism was a political movement
In fact, Dali was kicked out of it... and nicknamed "Amida Dollars" (anagram) for selling out. I think he favoured the fascists in Spain.

The proper surrealists were linked with socialism and communism, although they got alienated from Stalinism proper, but there isn't much mention of this in the article.


 * Do you have a reference or citation to back up these two claims? See Cite sources. Hyacinth 18:25, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem here is that the poves want the ability to "excommunicate" different usages of the word. It's like the argument between different groups as to what constitutes "real" socialism. Dali was expelled from Breton's Surrealist movement in 1937. He himself argued that in the 1950's he was not a "surrealist", but, look up his work from the 1950's in Hughes and others, and it is still listed as surrealism. The argument is over who "owns" the world surrealism. Wikipedia is dedicated to documenting all commonly used versions of a term. Stirling Newberry 18:32, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * And the article as I edited it did document that. But the article as you edit it does not document the use of surrealism to mean surrealism, rather than some non-existent "artistic movement".  --Daniel C. Boyer 20:27, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dear Anonymous Pove Troll
That POV is already documented. Stirling Newberry 14:10, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's also already been trolled. Stirling Newberry 14:33, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Where? Hyacinth 19:08, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Stirling, your spelling is wrong and also..
You spelled Tanguy wrong in the article, you wrote, Targuy, and also Ernst Max!!! Also, it's Avida Dollars, not Amida Dollars, you idiot!!! Now go back and listen to your lame classical music.24.168.66.27 18:10, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * User:24.168.66.27, Please see below regarding personal attacks. Hyacinth 19:07, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Stirling's other addition, "Surrealism as an Artistic Movement" is awful and not reliable
Stirling, you and your edits are so LAME! This whole section that you added is like reading some awful art catalogue. Please let a surrealist ADD the CORRECT information!!!! More information on surrealists like ELT Mesens and Toyen, etc, etc, etc. You are real lame, Stirling, go away!!!!24.168.66.27 18:24, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * User:24.168.66.27, please see No personal attacks: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor....Discuss the facts and how to express them, not the attributes of the other party". If you continue to make personal attacks you may be temporarily blocked from Wikipedia. Thanks. Hyacinth 19:04, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comment on Comments
You can see that I am upset as anyone LOYAL to Surrealism would be, so with all due respect, the namecalling goes on the path of a two-way street. I don't like being called a Troll either, Stirling. So, in order to prevent me from being blocked by Hyacinth, I will refrain from lashing out, but do not do it to me either. Calling someone or anyone a troll is also a personal attack.24.168.66.27 17:02, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Clearly your tactic is to provoke and to make it unpleasant for me to deal with you to the point I will go away. This is a serious breach, and indicates not merely that you can't be trusted to edit this page, but that you can't be trusted. Stirling Newberry 17:33, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Now, for Comments on Article
This article needs to be precise in its presentation of the facts regarding surrealism. Let us FOCUS and ANALYZE what perspective we can engage, so that the article can stay coherent and factual. The best source on Surrealist Art is, "Surrealism and Painting" by Andre Breton. You need to research and reference that before you decide to write a POV dominated article passage like the one on Surrealist Art. The Pop Art reference MUST GO! There is no colleration nor any adherence to any, "influence" or, "effect", or, "impression" that Surrealism had on Pop Art, becuase it just does not exist, nor should Pop Art even be mentioned in the article. There are way too many essential surrealist artists being overlooked by Stirling's additions of artists to this article as well. Stirling tells us all about the usual suspects, like Miro, Picasso, Dali, Tanguy, etc,etc, which we can all reference from any common art catalogue or book, but remember the ESSENTIAL SURREALIST ARTISTS, that you overlook to serve the dominant art world bias, and they are TOYEN (who is probably one of the most important Surrealists and Surrealist Artists ever, in my opinion), RAOUL UBAC, JINDRICH STYRSKY(who is also another MAJOR SURREALIST and SURREALIST ARTIST),WILHEIM FREDDIE(who is just as technically brilliant as Dali!!!),WILFREDO LAM, JACQUES HEROLD, CLOVIS TROUILLE, GEORGES MALKINE, etc, etc. This is just one point that I bring up. Now, how about an article passage on SURREALIST POETS? Where is there any mention of LOUIS ARAGON or RED FRONT by the way?24.168.66.27 17:20, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"The Usual Suspects" are what most references mean by "Surrealism". The purpose of this article is to document the uses of the word which individuals are likely to encounter. The overwhelmingly likely uses include the artistic movement. Your attitude is unwiki, despotic, dishonest and trollish. It is clear that you have no intent in acting in good faith. This article is not your personal web page, that you treat it as such indicates that you have contempt for wikimedia foundation, the wikipedia project and the other editors. Stirling Newberry 17:31, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Your attitude is unwiki". Stirling, that is a classic!24.168.66.27 19:11, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You might consider removing the "!" from your keyboard it would improve the quality of your writing tremendously. Stirling Newberry 19:52, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Seriously, now Stirling, this article can improve
Seriously, now Stirling, this article can improve. I will abide by all the advice given to me by Hyacinth and try to understand your edits more comprehensively. Please try to understand my position as well. This can get better. A clear distinction must be made in regards to the context of Surrealism and how it is to be documented for others to research. It must be accepted to acknowledge the foundation set by Breton and even after his passing as well. We all know that many facets of modern life have been affected by Surrealism in one way or another, but we are focusing on the true aspects of Surrealism here when we document the facts. Also, it is a fact, (most overlooked by the followers of Breton, and even Breton himself) that he, Andre Breton, was NOT the first person to stake claim to founding Surrealism, and publishing the first surrealist publication. Do we all know who Yvan Goll is?24.168.66.27 21:11, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I would also suggest not personally addressing headers to people on talk pages. Headers should be used to facilitate discussion by indicating and limiting topics related to the article. For instance, you could make a header whose title describes in a few words one problem you have with the article. This will make it easy for people to address that issue, work towards consensus, and eventually resolve the issue or dispute and improve the article. Hyacinth 21:41, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This article can improve, however statements such as "We all know that many facets of modern life have been affected by Surrealism in one way or another, but we are focusing on the true aspects of Surrealism here when we document the facts. " show that you have no interest in "improving" the article, but in imPOVing the article. Once more: you can talk about how a group condemns others, you cannot censor documented information because you don't like it. You should also be writing to present all of the documentable POVs, not merely your particular POV. You should be balancing the presentation by the available sources. In your talk posts, Mr. 24.168.66.27 (incidentally creating an account would do wonders for your credibility), you have admited 1. My edits have are backed by sources, 2. That the contention of surrealism's wider influence is correct 3. That you do not like the state of the literature about surrealism. There means what you want to do is original work, which you should be doing under your own name, in a publication or web page. Stirling Newberry 22:04, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hyacinth, I will follow your advice. Stirling, as regards to the issue of credibility, it really does not make any difference at all if I log in or not, just read what is presented. I have no idea if, "Stirling Newberry" is your real name and it would not make a difference if you came in here under the four octet IP. It is the article that is most important. Now, I will refrain from the remarks towards you, Hyacinth was right and I apologize if I hurt your feelings. I hope that you will not think that I am being unwiki after all. Now, as for the sources that you are referring to, Stirling, those are art sources mainly, not from books on Surrealism, or I am wrong? Please prove me wrong. I used to ask that of Daniel C.Boyer as well. Please prove me wrong. I want to be proven wrong on any issue, as long as the article is improved, that is most important. However, Stirling, I am not here to push or force my point of view, please believe me and again I apologize for my nasty remarks to you in the above posts. I was being unwiki. Now, I propose that any consensus can be reached with an open discussion on the CONTEXT of Surrealism, first, especially considering that it is beyond argument that the revolutionary aspects of surrealism and its intention to transform life by desire is the main goal of all surrealism, even those who do not follow all the guidelines set forth by Breton. For example, I completely agree with ALL of the First Manifesto of Surrealism, but I have issues with the 2nd and 3rd. I would love to know Boyer's feedback on this point, as well as yours.24.168.66.27 23:52, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Outline
First, when writing articles that have multiple documented stable points of view, it is important to be precise with language. As with many "isms" the word "Surrealism" is applied to multiple related groups of people, and as a result must have each context defined correctly, and used consistently in the article. You keep referring to "surrealism" as if it is a monolithic term or group. This is not the documentable usage: surrealism means different things in different contexts. There are numerous monographs and books on "surrealism" that mean surrealism in the visual arts, which consider the philosophical movement the same way a book on musical impressionism would consider the movement in the visual arts: a background. This is not uncommon (symbolism, classicism, romanticism, minimalism, modernism - all apply to varying, but related, movements). The article should explain clearly to a reader which is which, so that they can understand whatever it is made them look it up.

As far as I can see the material wants to be divided into the following sections:


 * 1) Surrealism as a political movement, which would focus the evolution from Dada to surrealism, on Breton manifesti and the movement formed around them, and how that movement, as a coherent movement exists today.
 * 2) Surrealism as a philosophical and literary movement. On the techniques used by surrealists to produce surrealist work.
 * 3) Surrealism as an artistic movement - which would focus on the movement in the visual arts.
 * 4) Surrealism as a genre - it's use beyond specific movements, including its influence in film, popular culture and so on, particularly in reference to those who describe their work as surreal but who have no direct connection to the various surrealist traditions/movements.

When you say "true principles of surrealism" what you mean is "not part of surrealism the political or philosophical movement." There is absolutely no reason why this should not be documented in an NPOV manner. However, Surrealism is not owned by anyone as a trade mark, it is not up to this article or its authors to determine who is, and who is not, a surrealist. Our job is to document who identifies or is labelled a surrealist, what that means in context, and what connections are to be drawn, and what controversies surround that identification. NPOV does not mean saying only nice things, it does mean attributing precisely who is saying what.

There is sufficient information in the article already - let alone what needs to be added - to take it and break it up into several sections (as postmodernism was) with a descriptive section on each, and then a reference to a main article which will be devoted specifically to that particular idea or thread in surrealism. This will also reduce the need for semantic apparatus - once a person is directed to a page on "Surrealism (visual arts)", then the introduction to that article can say "This article refers to the movement in the visual arts, (See also Surrealism (Literature))" Or whatever the other topic articles are named.

Remember the reason I bounced to this page is because I created a modernism template, and put Surrealism on it, and am working on upgrading the cultural movements categories and articles on wiki. Part of the point is to get people who are looking up "surrealism" to realize the breadth and importance of this movement. However, that means both within itself, and also in other movements as well.

Let us work together to get this article to its best form. (But yes, having a wiki account would improve your credibility).Stirling Newberry 07:59, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Stirling is right, this article can be worked out. This maybe an issue of semantics afterall. I think user 24. gets too deep into the political and philosophical aspects of the movement. Really the movement ended after Breton, we need to move on. Go for it Stirling.63.169.104.2 20:50, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here's where I'd like to stand up for 24: documenting the movement after Breton is certainly in the range of the article, and should be, just as documenting artists who say they are surrealists should be.

I'd like to propse that we


 * 1) Agree for the time being to turn the discussion page into a sandbox. That is put a version of the article here, rework it until everyone is reasonably content with it going to the front page.
 * 2) Ask the article to be unprotected
 * 3) Create 3 subsidiary articles Surrealism (visual arts), Surrealism (genre) and Surrealism (movement).
 * 4) Move text to these articles and create tight summaries on this page.  Provide cross linking so that all 4 articles reference each other.
 * 5) Continue consultations in the belief that what is most important is to these articles up to a high level of quality.

Thoughts? Stirling Newberry 06:02, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I will support your suggestions above, they are very good. Stirling, I also suggest that it be stated as a fact that the, "official" Surrealist Movement ended in 1969 when Jean Schuster disbanded what was left of Breton's group(as documented in the books, "Revolution of the Mind" and "What is Surrealism?"). Surrealism, then became recognized as an artistic movement, which it is today. There is no proof that it is anything else. If you decide to create a section or paragraph on Contemporary Surrealism, I will support that as long as Wigdor is mentioned as a surrealist, which he is and author of Surrealism in 2004. Stirling, just to let you know that I am not reponsible for the edit war on the Surrealism article.24.168.66.27 15:04, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I removed the harrassment because...
"For this reason, Wigdor is like a ghost, especially like an ugly, twinkie-eating ghost." this is an exact quote by the user, Bleedy and that is just one of many constant attacks and lies that this person has made. Stirling, I suggest that all attacks be permanently removed from this page, even the stupid, "lame" remark that I foolishly made towards you. I was real stupid for attacking you and I apologize. This user, Bleedy is out of control and beyond reason. You have to see that attacks and lies he has written over at the Keith Wigdor article, but that is old news. I want to move on and work with you and get the Surrealism article fixed for the benefit of us all. Bleedy keeps on making constant attacks and that will be a problem. Stirling, I do support your suggestions.24.168.66.27 17:08, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The issue of personal attacks on this surrealism discussion page..
The issue of personal attacks on this surrealism discussion page must stop. The user Bleedy refuses to be civil, polite, understanding and willing to reach any form of compromise as you can see by the above multiple attacks.24.168.66.27 20:25, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The attacks should be deleted to help this move on
Stirling, I need to hear back from you so I can delete all the attacks on this page. All of them, all around, or if you want to, is good as well. Either way, we have to get this surrealism article back on track, unprotected and working according to the suggestions that you made.24.168.66.27 00:11, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Another suggestion for compromise and to move forward
Stirling, I also suggest that we place emphasis on surrealism as an art movement, because after all, it is an art movement and the art is what stands out.24.168.66.27 00:13, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * It is hardly a compromise to give everything to one party in the conflict when that party persists in adding nonfactual information to the article. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:15, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Temporary block
I have just put a 48 hour block on both User:Bleedy and User:24.168.66.27, in response to Bleedy's personal attacks and 24.168.66.27's deleting discussion from talk pages. Both users have repeatedly been warned to follow Wikipedia guidelines and Civility and have previously been blocked for edit/revert wars. (To add my personal opinion comment: they seem to generate much noise and little signal here. ) -- Infrogmation 18:16, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Surrealism and Anarchism
I am working out an angle on the very strong bond between surrealism and anarchism as it is historically documented (fact), which you can see from this fantastic website, http://flag.blackened.net/af/org/issue44/surr.html which documents when Breton contributed to the publication Le Libertaire. I need to find the best section paragraph in the surrealism article here on Wikipedia to place the information on surrealism and anarchism, probably a whole section.24.168.66.27 02:19, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * You surely mean after Breton broke withe the Communist Party, right? Ejrrjs | What? 16:40, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The article version by Stirling is more....
The article version by Stirling is more informative and factual than Daniel C.Boyer's point of view. My only disagreement is with the paragraph on brainstorming, but that is it. I denounce all my past remarks against Stirling and his edits. Let the record show that I support Stirling Newberry's current version today. I also would like to state that I was never responsible for the past edit war prior to this article being protected by KingTurtle, which was way too long. Stirling, I do apologize to you for all the past stupid remarks that I made towards you and I would like to see MORE SURREALIST ART information on here, so that the public and college students around the world can research this great movement. By the way, the current surrealist movement today in 2005 is an ART MOVEMENT!


 * The "current surrealist movement," which is Keith Wigdor alone, who for some reason is surrealist even though he has redefined surrealism to be everything surrealism opposes. I get it.  --Daniel C. Boyer 20:19, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Whether Boyer and his small number of friends like it or not!


 * Wigdor and his even smaller number of friends have spoken. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:19, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

24.168.66.27 17:09, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A question
On the opening of this article, there is the following statement around the second paragraph (if I am correct), "Surrealist activity extends beyond traditional artforms to include utopian political ideas and actions". My question to you all: IS this statement true? Shouldn't it read, ""Surrealist activity extends beyond traditional artforms to include the overthrow of capitalist society and the total liberation of man"?24.168.66.27 06:25, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, no. Unless you can point to where some Surrealist managed to overthrow capitalism, etc.


 * The sentence should be redone to say that this is the aim of surrealism. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:55, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm a non-involved party just looking at the article for the first time today. My 2¢: the ongoing influence of Surrealist work and Surrealist ideas is widely recognized by art historians, cultural critics, professional artists and other relevant experts.


 * As surrealism is not and never was an artistic movement you should write, "other irrelevant experts." A man may be an expert plumber, but does that mean we should consult him about astrophysics?  --Daniel C. Boyer 17:54, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I gather this has been hashed out here before, but I'd like to understand your POV. How can you claim that it never was an artistic movement (literary and across media)?  What sort of movement is it?

The idea that the Surrealist movement is still an active force in cultural life is not widely recognized. And like it or not, when preparing an encyclopedia article, expert opinion matters. Surrealism is understood, as other historic movements are, as linked to a particular place and time: boundaries of such categories are fuzzy, but the idea that ongoing "Surrealist" societies are a significant expansion or otherwise an important part of the historic Surrealist movement has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of even a significant minority of the critical community. Because of the distance beween our world and Breton's world, if some of the contemporary "Surrealists" actually do compel the attention of critical audiences or historians--even if they manage to overthrow capitalism and liberate "man"--historians will almost certainly treat their activities as a new chapter in history, derived from Surrealism, perhaps, but nonetheless distinct. Neo-surrealism, maybe.


 * But given that there is an uninterrupted line from the past until today, how is it "neo"? And you are neglecting to mention that the Czechoslavkian group was founded back in the "historically approved" period and continues uninterrupted to the present day.  So what does this do for your analysis?  --Daniel C. Boyer 17:54, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * It's "neo" because the historic impact of the original surrealist movement is clearly in the past at this point-which is not to say that it has stopped being an important cultural current. If there is a new and significant flourishing of self-declared surrealists now, historians would surely cook up a way to distinguish between the two.  Rightly so, because of the changed context, and the fact that the current flowering has to be seen in relationship to the well-established history. Look, for example, at the Theory of the Avant-Garde by Peter Berger. He talks about the early twentieth century avant-gardes, and the reappearnce of similar strategies and gestures by the mid-century artists like Yves Klein and Warhol.  The latter flourishing is dubbed "neo-avant garde."  Historians (and they are the ones who make the calls about what constitutes historic movement, like it or not) see the social context in which ideas are received as being an essential part of the definition of a movement.  Your "unbroken line" doesn't change anything.  R. Crumb is still going strong; The underground comix movement had effectively ended by 1980.  The ideas and gestures may look the same, but the context changes, and that effectively changes the meaning of those ideas and gestures. --69.3.129.29 00:38, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

But while one can claim to be a surrealist today--and I am aware that some do--and for that matter they could call themselves "romanticists" or "impressionists" or part of any other historic group, movement or tendency, the claim just isn't sufficient to make them count as part of the movement that did something worthy of writing about. Each generation has to force it's own way into the history books. --68.164.132.125 06:58, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * "Jose Pierre, Andre Breton's assistant and member of the Paris Surrealist Group documented this group, which was historic fact. Please do not remove this fact."

I won't get in an edit war, but the question is, of all the things that could appear in a short article about the large topic of surrealism, is this an important fact? I'd say no, clearly not. The version you reverted included the gist of the sentence that mentioned this West Coast group, the inclusion of which at all seems marginal.

Read, "L'Univers Surrealiste" (editions Somogy, 1983) and please do not remove it again, thank you.24.168.66.27 01:03, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The fact that this very tenous connection to Andre Breton seems so important to you would sem to support the idea that there's not much basis for including them here. There were substantial west coast art movements that had a great deal to do with surrealism that I don't think are mentioned in the article at all--the "Dynaton" group, for example. --68.164.132.125 07:17, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just out of curiousity...
Who wrote this, "A few American managers have been quick to see the interest of such a technique at the level of employee relations: those who can express themselves can have more. "Organize brainstorming sessions for us!" they tell the specialists: "this will show our employees that we care about their ideas, because we're asking them what they think!" The technique is rapidly becoming a vaccine against the revolutionary virus."?

and why?24.168.66.27 00:57, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I included the material to document the POV that creativity techniques are drawn from surrealism. The article dates from the late 1950's and documents this POV. I am not endorsing the text or its conclusions, but after repeated challenges from others on the link between "brainstorming" and "surrealism", particularly Breton's techniques of writing, it seemed necessary to provide more extensive citation and context. As for who, the original was unsigned in the journal that published it. Stirling Newberry 03:01, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I cut down the brainstorming material as in my view (though I am open to arguments otherwise) it is far too extensive for an article on surrealism, not about brainstorming; on second thought, I think this should be acknowledged. --65.174.35.65 17:19, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

An idea for the second paragraph in the introduction
I propose that the word, "utopian" should be changed to, "revolutionary", that is all for the second paragraph. Other than that the, "employee relations" paragraph later on in the article should really be removed and maybe (just to help), some information that researchers could be really impressed with, but I really am having much difficulty in accepting the, "employee relations" paragraph, I think it really kills the article. Stirling, is there another alternative to this addition?24.168.66.27 01:22, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's a documentable POV on Surrealism's influence. I chose this particular reference because it seemed to also encapsulate the hostility that many surrealists feel towards the relationship. Stirling Newberry 03:03, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dear Daniel C.Boyer...
Daniel, when you read the following introduction from the article that, "Surrealism is an art movement", and then this statement on the Talk page, "And like it or not, when preparing an encyclopedia article, expert opinion matters", what do you think?


 * I think that the expertise has to be relevant to the subject in question. An expert in basket-making's expert opinion on planetary orbits doesn't matter.  --Daniel C. Boyer 17:26, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Daniel, you have to admit that this is inevitable, unless you can prove your case that surrealism is not an art movement.


 * It has already been exhaustively proven. To start with, read the Manifesto of Surrealism.  Where in this do you get the idea that surrealism is an art movement?  --Daniel C. Boyer 17:26, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Remember Daniel, you are one of the surrealists who contributed to the, "Surrealist Subversions" book and I think that there is a burden of proof on your part to prove your case that surrealism is not an art movement. Daniel, surrealism is an art movement and will always be remembered as an art movement, even your friends stage Surrealist Art Shows, and even they cannot escape the inevitable that surrealism is an art movement and it is the ART that stands out most of all.65.174.35.65 01:31, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Saying that "it is the ART that stands out most of all" is POV. Edit the article to express this POV, but as POV.  --Daniel C. Boyer 18:56, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please do not personally address headers on article talk pages (Talk:Surrealism). Article talk pages are for discussion the articles. If you need to reach another user please go to their user talk page (User talk:Daniel C. Boyer). Hyacinth 01:25, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Stirling's version is much better than Boyer's
Stirling's version is much better than Boyer's. Also, Daniel C.Boyer reverted this article 4 times today, thus he violated the Wiki 3 revert policy. I think he should be temporarily banned for his blantant actions today.63.169.104.2 22:31, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I did not revert the article 4 times today. I edited it.  --Daniel C. Boyer 02:59, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Let's just work on the article. There are also numerous sublinks that are also stubs. There is also a great deal of history, from the interwar period forward, that needs to be detailed. Stirling Newberry 00:45, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)