Jump to content

Talk:Surrealism/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Surrealism

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Keodrah (talk | contribs) at 00:44, 16 May 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


The Talk:Surrealism discussion page has been archived 9 times.

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

Archive 6

Jan 25 2005 through Aug 06 2005 of this discussion page is archived at Talk:Surrealism/Archive_06. >>sparkit|TALK<< 23:43, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Slacker and Waking Life

Does anyone else think Slacker (film) and Waking life should be added to the surrealist Film section? Most of Linklater's films seem to be surrealist cinema.--Geedubber 19:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Sawin removal

Removed:

According to Martica Sawin, the Second World War represents "Surrealism in Exile", and he traces the connections to the founding of the "New York School" focused on Abstract Expressionism, and the increasing influence of Existentialism as competing with, and in many cases displacing, Surrealism's place in the American avant-garde. This view, that Surrealism would be submerged by later movements, is held particularly by American art historians, many of whom link the end of the Second World War with the end of Surrealism as an organized movement.

The view that Surrealism was submerged by later movements, seems to me important to understanding why some folks consider WWII to be the end of Surrealism.

>>sparkit|TALK<< 23:52, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Sparkit, that passage is too weak for this article on Surrealism. I am sorry, but I gave way too much to you and Stirling for the past couple of weeks. This passage is too weak. Surrealism was never submerged by later movements. Read Jose Pierre's works for God's Sake. This is a Surrealism article, not an art catalogue. Sparkit, are you really sincere in presenting the facts on Surrealism? You ignored my past references to Le Libertaire, which stuns me! By the way, Marcel Duchamp was never, "courted" by Breton. Duchamp was alway a surrealist and Breton's admiration for him was eternal. Duchamp was very much involved in Surrealism, even when he was scoffing down cigars and playing way too much chess, he was always surrealist.Classicjupiter2 01:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The passage doesn't say that Surrealism _WAS_ submerged by later movements, it says people _VIEW IT_ as submerged by later movements.
Ignored your references to Le Libertaire? You suggested I read it. Thanks for the suggestion.
As for Duchamp's involvement... it depends on one's criteria for "involvement." He participated in designing Surrealist exhibitions, but not much else.
In Tomkin's biography of Duchamp after quoting Breton's piece on Duchamp in Oct. 22 Litterature, Tomkins writes:
Breton's hero worship of Duchamp was based to some degree on the hero's elusiveness. His own attempts to claim Duchamp for the Surrealist cause were never successful, but Breton understood that if he pressed too hard he would risk losing him entirely. Breton, a natural leader who demanded almost unlimited moral authority over the lives of his followers and who ended by excommunicating most of them from the Surrealist movement, continued to venerate Duchamp for the rest of his life -- always from a respectful distance.
Now I know, of course, that no source is infallable, but this pretty much says to me that Duchamp did _NOT_ join the movement.

Sparkit, you are so wrong! Shame on you! Marcel Duchamp was ALWAYS part of the Surrealist Movement!Classicjupiter2 01:06, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but it's my understanding at the moment for which I feel no shame. >>sparkit|TALK<< 22:05, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
Frankly, I think both men have been myth-alized way out of proportion.
IMO this article should accommodate both the Bretonian Surrealism movement and what is perceived as Surrealist art, or two articles so the two aren't continually confused. >>sparkit|TALK<< 01:56, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Sparkit, one more thing: SURREALISM WANTS YOU!!!Classicjupiter2 01:06, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

LOL. What does that mean? Perhaps this is a thread we could take up on our personal talk pages? >>sparkit|TALK<< 22:05, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

American World Supremacy

The end of surrealism after the second world war is actually the end of European cultural dominance of the world. After America became a military superpower in contention with Soviet Marxist expansionist philosophy, America needed an art that it could call its own. How can a major power have no art reflecting its own greatness? Abstact Expressionism came along, an art that aptly expressed ”freedom.”

I believe that Ton Wolfe’s “The Painted Word” describes the process. By propaganda the US Government supported the new art …aided of course, by such critics and writers as Rosenberg, Steinberg and Greenberg )”Cultureberg”). American art historians and museums loved the idea of a great American Art Form of its own. Combine the need and desire with a powerful American economy and European Modernism ends, and especially Surrealism with its taint of socialist Soviet revolutionary rhetoric. Necessarily surrealism must end, if not in reality, then it must be buried by the Western writers and historians as an active movement.

Interesting points that you make, but I respectfully disagree, however, I welcome this input. In regards to Surrealism, the Surrealist Movement was never tainted with socialist Soviet revolutionary rhetoric, Breton and many surrealists strongly denounced Stalin and even Breton lost a very close friend and comrade, Louis Aragon to Stalinism. AS for European dominance of the world, really Europe was disintegrating long before WW2. Marx knew this as well as many others. AS for Surrealism and Breton, this eternal movement has no interest or involvement with any form of cultural dominance, but a desire for intense freedom. As for Abstract Expression, thanks to Surrealism and its marvellous experiments with Automatism, you have the evolution of Abstract Expression. Both Jackson Pollack and Lee Krasner (Jimmy Ernst too!!!) exhibited in Surrealist Exhibitions back in the day, that is a fact. My own two cents: I myself LOVE, LOVE, LOVE Abstract Expression!!! That is my feelings. I believe that as long as Abstract Expression was and is around, Surrealism is also around. I know that this kind gentlemen Bell, is going to curate a huge Versitic Surrealism Event sometime in 2006, if I am correct. I wish he would be more open to Automatism and AbstractSurrealism. Its really an intense Surrealist Experiment. Boris Margo is a favorite of mine too! VIVA SURREALISME!!!!!Classicjupiter2 23:50, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Well said and I am correcly admonished! Go forward and conquer!!! Your Friend...

I agree with Classicjupiter2. Witkacy commited suicide when Soviet troops invaded Poland, since they abolished free-thinker art.
That said, the preface for a third (or 4th?) Manifesto by Breton was in collaboration with Lenin. - Sigg3.net 14:11, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

To the "end" of surrealism

I can't believe, after all the debate we've had on this matter, that someone still persist in the use of surrealism as a rigid designator for the movement/group around Breton. There is no end to Surrealism (I would add: as long as mankind exists), see Boyer on Post-Surrealism.

I recognize the quotation marks and their qualitative weakening of the fallacy, but why couldn't this title be expressed as the sentence it builds upon: "the death of André Breton in 1966 marked the end of Surrealism as an organized movement." Which is the view of an art historian whom, I would say, does not know of the Stockholm surrealists etc. Still, I recognize the need of this article to have a consistent "encyclopedia" format and can settle with: The "end" of Surrealism as an organized movement. Which is what I've changed it to. - Sigg3.net 14:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Really the group of Stockholm surrealists was a total sham. Their activities were so minimal and weak, they really had no influence on surrealism in terms of longevity. Their main scope of activity was between 1986 to 1996 (and that is really pushing it). They have such a limited creative output that nobody really cares about this lot. Some members of this bogus group became right wing swedish dandies anyway, too fugazi. As for surrealism, it is more than an art movement, it is a way of life. Surrealism wants nothing more than complete revolution on all terms. Johannes should be more interested in his stupid classical music that he bores us with anyway. VIVA SURREALISME!!!Classicjupiter2 18:09, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Very many arguments could be taken with this question-begging rant, but in the end it is just a personal POV. This POV might be expressed in the article as one POV regarding the Stockholm group, but that is the extent of attention we should pay it. I would also like to note that Classicjupiter2 has alternated his claims that surrealism is not an art movement with his claims that surrealism is an art movement. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:14, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Really, Daniel it does not make any difference. You are a surrealist, and you are also an artist. To be totally honest with you, I really like your surrealist art. I also am totally convinced about your passion for surrealism. I know that you will defend the surrealist movement on any level and that is good. However, I want to mention this discovery that I made the other day: I was doing research in the library and I came across some books on Surrealism that I was not aware of, they are really good books. Anyway, one book was called, "Dreaming with open eyes" and it was a detailed account of the collection of Andre Breton's good friend, Arturo Schwarz. His historic collection of DaDa and Surrealism is in the Israel Musuem in Jerusalem. Anyway, the book has the coolest reference section that I came across, literally hundreds of document scans of letters, pamphlets, newspapers, books etc, all on surrealism. Now, one particular item, just completely blew me away: Un cadavre, Paris,15 January 1930/Leaflet in newspaper format, condemning Andre Breton and accusing him of being a false communist and revolutionary, with texts by Jacques Prevert, Georges Ribemont-Dessaignes, Michael Leiris, et al. Illustrated 4pp., 36.5x32

Classicjupiter2 17:23, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

What was really stunning was the picture of Andre Breton as Jesus Christ. The picture was a photomontage of Breton with a crown of thorns on his head. Remember that this is 1930.Classicjupiter2 17:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes; we've all seen it. That is to say, I'm surprised that you have not seen this until now. I wonder what your point is in bringing up this well-known photograph and tract, and what it has to do with the development or possible development of this article. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Why are you speaking for everyone? How do you know others have seen it? As for the development of this article, it is worth mentioning. I really do not desire to enter in debates with you sir. This is an encyclopedia, not a debating forum. Anyway, I made an addition to the article, if anyone cares.Classicjupiter2 00:10, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
I just mean that it's extremely well-known, or at least it would have to be, as it's reproduced in practically every secondary source on surrealism. About your desire to enter into debates with me, if you don't want to enter into debates with people, stay off the talk page, though I am puzzled as to how you would interpret what I wrote, if that's indeed what you're doing, as an invitation to debate. People may debate on the talk pages (in addition to other kinds of discussion) as part of a general attempt to improve Wikipedia; this is obviously what the talk pages are for. Your "lack of desire" (or, might I say, you "lacks no desire") sounds suspiciously like a blanket concession, however. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Surrealism is Alive!!! VIVA SURREALISME!!!Classicjupiter2 01:17, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Fine; I agree. But what (if anything) does any of this have to do with your previous points (if one may so dignify them)? --Daniel C. Boyer 18:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Please keep your friends out of the links section. They already had articles deleted. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a means of promotion.Classicjupiter2 03:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
This is question-begging on a number of levels and in a number of ways. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that having links to present-day surrealists and manifestations of surrealism is a great idea for this article. If Boyer has some contacts with some real, present-day surrealists, then I just don't understand your reluctance, Classicjupiter2. --Sam Wegtor 20:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Really Mr. Wegtor, that is so nice of you to mention. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tool for cheap promotion for non-notable people. Mr.Wegtor, you should be very aware of the Wikipedia policies and rules since you feel so strong about this article. Oh, I forgot. You, Mr.Wegtor appear to be a newcomer to Wikipedia. I apologize.Classicjupiter2 02:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm confused by your obsession with "cheap promotion", Classicjupiter2. You mention it a lot on this talk page. How do you draw the line between valid surrealist groups and "non-notable people"? ((For instance, why are there no links for the London surrealists, or the Paris surrealists? I think they should be added immediately. Would anyone here object to that?)) What makes you the judge of the notability of people, Classicjupiter2? --Sam Wegtor 16:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

communism, anarchism, individuals, and groups

I see that Daniel Boyer has changed the statement that surrealist groups affiliated with communism and anarchism to the statement that individual surrealists did. I don't have time right this minute to take out my history of surrealism, but I thought that Andre Breton did move the surrealist group around him to affiliated with left-wing communism as a group, and that he ejected from the group various surrealists who individually wouldn't go along with that. Isn't that so? Jeremy J. Shapiro 17:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

This looks like an old discussion but I wanted to weigh in here. For whatever it's worth, I have long been under the impression that Surrealism (not just some individuals within) had, at one point, aligned itself with the Comintern. This is purely from recollection, I don't have the source at hand (I could, however, dig out the paper I wrote when I had learned about this). Just $0.02 from a third party, if you will, who is not otherwise involved with the maintenance of this article. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 04:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Jeremy, history usually likes to portray Breton as a dictator or a pope, but really, it's not so. One really useful volume you could consult is "what is surrealism: selected writings of AB" which is edited and introduced by F. Rosemont. The intro to that book really debunks a lot of the myths regarding Breton. In any event, surrealist groups are made up of individuals making individual choices. There are no leaders. Therefore, Boyer's changes should be respected. --Sam Wegtor 14:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, at one level all groups are made up of individuals making individual choices. And no groups are exempt from general principles of group and social behavior. I'll check my Nadeau and a biography of Breton and see. Jeremy J. Shapiro 15:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Jeremy, you might also want to consult a book called "Surrealism against the current", edited by Michael Richardson. It's a very up-to-date volume with a killer intro that gives some great perspective on Breton's role in relation to other surrealists, as well as the internal dynamics of surrrealist groups, in general. I think it might be worth your while to give it a look, especially if you want to get a surrealist perspective, rather than one from art historian. The Nadeau volume is still good, even though it's been around for a while. I mentioned these two other books (Rosemont and Richardson) here, because the surrealist wiki-article has an art historian kind of bias, which is very disappointing to encounter, here and in places other than wikipedia. --Sam Wegtor 20:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Why, Thank you so much for mentioning comrade Richardson, Mr.Wegtor. That is very nice of you. As for Mr. Rosemont, he is a capitalist. One who makes money off of surrealism. You should know that by now. Oh, I forgot. Mr.Wegtor, you are new to Wikipedia. I apologize.Classicjupiter2 02:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Welcome, Jeremy and Sam to the bizarre world of the wikipedia article on surrealism, where you just don't know from day to day who or what will pop out of the rabbit hole. >>sparkit|TALK<< 02:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Sparkit, with all due respect, both you and Stirling ruined this article. It really was much better when Daniel C. Boyer was editing the article. I only disagree with him on current surrealism, post-Breton to today. Surrealism is not a philosophy. Surrealism is a revolution. This article is an art catalogue and that is a shame. I am the only one that added books to the Surrealism in Literature section. Have you ever read, "Irene's Cunt" or "Death to the Pigs"??? Have you ever read Dan's essays in Surrealist Subversions??? The answer is no.Classicjupiter2 03:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the answer may be not to remove the description of surrealism as a philosophy (after all, one of Breton's definitions was an encyclopaedia definition under the "philosophy" heading) but to explain in more detail how the surrealists who believe surrealism has "outclassed" philosophy define it as a revolution rather than a philosophy, and this is quite significant, as surrealism's initial journal showed. The solution is not really removal but expansion of the discussion of surrealism as revolution. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Most of what I've done with this article is copyedit -- rearranged the information I found here into what I think is a workable framework. The philosophy/revolution section has gone virtually unchanged since I rearranged it. There is, undoubtably much more that could be written considering that people have written entire books about it. There may come a day when I do so myself, but it is not any day soon. Perhaps someone, maybe yourself, will flesh out that section before then.
Does not the revolution and the philosophy go hand-in-hand? We differ on what to call it. I don't disagree that revolution is called for, or that surrealism is a way of revolution. It's damnably slow, though. How do you believe the revolution is progressing? >>sparkit|TALK<< 04:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Read, Surrealist Art & Writing 1919/1939, "The Gold of Time" by Jack J.SpectorClassicjupiter2 19:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

It amazes me that there is no mention of the, "La Verite sur les colonies" exhibition arranged by Aragon, Eluard and Tanguy!!! Outrage!!!Classicjupiter2 19:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Discussion continues

Upon changing the article, Classicjupiter2 wrote, (diff) (hist) . . Surrealism; 13:22 . . Classicjupiter2 (Talk) (rv see today's discussion. Please do not change my edit without talking to me first.)

I don't see that any agreement was reached in the discussion of the past few days.

After all the discussion in the past about whether to use the term "revolution" or the term "philosophy", it surprises me that these changes are again made without agreement by someone who KNOWS that the usage is contentious.

So, talk, Classicjupiter2. >>sparkit|TALK<< 23:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Sparkit, I sincerely disagree with you. Read, "Dreaming with Open Eyes" about Arturo Schwarz and his lifetime collection. Surrealism is Revolution and always will be.Classicjupiter2 02:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I think there is some confusion going on here. The point of an encyclopedia article is not to propagate an ideology, nor should an enyclopedia article about any literary, cultural, or political movement or ideology be written from within the perspective of that movement or ideology. The term "revolution" simply can't be applied in an encyclopedia article to ANY cultural movement, be it surrealism, romanticism, cubism, Nazism, the Internet, or whatever, because in such a context "revolution" is an evaluative and interpretive, not a descriptive term, because there is no clear, generally agreed upon definition of what counts as a revolution in those contexts. And, since the French Revolution, many major cultural movements have invoked revolution as part of their ideology. So we can't use that term no matter how much we personally approve of or identify with that movement or ideology. For every such claim that something is a revolution, somebody else will dispute it. So there's no way of calling a cultural or artistic movement a revolution that is not POV. To do is actually to debase the word revolution. The only way it would be legitimate to use it would be to accompany it with a definition of revolution that was generally accepted. Otherwise, there's no difference between the surrealist revolution and the Nike revolution or the Pepsi revolution or whateve. I personally resonate with surrealism and its revolutionary intent. But that's a personal matter. The article could talk about why the surrealists thought of or think of themselves as revolutionaries and what they mean by a surrealist revolution. But the article can't use the term "revolution" as a descriptor of surrealism or any other cultural movement. The Nazis also described themselves as making a revolution. Is surrealism a revolution in that sense or in some other sense? It's a bottomless pit. We have to rise above our personal attachments and emotions to be responsible Wikipedian editors. Jeremy J. Shapiro 18:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Please, Mr.Shapiro, you are not allowing me to present what is already been documented as fact in the countless books, sources and documents on Surrealism. It is a fact that Surrealism is a revolution. I am well aware of the Wikipedia policy and as an editor on here, I have the right to present what is fact. Thank you.Classicjupiter2 22:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Whether something is a revolution or not is not a matter of fact, it is a matter of interpretation according to some theory of or criteria of what makes something count as a revolution. Why don't you state here what your criteria are for counting something as a revolution, and then show how surrealism fulfills that criterion? That would contribute to clarifying the discussion and contribute toward our being able to arrive at a consensus through rational discussion. Toward this end, you might also want to edit the Wikpedia revolution page so that it would accurately reflect the theory or criteria of revolution that you are relying on. Jeremy J. Shapiro 22:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
P.S. As it happens, I went to the movies tonight and, while there, saw a preview for a new movied called "First Descent: The Story of the Snowboarding Revolution." This is an excellent example of why, without a clear definition of or criteria for what a revolution is, it doesn't make sense to call anything a revolution, because currently "revolution" is so often a hype word or propagandistic one or term of approbation, not a descriptive or analytical one.
By the way, I looked in several reference works, such as the Blackwell's Dictionary of 20th Century Social Thought for the articles on "Revolution, and what they basically give three definitions of revolution with the criteria thereof: 1) A radical and total transformation of the political and social structure of an entire society or nation, usually one completed in a short period of time, such as the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Revolution, etc. sir Ronald Syme's history of the transition from the Republic to the Empire in Ancient Rome is calle "The Roman Revolution." 2) A large-scale transformation of the social structure and social life of a society, usually driven by a technological change. Such a revolution may take decades or centuries. The main examples are The Agricultural Revolution and The Industrial Revolution. 3) There is a small number of intellectual and cultural developments, such as the Scientific Revolution or the Sexual Revolution or the rise of capitalism, that are called revolutions because even though they were cultural and reflected changes of knowledge, artitude, behavior, or the combination of all three, they had such s huge impact on the way of life, culture, behavior, or self-understanding of broad strata of the population in many societies for large periods of time. It seems to me to claim that a cultural shift or innovation or movement was a revolution, it would have to meet the criteria for one of these three categories. It seems to me that there is also another, subordinate dimension in which new cultural developments are revolutionary, namely within specific knowledge disciplines or artistic fields. For example, one could claim that or at least argue whether Beethoven or Schoenberg constituted revolutions IN MUSIC, but not in the larger world, and the same holds for other major shifts in the arts or knowledge, e.g. linear perspective in painting, the writing of Kafka in literature, Marxian theory or postmodern thinking in the humanities and social sciences, etc. But if these are revolutionary, it is not at the general level of the society ror culture, but rather within intellectual or cultural fields or disciplines. I think that usually one of the criteria for this sort of revolution is that it is not merely an important style or movement or idea but that it produces irreversible changes or a "paradigm shirt" in its field or discipline. In any case, it is in the context of this kind of consideration that one could carry on a reasonable discussion about whether surrealism counts as a revolution. Jeremy J. Shapiro 08:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Saying "is not merely an important style" shows a basic misconception. Surrealism is not a style, however important. The slightest examination of surrealist visual works would confirm this. How are Miro and Dali alike? Magritte and Penelope Rosemont? Tristan Meinecke and Hans Bellmer? Give me a break. --Daniel C. Boyer 23:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Definition

Revolution: "A sudden or momentous change in a situation": What we are looking for in this revolution is the destruction of logic. We wish to change the common (logical) way of looking at things. It is a revolution of the mind. It is a revolt against the ordinary. It can be personal as well as broadly social. When we revolt, we refuse to accept the accepted and are enlightened by a new truth. Read about Robert Sagerman, the Jewish mystic of the Kabala. Each of Sagerman's paintings are revolutions. SURREALISM is, a priori, truth by definition, REVOLUTION!!!! (unsigned by user 24.215.213.250 08:07, October 2, 2005)

I'm sorry, but my sense is that you're writing as a partisan ("what we are looking for in this revolution is", "we wish to change", etc.), not as an encyclopedia editor making carefully thought out judgments from an objective point of view. The encyclopedia article about surrealism is not supposed to be written from the point of view of a "we wishing to change" anything, that's what's called POV, but of people relatively dispassionately communicating knoweldge from a relatively objective point of view. If we were to go into Wikipedia and write every article from the perspective of the person in it who believed that they were making "a sudden or momentous change", then there would be several hundred thousand revolutions in Wikipedia and the word "revolution" would be meaningless (that was my point about the "snowboarding revolution", although it IS legitimate to report that certain people, writers, artists, inventors, historical figures BELIEVED that they were making a revolution. It's not possible for there to be an artist or musician or writer every one of whose works is a revolution: art historians wouldn't even say that about Giotto, Michelangelo, Rembrandt, Cezanne, Picasso! And NOTHING in the world can be revolution a priori or by definition, since whether surrealism or anything in the world is or is not revolution is an a posteriori, empirical judgment. If it's true by definition, then by definition it's meaningless. The point is, that we Wikipedia editors have to write objectively, and not as partisans, even about the things that in our personal lives we are partisans about. If I were a communist or fascist or fundamentalist and went into Wikipedia and wrote every article from that point of view, then Wikipedia would be ruined (and, fortunately, what I had written would be almost immediately reverted). To say that surrealism is revolution a priori or by definition is a fundamentalist statement, no different than any other fundamentalist statement about God or evolution or anything else. If it's of any personal interest to you, I believe that if you knew me you would discover that I am as partisan in favor of surrealism as you are. But my responsibility as a Wikipedia editor is to write and edit from an encyclopedic, NPOV perspective, not to write from the perspective of my personal prejudices. Jeremy J. Shapiro 16:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Agree with Jeremy. Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV. It is not the consensus view in society that Surrealism is a revolution: "Surrealism is a style" [1] "Surrealism, movement in visual art and literature" [2]. Even in Breton's Manifesto of Surrealism [3] , he only uses the word 'revolution' once and that is talking about the french revolution. Cfitzart 04:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't know what on earth you're talking about. The complete non-sequitur about artists is particularly confusing -- are you repeating the very tired misconception that surrealism is an artistic movement? And as for "fundamentalist statement"s and all that crap -- what are you saying? I agree with what you're saying about POV but it's not a POV that surrealism was conceived of as revolutionary at its founding and continues to be so conceived of by surrealists down to the present day. In my view it would be better to put it this way, that it is and was conceived as a revolutionary movement, with acknowledgment of the POVs of those outside the movement who have (in my view, with no real justification) attempted to subsume it into other non-revolutionary meanings, going down so far as The Surreal Life. There's a way to resolve this and I think we're getting closer to it. --Daniel C. Boyer 23:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I have no interest at all in Robert Sagerman, the Jewish mystic of the Kabala. You are going on and on and on without accepting the facts. Surrealism is a revolution! Ask Daniel C.Boyer. He will tell you the same thing. As well as the hundreds of Surrealism books, pamphlets and documents. Does, "The Surrealist Revolution" mean anything to you? Surrealism is a revolution, whether you like it or not.Classicjupiter2 18:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you respond to the actual things I've said and the actual points I've made? I have responded to what you said about the "fact" status of something being a revolution. But you have not responded to what I said about it. I thought that the point of these Talk pages was to have actual discussion leading to understanding and consensus. I have tried to respond to what you said, but you have simply repeated what you said before without responding to my points about whether something being a revolution is a fact or an interpretation or theory, and that there must be explicit criteria for something being a revolution. I am writing these things in good faith, in accordance with the norms of Wikipedia about manifesting and assuming good intent. Would you please assume my good intent and respond to what I've said? Jeremy J. Shapiro 18:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Surrealism being a revolution, or as I would put it, revolutionary, is an interpretation or theory, but only to the extent that it is the interpretation or theory of surrealism held by surrealists. Obviously some people don't agree with surrealism, and certainly this should be acknowledged in the article; obviously some people overlapping with the first category don't believe surrealism to be revolutionary. But the theory is entitled to be given a certain importance as it's the theory expressed by surrealists. (The theory that communism is revolutionary is only an interpretation or theory, and some out-there people would probably disagree with this interpretation, but it's the theory held by communists, so it would have to assume a very important place in any article about communism.) --Daniel C. Boyer 23:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

As you can clearly see in the very article that you are editing, "La Révolution surréaliste". Sir, I am responding to you in good faith. I really do not intend to use these talk pages as a forum. I only present what is fact. Now, I am going to put back my edit, which is supported by the hundreds of books on Surrealism. In the meantime, do yourself a favor and study the topic that you edit, before you take such a stance on editing this article. Surrealism is a Revolution.!Classicjupiter2 18:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

If you are responding in good faith, then please respond to my point about facts, interpretations, and criteria. Jeremy J. Shapiro 18:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Mr.Shapiro, let me help you. You are looking into all the wrong places. Blackwell's "Dictionary of 20th Century Social Thought" is not what you should be researching when editing this article. First, start with everyhting that you can devour on Andre Breton, then get back to me.Classicjupiter2 18:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. I have been reading Andre Breton and surrealist texts for 40 years. My point is about the definition of revolution. I notice that you still won't respond to my points. If you won't, perhaps you would at least explain why you won't. Jeremy J. Shapiro 18:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Shapiro, we are looking at the definition of "surrealism," not the definition of "revolution." That is where your argumentation fails and is irrelevant. I realize that you are a well educated man given to excessive verbage and non-sequitor. But this "sea of excess" cannot sink the boat of surreaiism as revolution. I say this as an epistemologist. This is not POV. This is what surrealism is, plain and simple...revolutionary idea carried into...whatever. What is POV about the very definiton of surrealism being revolution as clearly promulgated by Breton? Classic J. doesn't get you, I do not get you, and Boyer probably will not "get" you, although we cannot speak for him. Why not go define revolution in some other article? What is your interest in "our" domain?

Mr.Shapiro, Surrealism is Revolution and we want you!!!Classicjupiter2 22:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. read some of Daniel C. Boyer's essays in, "Surrealist Subversions". I have to admit, they are real good!Classicjupiter2 22:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

For the Record

I will support the following edit by Daniel C.Boyer because it is fact and worthy of mention in this article. "However, many surrealists and surrealist documents have said that surrealism is not an artistic movement for a number of reasons, among which is the conception of the "artistic" manifestations of surrealism as just one form of manifestation among many, various conceptions of visual work being created which somehow "goes beyond" traditional conceptions of art or aesthetics, or even the complete cessation of creative visual production." Classicjupiter2 01:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I tried to attend to the concerns and statements of colleagues Daniel Boyer and Classicjupiter2 by a) strengthening the emphasis on and link to revolution in the first paragraph, and b) consolidating the critique of the notion of surrealism as an artistic movement in the surrealism and the arts section, moving Boyer's statement from the introduction to that section and connecting it to the similar prior material in that section, so that the section now makes an even stronger statement on that topic. Jeremy J. Shapiro 07:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Let the record show that I agree with Mr.Shapiro. Great work!Classicjupiter2 00:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Groups

I believed it made sense to give here (on the page about surrealism) a passing, bottom of page reference to groups who believe they have a surrealist activity, and mention those I know, whether they have web sites or not and publish magazines.

User Classicjupiter2 thinks that they are "not active in the area of surrealism". That's his appreciation and obviously in contradiction to what these groups think, but I would like to hear what others think, be they authors of this page or simple browsers as I was, as I do not think fair that one single person owns this space and rules as he seems to be doing. Or I am mislead and know too little about wikipedia, its policy and what is regarded "notable" according to its standards, ... and disappointed!

see below 1) my exchange with Classicjupiter2, and 2) my list

  • regarding this edit 18 september

The context : "Revision as of 03:15, 18 September 2005 Classicjupiter2 (Talk | contribs) removed groups that are not notable and also had articles deleted here on Wikipedia."

This deleted a list of groups who are active in the area of surrealisme and I thought could be of interest to readers of wikipedia.

Can you give a bit more depth into what you consider "notable" and "not notable" and about deleted articles : created by who, deleted by who, why ?

If they were active in the area of surrealism, then the articles would not have been deleted. You need to talk to all of the Wikipedians who voted to delete the articles. You are more than welcome to do the research here on Wikipedia to investigate. In regards to your question of what is and what is not notable, you need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy. All the best.Classicjupiter2 01:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

  • proposed list of groups

User:jjmeric

To the good gentlemen, Mr.Shapiro

Dear Mr.Shapiro, I kindly disagree with you on the issue of the edits regarding Surrealism as Revolution. Please let me explain, in order to clarify this matter and assist you in your understanding of Surrealism when editing this great article. First, Surrealism is Revolution. This is Historic Fact and continues to be Fact. Surrealism wants nothing more than the complete destruction of Capitalism, Organized Religion, Government, Nationalism and all forms of Organized Oppression, such as mandatory work, etc. Surrealism continues to be a force to be reckoned with and surrealists want to transform life itself, in order to free humanity from the grips of closed rationalism and formal logic. Surrealism strives to unite us all through its many investigations into the collective subconscious and automatism, while striving towards the complete synthesis between reality and sur-reality. Andre Breton's manifestos continue to resonate as do many contemporary surrealists essays, writings, polemics, rants, arguments, desires, investigations, etc. ALL to bring forth the Revolution of the MIND!!! Mr.Shapiro, it is the MIND that will overcome all obstacles, all indifference, all injustice and all physical phenomena. Freud was right on target, Breton exposed the target to a world audience and created a Revolution. This Revolution continues today. Go out and read, "Surrealist Subversions", talk to a couple of anarchists and radicals and get involved in discussion and debate. Allow Surrealism to infect everthing that is around us, the more people that are exposed to Surrealism, the better.Classicjupiter2 01:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure its fact? Breton's Manifesto of Surrealism doesnt say anything about 'revolution'.. he says: "Therefore, I am defining it once and for all:

SURREALISM, n. Psychic automatism in its pure state, by which one proposes to express -- verbally, by means of the written word, or in any other manner -- the actual functioning of thought. Dictated by the thought, in the absence of any control exercised by reason, exempt from any aesthetic or moral concern." [4] Cfitzart 04:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

While I agree with the intent of Cfitzart with regard to surrealism -- he/she wrote that it's an artistic movement, not a revolution (compared to the French Revolution) -- I agree with the statements that several people have made on this page that surrealism is more than an artistic movement. Indeed it has had partisans who have been surrealistic -- and has had influences on others -- in art,poetry, philosophy, politics, and the conduct of everyday life. I think that this is covered by the formulation "cultural, artistic, and intellectual movement". Furthermore, the revolutionary intent and commitment of some (but not all) surrealists is truthfully and responsibly captured in the formulation "For many Surrealists, this orientation toward transcending everyday reality toward one that incorporates the imaginative and the unconscious has manifested itself in the intent to bring about personal, cultural, political and social revolution, sometimes conceived or described as a complete transformation of life by freedom, poetry, love, and sexuality." So I think that "Classicjupiter2"'s grounds for changing the wording to "surrealism is revolution" or "a revolution'" have no merit, since the introduction already captures in strong wording the orientation of many surrealists toward revolution of a fundamental kind. I don't think there's any point in responding directly to "Classicjupiter2"'s tirade, since so far he has refused to write, think, or discuss as a Wikipedia editor presenting a neutral perspective on a topic but only as a propagandist or true believer, and probably doesn't even believe the things he's writing, because no-one who took surrealism seriously would refuse to be a well-intentioned or co-operative collaborator or would refuse to write about surrealism except as a propagandist. He may even be a person who is trying to make people discount surrealism and/or Wikipedia, because if any person from the general public goes to Wikipedia and reads an article on communism from a communist perspective or on fascism from a fascist perspective or on surrealism from a surrealist perspective will a) discount Wikipedia as a serious and reliable work; and b) will not take seriously the article about surrealism (or communism or fascism, etc.). So it is very hard to believe that Classicjupiter2 really sympathizes with surrealism and wants to "infect everything around us" -- the choice of the word "infect" may reveal an underlying hostility to surrealism == or that he really supports the Wikipedia project. Anyone who falls back on their particular worldview as a "fact", no matter how many people before them have claimed it to be a "fact", has disqualified himself as a Wikipedia editor. I say "himself" because I think it's something that in general is a characteristic of patriarchal and male thinking and writing much more than it is of female thinking and writing, although of course there are exceptions. In any case, by claiming that surrealism's being a revolution is a fact, Classicjupiter2 has no way of differentiating himself from a true believer communist, fascist, or religious fundamentalist, since they all believe that their worldviews are based on facts. I predict that Classicjupiter2 will prove me right by responding to this with the same statements he made before, and go back to reverting the introduction to present a propagandist's perspective. Jeremy J. Shapiro 04:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

We discuss the location of one word, ONE WORD!, in the lead paragraph. It seems to me that the view that Surrealism is revolution is significant, yet the article contains little explanation of that view. A quote or two from one of these books might get the ball rolling on expanding this view in the article. >>sparkit|TALK<< 04:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Mr.Shapiro writes,

"because no-one who took surrealism seriously would refuse to be a well-intentioned or co-operative collaborator or would refuse to write about surrealism except as a propagandist".

How does he know this. Is he an expert on Surrealism? Is he a Surrealist? How long has Mr.Shapiro been editing this article??? Why does he attack me? I am only making a one word edit. I tried to be nice to this man and it is obviously not working. Well, I tried.

As for Sparkit, you can read, "Surrealist Subversions", and "What is Surrealism" to help you. Sparkit, I can tell that you are really into Surrealism. I know that you really dig Marcel Duchamp. So do I.Classicjupiter2 17:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not looking for help or reading assignments. I would like to see the revolution aspect of surrealism covered in the article. I've already said that I may write it some day, but not any day soon. Several editors of this article seem to have citeable resources readily available, and could perhaps flesh out the revolution aspect of surrealism in the article.
I find it odd that you, Classicjupiter2, question comments about yourself, then two sentences later do analysis of someone else.
Would anyone besides myself like to focus on the article, rather than each other? >>sparkit|TALK<< 19:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree that it would be nice to have a section called "Surrealism and Revolution" that would describe both how the surrealists thought of themselves as making a revolution and their relationship to political revolutionary movements. I also can't take the time to work on it now because huge amount of my job work, but will be glad to co-operate on this in the future. Jeremy J. Shapiro 19:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Sparkit, I have not done any, "analysis" on anyone here, that is just not true. Please leave my one edit alone. I can cite many book sources as well. Please take the time to do the research or go to your local library and take out, "What is Surrealism" to help you.Classicjupiter2 19:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Then I suppose I took the comment, "I can tell that you are really into Surrealism," to be analysis -- a conclusion drawn from I don't know what. I'll repeat, I'm not looking for, nor at this point do I appreciate, help or assignments. >>sparkit|TALK<< 19:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Your own words have proven that you are not willing to help this article in any way, shape, or form. Surrealism is Revolution and I have the sources to prove this fact! In the meantime, I am going to place my edit back to its orginal state, third and last for today in accordance with Wikipedia policy. I know you will change it out of pure spite and hatred for my edits, but I will wait and come back to add it right back in, since my one and only edit is supported by the many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many books on Surrealism, which I can cite! Also, it is documented fact right here in this very article, "The Surrealist Revolution", read the passage.Classicjupiter2 21:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I think those who try to argue with Classicjupiter2 are wasting their time, since he is unwilling to commit himself to the principles of responsible Wikipedia editorship and is acting as a saboteur. As long as he won't commit himself to the principles of Wikipedia discussion and the responsibilities of Wikipedia editorship, it would be like trying to engage in rational argument or conflict resolution with someone who was also holding a pistol at your head, in other words he is operating out of violence, or it is like trying to have a rational conversation with someone who acts like a thug. Until ClassicJupiter2 stops acting like a thug and demonstrates his intention not to, there's no point in having these arguments with him. Better to just discuss what would make a good surrealism article. There are three ways ClasicJupiter2 could easily demonstrate that he is not a thug, vandal, or troll -- but you will see that he won't do so. First he could make an explicit statement of his understanding of what is involved in being a responsible Wikipedia editor. Second, he could state his criteria for distinguishing between a fact and an interpetation. Third, he could show how his actions were implementations of those two statements. As long as he won't do these things, he is really just operating like a thug outside of the norms that the rest of us who are trying to produce a good and responsible encyclopedia here feel bound by. I see from looking at other pages that there are all kinds of thugs and vandals who mess around with articles either out of pure destructiveness or because they think it makes them cool or because through doing things they could get a rise out of other people who had to undo their vandalism or silliness and that made them feel important. One of Wikipedia's norms is to assume good intent on the part of those working on Wikipedia. But in a case like this, a person acting like a thug has to go out of their way to demonstrate this good intent. I personally would be happy if he would demonstrate his good intent. But I predict that he will continue to act like a thug rather than demonstrate his good intent. And it's not really possible to negotiate with or carry on rational or co-operative discourse with thugs. I disagree with SparkIt that the disagreement is about one word in the introductory paragraph; that word is really just a symbol of the issue of whether ClassicJupiter2 is a thug, is a genuine Wikipedia editor with good intent, and can distinguish between a fact an an interpretation. I say he can't and won't, because for some reason this thug behavior on this article gives him some kick or personal gratification or gets him some attention or something like that. Or he's literally a fundamentalist or propagandist who can't really grasp the idea of what an encyclopedia is or what scholarship is. I have been in plenty of groups in real life where one person set himself as the bottleneck to try to prevent the group from working co-operatively or making progress on the group project. It's not that unusual a phenomenon. Jeremy J. Shapiro 09:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

One word... a comment borne of frustration. Indeed, the problem isn't about one word.
Intent... Classicjupiter2, my intent in asking for no more help or assignments is to focus on the article rather that myself, yourself or other selfs. >>sparkit|TALK<< 17:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Sir, with all due respect, I do not like being called a, "thug" or "vandal" or "troll". That is a blatant attack against me and your intentions to provide a clear and open-minded discussion without addressing the facts is obvious. I have been editing this article long before you and with all due respect, I am only making a one-word edit, while you are taking entire control over this article. Now, that this article is under your control, the public will be given a Surrealism article with your slant to it and that is not fair. I totally disagree with your, "Critique of Surrealism" passage, but if you want it in, then so be it. As for Surrealism being a Revolution, that is a fact. Please stop attacking me. There a countless books and sources that can back up my one word edit. Surrealism is a Revolution and always will be.Classicjupiter2 17:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with JShapiro's assessment of the vandalism of classicjupiter2. I've been following the development of this surrealism article for a few months, and have noticed that Classicjupiter2 seems intent on causing these "bottlenecks" or disruptions, as you put it, Jeremy. Usually he tells this or that person to read this or that article, but really it's all just a smokescreen for his disruption of the article-writing process. I wonder what ClassicJupiter2's stake in all this really is?

On the subject of the article, I'd like to see more external links to currently active groups. It's very disappointing that the presence of post-WW2 surrealism isn't taken very seriously. There's a french group, a czech group, a couple of british groups (like upland trout, for instance) a swedish group, a portuguese group, and some american groups, as well. I've noticed that someone (jjmeric) tried to put these in, from previous entries on this talk page, but apparently ClassicJupiter2 took it upon himself to veto this inclusion by user: jjmeric. --Sam Wegtor 18:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I have re-added the omitted groups to the article (and there are still a few more I hope to add). They are all noteworthy and relevent to surrealism. They are also important because they demonstrate the internationality of the movement. --Sam Wegtor 20:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear Mr.Shapiro,

I can work out the beginning with you for the benefit of consensus. As for this user, "Sam Wegtor", they are attempting to use this article for the promotion of clubhouse-oriented, "groups" that are so non-notable, all their articles were deleted off Wikipedia. Mr.Shapiro, I understand your intentions for the article, and I respect that, you and I can talk. I can work something out with you. Tell me what you think. As for this Sam Wegtor, I have a feeling that this new user is someone who was given a warning by an administrator in the past to cool it and now they are coming in under a different user name, to promote these extremely non-notable and fringe clubhouse groups who keep online blogs and other rants, total waste of research. Mr.Shapiro, I can talk to you.Classicjupiter2 01:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, ClassicJupiter2, you are wrong about these external surrealist links. All of the groups added are current and active in surrrealism. They have exhibits, meetings and publications. What more do you ask of them to prove their validity to surrealism? I have readded the links. --Sam Wegtor 16:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I have reinserted the external links for current surrealist groups, which were again deleted by Classicjupiter2. Classicjupiter2 claims that these are just non-notable "clubhouse" links to groups whose wiki articles have already been deleted, anyway. His logic sounds circular, to me. I disagree with his assessment of their non-notability, for reasons already stated above (october 25). ClassicJupiter2, please stop interfering with the success of this article! --Sam Wegtor 17:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Regarding, "Sam Wegtor"

"They have exhibits, meetings and publications."

Please stop adding these non-notable, "groups" to this article. If they were notable, none of their articles would have been deleted by the Wikipedia Community. You do not need to use a free encyclopedia as a tool of promotion for these people. If they were notable, they would be recognized as notable and they are not. Again, online blogs and rants and the harrassment against other surrealist artists does not make these entities notable at all. Their articles were deleted. Note: this user, "Sam Wegtor" is a new user to this article.Classicjupiter2 01:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Classic Jupiter, you can use your circular logic (that anything not in wikipedia or deleted from wikipedia must, ergo, be non-notable, by default) in your vendetta against current surrealist groups, and you can also attack my name, but guess what: the links are replaced again. I have already explained why they are noteworthy. Please stop vandalizing the surrealism article, ClassicJupiter2 --Sam Wegtor 13:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

With regard to the current controversy about the links to various groups, I'm wondering whether it would attenuate the controversy to subdivide that section into links to documents and material from and about the "classical" age of surrealism, links to current groups that ally themselves with surrealism or see themselves as continuations, etc.? I imagine that someone reading a general article about surrealism would be interested in both, especially if they weren't all lumped together but clearly differentiated and organized. Jeremy J. Shapiro 19:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Jeremy, that is a brilliant idea! Having the external links organized into subdivisions would be convenient for the reader: for those who want to learn about the classical, academic side of surrealism, they could chooose from one set of links, and for the "clubhouse" folks who want to know about the surrealism of today, they could choose from another set, but all on the same page! Whad'ya say, ClassicJupiter2? --Sam Wegtor 21:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I am all for it. It is a brilliant idea. In fact, ALL the Surrealist Groups should in fact go back in. I will agree to add them back. Go ahead Mr.Sam Wegtor, you have my blessing to all ALL the links back in the article. I will no longer remove them. By the way, when you add all the links back in, you know, of all your friends in the surrealist movement, please don't leave out our one special surrealist friend.Classicjupiter2 01:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The timing is also perfect. His recent surrealist essay should go live Nov. 1st! A groundbreaking document on Surrealism and Photomontage! Yes, Mr.Sam Wegtor, I will agree to ALL of the Surrealists ALIVE today to be in the links of this very article!!! VIVA SURREALISME!!!Classicjupiter2 01:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I put ALL of the Links back in! There is still one more that I need to add!Classicjupiter2 01:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Uh, hello, we're new here, but we'd like to suggest our site for inclusion in the external links section: [5]

Oh, and because it's halloween, we're having a bobbing-for-apples party in our bathtub this weekend, out at our Fire Island bungalow, and everyone's invited! Surrealist greetings! --Ernie-and-bert 15:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The link you posted does not work. What happened to Sam Wegtor? All of a sudden, this new user, "Ernie and bert" come along? I will contact an administrator. This is a serious discussion about surrealism, not about invitations for, "bobbing for apples".Classicjupiter2 21:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

"Bobbing for apples," huh? That's cute. Thanks for the invitation, Ernie and bert, but I spent my halloween weekend in Nashville. ClassicJupiter2, I'm glad you like the idea of having various subcategories within the external links section. I'd propose that there be categories of: 1) academic/classical links, 2) current group/collective links, and 3) individual artists. Any thoughts? --Sam Wegtor 14:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

ClassicJupiter2, do you have any links that you'd like to add to the external links section? As it stands right now, I'm pleased with the representation of current surrealist groups and collectives. --Sam Wegtor 18:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

You forgot comrade Juan Carlos Otano and The Surrealist Group of Argentina!!! VIVA SURREALISME!!!Classicjupiter2 02:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I just added some preliminary categorization of the links into the 3 groups I proposed November 2. Classicjupiter2, if you know the URL for the Otano link, then please feel free to add it. --Sam Wegtor 15:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Please do not place that Dale Housman link back on this page. It is not a proper reference link for Surrealism, also it attacks Prof.Ernst Fuchs, using copyright-protected images of him, while attacking and slandering him online, besides linking the WAH Center as well. I will contact an administrator if it is placed on here again. Wikiepedia is NOT the place to promote flame wars and website attacks. Thank you.Classicjupiter2 17:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Did you know that the good professor Fuchs was at our halloween party last weekend? He sat next to us in the hot tub. BTW, both ernie and myself are simply delighted that Keith Wigdor's link has been added to the page. The entire page looks splendid. Also, we're going to have thanksgiving in our bathtub this year, so everyone is welcome to stop by that day for some marijuana and a little turkey-basting. Surrealist greetings! --Ernie-and-bert 02:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I am going to report you to an administrator, surrealist X.70.19.75.190 19:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

ClassicJupiter2, we restored the united states surrealist groups that you deleted. If you think these groups are to be removed, and "unverifiable," then Bert and I can't see how we should keep links such as, say, "Keith Wigdor". Please consider this very, very, very, very carfully. If the links to the surrealist groups must go, then the links to the individual artists might as well go, too. Your choice. --Ernie-and-bert 02:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Xtian, its not gonna happen, please stop your attacks and go away, please.Classicjupiter2 02:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Its amazing how, "Ernie and Bert" become so serious as soon as their friends blogs gets deleted. What happened to the marijuana and, "little turkey-basting" that you were stating as fact? Let the record show that nothing this, "Ernie and Bert" writes is credible. This user stated they were in a hot tub with Prof. Fuchs at a halloween party. Then this user has the nerve to offer us marijuana online, which is illegal. Please stop harrassing this article and leave us all alone. I am going to talk to Mr.Shapiro and then to a Wikipedia authority. I kept the other links, I only removed the one we cannot verify as legit. Who knows who these people are with these blogs and geocities freeby websites? Anyone that comes on here pushing drugs and lies has no credibility.Classicjupiter2 03:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Classicjupiter2, it is so unfair of you to attack us in this way. Ernie and I have talked it over, and decided that you are too bossy and authoritative on this site. We are trying to work with you to make this article the best that it can be, and here you are, just deleting whatever doesn't appeal to your personal tastes. Please leave us alone and stop trying to degrade us. WE NEVER ATTACKED YOU, SO WHY ARE YOU ATTACKING US? And it is our right to smoke marijuana as long as we don't inhale it. If it makes you feel any better, Fuchs is here with us right now in the bathtub, and he said that he doesn't approve of your behavior, either. Surrealist greetings! --Ernie-and-bert 03:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, our names are "Ernie and Bert" and we would appreciate it if you would address us only as such. Some genuine politeness on your part would be greatly appreciated, please. --Ernie-and-bert 03:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I put the american links back in. ClassicJupiter, I don't understand how you can eliminate the american groups while keeping non-notable, unverifiable individual artists. Who the hell is Keith Wigdor? Who the hell is Terrence Lindall? Who the hell is Adriano Monteiro (goetia fine art link)? All of those guys are nobodys.

Seems to me that you've got some kind of grudge or personal vendetta against these american surrealist collectives. As crazy and childish as "Ernie and Bert" are as editors, they are right in their perceiving you as excessively "bossy and authoritative". Unfortunately, your approach is highly unprofessional and inappropriate to this wikipedia article-building process. The next step would be to eliminate all of the "contemporary" links, both groups and artists, and just stick with the old-fashioned academic links of 20th century surrealism. I would prefer, however to keep ALL the links. I repeat: ALL of the links. --Sam Wegtor 15:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Classicjupiter2, these american surrealist groups are bogus. I cannot find anything solid on these groups except Chicago, which Classicjupiter2 already left in. As for these Keith Wigdor, Terrance Lindall, and Goetia, they are solid, and they are already categorized in the surrealist artist category of the external links, they are not in the surrealist groups section, so why does this sam wegtor all of a sudden care? We are talking about current surrealist groups and the ones that were deleted are bogus. Who are these people? Blue Feathers? Please? Come on Sam wegtor, this ernie and bert are talking about pot and hot tubs.70.19.56.209 17:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I put the american links back again. I think user 70.19.56.209 is ClassicJupiter2's sock puppet. --Sam Wegtor 17:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi everyone, to introduce myself, my name is Keith Wigdor, and I'm new to wikipedia. I've already noticed someone on this site has posted a link of "keith wigdor" in the external links section of the surrealism article, but it makes me wonder if this guy is an impostor, or what. Either that, or it's just a small world, a true coincidence. I will put the link to my new website right next to his. Hopefully someone can get in touch with the other Keith so that we can come up with a way to distinguish us from each other. Anyways, as you might have guessed, I'm a surrealist artist and have been a surrealist since college. I sell my art for a living, and particularly thrive in group exhibits. Hope to hear from you! THANKYOU KEITH WIGDOR.---keith-wigdor- 23:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The above is online harrassment. I contacted the real artist. I would recommend that you stop creating websites that harrass this artist online, unless you want to be sued. I removed the link and I suggest you remove that website offline.70.19.27.152 17:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


Let's Get a Grip

My understanding is that the point of Talk pages on Wikipedia is for constructive, collaborative discussion (including occasionally debate) among those TRYING TO COLLABORATE ON MAKING GOOD WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES, not for personal vendettas or in-group or secret conversations or messages or personal diaries, blogs, or personal expression. I consider it quite legitimate for people to conduct all of the latter type of communication in the world at large and in various places on the Internet, but I don't understand why people do it on Wikipedia Talk pages. Seems to me that it is just a distraction from getting the work done. Please excuse me for lecturing or moralizing, but many Wikipedia editors are hugely busy in the rest of their lives but are donating some of their time because they believe in the value of creating a truly great global, universally accessible encyclopedia, and putting on distracting or personal or in-group material just means that they have to spend more time wading through all of this stuff. All of us have too much information to deal with as it is, and so on Wikipedia pages it seems that what we need is information that is directly related to the articles, not all kinds of personal stuff. I, too, have my personal likes and dislikes, preferences in music, movies, friends, and so on, but I am not trying to take up other Wikipedia editors' time -- and Wikipedia servers' storage space -- with these things. There are some good things about the surrealism article, and some things that could be improved. Can we try to keep our focus on the article and not our personal egos? Let's get a grip! And let's remember that the point of this article is not to be a mouthpiece or advocacy piece for surrealism. It is to produce a "neutral point of view" article. This requires of all of us, no matter how much we ourselves identify with surrealism or think of ourselves as surrealists, to suspend part of our identity in working on this article, because our identity here is as Wikipedia editors. Of course we can draw on what we know from our surrealist identity. But, according to Wikipedia rules, we have to produce an article that is not itself surrealistic and that someone who hates or opposes surrealism would think of as a fair representation of surrealism. Jeremy J. Shapiro 19:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Mr.Shapiro, I added Rene Char to the article. Also, I completely agree with what you wrote above. I recommend that the users, "Ernie and Bert" and "keith-wigdor" (an imposter who uses the internet to harrass the real surrealist artist Keith Wigdor and Terrance Lindall) be permanently banned from Wikipedia. I agree that we have all had disagreements in the past and debate can be healthy, but these two users are deliberately disrupting the article and using it to harrass, defame and slander innocent people online. These users do have IP's, and they need to be banned from Wikipedia, forever.Classicjupiter2 20:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Shapiro, you obviously think that Ernie & Bert are CONSTRUCTIVE...and LEGITIMATE??? I only ask the question, let others decide whether Mr. Shapiro has good judgement. AB

I think that this jockeying for position and self-assertion among people, whether real, fictional, fantasied, etc., whom the world at large is not interested in is an example of what I was identifying as time-wasting behavior. The world at large is not interested in Keith Wigdor, Ernie and Bert, Jeremy Shapiro, Classicjupiter2, Terrance Lindall, etc. or whether they exist or don't exist. But it might be interested in a truly excellent article about surrealism if we put energy into that. I recognize that most people in the world do not get the recognition that they deserve as individuals. But the fact that some of them will go to extreme lengths to get it is the source of a lot of nuisance to others. Jeremy J. Shapiro 21:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I quite agree. But you seem to find Bert & Ernie legitimate enough to abuse people on this talk page. This is the curiosity! All the while you rant saying that this page should be exclusively about creating a good article on surrealism. I ask you to use good judgement and not be arbitrary. Is that too much to ask? AB

Mr.Shapiro means well and I agree with him on the issues of improving the article. However, we all must agree on the main issue of preventing online harrassment, defamation and slander, as well as the disruptive actions and intent by those who want to harm others online while using Wikipedia. Lets face the facts, the users, "Ernie and Bert" and the imposter, "keith-wigdor" need to be banned. I hope that Mr.Shapiro can understand that there are people who are being hurt by these users. As for the surrealist artists Terrance Lindall and Keith Wigdor, they are real and they do not deserve to be harrassed by these users here on Wikipedia. As for the contemporary surrealist groups, they now have their links on here, what more do they want? Mr.Shapiro is very sincere and also very helpful, but I must also agree with the above user's point about the actions of, "Ernie and Bert". Mr.Shapiro, you can obviously read the abusive and harmful slander that this, "Ernie and Bert" have posted, we all must agree that this particular user be banned. As for the surrealism article, you have done a wonderful job, and even though you and I have had strong disagreements in the past, we both have resolved them together and we both have a new respect for one another. I really respect Mr.Shapiro's intentions to improve the article, however, I do not respect this user, "Ernie and Bert" for their blatant attacks and harrassment against innocent people. This user must be banned so we can all move on. There is no other way. "Ernie and Bert" have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they are hear to harm others with lies, defamation and slander. It needs to stop, now. Mr.Shapiro, you are more than welcome on my discussion page to address this matter. We all need to focus on the article and this discussion page has already be ruined by "Ernie and Bert", who needs to be banned.Classicjupiter2 22:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Ban ernie and bert, they are trouble.70.19.101.178 19:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi everyone, we're so sad that we have evoked such a negative response from Classicjupiter2 and his sock-puppets, which is a total shame. We'd like the surrealism article to be just as good as he'd like it to be. For thanksgiving, we'd like to remind everyone here that we're still having that turkey-basting party at our house in Fire Island, so please remember to bring your speedos. Also, to make sure that nobody feels left out, we have personally extended invitations to Keith Wigdor, Terrence Lindall, Eric Bragg, the good professor Fuchs and of course, you too, Jeremy. We're not trying to be party-poopers, but please be reminded that this is going to be a feces-free weekend, so please leave all the crap in Staten Island, before you hit the Long Island Sound. Meanwhile, we must remind you that art is the only religion. VIVA LA SURREALISME!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! --Ernie-and-bert 19:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposal to create separate article for current surrealist groups and artists

As an article about surrealism, it's turning into a fairly decent article that would answer many of the information needs that people have who would consult an encyclopedia to find out about surrealism. Since almost all of the juvenile behavior, narcissism, grandstanding, trolling, sockpuppeting, sectarianism, POV ranting, propagandizing, reverting, pseudo-dueling, and adolescent male behavior that occurs both in the article and in this Talk page seem to be predominantly about current surrealist groups and current surrealist artists and which ones are real and legitimate and so on, and since most people in the world wanting to find out about surrealism won't be interested predominantly in these current groups and artists or at all in the neurotic, juvenile, hostile, or unco-operative behavior and verbiage on the Talk page, I have a proposal. Let's make a separate article, called something like "Current surrealism" or "Post-classical surrealism" or something like that, with a wikilink to it, and confine the present article to classical surrealism up to the time of the end of surrealism as an organized movement, in line with the current organization of the article. That way, those who are interested in participating in this sort of silly behavior could do it all on that page and not have to waste the time of other editors or members of the general public. The article already discusses the end of surrealism as an organized movement and differentiates between "classical" and current surrealism. So having a separate article for current surrealism is warranted in terms of the logic and structure of the existing article. It seems to me that this would solve everyone's needs: those just trying to make a reliable, responsible article about "classical" surrealism and its legacy, and those who want to make such an article about current surrealism as well as those needing to act out the abovementioned forms of behavior. By the way, I mean this as a serious proposal. I really think that it would solve some problems and contribute to Wikipedia. Jeremy J. Shapiro 19:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Jeremy, dude, you've got all the best ideas for this article! A separate article about current surrealist groups might solve this current dilemma. KW

Youa have a copyright violation of NYC channel 13 TV property at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ernie-and-bert

A fine idea, Jeremy. I tend to think that if an artist warrants an external link, they warrant a wikipedia article and an internal link to it. Sparkit 00:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear Mr.Shapiro, its really not a good idea, its only asking for major trouble. First, there is the issue of notability. All of the current surrealist groups, except for The Chicago Surrealist Group had their articles deleted upon a VfD vote by the Wikipedia Community. Second, you are not addressing the issue of online harrassment here on Wikipedia. The Talk Pages for this proposal of a current surrealist article would be an open invitation to the, "Ernie and Berts" and God knows how many others that would literally stalk the talk pages and the article. You are correct about Wikipedia being a neutral enyclopedia, please do not create an article that cannot be substantiated by notability and credible sources. The only credible source on any current surrealist group activity is Franklin Rosemont's Chicago Surrealist Group and they already have an article. Plus, if you were to create an article on Current Surrealism, I can guarantee you that there would be problems from the start. How do you substantiate and legitimize the reference sources? For every headcase that has an online blog that rants about surrealism and their group, does that mean they deserve notablility in an encyclopedia? I am just one voice, but if You and Sparkit decide that this is the solution, be prepared for some fireworks. The debate over current surrealism here on Wikipedia has been going on since 2003. Mr.Shapiro, have you ever taken the time to read the Surrealism Archive Logs? Do you know anything about current surrealist groups, like say, The Portland Surrealist Group composed of Brandon Freels and M.K. Shibek? They have an online blog, now you want to give them and all their comrades an article. I really suggest that you offer a vote to the entire Wikipedia community. They are the ones who voted to delete non-notable current surrealists and their groups. Believe me, if you want it, don't say I never told you so, but be in for a bumpy ride.Classicjupiter2 01:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

My proposal for moving all of the current issues in a separate article has no implications for rehabilitating groups banned from Wikipedia. If they've been banned, they're banned. And all of the stalking, trolling, ranting, and juvenile, narcissistic, and hostile behavior is already occurring here. So why worry if it goes on there? Let it. Let a thousand flowers bloom! If you study the history of Christian and Islamic sects and left-wing factions (not to mention the psychoanalytic movement), you'll see that this sort of behavior has been going on for hundreds, even thousands of years, and it usually takes the same form: some males claiming to be in possession of the truth and claiming to be the true spiritual, intellectual, or cultural heirs of some other males who claimed to possess the truth and to bring about the universal salvation or emancipation of the human species. You can't easily stop this, it's a deep interaction between some psychological problems (often having to do with male adolescence and males' unresolved relation to their fathers, and extreme narcissism) and some cultural pattern (having to do with monotheism, possession of the truth, and moral purity). So the main issue, it seems to me, is how to channel this activity in a way that keeps it from spilling over and making other people's lives miserable. It's actually similar to the problem of how to control juvenile delinquency or terrorism, which come from similar motivations. I suggest that creating a separate article on current post-surrealist groups and artists or current self-described surrealist groups and artists would enable those who need to engage in these delinquent or terrorist activities to do so with less impact on and nuisance value to those of us who care about surrealism and making a good, NPOV wikipedia article about it, which is the only legitimate mission of those who work on the article and discuss things on this page. Jeremy J. Shapiro 09:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

And I'd like to have a wiki-article just for me, thankyou! Here is a link to my website: [6] Lately, with all the discussion here on this talk page, it seems that someone has been trying to supress my art and links, harrassing me. (I have indicated this on my website, as a show of the good faith.) I haven't really said anything about it in a while, after all of these childish ego-wars have been going on lately. Either way, I'd like to start a Keith Wigdor article. I'm the greatest modern surrealist that has ever been! Earlier on, someone called me an impostor, but I can assure you I'm real. Please check my website. Thankyou :) ---keith-wigdor- 01:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Sir, what you are doing is wrong, please stop harrassing this artist online. I did a Whois domain name lookup on the above website link and the Administrator Contact's E-mail is ewbragg@hotmail.com, which one needs to register the website online. Also this defamation, slander and harrassment is being carried on Web.com, the same provider for surrealcoconut.com that displays the Thike Doorwig Gallery that also harrasses the real Keith Wigdor. I really think that it would be a good idea to listen to reason and STOP harrassing the real Keith Wigdor online and here on Wikipedia. It might be good idea for law enforcement to investigate this matter.Classicjupiter2 02:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? ---keith-wigdor- 13:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

No personal attacks, no original research, no legal threats and NPOV please. If you want to promote your own viewpoints, write it on your own web sites. It should also be noted that threatening disruption of wikipedia is grounds for permanent banning. Stirling Newberry 01:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

This user, "keith-wigdor" is an imposter. I already contacted the real artist.Classicjupiter2 03:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Keith_Wigdor

I removed the whole list here. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for their promotion. If they are notable, please write articles about them and refer to these articles from this one. If not, then good-bye links. Wikipedia is not a link farm. mikka (t) 23:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The article certainly seems less cluttered and more encyclopedic this way. Jeremy J. Shapiro 00:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Much better. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-9 17:46
I agree with Mr.Shapiro and Brian.Classicjupiter2 19:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Current Surrealist Groups & Collectives:

Surrealist Artists:

Can we discuss groups here?Stuart Inman 16:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible to mention more women surrealists in the article?Lady Hannah Cadaver 17:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

More Women in Surrealism

A nice feature article just came out on the "New Surrealists" in the March issue of Art & Antiques Magazine, the world's most read art & antique collectors magazine (Readership: 412,315, Average household income: $628,000 Average household net worth: $2,066,000). This is an upscale magazine on the international arts and museum world. About half of the "major international artists" mentioned there are women. None of the artists mentioned there are mentioned in this wiki article. Perhaps the historians here necessarily are behind the advance guard of the movement. In any case the article sheds light on who are the major players today. You all should read it. Your article, being "historical" should at least mention O'Keefe, Kahlo and a number of others for fairness. I have no interest to add them, since I have no particular inclination to the subject...just a suggestion, since there are some major women players, especially today in the arts. Best to All

Sorry, the article does mention H.R. Giger as a major figure and your article mentions him (although not as a surrealist). But the A&A article seems to clarify, at least to museum administrators like me, the issue of "What 'surrealism' is in the arts." Again, Congratulations!

Thanks for your feedback! :-) The articles on Wikipedia are constantly in the works, and unfortunately, it may not reflect all the knowledge that is relevant and out there. It is just waiting for someone with your knowledge and expertise to add it. Hopefully in a bit of time, someone will come by and improve the article as you suggested. --HappyCamper 22:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Dimitri Spanoa

An editor continued to add information on "Dimitri Spanoa" to this page. The editor adding this person has done so three times and has had the item removed each time by myself and by others. This is not a useful inclusion on this page, which seeks to deal broadly with surrealism as an art form and historical movement. Please don't continue to add this information, or risk running afoul of the three revert rule Thanks! - Docether 20:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

THE BLUE PAPERS

Too long we have been abandoned. Heaving under the weights and pressures Of a censored democracy. We are the children of our fore-fathers Mixes of bloods of varying degree and textures.

We are the underground We take up arms with our pens, Pencils and papers…with our Digital camera we take the pictures That are displayed on the walls… Then you rip us down. With our brushes we canvas the air With new art and new movements And you kill us

We are a network of goths, industrial kids, punk, cyberpunk. Post punk and post goth. We are rappers and poets in words and thoughts…We are the majority that grows. We are black. We are white. We are normal kids growing up in 

Well to do families. Country and Spanish, Metal,

We are banished! We are the wealthy…we are the poor! We are the people…


What more deeper than this is for the individual to express himself or herself…Look as the bloods of the races of man fight for survival! As Norse culture And Swedish culture expressed in Black Metal -my eyes recently finding the beauty in a band 

called Borknager.

- As Irish Folk strummed on - ballads from Irish Fingers, Needed the help of South America, -When she had her potato famine. And Mother Nature would not give up her wrath and her dreaded cyclic volcano seasons.


-as Hip Hop culture is the release of suppression! Tales of ghettos and the lavish lifestyle of success coming from harder life and times.

Look as future artistens sneek away in the night To paint their murals with spray cans to arrive Back at their beds before the sliver of the morning!

Look as the sandblasting crews come out for more work!

We in the central United States are varieties ancestors of railroads that met east and west We are settled communities that grow restless -struggling to find a place in our lifetime. We are never in one place for very long For we are vagabonds seeking rest and sometimes finding comfort.

Let’s stop the wars between each individual faction. Each genera…for each is important In It’s own way…We are all better united as one! And let us allow the growth of more ideas and more culture!

Modern institutions try to keep back the flood That will be the norm of the future. And another age will come along where we will have to pass the torch It should be said that holds the sacred walls And locks of what you consider knowledge to pass The torch as we so shall do when it is our time!

We speak to big brother and those that listen in That our demonstrations are peaceful and go to Seek and unite the networks…like common threads -On a grand synaptic tapestry.

Let the connections connect and let them breathe and Grow!!!

We are the people!

Dimiitri Spanoa MOTH 2006 from the blue papers

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Surrealism/Archive_9&oldid=53423196"