Talk:Tristan Tzara

Romanian

Maybe I'm just crazy here, but doesn't the nom de guerre Tristan Tzara mean something in Romanian? I've heard "Bored of his country" as a proposal, but I'm far from sure. Anybody who speaks Romanian who can back me up on this??—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabbe (talk • contribs)

Tristan Tzara doesn't mean anything in Romanian the way it is spelt and pronounced, but it is similar to a few other words. Ţară (read "Tzară") means country, that's right. Ţara is the articulated form (the article goes at the end of the word in Romanian), so the ă is dropped for the a. So, Tzara means "the country", the "tz" frequently replacing the "ţ" character in the same way that "oe" replaces the German o-umlaut (ö). Tristan is a Romanian name (and a Romance-language name in general). Trist means sad in Romanian, similar to how triste in French means the same thing. So -- "trist pentru ţară" means "sad for his country", or, and this is where it links it -- "trist în ţară", which can also be written "trist ân ţară" (î and â are the same character in terms of pronunciation) means "Sad in the country", in context meaning "Sad in Romania" because Romanians frequently talk about their (our ;-) country as "ţara" - the country. So, you were very close ;-) Cheers.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.67.10 (talk • contribs)

An anagram of the name Tristan Tzara is Artist Tarzan. — JIP | Talk 10:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Quite an anagram of "Triste Tarzan" (sad Tarzan) too. Burroughs Tarzan of the apes woz born 1912, Tzara chose his name in 1915.

Much of this article is plagiarized from the Encyclopedia Britannica article on Tzara.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.254.242 (talk • contribs)

This article has serious POV issues. Or maybe Britannica has serious POV issues.--Quadalpha 06:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Origins of "Dada"

It is speculated that the word "Dada" comes from the Romanian "Yes, yes" and is thusly originated from Tzara and Janco's contributions.

An art history I read text speculated that the origins of the name dada were not from this, but becuase of the Dadaist statment that "Art is not only here (in a museum), but [pointing] there, there." In Russian or German "there there" becomes "da da."

No source...sorry. 208.102.114.164 17:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

**comment***

shoudn't we mention about the dada poem he created; i mean it was arguably the most important thing he did.--Vircabutar 07:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you refer to his original works, or his propensity to cut up other works and pull them word-by-word from a hat?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.61.130 (talk • contribs)

*request*

Couldn't we get some more information about his life? We read that he was born in Romania, lived in France, but for some of his life was in Switzerland. Did he have a family? Was he educated? Where did he live? Did he always make a living exclusively from his art? Or did he do something else too? What were his major works? Were they all in French? Or some in Romanian too? Any other langugages? Who were his major influences, if any? Does he have followers? What's here doesn't say much.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.151.13.8 (talk • contribs)

The article says something about Tzara creating the "movements manifestos". Wasn't that Hugo Ball?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.182.40.92 (talk • contribs)

word "dada"

Well I learned at school, that word "dada" comes from dictionary, that they blindly marked this word in a dictionary with a pencil. And from that time on they called their new style "dadaism". And the word dada should mean something like "hobby". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.176.40.127 (talk) 11:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

Works

Can someone link something to some of his works? That'd be very helpful, thanks! 71.111.112.58 08:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Could someone tell me how to correctly pronounce "Tristan Tzara"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.12.72.194 (talk) 09:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Opinion

Is important to emphasize the language used by the writer. Most of his works were written in French and are a part of the French literature heritage. Also he lived most of his life in France. Thus one can define Tzara as a French writer born in Romania , or of Romanian origin ,less exactly - a Romanian author of French , and in his youth of Romanian expression. At the same time one can mention his Jewish ethnic origin . A similar case may be for example Joseph Conrad who was an English writer of Polish -Ukrainian origin or of Polish origin born in Ukraina . The pronounciation for Tristan Tzara has to be ,I suppose , following the French rules, with emphasis on the last syllable of each word . Ewan

Date of death

Google seems roughly evenly balanced between 24 December and 25 December, but I've found nothing that settles it one way or another. Can anyone help? -- JackofOz (talk) 08:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tristan Tzara/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of June 9, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass - although with some issues

2. Factually accurate?: Pass - definately enough refs

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass - perhaps overly detailed

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass - couldn't fin anything wrong.

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Pass - barely but it is not an article that would require many images anyways.

 If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.

Now in more detail I can say that I still have some issues with the article, altough it is good enough to be listed as a good article. Here are the suggestions if anyone would want to take the article to FA:

1. firstly, the article is perhaps overly detailed. The article almost contains unnecessary details.
2. waaay too many red links. I understand that those people are not important and that is why no article is written about then... but then, should their name be here in the first place? This is closely related to the previous point. I believe that the article would make a lot of sense without so much overly-detailed information. Right now, it reads really hard, and I had problems concentrating on the point of the argument. This page should not be a book, and the information should not be copied word-by-word from the referencing books.
3. this is perhaps not essential, but an FA would definately require it: MORE images. Even the portrait is at least a little ambigous. I bet there is one free picture somewhere with his bust, and that there are some pictures somewhere with his work.

I hope it helped and good luck with the article. Nergaal (talk) 02:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks, Nergaal, and I'm glad that, for most part, you found the article to your liking. Please excuse my delay in answering your queries, but I'm facing a RL crisis that prevented me from logging in regularly.

Now, let me address your concerns one by one, in the order you gave them:

1. perhaps it is detailed, but I would argue it isn't over-detailed. Virtually all events discussed in detail are mentioned in more than two sources, and I took care to expand on the bare narrative only as a means to summarize the subjects of contention between sources, what sources take as examples illustrating his major attitudes, what events are viewed as seminal in his career and why that is etc. Part of your second argument also fits under point 1: the "not a book" and "copied word by word" part. For the "not a book" argument, see the first part of my answer above. For the "not copied": yes, they actually should be rendered verbatim in cases where they express an opinion that is or can be challenged.
2. actually, though there are quite a few red links, they are not excessive compared to other articles (though perhaps not to other FAs). And no, it does not follow that red links are necessarily about unimportant people: the weird dynamics of wikipedia have notoriously prioritized the trivial, and all those red links can and should be filled (I plan to fill most of them with time). In any case, the elimination or filling of red links is neither a GA nor (unless they appear in the lead) an FA criterion.
3. six images is quite okay for an FA (meaning there are many with less, and even some with none). Concerning his portrait: I have looked far and wide for another PD image of Tzara, and was very glad to found this one (it appears to be the only one yet). But his other portraits by even more famous artists should be PD material in the next ten (Delaunay) or twenty years (Giacometti). I should add: sculptures of Tzara may be photographed and the photos published here (unless they are taken in countries such as Italy), but photos of such sculptures found on the net or scanned from some book cannot be published: the photos themselves would have to be released into the public domain. Dahn (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to make clear my initial point: I liked the article, but it is so verbose, that in places I found it really hard to read. I imagine that somebody not knowing anything about the subject from the beginning would be tired/bored at some point and aither just skip forward or stop. Otherwise, the quality is there! Nergaal (talk) 15:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Minor changes

I have restored the spelling of dialogue to the article - as a holder of two degrees in drama from the US, I can confirm that this is the standard. I've retained Samuel Beckett in the influenced section but added a fact tag request - please detail the sources that describe this influence. As described in Wikipedia:Lead section, the lead should not be unreferenced, even when the rest of the article has them. DionysosProteus (talk) 10:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the unreferenced tag once more to the lead. If you have any queries about why, please see Wikipedia:Lead section. That other articles fail to follow the guidelines does not exempt this one from doing so. DionysosProteus (talk) 23:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Date of birth

We're saying it was either 4 April or 16 April. Isn't it likely that both dates are right? After all, Romania was still using the Julian calendar, which was 12 days behind the Gregorian in the 19th century. So, 4 April (Julian) is exactly the same day as 16 April (Gregorian). Can it be verified that this explains the apparent discrepancy in the dates found in sources? -- JackofOz (talk) 03:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that must be it. After all, only one of the sources used advances April 4, and when I added the info I just didn't notice the connection. Good catch! Dahn (talk) 15:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Urination in different colors (Pissing Issue)

Art often is controversial and Dada is definitely not exempt. Dadaists actually sought controversy therefore when Tzara demanded the right to piss in different colors at the first Dada Soiree on 14th July 1916, this well-documented fact succinctly captures the ethos of Tzara's art therefore Tzara demanding the right to piss in differnt colors is eminently worthy of inclusion. Sadly it seems a certain person or persons wants to censor this important and well-documented fact. I fear accuracy of this article is suffering due to misplaced conservatism and prudery.

The issue has nothing to do with being prude, just as it has nothing to do with it being provocative. The simple issue here is how wikipedia works: the selection of random tidbits used to tagline an article that is supposed to give decent and encyclopedic information. Tzara did and said literally a million things, and they were all commented upon somewhere in scholarship. His rebelliousness and nihilism are illustrated by thousands of statements, some of which (including some that have been deemed just as scandalous, but are definitely more notorious) are already quoted at length in the article, based primarily on their presence in works that offer a synopsis of Tzara's career.

As I mentioned in my edit summary, the repeated addition of that particular tidbit willy-nilly in the lead of the article, among the most important things Tzara did, is a manifest misinterpretation of what a wikipedia article is supposed to cover and in what way. It is cherrypicking, contrary to our guidelines and recommendations (WP:COAT). It asserts its own importance by performing a synthesis of sources merely attesting the fact's existence, when the same exercise could be performed with even more success for just about any other random fact involving a notorious/influential person such as Tzara (WP:SYNTH, WP:UNDUE). It relies on a personal guess about its importance, which is currently pushed into the article with transparent verbiage ("Tzara's nihilism is evident when..." - used to mask WP:FRINGE and incidentally breaking with WP:WEASEL).

Lastly, per the original claim added to the article by the same persistent user (according to whom this is literally one of the most important things one can say about Tzara), and the advertised crusade against prudery seem to indicate that this is also a simple issue of WP:SOAP: an editor has some attachment to this notion (and probably to seeing variants of the verb "to piss" in the lead of a researched article), so he or she will try over and over again to get it there. It is telling that, for virtually all IPs who pushed into the text, 100% of the edits relate to this issue. Dahn (talk) 15:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

A statement made on the opening night of the first Dada Soiree is a notorious and important statement worthy of inclusion. Demanding the right to piss in different colours is a well known Tzara demand quoted in many books and other scholarly works. You, Dahn, may say there are more notorious statements made by Tzara but I would say the pissing in different colours statement is his most notorious. To illustrate Tzara’s nihilism and rebelliousness, the pissing reference, made on the opening night of the first Dada Soiree, is a perfect titbit to inform people about the nature of Tzara and his art. The inclusion of such a fact in the lead of the Tzara article is definitely NOT a “manifest misrepresentation of what a wikipedia article is supposed to cover and in what way.” Regarding my input you make your criticisms without justification: you are saying you object but you fail to give actual grounds for objection; for example the criticisms you direct towards my input could easily be applied to any aspect of any Wikipedia article. You are simply stating your arbitrary opinions, which are not substantiated by logic. The accuracy, relevance, and veracity of my input is not in doubt, which is adequately corroborated by the numerous references, whereas there are many other aspects of the Tzara article which do not adequately cite references. You may say my input is cherrypicking and you will bandy about terms such as WP:COAT, WP:SYNTH, WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, WP:WEASEL but merely bandying about such terms does not make your accusations true. In fact your use of such terms is very weasel-ish: WP:WEASEL.

You highlight my point where I say: "Tzara's nihilism is evident when..." and you say this is "transparent verbiage" but the sentence preceding mine states: "His work represented Dada's nihilistic side, in contrast with the more moderate approach favored by Hugo Ball." Please can you tell me 'who' says his work represents Dada's nihilistic side? Is this also "transparent verbiage"? Why do you object to my referenced input whereas the preceding sentence is without references? It seems the only difference between the two sentences is the word "piss" therefore I assume you have a fundamental objection to the word piss?

Your reference to WP:SOAP is nonsensical. There is nothing soapbox-ish about stating the fact of how Tzara demanded the right to piss in different colors. I am not trying to promote anything, there is no advertisement, I am not promoting myself, there is no propaganda, or advocacy etc. I mentioned the possibility of prudery causing your editorial bias because I realise urination can be a taboo thus the taboo of demanding the right piss in different colors could cause unjust censorship. I wasn’t certain you are a prude; I merely raised the issue of prudery as a possibility, a fear. If prudery is not the reason why accuracy of this article is suffering then perhaps it is you who are guilty of WP:SOAP? Perhaps you are seeking to publicise yourself, your journalistic forays? Perhaps you are a Control_freak unable to accept input from others?

Artistic urination is a theme other artists have explored. The following are some examples of urination in art: Marcel Duchamp, Fountain 1917. Andy Warhol, oxidation painting 1977. Gilbert & George, Stream 1987 (see also THE FUNDAMENTAL PICTURES 1996). Helen Chadwick, Piss Flowers 1991. Johnathan Swift describes Gulliver urinating on a Lilliputian palace. Rabelais describes Gargantua urinating on and drowning Paris in piss.

Tzara’s demand, for the right to piss in different colors, on the opening night of the first Dada Soiree inevitably gives prominence to his statement, therefore considering the prominence Tzara gave to his statement it is perfectly acceptable to represent such prominence in the lead of the Wikipedia article. Tzara’s demand to piss in different colors is a conceptual artwork comparable to Duchamp’s fountain. Duchamp’s Fountain is mentioned in the lead of his Wikipedia article therefore it is not unjustified to reference Tzara’s demand to piss in different colors in the lead of Tzara’s article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.223.37 (talk) 16:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The lead section is a summary of the article. You will find plenty of sources for all the statements made there within, and, in some cases, throughout the article. The rest of your claims are simply puerile: they parrot my original arguments without adding anything substantial, and state over and over again the supposed importance of artistic urination, not anything about why this tidbit is relevant here. The analogy with Duchamp is perfectly false: on one hand, I can't possibly be made "responsible" by what someone else chose to do in another article - it's simply an argument; on the other, you will find the fountain, an artifact created by Duchamp, mentioned at length in biographies of Duchamp, in texts taking a holistic approach to Duchamp's career etc. - clearly not the case here. So, if there's anything worth keeping from the text you add, it may be simply as a tidbit somewhere in the article - since I see issues in how it was researched and cited, not to mention the format of the addition being an absolute mess, and since the relevancy of this still escapes me, I won't even bother with that. I'll simply inform an admin. Dahn (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Nowhere in the article is there a source to substantiate to description of nihilism, furthermore nihilism is only mentioned in the lead. This is one example of your biased editing. You are comfortable allowing nihilism to be linked to Tzara but it is prelexing why you object to the urination issue. You want to censor my valid references to an important statement made by Tzara but you fail to censor other excerpts where urination is not mentioned. This is not about the artistic importance of urination, this is about the importance Tzara ascribed to urinating in different colors. You are being ridiculous when you say my claims are puerile. I am soberly, and with a certain amount of scholarly acumen, presenting the verifiable facts thereby providing an unbiased description of Tzara's life. The opening night of the first Dada Soiree is an important date to reference in the lead and it is eminently worthwhile to mention how Tzara demanded the right to piss in different colors on the opening night, because referencing such a statement gives an accurate flavour of the absurdity, irreverence, nihilism, and anti-establishment nature inherent in Dada. Urinating in different colors is perhaps a childish thing to demand, therefore perhaps this is why you accuse me of childishness? The childish irreverence of urinating in different colors does NOT mean that my presentation of this verifiable fact is childish. Yes I recommend you do inform admin. I was considering informing them myself regarding your biased editing. You want to present a bowdlerized version of Tzara’s life which is definitely not in accord with the ethos of Wikipedia. Tzara demanding the right to piss in different colors is mentioned in innumerable biographies and although the conceptual right to piss in different colours does not have a tangible existence similar to Duchamp’s readymade Fountain the statement is nevertheless a comparable work of art, although admittedly Tzara is less notorious than Duchamp. If the relevancy of this pissing issue escapes you then I suggest you to do some actual research into Tzara’s life. I take your point about the formatting and I will replace some of the long URLs with tinyURLs.

Sadly Wikipedia doesn't allow tinyURLs therefore the original long links must either stay or be removed. Perhaps the ISBN and publisher details will be enough; I only included the links to the actual text of the books because you persisted in doubting my references.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.127.133 (talk) 09:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

1) We all have better things to do than to sink into that absurd and fallacious line of thought "it happens elsewhere" (particularly given that every such analogy is false). 2) Direct references to Tzara's nihilism are indeed found verbatim in several places in the text, and the substance of his conflict with Ball is referred to over several paragraphs in several sections. The episode described in the lead mentions a conflict essential to the development of Dada and to Tzara's career, and it is mentioned prominently by even the most oblique sources on either Tzara or Ball. 3) Not one thing mentioned in the lead is comparable in any way to picking a statement once made by Tzara (whatever its content, whatever it suggests) and imposing it as something of magnitude. I couldn't care less about the statement itself being childish (just like I don't care about it being "obscene"), the manner of pushing it or any other single statement from the million of quotable things ever said by Tzara, and then tailoring the text to fabricate importance, is childish. It also implies original research. As for researching Tzara's life: I have; you can see the product of this research in the article.

Incidentally, the publisher data would be enough. Dahn (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the Nihilism of Tzara there two *vague* allusions to Tzara’s alleged nihilism and references are lacking regarding those vague allusions. Let’s ignore the lack of clarity regarding the references and instead regarding Tzara’s nihilism we shall focus on what is actually said in the Wikipedia article about Tzara’s nihilism. The first vague allusion of nihilism, after header, is as follows:

“A major event took place in autumn 1918, when Francis Picabia, who was then publisher of 391 magazine and a distant Dada affiliate, visited Zürich and introduced his colleagues there to his nihilistic views on art and reason.[71]”

This quote does not refer specifically to the Nihilism of Tzara, it refers to another artist, Picabia, who introduces “colleagues” to his nihilistic views on art and reason. This allusion to nihilism is not about any nihilism of Tzara, it is merely about Tzara possibly being exposed to (assuming he was one of the “colleagues” at the “major event”) nihilistic views of another artist. Does this indirect exposure prove Tzara was a nihilist with nihilistic views? What are Tzara’s views on nihilism? We know Picabia had nihilistic views but this does not prove Tzara considered himself a nihilist. The second and final allusion to Tzara’s alleged nihilism states:

“Richter believes that, ideologically, Tzara was still in tribute to Picabia's nihilistic and anarchic views (which made the Dadaists attack all political and cultural ideologies), but that this implied had a measure of sympathy for the working class.[91]”

That quote is about belief and supposition regarding Tzara’s views, which are possibly nihilistic. There is no supporting corroboration from Tzara. If we can believe the inadequate reference corroborating the Richter belief, we should note Richter only “believes” Tzara is “ideologically” in tribute to Picabia’s views. Ritcher is not sure, he merely ‘believes’. Now let’s address the two references, which I say are unclear thus inadequate. Regarding 71 and 91; number 71 is listed as: “^ Richter, p.70-74. And 91. ^ a b Richter, p.175-176.” But what book is this actually referring to? I see no mention of Ibid. thus I am lost regarding the author and title of book in relation to the pages cited for the reference; but even if the reference was trustworthy, one reference is hardly sufficient considering the vague allusions to Tzara’s possible nihilism. Surely a reference to Tzara’s actual nihilism would be appropriate *IF* Tzara was actually in fact nihilistic. I am not convinced Tzara was definitely nihilistic because his nihilism is not verifiable. There are only two possible places where Tzara’s alledged nihilism is alluded to with possible references. You mention “several” instances to corroborate Tzara’s nihilism but those several references “verbatim” (?) appear to be a missing from the article.

You make criticism regarding how I highlighted your biased editing. I cited examples where you allow statements that are unable to be verified adequately; whereas my verifiable input, with numerous references from reliable sources, causes problems for you. I did NOT specifically state my input is OK because it happens elsewhere, I stated there is a blatant example of sloppy authoring in this article (the Nihilism case) but you allow that sloppiness whilst censoring my competent input. Your censorship appears to be purely because I highlight a taboo: the right to piss in different colors.

You state: “The episode described in the lead mentions a conflict essential to the development of Dada and to Tzara's career, and it is mentioned prominently by even the most oblique sources on either Tzara or Ball.” But please note a minor or even major conflict between Ball and Tzara was not essential to the development of Dada and neither was it essential to the development of Tzara’s career. Many artists communicated with and influenced Tzara such as Andre Breton, Marcel Duchamp, and George Grosz. Some artists were closer but regardless of proximity no one “episode” *between artists* can be described as "...essential to the development of Dada”. The crucial impetuous behind Dada was war; the Dadaists were rebelling against corruption of the bourgeoisie. A tiff between artists was not the reason for their art. Regarding your research of Tzara’s life I state your research is flawed. You are a dominant contributor to this article. I have looked through the article’s history; I can see you’ve made a very large amount of edits (perhaps the majority). Considering your excessive input perhaps you consider this article to be your property therefore you resent views contrary to your own. The pissing in different colors issue is not original research. Consult any reputable art historian and they will undoubtedly corroborate the pissing issue. My sources are reliable and verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.64.95 (talk) 14:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It saddens me that verifiable truth is being suppressed about Tzara regarding continual removal of references to pissing in different colors. I have previously explained, with great clarity, why the "pissing issue" is valid and worthy of inclusion. Contrary to allegations of vandalism I must point out that inclusion of references to pissing in different colors is an edit made indubitably in good faith, which is corroborated by numerous examples in reputable art literature mentioning Tzara's demand to piss in different colors, therefore such edits, which highlight the Tzara's demand, are absolutely not vandalism. Neither is the pissing issue original research. There seems to clear bias regarding the editing of this article. The arbitration is neither fair nor without prejudice. The fact that the reverts, which remove Tzara's pissing in different colors demand, are being justified because of so-called "vandalism" or "Wikipedia: No Original Research" highlights the unjust nature of the reverts. This issue is clearly NOT vandalism and is it clearly NOT original research. I am dismayed that logic and verifiable facts are being blatantly ignored.