From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article candidate Surrealism is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
July 20, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Surrealism:
  • Add pictures
  • Add references
  • Make this into a featured article!
  • Add a section on "Contemporary surrealism", or "21st century surrealism" as appropriate
  • Add sections on surrealism in other parts of the world.
  • Make a Surrealism and media page
  • Double check the sources quoted in the article
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7 (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Checklist icon
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

The Talk:Surrealism discussion page has been archived 9 times.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


Cocteau was not a surrealist[edit]

I'd like to remove Blood of the Poet from the list of early surrealist films as Cocteau was in no way, shape, or form a surrealist and in fact greatly disliked them and was in turn quite hated by early surrealists. Being experimental or avant-garde does not makes something surrealist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlad the Impaler (talkcontribs) 11:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

External link to delete[edit]

I have deleted the following link *Surrealism Collective. The link takes you to a gallery of current german surrealist artists. I can't see the relevency of how the link contributes to this page. It also seems to be advertising as oposed to educating. Thanks Mike Lawrence Turner 09:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Can I put in an external link to surrealist book covers held at the smithsonian digital libraries which have given permission? Lexowgrant 15:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi I have deleted the surrealist time line at the pompidue (external link) as it is a broken link. I've found a site called which specialises in art information such as the art movements. There is a good page on surrealism with a surrealist movie clip: I will add it unless anyone has objections.Mike Lawrence Turner 21:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me for deleting the pompidue link, when I checked it out it wasn't working. For that reason I won't delete the surrealism server link which is on the external links list. Could someone check it out?

Should *(in French) Surrealism be on the external links list? Seeing as this is an english speaking wikipedia article, maybe it should be deleted?Mike Lawrence Turner 22:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mike, I appreciate your edits but you are deleting a valuable link that has important information. I am hoping that you will please refrain from deleting it again. I appreciate your returning the link, Timeline of Surrealism from Centre Pompidou. Thanks Modernist 23:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Mike, I think you might delete this link though - Surrealism (article explaining Surrealism and how it started). It looks like spam and I notice that you've put it and other similar links on several related articles. The information contained there is somewhat redundant, simplistic and is contained elsewhere in the article. Thanks Modernist 23:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I thought it was I nice little overview of what surrealism is about. I have deleted it from this page but I have kept it on others becaus it summerises surrealism as opposed to giving detailed info. In regards to that french link, the link is still there. the info that it takes you to is all writen in french. Is this what we are looking for on an english speaking wikipedia article? ThanksMike Lawrence Turner 18:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mike, Thank you for your recent edits. The Pompidou site is in French and English if you look on the top left there should be a link to English. On my computer the site already is in English, with a link on the top right to French. Thanks, Modernist 19:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Previous discussion[edit]

Talk:Surrealism/Archive 09/contents:

  • First Paragraph Rewrite, Definiton of Surrealism
  • History of Surrealism
  • Surrealism in the Arts rewrite
  • Surrealism in theater correction
  • Feminist Critique?
  • External Links
  • Request For Comment: NPOV link dispute
  • Mediation Cabal
  • Links
  • Surrealism and its history after Breton died
  • Hi everyone!
  • Just to put the case in perspective
  • Surrealism in the arts section
  • FYI
  • Frank McCort and the dublin surrealist group from 1979
  • Sparkit, why did you remove the SURREALCOCONUT Link
  • Simulated reality


Can there be an added section on Automatism?Overwork 23:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

As I recall the sub-articles, History of surrealism and Surrealism in the arts, touch on automatism. And there's the article, Surrealist automatism. --sparkitTALK 14:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Straw Poll[edit]

Should there be an article on contemporary surrealism?[edit]

Should there be an article on contemporary surrealism? Or does it end in the late 1960's as all the history books say.Worldeater 18:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Impact on Literature[edit]

I feel like I've stepped into something that's a big mess (which is kind of appropriate to Surrealism) but I couldn't find any mention of Surrealism's impact on literature which is quite significant. I didn't know whether to put it on just the "Surrealism" page or "History of Surrealism" which also has a duplicate of the "Impact" section without the Giger stuff (by the way, is Giger really all that significant? I like him, but is one of the significant impacts of Surrealism the guy who designed the Alien? I'm not saying take him off but I can think of about a dozen things not on this page that are more significant than Giger). I thought maybe it should go in the "Surrealism in the Arts" thing under the literature and poetry section, but that would seem kind of random. I think Surrealism's impact on literature (and I would say impact on art, but I'm an English teacher so I can't really say anything with authority) is definitely significant enough to have up here. And I had a beef with the "existentialism" page because they were making it seem like Ionesco was an existentialist. Ionesco hated existentialism and considered Surrealism to be his biggest influence. Anyway, I put something basic up there -- feel free to cut it out or put it in the appropriate place because I couldn't for the life of me figure out the appropriate place.

F. Simon Grant 19:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

A whole lot of the "impact" stuff doesn't make sense without the history being here.
I propose we join Surrealism, History of surrealism and Surrealism in the arts back together. --sparkitTALK 15:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge Surrealism, History of surrealism and Surrealism in the arts[edit]

Discussion of merging Surrealism, History of surrealism and Surrealism in the arts:

  • Support. Not only am I in favor of merging these articles, I would really like to rewrite the main Surrealism article. The insistence that surrealism is primarily a political movement and secondarily an artistic movement is weird. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Surrealism is "multidisciplinary", with artistic expression being only one component of surrealist intervention. Unfortunately, most of the world only cares about surrealism's artistic contributions, while ignoring all the rest. The danger of having only one article is that the art-bias will overpower everything else.--TextureSavant 17:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
But this is what I'm talking about. If "most of the world" (i.e., most reliable sources) conceives of surrealism as an artistic movement, then Wikipedia must follow suit. To do otherwise is to give undue weight to an idiosyncratic point of view. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. The article can most certainly — must — reflect the various points of view. Fragmenting the topic doesn't seem to me to have clarified anything. --sparkitTALK 18:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, it makes no sense to have the reader jump from one article to the next when he can have the information by scrolling down the page. Great care should be taken not to create a monster article though. AlfPhotoman 18:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Its really the art that stands out in the history books and also as recognized by the public. Granted, the poetry and literature is extremely important, but its the art and artists that stand out. This TextureSavant appears to be pushing a point of view about 'art bias'. I also recommend that you keep out any 'groups', I looked at these online blogs and they are not at all credible sources.Worldeater 20:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Thankyou, Keith. Started another sockpuppet account?--TextureSavant 20:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Hunh? What are you talking about?Worldeater 20:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Previous problems with sock puppets and this article cause folks to be suspicious of users who only edit surrealism articles, particularly new users. --sparkitTALK 14:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

A draft merge with notes

User:Sparkit/surrealism is a draft of a merge with notes. Comments and changes to the draft are most welcome. --sparkitTALK 19:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I've merged the articles, as well as rearranged and rewritten parts of it. Hopefully it reflects the core aspects of Surrealism.
It is indeed long, but I think it's arranged such that the latter parts could be spun off into separate articles (Impact, Criticism, TV, Theatre, etc.) if need be. I already made a separate article from the "Film" section which has a lot of potential for a good size article in it's own right.
Also, considering the movement started centered around literature, the article is pretty sparse in that area.
Have at it. :) --sparkitTALK 05:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Automatism Section?[edit]

Should there be a section on Automatism?Overwork 15:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Surrealist Groups and their notability?[edit]

I have read the comments and disclaimer regarding the issues of making any edits to this article without talking to others first. Is there any notability of these surrealist groups today? I think it wise that we leave them out of the article and off of Wikipedia. All we have to go on in regards to studying them is online blogs, that does not cut it. I think we should remove that section, and mention only the Paris surrealist group and the other groups that were active from 1924 to 1969. I only mention this, because due to the nature of the Internet, its easy for anyone to claim they are in a surrealist group, then create a blog, then mention their group on Wikipedia. Remember, there are people that are studying Surrealism and we should only consider what is notable.Worldeater 22:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Any group that can show newspaper articles/books/etc... written about them is notable enough to be mentioned. dime-a-dozen blogs don't cut it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with user T. I can accept the inclusion of The Chicago Surrealist Group and The Stockholm Surrealist group, because there does exist newspaper sources on both groups, limited yet sufficient. Its the surrealist groups with online blogs that just doesn't cut it. There is also another article on Surrealist groups, where the groups with blogs are mentioned as well. They all need to be removed except for the groups who were notable from the past, like Breton's Paris group and also the group in Britian, and a few others during Breton's lifetime. After his death, it really goes downhill from there, but the Chicago and Stockholm can hold their merits, though the sources are limited, they can stay. As T "dime-a-dozen blogs don't cut it". Lets have a consensus on this issue.Worldeater 00:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the surrealist groups that were non-notable.Worldeater 14:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This Daniel C.Boyer is reverting my edits and calling it vandalism. All I did was remove non-notable information from the article. These groups are non-notable.Worldeater 17:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The groups themselves may or may not be particularly notable, but what is notable is that they exist and there are practicing Surrealists nearly 40 years after Breton's death. I've edited the passage to reflect that. --sparkitTALK 20:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Well done, Sparkit! The article now is suitable. By the way, when you refer to groups or any surrealists collectively or any individual surrealists, you are refering to those who work in groups, those who work soley as artists, and those work who solely as writers, or a combination thereof. What is evident is that there is a rift in the contemporary surrealist movement of today as evident in what is presented online on the Internet. When any of these parties do become notable, does that make their work worth the effort?Worldeater 20:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Also one more question out of curiousity. What are the standards that makes one a practicing Surrealist? I am just asking.Worldeater 20:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The million-dollar question! For which I don't have an answer, and I could use the million bucks. --sparkitTALK 20:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

--sparkit would you really like to know the answer? I have it, let me know if you want it.Worldeater 21:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, Keith, being an emerging internet artist and posturing oneself as a surrealist isn't enough to justify calling oneself surrealist. But I'm sure you knew that already. There are many "surrealists" out there who are nothing but artsy opportunists, who are not the least bit revolutionary.--TextureSavant 13:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Can there be a section for Automatic surreal art with food coloring?Overwork 21:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Keith, the answer is "no". Likewise, it would be tempting to add a section about peter-pansurrealism in Staten Island, but its relevance to the surrealism article would probably be dubious, at best. Methinks users Overwork and Worldeater are Keith Wigdor, the famed sockpuppeteer once known as "Classicjupiter2". If need be, another usercheck could be requested. Would you be up for that, Keith?--TextureSavant 21:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

A checkuser was already run, and was inconclusive: see WP:RFCU page on "Classicjupiter2". However, I think it's apparent from previous experience that User:Overwork and User:Worldeater are socks. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Notice his recurring fixation with getting rid of the surrealist groups links.--TextureSavant 16:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not Keith Wigdor, thank you.Worldeater 23:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Those surrealist groups are not surrealist, they are a sham.Overwork 16:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Black Surrealism and negritude[edit]

This section is a little overated. Granted that there was interest in African art and other races, but the input of blacks in surrealism is severely limited. Surrealism is predominately a white movement, there is very little input from the black and hispanic, very little, if you count Wilfredo Lam. Ted Joans was really a beatnik gypsy who hated whitey, he confused surrealism with his anti-white rants. Aime Cesaire was a legitimate surrealist and so was Rene Menil, but there overall contributions to surrealism was sparse too, yet welcome. Lets face it, surrealism is dominated by whites and was originally created by whites. There is obvious interest and influences from primitive art, etc, but the blacks and hispanics really have no interest in surrealism, they are caught up in there own problems.Worldeater 15:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I thoroughly disagree, Wigdor. Your perspective is racist, not to mention non-objective. See if you can do some research on Latin-American surrealism. There's quite a bit out there. You're also overlooking the collaboration of surrealists and black musicians in the 70s.--TextureSavant 16:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not Wigdor and my perspective is NOT racist, its the truth! Look at the history, also, the black musicians of the 1970's had NOTHING to do with surrealism, they were into drugs and alcohol. The Chicago Surrealist Groups fake attempts at uniting surrealism with black radicalism is a total farce. Blacks and Hispanics have so little to do with surrealism, they just do not care. Its a white movement, always was, though I do dig Aime Cesaire, I loathe Ted Joans for his stupid rants on the master Dali! Blacks and Hispanics have very limited input into surrealism, they are too lazy to engage the marvelous. Show me the evidence of these blacks and hispanics involvement in surrealism, show me!!!Worldeater 00:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Blacks and Hispanics "are too lazy to engage the marvellous"? What an incredibly racist thing to say, Keith. Racism doesn't belong in an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. You're just playing sockpuppet games, rather than being genuinely concerned about amending the surrealism article.--TextureSavant 02:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The section is vague on some points, but it's a significant topic regarding the political influence of Surrealism as well as Surrealism's international scope. Clarification can be written.
Some Latin American connections that come to mind are the Diego/Trotsky/Breton thing, and Matta. --sparkitTALK 02:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course, that we know. Its the American blacks and hispanics that have no interest in Surrealism.Worldeater 22:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I know this is an old topic, but I just can't let this pass without commenting on how astoundingly racist and elistist your comments were, Worldeater. I'm surprised there was so little backlash. So elitism/racism doesn't keep you from engaging in the marvelous, but the sort of laziness you find in blacks and hispanics does? Your opinion, of course, is grossly un-encyclopedic (what does it matter how much you like Ted Joans?), but I can't let it pass without pointing out how reprehensible it is on a deeper level. The laziness comment is the most obviously reprehensible statement, but your overall equation of everyone who is "black" with primitive art is also quite racist -- it's a common kind of racism, but that doesn't mean comments like that should pass unchallenged. I'm also ashamed of the lack of outrage it elicited. It's one thing to say there's little evidence of involvement by Latin Americans within the United States in surrealism proper; it's another thing entirely to say they're insignificant because they're lazy. One is a question of relevance; the other is straight forward racism.

F. Simon Grant 19:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Victory for Surrealism[edit]

Congrats to JON BEINART and his new METAMORPHOSIS Book!, This will generate the notability that contemporary surrealists need for the article! Surrealists Bernard Dumaine, James Sebor, Ernst Fuchs, etc all agreed to be in this project. This is something that will generate news that will generate notability, you will all see!Overwork 15:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

METAMORPHOSIS! Well Done! Good to see Sebor collaborate with Prof. Fuchs and the others, well done. A new chapter in current surrealism.Worldeater 02:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Once notable and noteworthy references evolve from the release of Jon Beinart's METAMORPHOSIS book, we should add this to the article, if that is ok. To see the surrealist James Sebor collaborate with Prof Ernst Fuchs and the artists from Brave Destiny is historic and significant. Oh, lets not forget about the surrealist Bernard Dumaine as well, to see him collaborate with Prof Ernst Fuchs and the Brave Destiny artists that are in this book, is NEWS!!!! Hopefully deemed notable, someday and soon!!! VIVA FUCHS!!! VIVA SURREALISM!!!Worldeater 02:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is this here?[edit]

It randomly says: "" in the Bureau of Surrealist Research section of the article. Why? Manga_King

Bob Dylan[edit]

Dylan wrote/sang surrealist songs and made a surrealist movie, "Masked and Anonymous" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 13:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

Worldwide View[edit]

I have removed sections of the discussion below that were taken from my unpublished original research and used without my permission or citation. I have made wikipedia aware of the situation. MNKM

I recognize the importance of Breton and others in forming the Surrealist movement which was particular to its situation in the first half of the 20th century. Where else in the world have there been surrealist movements, and how closely connected have they been to this 1920s-60s movement? LordAmeth 13:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

At the very least, I think a brief mention that there was a surrealist movement in 1930s Japan, including links to several of the relevant artists, would be quite keen. I do not know where or when else there have been such movements, but they of course should be included too. Thank you. LordAmeth 13:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Lord Ameth - I agree and I disagree. I don't think Surrealism at the outset was anything but European. I agree that this article should at the very least mention and discuss other Surrealist movements elsewhere, in Japan, South America, the United States. I disagree with the idea that Surrealism wasn't French-centric, Paris-centric, - it was. Paris was the center, and thats where people looked. Surrealism today is global, but it originates as an important 20th century movement in (gulp) France. Frankly I am not aware of Chinese surrealism, or Japanese surrealism of the 1930s. Please add wiki links to artists and/or movements as you find them. Latin America should be mentioned, the Magic Realists, Frida Kahlo is, Miguel Angel Asturias and other writers should be. For now I'm taking down the banner, although if you feel it should remain then return it, I have no objections although I'd like you to include text that you think belongs. Thanks Modernist 14:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

There was a Surrealist movement in Japan during the 1930's.Madsurrealist 15:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. No worries. It's an excellent article, and I don't doubt that it is indeed a movement which originated in France - I just wanted to stir the pot a tiny bit so that such assurances as your own, Modernist, would come forth. As for the Japanese movement, I do not know enough really to add anything worthwhile to the article. Thanks. LordAmeth 16:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know if there are any contemporary surrealist groups or surrealist activity in Japan right now? --TextureSavant 19:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

TextureSavant, there is a surrealist group currently active in Tokyo, run by Inishiro Honore. Inishiro speaks very little English but you can get a hold of his surrealist comrade, Babek Andimashid, or Bruno Jacobs, they can help. Have you seen Brandon Freels, "A Better World" pictures? Such marvelous beauty, the old broken down fireplace, the old abandoned building, the old doors, such marvelous treasures. Is Morgan still bartending?Madsurrealist 01:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Eric W.Bragg is TEXTURE SAVANT and he is using Wikipedia to promote his friends in SURREALIST GROUPS[edit]

TextureSavant is Eric W.Bragg from SURREALCOCONUT.COM and he is using Wikipedia to input his friends from non-notable surrealist groups (those unknowns who keep online blogs) into the SURREALIST GROUPS Article. Upon doing a study of these people, they are all friends of Eric W.Bragg, who is,TextureSavant and TextureSavant has only made surrealism edits while he, Eric, has been on here and he is constantly been trying to promote his friends in contemporary surrealist groups. Lets please prevent him from using Wikipedia for easy online promotion.Madsurrealist 13:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about, Keith? If you have a dispute with the addition of certain contemporary surrealist groups, then you should post your temper-tantrum on the "surrealist groups" discussion page, but not this one. Doh! --TextureSavant 20:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Eric W.Bragg is confusing me with someone else. The surreal groups cannot stay, they are not notable.Madsurrealist 23:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

A list of expulsions and other comments[edit]

The other day I was reading Conversations: the Autobiography of Surrealism and it suddenly occured to me that a really useful thing would be a comprehensive list of all the expulsions including the justifications. There are so many dozens and dozens of members in the group that by far the most confusing thing is keeping up with who's in and who's out. For example, I found myself thinking, "When was Masson kicked out and when did Tzara join back up?" It could be a list with bullets, but it should probably also include when people joined and that could get jumbled and confusing. Maybe a color coded list or a chart with two tables or something. But I don't know how useful that would be because I don't know how common a desire for a simplifying chart like that really is, so that's why I'm asking if anybody else thinks that's a good idea.

Two more brief notes: Though I know Breton loved Picasso passionately, I thought he lumped Cubism as whole into the bad category with Impressionism because they focused too much on how the consciousness percieves things. I don't remember where I read that. I'm just wondering because in the "Expansion" section it says the painters were influenced by Cubism. How accurate is that? Also, while I'm nitpicking about stuff I'm not sure about, while the influence of Kandisky is pretty clear, I've heard Paul Klee's name mentioned more often as an influence. A very, very minor point. One more thing: Is it just me or is the "toward another definition" section very pov (the exclamation point for example) and very original-research-ish. I like the section and I think it's useful information, but I think the phrasing needs to be changed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by F. Simon Grant (talkcontribs) July 13, 2007.

The "toward another definition" is extremely POV, you are correct. The phrasing needs to be changed. About the original Paris Surrealist Group, Andre Breton had many differences with so many members of the Group, from its inception until his death, that its extremely difficult to have a "list" of those expelled or those who came back. Granted that in the historical sense, Andre Breton had the "moral authority" to dismiss those artists, poets, and writers, etc, who he felt betrayed the Surrealist cause, but he really never had the final say, it was always left up to chance really, especially considering the great Dali, who still wrote to Breton up until 1941, almost three years after his alleged explusion. Its just a matter of Breton getting bored with the person and moving on to the next one. What would be a good list to create would be those surrealist who made significant contributions but fall under the historical analysis radar. Also, let's consider that Breton did not posses all the inclusive power to say who is and who is not surrealist. When Breton died in 1966, the remaing Paris Surrealist Group, those new members who came on in the late 50's to mid 60's, tried to keep the group going up until 1969, but it all fell apart. That is the official record of when surrealism as an organized movement stopped. If you want to have an accurate categorical timeline and place some kind of grid box here on Wikipedia, start with the years 1924 and end with 1969, and list all the members that came and went, it will be hard to state for the record what year, say, Max Ernst left and came back, but you can give it a shot if you desire.Madsurrealist 14:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Surrealist groups[edit]

have been deleted! why is the fake surrealists made at Merl over Theo Van Gogh?Thikeboylove 17:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Why has this been deleted? "There were also groups who associated with both currents and were more atttached to Surrealism, such as the Revolutionary Surrealist Group or the Chicago Surrealist Group." I have reverted the vanda;lism. Please respond here. 23:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the edit as vandalism.Thikeboylove 23:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I returned the paragraph to the article. Please discuss before any further edit war. Modernist 04:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Keith Wigdor's vandalism & surrealist groups[edit] & Moderninst: this NEW user "thikeboylove" is another sockpuppet of Keith Wigdor, who had in the past been trying in vain to sneak his website, into the surrealism article. Keith Wigdor has been trying to remove all other traces of current surrealist groups from wikipedia, since he himself cannot be represented. This is just a case of sour grapes. Another one of his new sockpuppets is user: Madsurrealist, who posted some of the above messages. If you want to learn more about Keith Wigdor and his NAMBLA sockpuppets, then you can visit this page:

In the meantime, you should expect Wigdor to be pulling more of these vandalistic stunts. He seems to enjoy it. It's a shame that Wikipedia doesn't have the resources to ban him permanently. Isn't it strange how the mention of a name, like "KEITH WIGDOR", can cause an explosion of hostility from these new sockpuppets like "thikeboylove" and "madsurrealist"? Wait and you will see! --TextureSavant 13:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

What is TextureSavant talking about? I only made an edit for cryin' out loud. If you want it in, then go for it. No need to attack!Thikeboylove 18:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

There should be an article on SLAG, The Robber Bridegroom, they have a real good blog.Thikeboylove 18:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Surrealism article[edit]

I disagree with this Thikeboylove, I have friends in the Chicago Surrealist group that want to be mentioned in this article. What can we do to get more mentioned in the article?BenjaminPeret 22:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for preemptively pointing out your conflict of interest. I encourage you to review the Wikipedia rules on the subject; as the page states, "(Conflict of interest) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote yourself or the interests of other individuals, companies, or groups ... COI edits are strongly discouraged." However, preemptive acknowledgement of a conflict of interest is encouraged, since it's a good thing for the Wikipedia community : editors generally appreciate knowing about conflicts of interest ahead of time, and though it may expose your own edits to increased scrutiny, other editors will often be happy to help you research and edit the areas you're interested in, with a neutral point of view. Best, -- Docether 14:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Docether, don't be fooled by all of this. Thikeboylove and BenjaminPeret are both sockpuppets of Keith Wigdor, who has been vandalizing this article for a long, looonnnnnng time. This is all just a big game to him. He used to also be Classicjupiter2, who was busted for sockpuppetry only a few months ago. Ta Ta, Fa Fa. --TextureSavant 14:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Docether, I apologize, but I think you may be wrong on your point of conflict of interest. My surrealist friends that are in the Chicago group, The Portland Surrealist Group, The St.Louis Surrealist Group, The Surrealist London Action Group, The London Surrealist Group, The Leeds Surrealist Group, the current Paris Surrealist Group are notable. If you go online and go to all their websites and online blogs, you will see that we are an active surrealist movement and that we should have every right to be mentioned on Wikipedia. The proof is in the online publications. Take for instance,, the website run by our surrealist friend and comrade Eric W.Bragg, who also deserves to be mentioned on Wikipedia along with all the current groups, Eric, was referenced in Ron Sakolsky's book, SURREALIST SUBVERSIONS, so that is just one example of proof that we are all notable. We deserve to be mentioned here on Wikipedia. Please show me some kind of evidence that we are not notable.BenjaminPeret 16:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

None of these current groups are notable!Worldeater 01:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth: There are currently in Wikipedia these separate articles - Chicago Surrealist Group, Surrealist Movement in the United States, 1976 World Surrealist Exhibition, and this - Category:Surrealist groups, the mention of the Chicago group in this article should redirect the reader to Chicago Surrealist Group. All of which I am adding to See also in Surrealism. Modernist 17:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Definitely good things to be added. Keith, er, "BenjaminPeret" & "Thikeboylove", I hope you don't mind that those were added. We all know how much the legendary Keith Wigdor hates the Chicago Surrealist Group. Does anyone have any news about the Staten Island Surrealist Group? Ta Ta, Fa Fa! --TextureSavant 19:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Modernist, but we would really appreciate it if you can get The Portland Surrealist Group, The St.Louis Surrealist Group, The Surrealist London Action Group, The London Surrealist Group, The Leeds Surrealist Group, the current Paris Surrealist Group, and mentioned in the article. Can you help us get mentioned here on Wikipedia? Our friends and comrades in Chicago have been on Wikipedia for a number of years, we want to get on too. We are notable. Have you read our online blogs?BenjaminPeret 19:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Keith or BenjaminPeret, I don't really think any of the people in those groups you mention above are clamoring to get their URLs onto wikipedia, like you have been. Instead of impersonating other people, why don't you just be yourself, the legendary KEITH WIGDOR? Being yourself is easy. You should try it some time.--TextureSavant 19:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Why are you calling me Keith? This is not the place for flames, let it go.BenjaminPeret 21:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are Keith Wigdor, and your extremely new BenjaminPeret account is another sock. If you generate enough of these new sock accounts, then maybe it will be time to do another checkuser analysis. Interested?--TextureSavant 21:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Really, you are being real difficult and a bit paranoid. Just because I want to help my surrealist friends, you are attacking me, makes no sense, let it go.BenjaminPeret 21:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

No, really, you are the one who is lying and trying to speak for others whom you have no right to speak for. You need to let this go, Keith.--TextureSavant 22:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place for flames. My name isn't Keith. All I did was talk to a person on here and you're attacking me for no reason. Whats your problem? I am talking to someone, why bud in? Whats this "Keith" stuff all about and who cares?BenjaminPeret 23:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you kindly keep this talk page relevant to the article per WP:TPG. If there are sockpuppet problems, take it to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets or WP:RFCU. Don't edit war. Propose changes on the talk page and supply references per WP:V and WP:RS. Then include material with regard to due weight per WP:NPOV, bearing in mind WP:NOR. Note that blogs don't count. Thank you. Tyrenius 15:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
There is no reason to remove the reference to Chicago Surrealist Group in the section on P[ost-Breton Surrealism. I do not need to justify reversion of vandalistic removals of that reference. My comments have been made and no arguments raised against it, other than non-notabiliity of the group which is disporved by the existence of their own Wikipedia entry. 04:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Edit warring is never acceptable. See WP:3RR: you were right up to the maximum limit. Good faith edits are never vandalism, so please don't call them that - it violates WP:NPA. Wikipedia doesn't count as a reference (although references in an article may be usable); there is the "see also" section to use. You've been asked to supply verifiable sources for inclusion: if you don't then the material can be removed. What I see on the talk page is people wanting to include their friends. Tyrenius 11:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tyrenius. You need to cite specific and credible reference sources regarding the edit. History books that document what you are putting into the edit.Worldeater 17:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit War[edit]

  • This is a great article. Stop the Edit War. If you disagree with this article, start another one. Thank you Modernist 15:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Very well said! --TextureSavant 16:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Neither war nor peace[edit]

Those edits are in no way good faith, as the comments will show. In fact the history of removal of material also shows that. Furthermore, Worldeaters racist comments above ( see ) also show his/her lack of good faith. Anyway, I've added new sources. 00:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Worldeater is also another sockpuppet of Keith Wigdor, who used to be Classicjupiter2. You can read all of Classicjupiter2's sockpuppet antics in the archives of this talkpage. You are right,, Wigdor is a racist. His main goal on wikipedia is to remove all traces of current surrealist groups, like the Chicago Group, for example, since he couldn't get himself and his personal website, , inserted in the Surrealism article. Wigdor likes to object to the inclusion of current surrealist groups like that of Chicago by citing lack of historical references, history books, etc, but actually his interest in creating an encyclopedic article is just self-serving. Don't be fooled by any of Keith Wigdor's games. --TextureSavant 14:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop using this article to promote and attack[edit]

Every post that user TextureSavant has made on this discussion page is solely dealing with attacking this Keith Wigdor artist, which clearly shows that TextureSavant has an agenda solely to attack and discredit, no more. Also if you were to notice and observe TextureSavant's obsession with using the Wikipedia discussion page and Wikipedia solely to attack is obvious. Now, about the edit, they are in good faith. still has not provided credible reference sources in regards to the paragraph in question. First, Ron Sakolsky is a close friend and associate of The Chicago Surrealist Group and has an investment in promoting his friends and comrades. Next, any reference that is actually written by the Chicago group themselves does not cut it. You have to provide documented and historical references from those that are not part of or connected to the topic in question. For example, if Henry Rollins were to edit the Wikipedia article on Henry Rollins, would you allow him to add his own books as references? No, you have to provide material and references that were written by scholars, etc, and especially reference material that is NOTABLE, not self-promotion of one's friends and comrades, etc. This is all about using Wikipedia to promote one's friends and themselves. From what is very obvious, TextureSavant has made the allegation that this Keith Wigdor is using Wikipedia to promote himself, not true. Have you see any edits in the last couple of weeks made to the article that added Keith Wigdor to it? No, yet TextureSavant still obsesses over his rants and attacks against an online artist that has nothing to do with editing this article. However, there obviously appears to be a whole lot of fuss constantly made by the user TextureSavant over this Keith Wigdor. As for, he has to stop making edits that solely deal with his tastes and only what he likes. He appears to be interested in Radical Islam, from investigating his edits on here. Maybe if he made some edits to an article on USA's Dept.of Homeland Security, maybe we would see some balance in his perspective, but I only disagree with his edits, as for's beliefs, that is not for Wikipedia. Islam has its own problems anyway. As for the article, he needs to provide credible references, NOT written by internal friends of the Chicago group and ,TextureSavant has to cool it with his obsession over Keith Wigdor and online witch-hunts about alleged sockpuppets.Worldeater 18:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste time arguing with racists. Your insinuations abou 'radical islam' are more of the same. You have not shown good faith and your edits are vandalism. friendshp is not the issue. verification is. 23:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to be calling me a racist, that is a personal attack and certainly not in good faith. All I am asking you is to provide the proper and credible reference and source information, historic, scholarly, etc, from those that are not affiliated or part of this Chicago group. I went to their site, and they write all their books themselves and sell them too. Wikipedia is not a platform to help promote and sell books and hook up friends of friends and their friends, can you understand.Worldeater 14:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Keith Wigdor's Sockpuppetry confirmed[edit]

The results are in:

It appears that users Worldeater, Madsurrealist, Thikeboylove & BenjaminPeret are all the same person: KEITH WIGDOR. Keith, please stop interfering with the Surrealism article, by creating an edit war.

It seems that user was correct in his assessment that the sockpuppets' edits were not done in good faith. Admins Modernist & Tyrenius, please take note of this: While the sockpuppeteer Keith Wigdor might have these latest sock accounts blocked, he will simply start some new accounts to continue with his interference in this article, as he as previously done. Apparently he has access to many different IPs. --TextureSavant 14:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I have also created a suspected sockpuppet report page, as well: --TextureSavant 14:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Good work and note taken. Modernist is not an admin by the way, but is an experienced user. Now the pattern is clear, it should be easier to stop this in the future, making use of this precedent. Tyrenius 00:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Post Breton[edit]

"Manifesto of Socialist Surrealism". This text needs a reference, surely? 18:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not change my edit, Modernist. I checked those references and they do not hold. You have to provide neutral sources not affiliated with these people in question.CoolRanch3 02:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Rrburke, the sourced reference material in question is written by friends of this Chicago surrealists. I haven't found any credible material on them that was not written by a friend of this group. This Ron Sakolsky is affiliated with this Chicago group, we need source material from art historians, not friends.CoolRanch3 02:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

In the spirit of WP:AGF I will watch and see what develops here. Modernist 02:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.CoolRanch3 23:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd be willing to bet that CoolRanch3 is another Keith Wigdor sock. If you read the introductory text on his user page, it resembles the intro texts of the the previous socks. And then the fact that he is renewing his quarrel with the Chicago group is suspect. As has been the case, time and time again, Keith is out to discredit the chicago surrealist group. Here's a message he left on another user's talk page regarding the newest dispute:

And if anyone wants to accuse me of rushing to accuse anyone too quickly, please remember that I correctly spotted KW last time (last month) before anyone else did. Welcome back, Keith. --TextureSavant 15:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but my name is not Keith or KW. Please be more than welcome to do an IP user check, you have my blessing.CoolRanch3 22:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Dylan's stream[edit]

Minor nitpick. This Dylan line has a lot of little problems. Breton was fairly clear when he talked about Joyce that stream-of-conciousness was not surrealist. Stream-of-consciousness is crafted to mimic the flow of the conscious mind (not the subconscious). Confusing automotism with stream-of-consciousness is all too common, and I believe that's what Breton was getting at (by the way, the Surreal humor article needs a TON of help, I wouldn't know where to start fixing that thing, one of the big problems I addressed a couple of months ago was this stream-of-consciousness nonsense -- William S. Burroughs, for example, much more on the side of automotism than stream-of-consciousness). So indicating that Dylan used stream-of-consciousness techniques (and, really, did he? sounds like b.s. to me) is not relevant to his surrealist pedigree. A lot of the sentence is irrelevant. When talking about the influence of surrealism, Dylan is an interesting one to talk about, but is it really necessary to ruminate on the difference between his early and late stuff? Here's the original:

"In popular culture much of the stream of consciousness song writing of the young Bob Dylan, c. 1960s and including some of Dylan's more recent writing as well, (c. mid - 1980s-2006) clearly have Surrealist connections and undertones."

Here's my proposed edit with a transition from Ginsberg in the previous sentence:

"Much of the song writing of Ginsberg's friend Bob Dylan clearly has Surrealist undertones."

Not to mention that verb agreement problem. Reduced down that much it might make people wonder what's the point in talking about Dylan, so stuff should maybe be added, but if stuff is added it should be relevant -- the stuff about the years is not very relevant. F. Simon Grant 20:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Impact of Surrealism[edit]

The section on Surrealism's impact, an impact which has been felt in almost every medium of culture and the arts in the latter half of the 20th century, is very important but is also, unfortunately, full of a lot of cruft and nonsense. Such a section, by its very nature, is inviting of original research and a great deal of speculation, as people add all sorts of examples of people who were influenced (even if only vaguely) by Surrealism, or movies or tv shows that are considered "surreal" (all the better if the definition of said term is kept loose and vague). The television and comedy subsections, in particular, have a lot of junk. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 19:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

So then why don't we just get rid of that section? Or maybe put it all on a different page?--TextureSavant 15:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I do not believe that it is necessary to delete the section entirely. What I am saying is that it needs to be edited, and then watched closely to see that OR/POV edits are not made. As it stands currently, a great many claims are made that are either unreferenced or have no basis in fact. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
well good luck, then. To prevent OR/POV additions to the surrealism article, the page needs a 24/7 watchdog. If you follow a lot of the verbiage on this talk page, you'll see what I mean. Often enough we have sockpuppet problems with a certain Keith Wigdor who is intent on putting his own personal links into the article, as well as deleting the links of surrealist groups he considers to be rivals. The best solution so far has been to keep the "contemporary surrealist" links and other content out of the main article. But if you're really up for the challenge, and if you've got plenty of time for a modern "impact of surrealism" section, then you've got my support.--TextureSavant 15:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


The edit revisions I made are based on non-notability. I checked the reference sources and they don't hold.CoolRanch3 00:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Why, just because you say so? I am sick to death of the edit wars which have marred this article almost to the point of irrecoverability. If you have ideological axes to grind---and here I refer not just to CoolRanch3, but to anyone who intends to use this article as a battleground---do it elsewhere, and not on Wikipedia. I will be keeping a very close eye on this article, and edits I feel are ideologically-motivated will be reverted. If necessary, I will bring administrators and other editors into this. I say this now: Knock off the ideological skirmishing. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 00:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Here, here! This CoolRanch3 character is just another sock for Keith Wigdor. As you can see from his edit, he wants the Chicago Surrealist group removed from the article, and he has attempted to do this several times over the past couple of years. I really hope you can convince some admins to take a closer look at what has been going on here with the surrealism article. The problem is that as soon as a usercheck exposes Keith Wigdor's latest group of socks, he just goes out and starts some new wiki accounts.--TextureSavant 13:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyone have more information on the surrealist Ernst Fuchs and Dali?Radarst 16:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


This text placed by IP needs references. Modernist 02:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

There are two forms of Surrealism, automatism and verism. Automatism deals with the suppression of the consciousness, to use the subconscious. There is more of a focus on feeling, and automatism is unburdened with meaning. It has been described as “dictation of though without control of the mind”. Automatist paintings often have biomorphic (ameba-like) shapes, and give off a dreamlike feeling. Yves Tanguy's paintings are a perfect example of this form, like such as Multiplication of the Arcs.

The veristic branch of Surrealism allows the subconscious to surface in order to interpret meaning. It uses images as a link between abstract spiritual realities and real forms of the natural world. In other words, veristic paintings are much closer to reality than automatist paintings. They hold some truth, portraying recognizable scenes and objects that are taken out of natural context, resulting in a dreamscape. Salvador Dali is the most well known artist who portrays identifiable objects in strange settings. His “hand painted dream photographs” are so meticulously detailed, they almost look real, although they are so fantastic and dreamlike. He drew upon the terrors of his childhood to put his nightmares on canvas. Another veristic artist is Rene Magritte (The Human Condition, Portrait, and Time Transfixed are good examples of veristic Surrealism). The Human Condition I and II portray a canvas which lines up perfectly with the landscape behind it. Reality and the painting are so close, it makes you question the difference.

David Lynch -- not a Surrealist?[edit]

User RepublicanJacobite just removed David Lynch from the list of surrealists, with the comment "David Lynch is not a Surrealist." Lynch sure seems like one to me. At least the way he describes how he works strikes me as surrealist. --Nik (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

He is not a Surrealist, period. Is he influenced by Surrealism? Certainly? But, a number of other contemporary authors, artists, directors, etc., are influenced by Surrealism. None of those individuals belong in the list of Surrealists. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 19:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
So your argument that he's not a surrealist is to state "He is not a surrealist, period"? Could you, uh, be more specific? Check out the description of how he made Inland Empire. It sounds like a very surrealist approach to me. --Nik (talk) 21:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

People continue to nitpick apart the list of surrealists. And here, as I see it, is the issue -- do you need to declare yourself to be a surrealist in order to be one? If you're an artist that predates the surrealist movement, but use surrealist elements, can you be called a surrealist? Can you be considered a continuation of the movement, even if you don't call yourself a surrealist? Do you need an official surrealist membership card to join the club? I've heard tell of some surrealists arguing you have to be a communist to be a surrealist. Dali was "excommunicated" by Breton. Can we still call Dali a surrealist? I am reminded of the no true scotsman fallacy. MY BIG QUESTION: What criteria are we basing the list on? --Nik (talk) 14:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Surrealism and comedy[edit]

I cut the following paragraphs from the "Surrealism and comedy" subsection, and I bring it here for discussion:

Some branches of comedy (chiefly British, and also Japanese) are known for being very surreal. Perhaps the most famous example of Surrealist comedy can be seen in the late 1960s-early 1970s British sketch show Monty Python. Also influential as an earlier example of British satire was Beyond the Fringe a British comedy stage revue written and performed in London from 1960 through 1966, and in New York from 1962 through 1964, by Peter Cook, Dudley Moore, Alan Bennett and Jonathan Miller. The original cast was replaced in London after 1964.
During the mid-1990s the American television program Mr. Show on HBO and Comedy Central has been described as surreal and its main performers have acknowledged being highly influenced by Monty Python on Mr. Show's DVD commentaries.

First of all, none of this is referenced, which is often a red flag that the content is someone's opinion or is original research. The problem here, as I see it, is the difference between the overly-used, and poorly-defined, adjective "surreal" (taken to mean inexplicable, bizarre, or off-kilter), and the actual definition of "Surrealism" as postulated by Breton, et al. None of the above has anything to do with Surrealism, per se, even if it is (too) often described as being "surreal." There are certainly examples that can be found of Surrealis humor (T-Bone Slim would be a good start), but these are not it. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 23:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This ties into my comments above. What criteria does one use to determine if something is "Surreal" or not? How does one determine if something is truly surrealist in nature? If an artist uses a process that is "surrealist" in nature, but doesn't call themselves a surrealist, does that mean it's not Surreal? --Nik (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Well put, Nik, this problem is precisely why Wikipedia has a policy of verifiability; we can't decide among ourselves if something is surreal or not, because we might disagree. So, we say we are concerned with verifiability, not truth; we simply report what reliable sources such as independently published books, peer-reviewed academic articles, newspaper reports etc say about it. Then we can write in the article that Monthy Python is surrealist and reference The New York Times or whoever. If the reliable sources disagree significantly, we simply report it and say "Sun City News says Monthy Python is not surrealist because surrealist applies to high art, while The New York Times disagrees, for reason x".

Where there are no reliable sources cited, as in the above excerpt, any material that is challenged can be removed at any time. This is why Republican Jacobite was right to remove the information. If you feel it should be included, you need to find a reliable source that backs up your point of view. Skomorokh incite 16:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"A List of Surrealists" definitely should be discussed further[edit]

That whole list seems to be a mishmash of Surrealist precursors, friends of Surrealists, people influenced by Surrealists, people who have no actual connection to Surrealists, and some actual Surrealists. In my opinion, people in that list should be actual members (anyone who was a member at some point, so Dali would certainly be included), people who are very frequently listed as Surrealists though they never actually joined (I mean people listed as Surrealists in the specific sense like Khalo and Cornell, not in the broad sense like David Lynch), and perhaps a few close associates like Duchamp. Precursors certainly aren't necessary on this list: Ducasse is relevant to surrealsim, of course, but he doesn't belong on this list. Others have a tenouous place: for example, can we really call Bataille a Surrealist? Also, Theodor Adorno, Michel Foucault, and Walter Benjamin are all philosphers who have no connection to Surrealism. Foucault wrote a book about Magritte, but that doesn't make him a Surrealist. If anyone has proof otherwise, please discuss it here. And "Nadja (novel)" is very clearly not "a Surrealist". Finally, how do you put it in alphabetical order? I mean is there some way to automatically do that?F. Simon Grant (talk) 14:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I quite agree. I removed Albert Camus from the list not long ago, which is only one of the most obvious examples. Bataille, I think, should stay, because he actually was, for a short time, a member of the Paris group, and his parallel activities are very much related. Adorno and Foucault certainly do not belong. Benjamin is an interesting case, because he was friends with Bataille, and through him was connected to and influenced by Surrealism. But, he was never a member, and, as influenced as he was, he does not belong on the list. As far as I am aware, there is no way to "automatically" put the list in alphabetical order. It has to be done by hand. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 17:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
About the alphabetical order: Why was it done alphabetically by first name to begin with? Fairly unprofessional.
I agree. I have no idea who did it that way, or why. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 18:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to replace "List of Surrealists" with a chart of membership[edit]

I've been considering for a while (see discussion with Madsurrealist above) creating a chart of membership, going year by year listing who joins and who's expelled for whatever reason. This chart could also include non-member associates: for example, the chart could say, "Marcel Duchamp frequently associated with the Surrealists but never officially joined" and the same sort of thing could be done for others like Picasso, Cornell, Khalo, Bataille etc. as mentioned above. It could perhaps reference Benjamin, but I'm not convinced that's necessary. Anyway, it's a big task and I was never sure how vital it was, so I haven't gotten around to do it yet. But now it seems like a much more informative alternative than an uncontextualized list. I can start a chart and post it on the talk page so others can help complete it, and we could perhaps then decide if it belongs on the page.F. Simon Grant (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that is a great idea. If I had seen the conversation above in which this idea was first mentioned, I would have said something then. Such a chart would be much more helpful than this current list, to which irrelevant individuals keep being added. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 18:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Excellent proposal. This sort of chart would be far more useful than what exists now. --Nik (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll certainly do that then. I have an idea of how to go about it, but I just need to get a minute of free time. Hopefully I'll be able to post it here for apporoval in a couple of days.F. Simon Grant (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's the beginning. I'm far from done, but I wanted to at least get the most tumultuous years out of the way. Feel free to fix stuff, add stuff, etc. Change around phrasing (I don't like the phrasing int he first one, for example). But this is the basic idea. A tiny bit of context for the year, but mostly focused on membership. I would eventually like to get all the people currently on the list, but it's a big job, tons of information, and it'll take some time. So please lend assistance. But also, if you think it's a bad idea, just let me know and I'll quit.F. Simon Grant (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

This is some really great work, Simon! A chart like this will help us avoid POV/OR issues like "I think this guy is a surrealist, so I'm going to add him to the list." You are to be congratulated! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I thought it needed to be done. I've updated the above chart a couple of times, and it's close to being ready. There are a few minor things missing. I wanted to include as many from the currently existing list as I can so we could just replace that list with this one, but I can't place some of them. However, I certainly agree that having to place somebody into a specific year will cut down on the casual two-second editors who add things without thinking much about it. I really wanted to go much more specific on some of the entries (the Cornell entry, for example, is the level of specificity I really wanted) but with hundreds of names that will be nearly impossible. Anyway, everybody feel free to point out absences or point out errors or go ahead and directly edit the chart. Hopefully we can turn it into a very useful tool, the sort of thing I really wished for when I was first researching, because I think this is one of the most confusing aspects of Surrealism.F. Simon Grant (talk) 21:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I think you should go ahead and add it to the article. I think that it is, even in its unfinished state, a huge improvement over the current list. Thank you for your great work. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 02:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I moved the chart to the page, but I wanted to keep the list available b/c I want to make sure I got all the really important names on the chart. It takes up a lot of space on the talk page, I know, but I'll delete it as soon as I make sure everything necessary is covered. And please, if you see someone major on this list who's missing from the chart let me know and I'll fix it as soon as I can. The chart still definitely needs some work (I haven't even gotten up to '68 as was the original plan). So please make suggestions or correct the chart as you see fit.F. Simon Grant (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again, Simon, for your great work on this! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 00:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Impressive piece of work. Congratulations. Modernist (talk) 00:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Surrealism and theatre[edit]

The "Surrealism and theatre" subsection, like many of the other subsections, actually, is problematic. The biggest problem is that it does not say much about its topic, instead talking more about the Theatre of the Absurd---and making unreferenced claims about that, to boot. Surely, there is a great deal that can be said about Surrealism's impact in the theatre, yes?

I removed the following from that section, and I bring it here for discussion:

Today, Surrealist theatre continues to combine music, words, and movement, most ostensibly in works introduced by Peter Dizozza at the La MaMa Experimental Theatre Club Experiments Reading Series in Manhattan and often produced at the Williamsburg Art & Historical Center in Brooklyn.
The Dizozza surrealist works include "The Marriage at the Statue of Liberty" (after Cocteau), "The Last Dodo," "The Golf Wars," "The Eleventh Hour," "Hermaphroditism Through the Ages" and “Prepare to Meet Your Maker” inspired by religious mystery plays of the 16th century depicting the meeting of the exquisite corpse, Cementeria, and a gravedigger, Quasimodo, who, through contact with one another, are both invigorated and revitalized.

I have never heard of Peter Dizozza, and nothing in the article about him indicates he is a "surrealist," perhaps he is influenced by Surrealism, but he has no connection with any of the Surrealist groups, either here in the US or in Europe. These two paragraphs are unreferenced, as well, and read like they were written as advertising for this theatre troupe. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to propose adding Tennessee Williams' Camino Real to the list of surrealist plays. Though I understand to list all the surrealist plays would be ridiculous, I think that as one of the most influential American playwrights of the 20th century, this often-overlooked work of his fits the categorization pretty well (surprises, non-sequiters, the examination of the unconscious mind, etc). What do people think? ---ellieilluminate (talk) 04:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Surrealism (music)[edit]

I have started a discussion over at Talk:Surrealism (music) suggesting that said article be moved to a better title. Anyone with thoughts or opinions on the matter is encouraged to comment over there. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Surrealism Art Links[edit]

I found 2 surrealism art links I thought could be added to the links section of the page. What do you think? Surreal Art Forum and --Grrrlriot (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I am familiar with both of these websites, and neither of them have anything to do with the Surrealist movement as discussed in this article. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 21:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Towards another definition?[edit]

I do not know how I managed to miss this section during previous editing, but have now removed these two paragraphs, and bring them here for discussion:

The English word "Surrealism" is a mis-translation of the French word "Surréalisme." The correct translation should be "Superrealism." Breton somewhere said that the "surréel is to the réel what the surnaturel is to the naturel." English-speakers say "supernatural". The reason why this matters is that the prefix "surr-" in English is often, not always, associated with the Latin prefix "sub" e.g. surreptitious (Fr. subreptice), surrogate (Fr. subrogé), implying exactly the opposite of the intended meaning.
Breton would later qualify the first of these definitions by saying "in the absence of conscious moral or aesthetic self-censorship," and by his admission through subsequent developments, that these definitions were capable of considerable expansion.

First of all, this is unreferenced, despite the fact that it has direct quotes---it is telling that the author of this section says "Breton somewhere said," admitting he or she did not know, or could not remember, where. The whole section, though, more importantly, both in title and in content, is speculative, seeming to reach toward and encourage a new definition. This not what we do at Wikipedia, though. We present the facts that are verifiable, we do not speculate as to "new definitions" for things. On the whole, unencyclopædic. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 05:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal[edit]

I propose that the Surrealistic Artists article be merged into the current article. There is no reason for a separate article on the people who are already dealt with here, and dealt with at greater length. The fact that artist Gary Huey was included as one of these "surrealistic" artists, after two articles on this individual, created by Lowe1 !2, were deleted, causes me to wonder what Lowe1 !2's reasoning was for creating the Surrealistic Artists article. Was it merely another attempt to advertise an artist who already been deemed nonnotable? Either way, the article in question says nothing that is not already said here. Thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 19:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and just turn the other article into a redirect to this article. No reason for its continued separate existence. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 00:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Article Improvement[edit]

The surrealism article is really very poorly edited, it needs much improvement.Bonfireofvanity (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Would you care to be more specific about the improvements you think need to be made? Simply leaving this message here, without any details, is not terribly helpful. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 15:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
The article is really poorly edited. There is little insight into the paris surrealist group from 1924 to 1929, its so poorly referenced, its too condensed and too limited. The specifics are in the good reference sources, most notably from Breton's own documents. You guys really have no idea what you are doing. Why spend so much time policing and editing this article when you are not even interested in surrealism?Bonfireofvanity (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Please do not assume to know what I, or the other editors who have worked on this article are interested in or knowledgeable of, thank you. As to your complaints, I can only say that if there is specific information you know, not believe, to be missing, and you can provide said information, or "insight" as you call it, please do so. The responsibility does not fall upon others to improve the article to your standards. This is a wiki, which means you can make those improvements yourself. However, I would advise that you adjust your tone and attitude if you intend to stay around. No one who devotes their free time to this enterprise appreciates being told, as you have done here, that they "have no idea what" they "are doing." Bad form, sir. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 04:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Its very difficult to adjust "tone" of data, I am only being honest, you guys have no idea what you are doing. The Surrealism article was ruined. You took total control of the article, which I don't think is fair. Look at your edits and your elitist position towards this article. The article is ruined. The timelime of "membership" is the most vague presentation of surrealism I have ever seen. You need to go by the specific documents and signatures of the paris surrealists year by year, this grid is so way off and not accurate. Its a total failure. If you were so sincere about the quality of the article, you would allow another approach to edits on here! Its ruined.Bonfireofvanity (talk) 22:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Clearly, you have no intention of assuming good faith or showing even a modicum of civility. Therefore, I have no intention of wasting any further time with you. When you are prepared to discuss these issues with a civil tone and some respect for your fellow editors, please do let us know. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 04:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Really, I am providing good faith, the "tone" is obviously off, but thats not important nor is it really harmful to Wikipedia or this article. The goal is to provide an exact reference point for the person who is researching Surrealism, this can be done. You have to start with the exact documents and publications, etc and build a foundation there. You are still off the mark, but there is hope. You really should allow others to edit.Bonfireofvanity (talk) 16:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Louis Aragon[edit]

Can anyone here on Wikipedia help me out with finding more information on Louis Aragon to put into this article?Mindscanner (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems no one wants to help.Mindscanner (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Introductory Paragraph[edit]

It seems to me that, in accordance with both Wikipedia and general encyclopedia style, the introductory paragraph should either contain no mention of specific works, or only works that are by general consensus considered world-historical masterworks and that have been around for some time. Not mentioning specific works seems like the normal and recommended way to go. But if specific works are to be mentioned, they could be something like The Andalusian Dog and Dali's The Pesistence of Memory and perhaps the poetry of Breton and Eluard, not recent works or cult works, unless they are part of a longer list of major works of the movement involved (i.e. in this case surrealism), and such a longer list shouldn't be in an introductory paragraph. So I am going to take out the references to Angel's Egg and El Topo. Since both of these are mentioned in the "List of Surrealist Films", that seems to be the more Wikipedian way to handle them. A reader who doesn't know anything about a specific movement -- surrealism, romanticism, realism, whatever -- is going to assume that any works mentioned in the introduction to an article about that movement are the most important, greatest, most noteworthy, or most influential works of that movement, and their subsequent sense of both the movement and the works may be affected by that mention. That is why such mention needs to be done in a particularly responsible and representative way -- but also why it is better, and more standard encyclopedia and Wikipedia style, to mention them, with appropriate context, in the body of the article. That is probably why the Wikipedia articles about expressionism, Romanticism, realism, etc., don't mention specific works in the introductory paragraphs or sections. And that's just normal and responsible encyclopedia style. Jjshapiro (talk) 17:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

paragraph-- "off the mark"-- comments?[edit]

"As they developed their philosophy they felt that while Dada rejected categories and labels, Surrealism would advocate the idea that ordinary and depictive expressions are vital and important, but that the sense of their arrangement must be open to the full range of imagination according to the Hegelian Dialectic. They also looked to the Marxist dialectic and the work of such theorists as Walter Benjamin and Herbert Marcuse."

Too philosophical and academic-- misleading.

These influences--certainly Hegel (Frankfurt School?) are real but they are deep background and should not be in the forefront of an article on Surrealism.

Radical poesia needs to be infused into this description of Surrealism-- anything less is once again misleading.

john writer 22:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

J.W. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnwriter (talkcontribs) 12:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed your crossouts per WP:MoS. I think the first paragraph is fine, before eliminating or crossing out any text, wait for consensus, and sign your remarks with four of these tilde's ~ in a row, thanks....Modernist (talk) 12:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Question: Surrealism lead paragraph problem[edit]

article's first paragraph--" however many Surrealist artists and writers regard their work as an expression of the philosophical movement first and foremost, with the works being an artifact."

Can someone give me a background for this description of Surrealist intent?

In my opinion this puts a Surrealist artist like Max Ernst or Robert Desnos in a passive creativity reacting to a philosophical outline imposed from the outside. The core artists of the Surrealist movement, while capable, like Breton of deep philosophical thinking were acting out of their... dream and free...

john writer 22:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

clarifications requested[edit]

"But — as in Breton's case itself — much of what is presented as purely automatic is actually edited and very "thought out".

Can someone cite a source for this statement-- that seems to be saying that Breton misrepresented his own writing? Is the "thought out" a direct quote from a source?

"Breton himself later admitted that automatic writing's centrality had been overstated, and other elements were introduced, especially as the growing involvement of visual artists in the movement forced the issue, since automatic painting required a rather more strenuous set of approaches."

Once again the implication here is that Breton misrepresented "automatic writing" and that he finally admitted--confessed--that there was more to the story. Can someone cite the source material here--interview,essay, manifesto-- where this confession takes place.

john writer 01:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

some general concerns about this article[edit]

The word "poetry" I believe and I may be mistaken occurs only once in this article.

Andre Breton, who is the very soul and spirit of the Surrealist movement-- understood himself as alive with poetry and understood Surrealism as possessing-- certainly more then a philosophical context-- a poetic context. This context, or as I prefer to understand it-- this momentum is clearly embodied, among many others, by Rimbaud, Baudelaire, Mallarme' and Apollinaire. Even the literal embodiments of Surrealism like Vache or Craven-- are a poetic physiology of what Breton called the "marvelous." Philosophically, if one wants to go there, Surrealism has more meaningful roots in Nietzche and the "Gay Science" then Hegel's dialectic.

The non-French speaking world commonly over-visualizes Surrealism because it does not have meaningful access to it's poetic body, furthermore, it reacts to this barrier by philosophizing the movement often in comforting rational terms-- like "Hegelian dialectic."

This article needs more attention given to the poetic background of it's early core group and the influence of their writings on the subsequent history of modern poetry.

Second, the philosophical background of Surrealism needs its own section to play out more subtly the different strains from Nietzche, to Hegel-- to Marx-- the Frankfurt School not to mention impact on post WWII French thought-- Post-Struct-Post-Modernism.

john writer 03:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I am amazed that the Surrealist infobox at the top of the page lists Surrealist music, films and humour but that there is no separate article for Surrealist literature. My solution to this would be to separate out visual arts from literature and have one overall general article on Surrealism linking to the different arts. fluoronaut (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Limbour and Surrealist Periodicals[edit]


I noticed that, for whatever reason, there was no longer an article on Georges Limbour, so I started one. The page still needs some work, so anyone who would like to assist is more than welcome.

Also, I added on the Surrealism page Le Surrealisme au service de la revolution to the list of Surrealist Periodicals. (I also rearranged the list in chronological order.) Le Surrealisme au service de la revolution was the follow-up to Le Revolution surrealiste, published in Paris by Breton & CO. from 1930 to 1933. This periodical, which had a more political slant than Le Revolution surrealiste is mentioned in the great majority of studies written about the Surrealists, and copies of the various issues were published (and are still available) by Jean Michel Place in France. Le Surrealisme au service de la revolution (1930-33) is the bridge that came in between Le Revolution surrealiste (1924-1929) and Minotaure (1933-39).

To my knowledge, there is not currently a Wikipedia article on Le Surrealisme au service de la revolution. In the future, if I have time, I'll create one. If there's anyone else out there who is interested in doing it, feel free!

Last, I was also considering adding Literature to the list of Surrealist Periodicals, but wanted to run it by the contributors to the Surrealism page first. It was the first periodical created by Breton, Soupault & Aragon, published in Paris from 1919-24. During its later years, I would certainly consider it to be a surrealist periodical. However, when it first started, it only featured hints of what was to come, and also went through a Dada phase. So it wasn't FULLY a surrealist periodical, but it was certainly the precursor that led up to the Surrealist Manifesto and the publication of Le Revolution surrealiste, and featured contributions by many of the future surrealists.

Let me know what you think. Thanks.

Stanislaw brecht (talk) 17:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


With good imaginations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Chronic Vandalism[edit]

This article is in need of administrative attention to help resolve chronic vandalisation. Chimerinn (talk) 18:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Avant-garde art vs. Category:Surrealism[edit]

Category:Surrealism is itself a category within Category:Avant-garde art. — Robert Greer (talk) 17:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

What was the justification for the removal of the timeline of membership?[edit]

What was the justification for the removal of the timeline of membership? I neglect to check the page for a comple of months and suddenly the timeline of membership is gone with no justification given. It's not perfect of course but the burden is to make it better, not simply erase it with out a given reason. Please somebody let me know why it was erased, and I'll give my reasons for keeping it and improving it instead of simply (and lazily) getting rid of it. If the justification for removal is valid, I'll accept it, but I need at least a justification.F. Simon Grant (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion about adding external link[edit]

I wanted to discuss the possible addition of the following external link:


This site has more info about the history of Surrealism than any other I've come across. It includes:

  • An Overview of the Surrealist Movement;
  • A Detailed Chronology of the History of Surrealism;
  • Bios for most of the writers mentioned in the Wikipedia Surrealism article;
  • A detailed Book List relating to the classic surrealist writers;
  • POETRY by Desnos, Artaud, Peret, Breton, Eluard, among others;
  • Breton's First Manifesto in its entirety;
  • Prose works by Breton Artaud, Dali, Aragon, Bunuel, among others;
  • A List of Surrealist Artists;
  • Photos of the Surrealists in Paris during the 1920s and 1930s;
  • Surrealist Art by Dali, Magritte, Miro, Ernst, Tanguy, De Chirico, Ray, etc.;
  • Surrealist Photography & Architecture;
  • Surrealist Films (including works by Bunuel & Dali, Man Ray, etc.);
  • A page devoted to Bunuel;
  • A page devoted to the Belgian Surrealists;

and so on.

There is an ad for a collection of contemporary surrealist plays on the site. I'm not sure if the presence of an ad disqualifies it from being listed here. But considering the wealth of info included on the site, I thought I'd mention it on the talk page for discussion and consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Range block[edit]

The entire 204.100.181.* range of IPs has been blocked for one day because of repeated vandalism to this article. JIP | Talk 17:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

What is surrealism?[edit]

The entire article contains very little explanation about what surrealism actually is. Only in the lead paragraph does it briefly mention that surrealism concerns the element of surprise and the unlikely juxtaposition of images. The bulk of the article consists of the history of surrealism and famous surrealism artworks. JIP | Talk 18:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be useful to quote the Surrealist Manifesto's encyclopedia definition of the word? "Surrealism is based on the belief in the superior reality of certain forms of previously neglected associations, in the omnipotence of dream, in the disinterested play of thought." Gives a basic idea of what the movement is after in art and literature as well as philosophy and politics, since the Surrealists of the past and those that identify as such now were/are adament about it not being limited to any specific area.--Vlad the Impaler (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

In the discussion on Salvadore Dali, it says, "While Dalí may have been excommunicated by Breton, he neither abandoned his themes from the 1930s, including references to the "persistence of time" in a later painting, nor did he become a depictive pompier." What is "a depictive pompier?"Nikkirainbolt (talk) 14:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


I am in the middle of writing a paper on Dali and I find it disturbing that his politics are mentioned in the article as supportive of Fascism. While he was supportive of Francisco Franco (who was not a Fascist) his specific position was to remain apolitical. In fact, it is probably much more interesting to note that one of the leading surrealists specifically chose to stay out of politics, if you need some proof, go to the Dali page. sorry not to suggest edits or even really cite sources, but like I said I am in the middle of a paper. Bottom line: Dali not a fascist, he was apolitical, AND he was "kicked out" of surrealism in 1934 but people still try to tie his death to the death of surrealism. (talk) 19:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Surrealism and Counterculture?[edit]

I removed the following long quote from the article and bring it here for discussion:

Surrealism remained a powerful element in bohemian art and culture long after it had lost its novelty. It always remained an attractive option for leftist artists and writers who were not comfortable with the Stalinist cultural model. Among them is the Martinique poet and playwright Aimé Césaire who served on the editorial board of VVV, a surrealist journal based in the USA. Breton was an avid admirer of Césaire, whose 1955 "Discourse on Colonialism" was republished recently by Monthly Review. Along with CLR James, Césaire served as a revolutionary alternative to Stalinism for an entire generation of Caribbean intellectuals.

Another editorial board member at VVV was Philip Lamantia, who was to become best known as a leading figure of the new poetry of the 1940s and 50s that included the beats and the San Francisco Renaissance writers. It would not be much of a stretch to argue that Lamantia represents a link in the chain between the counter-culture of the 1930s and that of the 1960s. Surrealist poetry and culture were definitely read by young people in the 1950s and 60s, who were searching for an alternative to the Rationalism of their time, which amounted to Cadillac tailfins, the H-Bomb, conformity and Madison Avenue for all practical purposes.[1]

This was placed in the article by an anonymous user, under the heading "Surrealism and Counterculture," which seems inaccurate to me considering the content. The quote is certainly relevant, but should be split up and used in different sections. We already have some content relating to Aimé Césaire, in the "Surrealism and international politics" section, and VVV is discussed in the "World War II and the Post War period" section, though more information would certainly be welcome. I would like more information about this source, though, before adding it to the article. Anyone have any thoughts on this? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 02:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The author (who is already cited at least 13 times in WP) lists as his Sources:
Robert Hughes, "Shock of the New"
Franklin Rosemont, "What is Surrealism"
Jennifer Mundy, "Surrealism: Desire Unbound"
Leon Trotsky, "Culture and Socialism" (in Deutscher's collection "Age of Permanent Revolution")
The rewrite gets around the long quote problem. - (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
The rewrite does not get around the long quote problem, and the issues I mentioned above are not addressed at all. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 01:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
The author, Proyect, wasn't talking about "Surrealism and international politics." "Surrealism and Counterculture" is what he focused on, above, as counter to the dominant cultures, not politics, of the USA and USSR. He has citations at Proletarian Orientation Tendency, Nicaraguan Revolution, Gedaliah ibn Yahya ben Joseph, Communist Organisation in the British Isles, Midaq Alley (novel), Gabriel Kolko, Ellen Willis, New York Film Critics Online, John L. Hess, African Blood Brotherhood, Elections in Cuba, History of Soviet and Russian espionage in the United States, and Escambray Rebellion. If the long quote thing isn't fixed, rewriting it is better than killing all that info. - (talk) 05:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I made suggestions above as to where different parts of that quote could be places, i.e., where the information would be relevant, and mentioned that Aimé Césaire is discussed in the section on "international politics." Another citation indicating her influence would be helpful, and that's one place it could be placed. Regardless of what that author concentrated on, we can use the material in a number of different places. But, a section on "Surrealism and Counterculture" would need to have a lot more information and more references. I have never suggested "killing the information." ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 14:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


Subcategories under "Impact"[edit]

Upon request, I'm going to work on sourcing a lot of the literature stuff under "impact" which I should've done when I first put it on there -- that's going to take me a while, so please help, anyone willing to help -- but I wanted to first mention that the titles for the new subcategories just don't work. "Postmodern and Beat fiction" doesn't work because the section is about postmodern fiction, sure, but also the plays (not fiction) of Beckett and Ionesco, etc., and most of the Beat lit in that section is poetry, not fiction. Calling it "Postmodern Literature" instead may cause some disagreements, but it works a lot better as an umbrella label: saying Ionesco and Ginsberg write fiction is obviously and inarguably wrong; saying they are postmodernists may be arguable, but it's not a settled argument. Then there's "Pop" under which is listed information about Bob Dylan, The Beatles, and Magic Realism. Calling Bob Dylan "Pop" is arguable but understandable, but Magic Realism just doesn't fit there ... quite obviously. How about we shift Magic Realism to the postmodernism section and call the section "popular music" or something like that. These are problems so obvious I'd have changed it already, but editors on this page tend to be revert/delete happy, so I figured it was better to discuss it first.F. Simon Grant (talk) 12:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Appreciate your efforts - please make the best changes that you can, I am not fond of the recent subdivides either, thanks...Modernist (talk) 14:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
It's official: one third of all the citations on this page now belong to the section still labeled as lacking citations. I love Wikipedia.F. Simon Grant (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, miscalculated, now over half of the citations on the page are from the section with the needs citation tag. My goal at one point was to get 200 citations on the Theatre of the Absurd page before anybody took off that tag. I think this shining example of Wikipedianess is even more entertaining.F. Simon Grant (talk) 14:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Postmodernism and Theatre[edit]

For the delete-happy posters on this page, I want to make clear something I'm (slowly) working on so that it doesn't automatically get reverted: I'm working on citing parts of the "Impact" section that I wrote, specifically the section now called "Postmodernism and Popular Culture" (though I'm sure there's a better title for it) and I noticed -- somehow for the first time -- that there's a section below that about theatre that's mostly about Artaud but briefly about Theatre of the Absurd (though it seems to say more about movie comedy than ToA). I had inserted ToA stuff into the Postmodernism section a long time ago. Whether or not I did mine first or I was just an idiot and didn't read the whole page, I'm going to try to correct this by merging the ToA paragraph under "Pomo & P.C." with the theatre section (though I haven't decided where to put Beckett in that case, any suggestions are welcome). That means the "Pomo & P.C." section will just have the beats, Pynchon, Bob Dylan, and some vague thing about Magic Realism (the vagueness is my fault, sorry, working very slowly to fix these things). I'm going to work on adding stuff about Burroughs, Barthelme, Rushdie -- maybe something about Oulipo, Eco, and Calvino, etc. It'll take a while. I welcome help, but consider it a work in progress. If you have any objections to my plan, please let me know.F. Simon Grant (talk) 13:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

As I stated above I appreciate your efforts, thanks for adding the references so far...Modernist (talk) 13:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the encouragement. Two more points: I'm looking over the page for a substantial reference to Oulipo. They definitely deserve a sentence or two. I was going to reference them to tie in Eco and Calvino (and maybe furthur tie in Ionesco) but I can't find where they're referenced at all. Secondly, I question the Virginia Woolf reference in the theatre section. If it's just surreal with a little "s" then we'd have to open it up to hundreds of plays, wouldn't we? Woolf, as far as I know, was like other so-called "high" modernists in that she didn't have much interest in big "S" Surrealism. That's a candidate for deletion, but there are many other plays and theatre movements with a more valid place within the lineage of Surrealism.F. Simon Grant (talk) 14:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that ToA probably doesn't belong in the Pomo section, since arguments can be made for it's belonging to mod or pomo, Beckett being the most obvious, as you say. I fleshed out the surrealist theatre section a little and removed the Woolf info--yes, you're right, it doesn't belong. I then split the theatre section into Surrealist theatre proper, which I've moved up into the main body of the article, and the Influence of Surrealist theatre, for the ToA material. DionysosProteus (talk) 15:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a great change. I wish I would've noticed earlier that the info didn't really belong under impact, but you can only focus on so much at a time I guess. I also didn't notice before that Gertrude Stein was in that section. She had some very anti-Surrealist opinions, and critics calling her play "American Surrealism" doesn't seem, in my opinion, to qualify her as a Surrealist. More rightly, as the original author noted, Stein aligned her self with the Cubists. There are millions of plays that have been called "surreal" or "surrealist" -- it's impractical to include all of them. I question if Stein belongs there, but it might be worthwhile to include her as a negative critic. I know specifically in The Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas she had some bad things to say about the Surrealists. I'll look that up and post it here for consideration. The so called "high" modernists were generally down on the Surrealists. Could we have a section under criticism about the "Other Modernists"?F. Simon Grant (talk) 14:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that cubism is a more meaningful categorisation for her; I added her here because her opera is listed and discussed under the category "American Dada and Surrealism" in the anthology cited. That is, both the editors of that volume and Bay-Cheng, whose essay on her is included, use the term (capitalised, and explicitly linked to the movement). I think that we are meant to understand a more substantial relationship than merely "surrealistic"; I assume something along the lines of: as American Expressionism is to German Expressionism, so... That is, a re-working in a distinct milieu that takes on new forms/functions. They point to her interest in William James' psychology and experiments in automatic writing. I agree that it would be interesting to add the material you describe; though whether in a footnote to the theatre section, in the criticism, or both, I'm unsure. There's lots more to go into the theatre section, of course. Guillaume Apollinaire and Parade most obviously. August Strindberg's dream plays probably also should be mentioned as precursors. I notice that the re-titled criticism section now probably needs changing... it wasn't really the influence of Surrealist theatre as such, so much as Surrealism in general. Will alter it. I realise too from the talk sections above that I'd misunderstood your point about Beckett. DionysosProteus (talk) 14:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm unaware of the anthology you're referencing, but I can certainly see how you can make the case. It's a classic problem Wikipedia editors face with topics like this: critics use terms inconsistently, so how can we cover a term consistently when we're relying on them? I think it would be useful to include the stuff you mention here in the body of the article. I'm still intending to look up that stuff from Toklas abt Surrealism -- if I remember correctly, she says it approaches what she likes but doesn't quite get there as well as Cubism. I'll post it here for consideration. I like the idea of a section where we address the reactions of other artists and writers. A separate Joyce/Beckett section might be interesting, but how relavant is it? We also need to figure out the best place for a Queneau/Oulipo tie in. Would that be considered criticism or spinoff(j/k)? But seriously, these are things to think abt as we progress.F. Simon Grant (talk) 14:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Add or don't add[edit]

This timeline was originally removed in January 2009 for lack of sources. I would support to it's re-entry into the article if it can be sourced and referenced, although it can use some new input as well. What do others think?...Modernist (talk) 14:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Just as a bit of context: I made this chart originally, didn't source it just as an oversight because the chart itself was a beast to make, my bad, and it was one of those things I've always intended -- and still do intend -- to get back to. The person who originally deleted it said we needed to go back to the original writings or something, but the sense I got from what this person was saying was that there were glaring flaws. Well, all of it came directly from reliable sources -- it's not like I made it up, just neglected to cite it -- so I wasn't sure what the problem was. Not that I'm biased, but I think that it's a helpful chart -- well cited and checked for complete accuracy, it can be something very useful to your amateur researcher.F. Simon Grant (talk) 22:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Timeline of Membership[edit]

Year Membership
1919 André Breton, Louis Aragon, and Philippe Soupault started Littérature, began an association with Dada.
1922 Breton appropriated the term "Surrealism" as a group -- which now included Paul Éluard, Benjamin Péret, Man Ray, Jacques Baron, René Crevel, Robert Desnos, Georges Limbour, Roger Vitrac, and Joseph Delteil -- organized under Breton and pulled away from the influence of Tristan Tzara and the Dadaists. Marcel Duchamp frequently associated with this group but never officially joined.
1924 The year the first Surrealist Manifesto was published, members also included Antonin Artaud, André Masson, Raymond Queneau, Joan Miró, Max Morise, Pierre Naville, Mathias Lübeck, Jacques-André Boiffard and Georges Malkine. Giorgio de Chirico briefly associated with the group but never joined.
1925 Jacques Prévert, Yves Tanguy, Pierre Brasseur, Marcel Duhamel, and Michel Leiris joined the group.
1926 René Magritte, E. L. T. Mesens, and others started a Surrealist group in Belgium. Pablo Picasso associated with the Surrealists but never officially joined.
1927 Soupault, Artaud, and Vitrac were kicked out of the group.
1929 For various reasons, including the political direction Breton was taking Surrealism, several members -- Prévert, Baron, Desnos, Leiris, Limbour, Masson, Queneau, Morise, Boiffard -- broke with the group and organized under Georges Bataille. However, several new members joined: Salvador Dalí, Luis Buñuel, Alberto Giacometti, René Char, and Lee Miller. Breton also reconciled with Tzara. When the second Surrealist Manifesto was published, it was signed by Aragon, Ernst, Buñuel, Char, Crevel, Dali, Eluard, Ernst, Péret, Tanguy, Tzara, Maxime Alexandre, Joe Bousquet, Camille Goemans, Paul Nougé, Francis Ponge, Marco Ristitch, Georges Sadoul, André Thirion, and Albert Valentin. Federico García Lorca was friends with Dalí and Buñuel and is often called a Surrealist though he never officially joined the group; he broke contact with Dalí and Buñuel in 1929 when he interpreted their film, Un chien andalou (An Andalusian Dog), as an attack on him.
1932 Aragon and Sadoul left the Surrealists because of the conflict between Communism and Surrealism and their dedication to the Communist party. Meret Oppenheim, Victor Brauner, Roger Caillois, Georges Hugnet, Jehan Mayoux, Henri Pastoureau, Guy Rosey, Claude Cahun and J. M. Monnerot joined the group.
1934 Óscar Domínguez, Dora Maar, Richard Oelze, Gisèle Prassinos, Kurt Seligmann, and Brion Gysin joined the group.
1935 Wolfgang Paalen, Pierre Mabille, and Jacques-B. Brunius joined the group. Hans Bellmer's work was published in Minotaure. Brion Gysin was expelled.
1936 Joseph Cornell debuted Rose Hobart. Though Cornell was influenced by the Surrealists and friendly with many of them, he never officially joined the group. Dalí's negative criticism of Rose Hobart further inspired Cornell to distance himself. Dalí stated "That was exactly my idea for a film. I'm not suggesting he stole the idea from me, but it's as if he did."
1937 Kay Sage met Tanguy, and Leonora Carrington met Ernst. Also, Remedios Varo settled in Paris with Peret.
1938 Breton had a falling out with Eluard but reconciled with Masson. Also, Breton met Frida Kahlo in Mexico; she is often called a Surrealist though she never officially joined. Roberto Matta, Gordon Onslow Ford and Bellmer joined the group.
1939 Dali was kicked out of the group for multiple reasons including his apparent support of Francisco Franco, his commercialism, and his abrasive personality. Breton referred to him from that point on as "Avida Dollars", and the group essentially referred to him as if he were dead. Caillois and Hugnet also left the group.
1940 Wifredo Lam joined the group.
1941 Breton met Aimé Césaire in Martinique.
1942 Breton, Duchamp, Ernst, Calas, and Carrington gained a following in New York with the publication of VVV. Newer members included Dorothea Tanning, Enrico Donati, Charles Duits, David Hare, Robert Lebel, Isabelle and Patrick Waldberg. Other artists directly influenced by the Surrealists in New York include Robert Motherwell, William Baziotes, Alexander Calder, and Frederick Kiesler.
1943 The View published the poetry of 15-year-old Philip Lamantia who later became acquainted with Breton and others in New York.
1944 Breton and Matta met with Arshile Gorky. Seligman left the group.
1948 Matta, blamed for Gorky's suicide, was kicked out of the group.
1951 In what was called "The Carrouges affair", Michel Carrouges, a writer associated with the Surrealists, was found to be a practicing Catholic and was expelled. Maurice Henry, Jacques Hérold, Marcel Jean, Robert Lebel, Patrick Waldberg, and Henri Pastoureau were also expelled.
1954 Ernst received the Grand Prix of the Venice Biennale and was subsequently expelled from the group.
1959 Jean Benoît and Mimi Parent joined the group.
1960 Ted Joans met Breton in Paris.

Surrealism in Interactive Media[edit]

I am thinking it might be good to add a section on surrealism in interactive media, e.g. Silent Hill and Killer7. Video games have proven themselves to be as good a medium as any for surrealism. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. (talk) 00:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

They are not self-evidently surrealist, despite maybe some passing resemblance to the bastardized pop culture conception of surrealist art. Silent Hill is just a survival horror game. There are plenty other works in various media that feature similar nightmarish imagery, but it doesn't make them surrealist. I'm not prviously familiar with Killer7, but from a perusal of the wikipedia article, I fail to see what relevance it too has to surrealism.--Vlad the Impaler (talk) 01:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Vlad's comment. These videos have no relevance to Surrealism. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 02:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Situationist critique[edit]

I removed the following from the article and bring it here for discussion:

While some individuals and groups on the core and fringes of the Situationist International were Surrealists themselves, others were very critical of the movement, or indeed what remained of the movement in the late 1950s and '60s. The Situationist International could therefore be seen as a break and continuation of the Surrealist praxis.[citation needed]
The Situationist Internationalist began to protest on May 1968. Their goal was to live life free, just, and total. And also to change history. Although the situationist were influenced by the surrealist, they were not interested in art. In fact, they wanted to end art. Guy Debord (a member of the Situationist) states "We are artists insofar we are not artists." The Situationist movement was short lived.<ref>Buckeye, Robert. "Correspondence: The Foundation of the Situationist International (June 1957-August 1960)." Review of Contemporary Fiction 29.2 (2009): 364-365. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 17 Nov. 2010.</ref>

The first paragraph is very speculative, controversial, and unreferenced. The second paragraph is so poorly written, it makes no sense. This should not be readded to the article until it is rewritten and referenced. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 03:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Pierre Schaeffer[edit]

I removed the following from the music section and bring it here for discussion:

The early works of musique concrete by Pierre Schaeffer have a Surrealist quality derived from the unexpected juxtaposition of sound objects. This quality was alluded to by the composer Olivier Messiaen when he referred to Schaeffer's "surrealist anxiety".<ref>Messiaen, Olivier (1959). "Préface". La Revue Musicale, no. 244 (Experiences musicales: musiques concrète, electronique, exotique, par le Groupe de recherches musicales de la Radiodiffusion Télévision française): 5–6.</ref>

Pierre Schaeffer was not a member of, or involved in, the Surrealist movement. All this paragraph offers are vague references to "a Surrealist quality" in his music. Does the source provided offer anything in the way of evidence of Surrealist influence of Schaeffer? Until this is made more clear, I suggest this be left out. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 22:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Archive audio recordings[edit]

I removed the following from the article because it seems like nothing less than an advertisement for a CD, complete with the link where it can be ordered. Is this set notable? If it is, are there reputable reviews? As is, this does not seem appropriate. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 14:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The CD audiobook Surrealism Reviewed published in 2002 features archive recordings by Louis Aragon, André Breton, Tristan Tzara, Max Ernst, Salvador Dalí, Man Ray, Robert Desnos, Philippe Soupault, Marcel Duchamp, Herbert Read, Lee Miller, Roland Penrose and Jean Cocteau. Most are interviews recorded between 1938 and 1963, though Desnos, Read, Duchamp, Cocteau and Aragon also recite texts. Interviews with Francis Picabia recorded in 1945 and 1949 also appear on the Picabia CD La Nourrice Américaine, issued in 2007.[1]


Date of first mention of the term Surrealism incorrect.[edit]

Both this article and the article on Apollinaire's Les Mamelles de Tirésias state that this was the first mention of Surrealism. However, the premiere of Satie's Parade, for which Apollinaire wrote the programme note predates this by a month. See page 66 of this source document - for the text. For the date of the premiere, see page 51. See this French Wikipedia Article for the date of the premiere of Apollinaire's Les Mamelles de Tirésias: (talk) 11:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, done. Coldcreation (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Leonara Carington[edit]

I wondered if Leonara Carington might warrant a mention? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

A Vandalism Problem[edit]

It seems like this article is a constant target for vandalism. Someone mentioned something about it in 2009, but in the past few weeks (since I started watching this article), I've noticed that a significant portion of the edits are either vandalism or the reversion of vandalism. Is there anything that can be done about this? Symphonic Spenguin (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Franz Kafka[edit]

So I previously posted this on the Talk page of Franz Kafka, however in retrospect I think it's more relevant here, so I'm moving the discussion here (in its original form):

I really think Kafka should be added to the surrealist writers category. My edit was reverted however with the comment "not in the sense of our article on Surrealist writing". Well I think it's obvious and well sourced (just look it up yourself; example 1, 2, 3; it's even and for good reason included in the article itself) that Kafka was a surreal writer. He might have expanded on the ordinary surreal. But that doesn't make his works less surreal. Hence if the article on surrealism doesn't capture his taste of the surreal that article should be expanded (including mentioning Kafka) instead of having Kafka blocking out of the surreal categorization. And yes that might require shifting the focus a little bit from the art movement towards the "Surrealism" itself (that's the title of the article after all and should be its topic!). --Fixuture (talk) 18:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

To my understanding, to write about something surreal is not the same as being part of a style or movement called Surrealism which began later, according to our article which says it began in the early 1920s, - after most of Kafka' major works were written. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Well then I guess Kafka should at least be mentioned as a precursor or something alike. And I think it's worth a discussion to consider moving the focus away from Surrealism's origins (the cultural movement) towards its essence and characteristics of itself. For example: Cyberpunk was and is also a social and cultural movement (in which it has its origins and life-force), while at the same time being of a specific quality - a property and artistic categorization. The movement and its output are always intertwined and codependent - for any larger cultural phenomena that emerged there's also an underlying movement. The problem with surrealism's article is that for the most part it digs beneath the culturally perceivable plane under which those people united and which they shaped (or: found² [as did Kafka]) to the detriment of the thing itself. The conflict of the adjective surreal and surrealism as a movement should be descriptive of that and not be regarded as any kind of exception to the rule. There are surrealist artists/movement that use their cultural domain to subvert and influence reality by their fiction/art (characteristic being the stark conflict with what is thought to be real; the attempt to make look beyond by making otherwise impossible) as well as there's cyberpunk artists/movement that use their cultural domain to subvert and influence reality by their fiction/art (characteristic being the dystopic extrapolation [continuation, from a realistic technological approach, and disorganized acceleration] of what is thought to be real [or: thought in the real]; the attempt to make look beyond by technological and societal forethought [and human/psychological dystopic introspective]). Where surrealism has Kafka as a preceding (prior and "outside" the cultural mass-phenomenon) artist, cyberpunk has Philip K. Dick (cyberpunk as a movement only really started with Neuromancer). Nothing in the cultural complex is sharply discrete as it's an interwoven continuous fabric - none of it can be said of to have started at a certain point with the previous blended out of sight. My point is that Kafka is a too large strand (root might not essentially be the fitting term here; ²again: recognizing the "found" prospect of it might help in understanding my point) in what is "surrealism" to be left out. Just like PKD's works are too cyberpunk to be left out on the Cyberpunk article, Kafka's works are too surreal to be left out on the surrealism article.
But I guess that's more of a point I should take to surrealism's talk page than here. --Fixuture (talk) 22:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Please share your thoughts on this matter: can Kafka be added to the surrealism article and/or category? And what would be the best approach to it if so? --Fixuture (talk) 21:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose, with regret. — To my knowledge, André Breton only mentioned Kafka once in all his writings, on pages 439-441 [of my copy of the 1966 Jean-Jacques Pauvert edition] of Anthology of Black Humour, where he prefaces his inclusion of three short extracts (pages 442-460) from Kafka's "Metamorphosis", "The Great Wall of China" and "The Bridge". In this preface, Breton does not refer to Kafka as a surrealist writer. It seems important to note that Breton also never mentioned Kafka among the group of writers who inspired the advent of Surrealism (such as Rimbaud and Lautreamont, for example.) So, from the traditional viewpoint of Surrealism (the movement), Kafka was never claimed as a 'predecessor' by Breton. From a personal point of view (for what it's worth), I became interested in Surrealism over 50 years ago and, until I read your recent section in the present talk page, I would never have thought of Kafka as a surrealist writer, nor associated him with the movement, in any way. Regrettably, I am therefore unable to support your suggestion.
    With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk) 00:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Well it's a fallacy to attribute and privilege a single person as a spokesperson and definer of a cultural phenomenon. It doesn't matter whether or not Breton mentioned him in his writing, in the same way as it doesn't matter which persons William Gibson ever called out as a part of the movement. I think there might be some misunderstanding of my post present: I didn't ask for him to be called out as predecessor of the movement but as a precursor, a part of the cultural phenomenon (or sharing similarities/intersections with it), who is not necessarily involved in the creation of Surrealism as a movement. --Fixuture (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your previous edit.
With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk) 22:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Surrealism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Surrealism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Creeping SYNTH and OR[edit]

Seems to me that there is some synthesis or original research creeping into the article. Consider this from the Expansion section:

However, a striking example of the line used to divide Dada and Surrealism among art experts is the pairing of 1925's Little Machine Constructed by Minimax Dadamax in Person (Von minimax dadamax selbst konstruiertes maschinchen)[1] with The Kiss (Le Baiser)[2] from 1927 by Max Ernst. The first is generally held to have a distance, and erotic subtext, whereas the second presents an erotic act openly and directly. In the second the influence of Miró and the drawing style of Picasso is visible with the use of fluid curving and intersecting lines and colour, whereas the first takes a directness that would later be influential in movements such as Pop art.

Whose "pairing"? Who is dividing Dada and Surrealism, and along what lines? Who says the first has "a distance, and erotic subtext"? And on and on, throughout the paragraph. I assumed I would go to those links and see a comparison of those two works, but I don't see that, we just have links to different paintings, and a whole bunch of unsubstantiated, unsourced verbiage which is both WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. This sounds to me like a Wiki editor passionate about art, inserting their own opinions into the article. The entire paragraph, text, sources, and all, should be removed. (As a secondary issue: those links are poorly done, with completely uninformative anchor text; but if the section is removed, that would be moot.)

I don't think this is the only example of this in the article, but I wanted to start with something concrete. I just hope this is an isolated case, and not the tip of an iceberg. Mathglot (talk) 22:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


  1. ^ Link to Guggenheim collection with reproduction of the painting and further information.
  2. ^ Link to Guggenheim collection with reproduction of the painting and further information.
The paragraph could be more robustly sourced, but the second link does make a pairing; it reads: "From humorously clinical depictions of erotic events in the Dada period, such as Little Machine Constructed by Minimax Dadamax in Person, Max Ernst moved on to celebrations of uninhibited sexuality in his Surrealist works. His liaison and marriage with the young Marie-Berthe Aurenche in 1927 may have inspired the erotic subject matter of this painting and others of this year." Ewulp (talk) 23:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Good (and frankly more interesting, though more for the article on Ernst). The rest of it does look like OR and PoV. We can probably find RS that give some views on these works, and replace that wording with quotes from renowned art critics or something.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  23:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)