Talk:Surrealism in the arts

Clarification please
The second paragraph says, Outside the "inner circle" (i.e. in the Academy), this imaginary line is sketched differently by different scholars.

It's not clear to me if "inner circle" means academic people or inner circle surrealists. I guess partly because scholars are referred to at the end of the sentence. So, is there consensus among academic scholars, but not amongst non-academic scholars? &gt;&gt;sparkit|TALK&lt;&lt; 18:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the "inner circle" refers to the very first group of dadaists who moved over to surrealism. The parenthesis that follows (about the academy) is misleading.  Maybe that latter part should be deleted?--TextureSavant 19:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * ROTFL - Dadaists as "the academy"? No wonder I couldn't make sense of it. From what I've seen, the line is drawn differently inside the surrealist circle, outside it, in academia and outside it. Perhaps, This imaginary line is sketched differently by different scholars. would cover the thought? &#91;&gt;&gt; sparkit |  TALK&lt;&lt;&#93;  20:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, let's try it that way.--TextureSavant 22:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of vanity/self-promotional links
I removed the surrealismnow.com link, as it was used for promoting Keith Wigdor's art website. There are other websites that promote the same kind of art and emerging artists, so we should be a little more choosy about the kinds of art links that are put in: either put them all in, or not at all. To simply allow any random, emerging, non-noteworthy, internet artist to put his or her link in is not to the benefit of an encyclopedia.--TextureSavant 19:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of self-promotional links
I felt like adding a section that mentioned Surrealism on the Internet which doesnt appear so far in this document and is part of my work - please visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Van_Elslande and check the link section. This is a surrealistic experiment that exists only on the web - as opposed to the above (and will remain so) and I don't think they're numerous so far but I am not sure it corresponds to your standards for publication - plus doing it myself feels a bit strange.... I would probably do it if no one replies to this request in the coming few days. Regards, DVE —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eurekastreet (talk • contribs).


 * Hi Eurekastreet! Check out Notability (people) to get a feel for the criterion expected in artist biographies. Basically, the same principles apply to links. Basically, recognition from well-known sources is expected on wikipedia. Personally, your project is intriging to me, but there's a notability/citation/attribution thing going on with wikipedia. &#91;&gt;&gt; sparkit |  TALK&lt;&lt;&#93;  01:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello, I understand the logic of it but it's not flawless since it is rather easy to get some coverage today with products that are absolutely not qualitative, which means if we'd push that criteria them to the extreme that a famous tv fitness show should appear in the encyclopedia before a reference to an underground independant documentary just because one gets more coverage and the other does not. On the other hand, I understand that wiki is not a promotion tool so can I ask you to check the contributions done today and "censor" what you think should be censored (or I can send you links to them so you can select them if needed)? I'll keep a copy of everything in case i someday answer to those "fame" criterias :D Thanks!--Eurekastreet 02:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand the notability issues as related to internet publishing. I won't take on a role called "censor", it just don't sit right. :) &#91;&gt;&gt; sparkit |  TALK&lt;&lt;&#93;  03:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)