Talk:Surreal humour/Archive 1

Archive 1

couple changes

I wanted to make a couple of changes here, but it looks like other people are working on this fairly actively, so I thought I'd post here before I started.

First, I think the joke should go after the reference to the joke, not at the top of the article. I think it's more encyclopedia-like, and (not coincidentally) funnier.

Second, I think you need to add some discussion of pre-Monty python surrealism. If it were me, I'd particularly mention Kafka (whose stories are meant to be funny -- his friends used to sit around as he read and laugh hysterically. Gregor Samsa is an important precursor to everything the Pythons did.) I'd also talk about the dadaists and surrealists -- a lot of that stuff was incredibly goofy. Again, Monty Python wouldn't exist without it.

I'll add some of this myself if I don't hear back in a day or so. NoahB 20:28, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

expanded article

Well, nobody commented, so I decided to be bold, and pretty much completely reworte the article. I've changed the definition, which seemed a bit too limited, and added many more examples, though there could be more....in fact, as I was typing this, I realized that I should have mentioned Bunuel, too. Maybe I'll get to that in a couple days.... NoahB 15:53, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

confusing

"An important point of surrealism is that it can appear in different forms in a comedy; for instance, Family Guy uses relatively normal plotlines which are interspersed with outrageously irrelevant surrealism, while Futurama focuses more on unexpected humour whilst retaining a mostly surreal plotline. South Park, on the other hand, uses surrealistic, absurd plotlines which are interspersed with absurd, surrealistic jokes."

This makes my head spin. It could be poor reading comprehension on my part, but I feel this should be rewritten or omitted.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 19:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Jokes

Unless someone objects, I'm going to remove the list of "jokes" at the beginning of this article. I don't believe these are strong examples of surreal humor (or any other type of humor). Does anyone feel differently? Basicially, I concur with the comment above ("surrealism isn't randomness).--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 21:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, they might well be surreal but aren't particularly humorous. Some quotes from surreal comedians/comedies might be better examples Linear 19:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, Perhpas I will add some quotes from Monty Python or from Space Ghost: Coast to Coast.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 22:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I think examples/quotes could be useful here. Please do. --Spyforthemoon 20:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Surreal humor vs. surrealism vs. jokes about surrealists

This page doesn't make it clear if there's a difference between surrealism & surreal humor. It almost implies that all modern art is supposed to be funny (i.e. Duchamp's urinal). A little (content) disambiguation would be most helpful.

Also, if the jokes weren't good examples, perhaps they (or a subset) should be listed as counterexamples - 'jokes about surrealists' rather than 'surreal jokes'. I know I came to this page expecting to see the lightbulb-fish one. Without an explination they may be in danger of being added back by people who think we've simply never heard them. --Spyforthemoon 20:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, seems like the Duchamp stuff at least needs a source, too. Where did Duchamp indicate the urinal was intended to be funny? Jordansc 17:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Stream of Consciousness IS NOT Surrealist

Overall the list of examples of Surrealist humor seems arbitrary. Neither James Joyce nor the Surrealists would appreciate his inclusion in the list. First of all, Joyce isn't very funny (people who actually like James Joyce may disagree). Secondly, Breton made it clear that at the core of Surrealism was a move away from focus on the conscious and the real. Modernism (and Joyce's stream-of-consciousness is one of the most common examples of Modernist technique) was heavily focused on consciousness and conscious perception of things. Cubism was considered another outcropping of this and Breton had a lot to say about this. The Surrealists apparently hated Joyce; though I can't find direct evidence of this, there's plenty of talk of the Surrealists hatred of Joyce in discussions of Beckett's mixed feelings about the Surrealists (he loved the poetry but couldn't fully stand behind them b/c he was such good friends with Joyce). I think Beckett is a great example of Surrealist humor, but Beckett and Stoppard are normally categorized as "Theatre of the Absurd" -- that's a questionable category so I don't mind it just being called avante garde. But one great avante garde/absurdist is missing: Ionesco. Rhinoceros is a perfect example of Surrealist humor. Ionesco is also perfect in that he was a great admirer of the Surrealists. Another thing about stream of consciousness: Jack Kerouac falls in line with Surrealism because he practiced automatism, not because he practiced stream of consciousness. The difference between Joyce and Kerouac (and this is key when talking about Surrealism) is that Joyce advocated revision and Kerouac did not. So I say dump Joyce, keep Kerouac but say he's practicing automatism, don't conflate Surrealism and stream of consciousness.

F. Simon Grant 19:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Anthology of Black Humor

Overall the examples in this section seem arbitrary (see above comment). One example is the supposed beginning of Surrealist humor: it may go back at least to the 19th century, but it also goes back to the 18th century with Jonathan Swift. Jonathan Swift is much less arbitrary than a vast majority of the examples on this page because Andre Breton (the founder of Surrealism, and this is called Surrealist humor) had an anthology of black humor and Jonathan Swift is the first example. I'm not willing to argue that anyone listed here (except James Joyce maybe) is NOT Surrealist. But I think using Breton's anthology would be a much more useful and relevant frame of reference than what seems to be a the random selection here (randomness is good for Surrealism, not good for encyclopedias).

F. Simon Grant 00:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's a list of people included in Breton's Anthology of Black Humor: Jonathan Swift, Marquis de Sade, Georg Christof Licthenberg, Charles Fourier, Thomas DeQuincey, Pierre-Francoise Lacenaire, Christian Dietrich Grabbe, Petrus Borel, Edgar Allan Poe, Xavier Forneret, Baudelaire, Lewis Carroll, Villiers de L'Isle-Adam, Charles Cros, Nietzsche, Lautreamont, Joris-Karl Huysmans, Tristan Corbiere, Germain Nouveau, Rimbaud, Alphonse Allais, Jean-Piere Brisset, O. Henry, Andre Gide, J. M. Synge, Jarry, Raymond Roussel, Francis Picabia, Arthur Craven, Franz Kafka, Jakob van Hoddis, Marcel Duchamp, Hans Arp, Alberto Savinio, Jacques Vache, Benjamin Peret, Jacques Rigaut, Jacques Prevert, Salvador Dali, Jean Ferry, Leonora Carrington, Gisele Prassinos, Jean-Pierre Duprey

I honestly don't know half these names, but overall it's really interesting list (certainly less random than the page is now): mostly Breton's sometimes friends (Prevert, Dali, Duchamp, etc.), Breton's usual favorites (Jarry, Rimbaud, Lautreamont, etc.), a few surprising inclusions coming from Breton (Synge, O. Henry), a few people not normally considered funny (de Sade, Poe, Nietzsche) and Kafka and Carrol of course because it goes without saying.

We could include this whole list on this page or maybe just the "notables". But to not include some acknowlegement of that book and a large part of that list I fear would be unfortuante oversight.

F. Simon Grant 23:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

rurrealism isn't randomness

surrealism usually(or always, not sure) has an underlining meaning behind its obsurdness. how do completely unrelated sentences form "surreal" humor?

rurrealism, or surrealism, either one, doesn't necessarily have a meaning. Magritte said the goal of his paintings was mystery. Unrelated and meaningless things are acceptible and common. And usually funny. Do half the jokes in Monty Python have a meaning?F. Simon Grant 19:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Nothing the human mind accomplishes is ever random. That is simply lazy reasoning because you're ready from the beginning to decide that what you don't understand had no point at all in its execution. I hate it when people use the word "random" in this sense. I get furious any and every single time I hear it. Are people proud of how stupid and ignorant they are? (Momus (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC))

I had forgotten how poorly edited and how outside-the-realm-of-surrealism this article was, and this is just an example of it. Momus, your very 19th cent. rationalist teleological perspective has very little to do with actual surrealism. Opening up your window and shooting at random certainly is stupid and a pointless waste and not something anyone would recommend from a moral perspective, but it's a purely surrealist act according to Breton. The result, the telos of a surrealist act is irrelevant, and surrealists and dadaists were sometimes accused of laziness because of how they approached art, and they could be called meaningless if you're a holdover from the 19th cent., but your comment is irrelevant -- I'd say even meaningless and random and surreal and funny -- because you seem to be coming from a perspective irrelevant to surrealism ... as much of this article is coming from a perspective that's irrelevant to surrealism which is another issue...F. Simon Grant (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

British spelling?

I know that "humour" with a U is doing very fine as it is for people of Wikipedia, but I was convinced that this website was based in the United States? I clicked on a redirect which was spelled without a U, but it led to this page. There must be a guideline about this, isn't there? Brit v. USA spelling, huh? --Homfrog^Talk 21:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Servers in the US (and Europe, now, IIRC), but an international project. This guideline explains the manner in which regional variations are addressed and accommodated. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

"Fountain"

"This became one of the most famous and influential pieces of art in history... "

This is meant to be an ironic statement, right? An absurd joke? Shouldn't it be removed?

I don't find this statement credible and it lacks credible citations. I mean, Dali was far more famous and influential and I would think that perhaps a hundred years in the future would be the proper place to make this sweeping judgment about a piece of Pop art.

Hell, it would be easy to make the argument that Gary Larsen or Steven Wright were far and above more influential and famous - as pertains to the subject of this article - than trying to force a portrayal of humor on "Fountain"

Putting Fountain in this article feels like a forced agenda. Mad Bunny (talk) 22:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Absurdist humor and Surreal humor are not the same

I searched "Absurd Humor" and it redirects to surreal humor, They are both similar, But not the same, They are there own type of animation. --ILove2Type801 (talk) 18:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)