Talk:Surrealism/Archive 2

It appears as if someone doesn't like changes being made to this entry. Why? -B

---

I don't know whether Giacometti belongs with the surrealists: he is much more closely linked with Existentialism - he was very close friends with Jean Paul Sartre - and although he had a deal with Paul Loeb (the Surrealists' principle dealer) and his work became known between 1929 - 1932 as surrealist, the work of this period is much more concerned with eroticism and symbolism than surrealism itself. But this is just my 2 sous worth... sjc

---

• Edited misleading material on Dada.
• Added qualification of Andre Breton's definition of surrealism.
• Expansion of Dada discussion: negative Dada & positive surrealism.
• Added material for further reading
• Added "parsemage".* Added external link to the Surrealist Movement in the United States.
• Added external link to Paris Surrealist Group.

--Daniel C. Boyer

---

It was a movement which transformed post-World War I visual art, writing, poetry and film -- this is highly misleading and incomplete! --Daniel C. Boyer

Oops. I've just refactored that into the opening sentence. If it's "often misinterpreted as an artistic movement", then what IS it? (in 10 words or less ;) ). We need a clear opening that gives the context, before we launch into how Breton initiated it -- Tarquin 07:01 Jul 31, 2002 (PDT)

---

The bald statement that surrealism is not an art movement kind of flies against the common definition of art movement. It wasn't *simply* an art movement, but it certainly wasn't *not* an art movement.

It is, not was, not an art movement. There have been many members who have not been artists, who have not ever done any painting, drawing, collage, etc. (except -- if this -- for participating in exquisite corpse); moreover, there have been participants in the movement who have been neither artists nor poets. The surrealist project is not to change art but to transform the world. (This is proved again and again in primary-source surrealist writings, Breton saying that though the preparations are, roughly speaking, "artistic in nature," the day would come when surrealism would not be in this stage of preparation any more. This has now come to be, to a greater or lesser extent, with the Madrid group currently not doing art any more; the group's contribution to a recent exhibition was burning currency.) I do not believe that this "bald statement... flies against the common definition of art movement" but in any case it is the truth. --Daniel C. Boyer 07:36 Aug 26, 2002 (PDT)

Statements that the Surrealist movement ended in the 1930s is not "false". In fact, it's the generally accepted position

Generally accepted as the position may be, it is based on demonstrably, factually false information. There was absolutely nothing that happened in the 1930s that could be called the "end of the movement." This belief (and people who say surrealism is dead have a notably difficult time agreeing on the date of its demise) is based on nothing more than a desire to collapse "we wish surrealism were dead" into "surrealism is dead." --Daniel C. Boyer

that Surrealism refers to the specific Paris-based collective.

Which continues today. See the link to GPMS. --user:Daniel C. Boyer

The concept of Surrealism being an ongoing movement is the minority position; might be useful to discern "Surrealism" from "surrealism".

There is no distinction other than in the minds of persons determined to falsify what surrealism is. --Daniel C. Boyer 07:36 Aug 26, 2002 (PDT)

--The Cunctator

Read this paragraph:

Although it is often falsely stated that surrealism ended either during or shortly after the Second World War, or with the death of Breton in 1966, the 1960s in fact saw a dramatic expansion of international surrealism, including the founding of the Surrealist Movement in the United States? by Franklin? and Penelope Rosemont?. For instance, in 1986 the Surrealist Group in Stockholm? was founded.

Explain to me why it is false and why the "generally-accepted position" can dispute these facts. --Daniel C. Boyer 07:49 Aug 26, 2002 (PDT)

You have totally failed to respond to my challenge. --Daniel C. Boyer 10:12 Aug 26, 2002 (PDT)

The assertion "it is falsely stated that surrealism ended..." depends on a certain definition of "surrealism". If I define "nationalism" as a 19th-century construct, then I can assert that claims that nationalism existed before the 19th century are false claims.

But this is circular reasoning. You essentially imply that because you define surrealism as an art movement between the wars my saying that that is false is only because you are defining surrealism as existing between the wars and therefore I am using a different definition of surrealism. This is nothing more than tautology. --Daniel C. Boyer 10:12 Aug 26, 2002 (PDT)

Those people who say that surrealism ended around WWII have a certain definition for surrealism.

But that definition of surrealism is not the one that surrealism has chosen for itself.

(See the definition of "surrealism" under "philosophy" in the Manifesto of Surrealism). --Daniel C. Boyer 11:55 Aug 26, 2002 (PDT)

"Those people" -- who are not surrealists -- would impose upon surrealism a definition other than the one Breton laid out in the Manifestoes. You see why I am asserting the "conspiracy theory" that the people who say surrealism ended are doing so out of a wish to see surrealism dead? Read the Manifestoes! Read What is Surrealism: Selected Writings of Andre Breton! Go to http://www.surrealism-usa.org! Make the slightest attempt to find out what surrealism really is!) --Daniel C. Boyer 10:12 Aug 26, 2002 (PDT)

Under that definition, their statement is not false. For example, the Encyclopedia Britannica is a pretty reasonable source--it may have debatable claims, but very rarely false information (that is, information that is objectively refutable).

But this is one of those "very rare" instances. --Daniel C. Boyer 10:12 Aug 26, 2002 (PDT)

EB defines surrealism as "a movement in visual art and literature, flourishing in Europe between World Wars I and II."

Notice the use of the subjective word "flourishing". This is to cover up the continued existence of surrealism: it still existed, implies Britannica, but it wasn't flourishing. (This is completely out of harmony with the facts, but since the word "flourishing" is so subjective it can't effectively be countered. But please admit that Britannica doesn't here say that surrealism ended. --Daniel C. Boyer 10:21 Aug 26, 2002 (PDT)

Believing their definition derives from a wish to see surrealism dead smells like a conspiracy theory.

Nearly all art movements are philosophical in nature; they have a grander purpose than creating works of art. They all want to change the world. You wrote: "The surrealist project is not to change art but to transform the world." But the purpose of art is to transform the world.

But surrealism does not and has never aimed to do this primarily by means of art and indeed at the earliest period of surrealism it was well-known that "there is no such thing as surrealist painting" (this was developed later). How do you explain the many surrealist documents, statements, tracts and books in which art is never mentioned; the many surrealist interventions that have nothing to do with art; the essential nature of surrealism as superseding aesthetics; the many surrealists who have never had anything to do with art; the statements by surrealist theorist after surrealist theorist about superseding art (the Madrid Group, Miro's "murder of painting" period, &c.)? --Daniel C. Boyer 10:12 Aug 26, 2002 (PDT)

By changing art one transforms the world.

This was never what surrealism intended to do and if you had ever read anything about surrealism you would know it. --Daniel C. Boyer 10:15 Aug 26, 2002 (PDT)

See this sentence from the Esperanto article: "Laŭ vortoj de Breton en 1935: “Transformigi la mondon", diris Markso, "ŝanĝi la vivon", diris Rimbaud?: ĉi tiuj du gvid-diraĵoj por ni estas unu sola”." --Daniel C. Boyer

This talk page is getting surrealistic... --The artist formerly known as Poor Eddie

More precisely, I think the vacuous truth article is surrealistic and this talk page is vacuous! --Ed Poor

Why? --Daniel C. Boyer

---

"the school of art or literature that aims at producing irrational fantasies or hallucinatory and dream-like effects": Here we go again! This is completely false! The very question of "aims" flies in the face of the automatism that is of critical importance to surrealism (see Breton's definition). --Daniel C. Boyer 17:47 Sep 27, 2002 (UTC)

---

Describing "Newsradio" as "surreal" shows the abuse the word "surreal" has been subjected to; by describing things that are less and less "strange" as "surreal" the word has been gradually drained of meaning. --Daniel C. Boyer

---

The "News Radio" link may have been "fixed," but why is News Radio in this article at all? --Daniel C. Boyer 14:33 Oct 2, 2002 (UTC)

---

Added a reference under "Must read". One problem, I don't remember who translated these works from French to understandable English nor when. But it is great, it is marvellous, it is wonderful. Remember what Breton said: "The marvellous is beautiful. Anything that is marvellous is beautiful, in fact only the marvellous is beautiful."
Sigg3.net

That is; I need someone to help me with this.

---

Need full names of these guys: Valentine, Hugo, Oppenheim, Tanguy - Greg Godwin

---

Surrealism is so.. Je ne sais quoi.. Have any of you read Nadja by André Breton? --Sigg3.net

• Yes; much other work by him too... --Daniel C. Boyer 21:11 Jan 11, 2003 (UTC)

• • Seriously: are you Daniel C. Boyer, or am I just a hopeless nerd? Or both?--Sigg3.net

• • • I am Daniel C. Boyer; you are possibly a hopeless nerd, or there may be some hope for you. Or you could be completely non-nerd-like. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:11 Jan 28, 2003 (UTC)

• • • Well, bugger me! Sigg3.net

---

"Yet the attempts of the French Surrealists to relate to the religions of the far east was a confused failure." --This sentence is totally un-NPOV and should be removed. --Daniel C. Boyer

---

"Yet after World War II, many of the once-startling effects of surrealism moved into popular culture, so that even advertisements commonly display "justaposed realities" such as Breton once cultivated. Today, as noted later on in this essay, one can see the surrealist influence in TV shows, music, theater..." . --This demonstrates an extremely superficial understanding of surrealism that is characteristic of much of this article. Thought this point is to some degree controversial, what has been characteristic of surrealism from the earliest period is it being a sort of "moving target," constantly staying one step ahead of bourgeois-realist attempts to incorporate it into the ruling-class canon. Perhaps the surautomatism article could give potential editors some idea of this. Suffice it to say, once again, that surrealism is not an artistic movement, and the idea of "bizarre juxtapositions" is very far from being the be-all or end-all of surrealism. --Daniel C. Boyer

---

"The surrealist artists made up the most popular artistic movement of Paris throughout the 1920s and 1930s": Once again! Surrealism is not an artistic movement! --Daniel C. Boyer

I think Daniel C. (sounds like a rapper:) here is right. In the Manifestoes of Surrealism, Breton describes Surrealism as a method to reach beyond (or between) the real and unreal: the surreal (over-real). --Sigg3.net

---

"The word Surrealism was first used to describe an aesthetic movement that emphasises the critical and imaginative powers of the unconscious": this is an absolutely gross distortion of surrealism. If you would read the Manifesto of Surrealism it is plain as day that aesthetics is utterly irrelevant to surrealism; this is even mentioned in Breton's definition of the movement. The repeated dishonest attempts to reduce surrealism to a school of art and literature one does not have to go far to see their genesis in a hatred of the implications of surrealism outside of art and literature. This interpretation of the movement holds sway, particularly in the United States, in the face of almost every primary source, every writing and statement and action that has ever come from genuine surrealism. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:50 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

Angela is to be commended on her change from "recommended" to "related" reading. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:46, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Angela. 22:45, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

The mention of automatic mathematics should be edited rather than simply deleted. I didn't approach this by the best way, but so-called "automatic mathematics" is a part of surrealism, is significant... --Daniel C. Boyer 20:40, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Surrealist ID help?

Can anyone help me ID the artist whom created the sculpture in the following photos? I've loved him since 10th grade Art History and ran across his work again at the Pompidou in Paris (I'm from the US) a couple weeks ago and cannot for the life of me remember what his name was! Thanks for any help you can give. If this is an inappropriate forum for this request, let me know and I'll remove it. However on the other hand, if someone can give me the name, I can upload the photos and put them on the surrealism page.
[1] [2]
--zandperl 01:29, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This is Hans Bellmer. --Daniel C. Boyer 23:50, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thanks, I figured it out too--I googled "surrealist doll."  :) The pic's up on Hans Bellmer. --zandperl 02:53, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

Norwegian Surrealism

I noticed the short note on what Surrealism is considered to be in the US: namely pictures of Salvador Dali. I was wondering wether I should add something about how Surrealism reached Norway, what it was like (if it still is around) and what lack of impact it imposed on Norwegian culture. There is this one lady, at least, that should be mentioned. --Sigg3.net 15:45, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yes; this would be very worthwhile. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:55, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I´ll get to it as soon as I get back home. --Sigg3.net

---

Policy on quotes

I think a few quotes (from the translated book, at least) from Andre Breton's Manifestoes of Surrealism should be provided in this article. His own words lit my dark ideas of this subject, at least. What is the policy on this? -- Sigg3.net 16:45, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Mostly quotes should go to Wikiquote but some could be included here as long as you don't mean huge lists of them. Such things are generally covered by fair use so you don't need to worry about copyright infringement. Angela. 22:45, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I could set up a couple, and a link to wikiquote:Breton or something.. == Sigg3.net 23:58, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

That's sounds the best idea. http://wikiquote.org/wiki/Andre%20Breton would be the correct address to link to. Angela. 00:03, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thanks. - Sigg3.net 18:55, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

After reading this page I am still unclear as to what surrealism is/was. I mean, this page says who did it, and even a bit of why, but doesn't really say what they did. There is apparently already a large amount of controversy over this page so I'd rather not be bold and make changes, and there has been a lot of work to get it to its current state. --zandperl 03:02, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Here's a definition I found in the "Manifestoes of Surrealism" (ISBN on article page) by André Breton: "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 matter-the actual functioning of thought. Dictated by thought, in the absence of any control excercised by reason, exempt from any moral concern." - Sigg3.net 03:22, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Further on, you've the encyclopedia definition: "ENCYCLOPEDIA. Philosphy. Surrealism is based on the belief in the superior reality of certain forms of neglected associations, in the omnipotence of dream, in the disinterested play of thought. It tends to ruin once and for all all other psychic mechanisms and to substitute itself for them in solving all the principal problems of life. The following have performed acts of ABSOLUTE SURREALISM: Aragon, Baron, Boiffard, Breton, Carrive, Crevel, Delteil, Desnos, Eluard, Gérard, Limbour, Malkine, Morise, Naville, Noll, Péret, Picon, Soupault, Vitrac." - Sigg3.net 03:24, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

What about Freud?

In Manifestoes of Surrealism by Breton, he clearly stresses the scientific foundation of Surrealism, nested in the thoughts of Sigmund Freud. I think this should be mentioned at the beginning of the article somewhere. I'll have to get back to you when I've read the manifestoes again so I can be sure this is right. Objections? - Sigg3.net 07:41, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Dali bias?

"Dalí was in fact expelled from the surrealist movement in the late 1930s for his far right-wing tendencies, and after that time his painting has little significance for surrealism, moving further and further away from the movement." -How exactly do you expel someone from a MOVEMENT. This entry also seems to point to a political POV or bias, specifically that one must be either left-wing or at least not right-wing to be involved in this form of art or a movement to participate or promote it. This seems to be a rather unfounded belief to claim that a person's political beleifs qualify or disqualify them as being an artist.

This is radically point-missing. Surrealism is not a "form of art" or an artistic movement, and qualification as an artist is irrelevant to qualification as a surrealist. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:49, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The fact that he was expelled, then? Change what he was expelled from. He was expelled from a group of people who didn't recognize his work as true surrealistic work. He lost his friends. - Sigg3.net 11:31, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I tried to compromise on the points made but saying somone has "far right-wing tendencies" is most defintely a POV. I took out far and because of the movement question I added reportedly. I think the authors point still gets across with these edits. -GrazingshipIV 19:22, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

Ok the current version is probably the best it is going to get. thanks.

GrazingshipIV 21:40, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

Article Format

I came here because I was interested in finding out what surrealism is. This article doesn't help me as much as I'd like. It opens with a very general statement about the movement, then instantly starts listing instances of surrealism (usually without explanation, forcing me to follow numerous links). I'm sure that it's a good compilation for those familiar with surrealism, but those of us who don't know it are left baffled. Most entries on movements (literary or otherwise) begin by identifying chief characteristics, etc. -- they certainly should, I think. Can someone here put in a paragraph early on that explains in more direct terms what, exactly, surrealism is? I'd appreciate it. Jwrosenzweig 16:56, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've made the same comment earlier. Perhaps also an additional article on surrealism (art) would be of use to those of us whom primarily identify the movement with art. --zandperl 02:47, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Surrealist postage stamps

Where should surrealist postage stamps be mentioned? --Daniel C. Boyer 00:19, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

External links

Why is "The Surrealist Group in St. Louis" in the external links section when it is not a link? Angela. 21:40, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

Angela- I agree, I had removed it earlier, but it keeps coming back. I have no problem with it being in the article, but it needs to be a link. I hope we are not offending by continuing to remove it, but to be included, it must have a valid hyperlink in my opinion. PM - May 7, 2004

Keith Wigdor

In my opinion Keith Wigdor is too obscure a figure, in (if you can even call it "in," as he is regarded by surrealists generally as someone who has gone completely against surrealist principles in order to falsely promote himself as a surrealist) surrealism, to be mentioned here, and if he is so mentioned the idea that he is surrealism today is simply ridiculous. He should not be mentioned while mentions of current surrealist groups are deleted, and in any case any mention of Wigdor in the context of surrealism should emphasise that he is a highly controversial figure. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:32, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)