Talk:Surrealism/Archive 9

message: Let's see what feedback I get:
Surrealism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Surrealism, a term coined by Guillaume Apollinaire in 1917, is a concept or philosophy stating that the liberation of the mind, and subsequently the liberation of the individual self and society, can be achieved by exercising the imaginative faculties of the "unconscious mind" to the attainment of a dream-like state different from, or ultimately ‘truer’ than, everyday reality. Surrealists believe that this more truthful reality can bring about personal, cultural, and social revolution, and a life of freedom, poetry, and uninhibited sexuality. André Breton, said that such a revealed truth would be beatific, or in his own words, "beauty will be convulsive or not at all." In more mundane terms, the word "surreal" is often used colloquially to describe unexpected juxtapositions or use of non-sequiturs in art or dialog. When the concept of surrealism has been "applied" by associated groups of indivifduals, it has often been called a “surrealist movement,” whether cultural (including artistic) or social.
What do you all think? Objections?Surreal-one 15:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first sentence is a bit too long I think. Also, there are too many terms with quotation marks around them. It will be better to add footnotes to them to supplement their meaning. For example, from what I gather, the "unconscious mind" in the surrealist sense, sort of means the part that is just beyond imagination - sort of transcendental. The text from which the term coined by Apollinaire can be added as a footnote as well. That is somewhere in the article. I suggest we replace the first paragraph with this one (if there aren't too many objections), and then do these little fixes. Sound good? --HappyCamper 15:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I tried my best. See the edits here. I also removed the entire history section and made History of surrealism. Even that history page is ~12 kB. --HappyCamper 23:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: First Paragraph Rewrite, Definiton of Surrealism

message: There is now History of surrealism - in the main article, there is a section there too. It would be nice to have a 1-2 paragraph summary. Could someone write that please? --HappyCamper 23:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedians, I think something quite magical is finally happening on these articles! I agree, we should have separate articles as suggested above. It seems that surrealism is too large of a topic to be covered on one page. As a guide for ideas, one example to look at how our mathematics article is structured. And yup, Wikipedia is not a book. --HappyCamper 15:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Surrealism 

message: I have started an article Surrealism in the Arts. I will proceed to rewriteSurreal-one 14:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could we try a Surrealism and media page instead? When I think of the "arts", I only think of visual arts, but we might want to include the stuff about television and such. --HappyCamper 15:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some thoughts: I've only glanced through the current page. First thought is that it needs Wikification. This is easily done. Maybe I'll parse through it when I get a moment. There's one external dot-com site that uses the material already. Nice that they mentioned Wikipedia. Actually, maybe you're right to put "media" under arts. I think the visual aspect of surrealism is probably more predominant than any other sort of media. Good idea. --HappyCamper 21:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: So fast! I have a hard time playing catch-up right now. :-) Classic, what do yout think about the new pages? Everyone, I think I'm going to start removing content from the arts sections, now that the material is found over in the Surrealism in the arts page. --HappyCamper 20:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Surrealism in the Arts rewrite

message: "Feminists have in the past critiqued the surrealist movement, claiming that it is fundamentally a male movement and a male fellowship, despite the occasional few celebrated woman surrealist painters and poets. They believe that it adopts typical male attitudes toward women, such as worshipping them symbolically through stereotypes and sexist norms. Some feminists have argued that in surrealism women are often made to represent higher values and transformed into objects of desire and of mystery." 
I personally have a hard time following this, as it could be applied to most every major artistic movement of the 20th century. In otherwords I feel it may be too broad of a statement to hold water in this article. Could sources be provided and could the argument be refined?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.138.114.148 (talk) 20:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feminist Critique? 

message: Someone appears to have hijacked this article for their own extremely POV purposes. The repeated removal of any mention of the Chicago Surrealist Groups or any of the other contemporary groups reveals a bias on the part of certain editors here which is hindering the article's simple ability to be informative. Having gone through some of this article's history, it seems Surreal-One and Classic Jupiter are hell bent on suppressing mention of the Chicago Group for the stated reason that there is no photographic evidence of them meeting with Andre Breton. This is so completely irrelevant and bizarre that I have to wonder if the editors in question are not mentally ill.  Meanwhile, they insist on including a link to "Surrealism Now" which laughably purports to be "the official voice of surrealism". I hope they can stop acting so obnoxiously and not create a need for arbitration and banning. TheEvilPanda
Unfortunately, the subheading is SURREALIST ART RESOURCES and INFORMATION for which the SURREALISM NOW! link has been on there for months! All of a sudden, this brand new user, TheEvilPanda comes along to make personal attacks against myself and another user, and then inputs a link into the wrong section. This CHICAGO SURREALIST GROUP link even states that is a website for "Revolution" and not art, so why this user, TheEvilPanda is placing it in this section is beyond me. Also, I cannot understand why its so difficult to get any solid information on this particular group in question, that has been going on for years, there is no credible source information in any museums, and from scholars (not affiliated with this group) that can validate this input. The External Links Section subheader specifically states SURREALIST ART RESOURCES and INFORMATION for which SURREALISM NOW! provides an enormous resource  of massive listings, go to their SITE MENU. Anyway, I would support mention of this CHICAGO SURREALIST GROUP in the article, with more solid information on this group. Show me some scans of ARSENAL, the Interior Pages of their issues, etc., not weak information, pictures of their members, etc, and I will be more than happy to support inclusion of them into the article within the article, as well, so they can get the promotion that Evil Panda wants them too, since that appears to be the case here. What troubles me is the statements that were already made by this user (even look at their user name) which appears they are not here in good faith and providing good will to other users and their edits. A more Wiki-friendly approach will suffice, thank you.Classicjupiter2 17:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: Problems with NPOV linking, edit-war over mention of Chicago Surrealist Group in article. An ongoing dispute between several users, including me, and Classicjupiter2 who has insisted on suppressing links to the Chicago Surrealist Group and other groups, and including several links promoting or mentioning Keith Wigdor. TheEvilPanda 21:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request For Comment: NPOV link dispute

message: This page is being voluntarily mediated through the Mediation Cabal. It would be appreciated if aggressive edits are avoided until a resolution is reached. The process is not compulsory, and the relevant page can be found here. Thanks. Jem 21:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am very concerned about this sudden influx of very new users who have appeared and just jumped back to reverting links in order to push a particular viewpoint; it would be a lot more helpful for us all if they are discussed here. If this continues, then there may be evidence of sockpuppetry, and although I would advise against filing sucha  report at this stage, people will be well within their right to. It would be betetr to reach consensus here first. Speaking of which, I do believe that we had found a consensus before these reverts. It isn't my place to involve myself in the reverts, but if we feel consensus is to keep the page without links, then it is more than justified to revert the changes. Be mindful of 3RR however. Jem 09:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation Cabal 

message: These two links don't seem to fit with the overview/historical tone of this article. I'd like to remove them.
Museum for Surrealism in Germany
:This looks to be the works of an individual artist rather than an informative, overview or academic piece.
Franz Kafka and Marcel Proust, the 2 Albums,  "recomposed photographs", in a rather surrealist spirit.
:While possibly surrealist collage work, "rather surrealist spirit" seems tertiary and perhaps confusing to the topic at hand.
Comments? >>sparkit|TALK<< 15:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I removed them, assuming I guess, that silence by other editors means agreement. >>sparkit|TALK<< 15:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: It is a well documented fact that Surrealism as an organized movement ended after Andre Breton died in 1966. For the benefit of the article, its wise to leave out any mention of "The Chicago Surrealist Group" since it is a front for a business BLACK SWANN PRESS that sells books written by the Rosemonts, who make a living off their self-promotion.Classicjupiter2 20:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is hardly a "well documented fact".  The most intense period(s) of surrealist activity have been after this point, with the expansion of the movement to include groups all around the world.  Its history is absolutely continuous before Breton died and after, with no break.  If you are using the Paris group as a basis, this is truly questionable, as groups other than the Paris one (Czechoslovakia, Belgium, Japan) existed decades before Breton's death and the Czech group has existed uninterrupted until the present day.  If you are still, without any evidence, going to say that surrealism "as an organized movement" ended with Breton's death (Breton made very clear that the movement wasn't personally tied to him in that way and said surrealism would continue after him), that is certainly a POV, but when this claim is made in the article it certainly can't be stated as a fact.  --Daniel C. Boyer 21:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Jem, the group was active in the 1960s -- it started in 1966 -- it was active in the 1970s, it was active in the 1980s, it was active in the 1990s and is active in the oughts with no interruption of its activity or any sort of modification that would lead one to make these sorts of judgements.  If they are going to be made anyway with no evidence, they should be treatd (edited) cautiously so as to give them the weight they deserve (it could be expressed that it's certain people's -- and then they can be identified -- POV that the group ended, though this is not in harmony with any actual events).  --Daniel C. Boyer 21:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Jem, Keith Wigdor's/ClassicJupiter2's purpose is 2-fold: to promote himself and to discredit other surrealists.  You could consider this a case of sour grapes.  He also bashes some of these contemporary surrealist groups online, on various online forums, like the indymedia websites.  But regardless, I think the Chicago group have proven their encyclopedic noteworthiness through their 4 decades of activity, through their numerous publications and events.  Wigdor's just being vengeful because his personal (surrealismnow.com) link was removed!--TextureSavant 01:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I am also initiating an investigation int sockpuppetry by the account Classicjupiter2. This will solve the last line of debate. If Classicjupiter2 has no tinvolved himself in any sockpuppetry he will be exonnerated. If however, the opposite is true he will be appropriately sanctioned. I do this as a neutral decision for the benefit of the article, as to end all of these accusations. I am by no means taking sides here. Jem 22:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: What does it say on Franklin Rosemont's site (and what is the URL) that would disprove this claim?  --Daniel C. Boyer 21:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I am not the same person as TheEvilPanda.  In all likelihood our respective IPs will indicate that we reside in different parts of the world.  Please feel free to check on this if it makes you feel better.  Oh, and so far, both Texturesavant and TheEvilPanda have not been vandalizing the article, while indeed Classicjupiter2/Punkrockerartist/fatsosurrealist/SurrealOne have, so really it is this latter cluster of usernames which would warrant the closest level of scrutiny!--TextureSavant 01:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Surrealism and its history after Breton died

message: Hi everyone, my name is Lisa Petrasci. Whats all the fuss going on here at the Surrealism page?Lisa Petrasci 18:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surrealism has become a soap opera. >>sparkit|TALK<< 06:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Correction, Sparkit:  surrealism has become a Keith Wigdor sockpuppet soap opera.  All of this is happening because Keith Wigdor's surrealismnow.com link was removed from the article.  It's interesting how some people respond to the face of adversity, eh?--TextureSavant 15:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Is it normal for the admins to take this long? Now Keith isn't even trying to hide it. TheEvilPanda 18:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Jem, now you can see what the real Keith Wigdor(Lisa Petrasci/Classicjupiter2/SurrealOne/fatsosurrealist/punkrockartist) is like.  His bitterness and sarcasm shine through every time.  Oh, if only his poor surrealismnow link wasn't deleted from the article, then he wouldn't be acting like this.  Poor, unfortunate Keith Wigdor:  he'll just have to find another way to advertise his website.  But I do think the admins should ban Wigdor from wikipedia.  Lisa Petrasci is just another sockpuppet for Wigdor.--TextureSavant 01:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hi everyone!

message: Check this link as a source http://www.davaoweb.com/bien_banez_1.html
Keith is the recognized leader of the NEW International Surrealist Movement!!!
Wiki always requires evidence, and this link is from a vetted, verifyed international news source. If you check his SurrealismNOW site, you will also see internationally recognized artists participating. He is credible and legimate, not like the Chicago group or Rosemont. Evil Panda and the others are unknowns who want to take over the article. They have no credentials or verifyed sources. Surreal-one
:Look how desperate Keith Wigdor is!  This davaoweb.com website is all about local news for a city in the Phillipines.  The person who wrote the article is only some kind of local reporter/writer, not even part of any art movement or group or whatever.  The only reason why Wigdor is listed as the "leader of the int'l surrealist movement" is because Wigdor described himself that way to the person who wrote the article.  This article is meaningless, and there is nothing conclusive about it other than that these are a group of emerging artists who are trying to generate some hype about their newest works.  
:Furthermore, isn't it kind of strange that a no-name periodical in the Philipines mentions Wigdor as the leader of the surrealist movement, while there are no other sources to substantiate this outrageous claim?!?  I hope the editors/admins here @ wikipedia are able to see that this Keith Wigdor is nothing but a charlatan, in addition to being a sockpuppeteer.--TextureSavant 16:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your fail to mention that Elisa not only did not denounce the Rosemonts, she wrote a letter to them, published in Arsenal, and also co-signed a collective letter to them published in "What is Surrealism". This letter also included Toyen and Mimi Parent. The letter very plainly recognizes the Chicago group as surrealists. Elisa never said anything about Wigdor because she had never heard of this obscure internet troll and had better things to do.  TheEvilPanda 16:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Just to put the case in perspective

message: Much of the information in the "Surrealism in the arts" section was duplicated in the Surrealism in the arts article. Though I'd personally like to see "Surrealism in the arts" as a section of the main Surrealism article, I updated the Surrealism in the arts article with the changes from the main article, and then cut it from the main article. Avoiding duplication is my intent. >>sparkit|TALK<< 16:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like Keith Wigdor creates a new sockpuppet every day.  Today, it is "Bill McAlery". --TextureSavant 15:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your attention to this, Jaime. After 2 years of ongoing battle on these pages about who is or isn't a valid surrealist or surrealism resource  maybe it is time to go to ArbCom. >>sparkit|TALK<< 15:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surrealism in the arts section 

message: Hi, I've noticed this page because of the case on WP:SSP. In view of the backlog there, someone might want to place a request at WP:RCU instead; they usually respond quickly there, and the sock problems here seem pretty severe. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FYI

message: Anyone have any information on Frank McCort and the dublin surrealist group from 1979?Dublin Surrealist 16:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Frank McCort and the dublin surrealist group from 1979

message: I will remove thei s link when the page becomes unlocked.1Z 15:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify, this is a wikilink in the "See also" section. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simulated reality