Talk:Surrealism/Archive 3

message: I've archived most of this upto additions from the last couple of days. It was getting to about 80Kb. Barneyboo 00:14, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

message: This whole article is a mess. It's unorganized and full of contradictory claims. It's pathetic that something more coherent hasn't come out of the months of edits here. I'm tempted to list this on Cleanup to get some more assistance clarifying and organizing it. Any objections? Does anybody think this article doesn't need to be reorganized?
It's quite frustrating how certain non-logged-in users insist on adding poorly written sentences to the end of seemingly random paragraphs. Even if these contributions weren't hopelessly POV (and they usually are), they would still need to be rewritten to approach wikipedia standards. I think an increased number of experienced editors here would be helpful.
~leif ☺ HELO 21:16, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup / Call for Help

message: I do not think Wikipedia is workable! Do not get more editors, get someone who knows what they are talking about.Standards, Haaaaaaa!  If anyone can write on a topic, that's what you get: someone like Leif. 
:I'm inclined to note that you forgot to put a space before the word "Standards". That kind of thing is exactly what I was talking about when I complained about the low quality additions, above. Here on the talk page, I don't really care, but on the article page, that kind of typo is unacceptable and has to be fixed by someone. During one of your many previous revert wars, you continued to revert back to a paragraph you wrote that was full of typos like this, even after I had rewritten the paragraph to fix them. These are the kind of "standards" I am talking about, basic English writing standards.
:And as I've said before, if you do not think wikipedia is "workable", why do you continue to pester us here? If you aren't on board for the same cause as the rest of us, ie cooperatively writing a free encyclopedia, why are you here? Judging from your edits and your comments in the archive of this talk page, I'd say you are here for the sole purpose promoting Keith Wigdor, Terrance Lindall, and your various points of view. You are not interested in cooperation, you are not interested in creating a fair and NPOV article about Surrealism, and you just stated above that you do not even believe in Wikipedia's premise. Why don't you spend your time elsewhere? ~leif ☺ HELO 21:55, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Standards???

message: I tried to add Boyer as follows:
"Daniel C. Boyer is an active spokesman for those who contend that "surrealism" does not refer to an art style, a notion which is in conflict with many scholars and curators at universities and major museums."
If you consult with the Metropolitan  Museum of Art or the Guggenheim, maybe you will see that I am right. As I said, you guys are rewriting history on your terms. You need a lesson on how language evolves. First there is common usage ( a word connotes) and then the word comes to be accepted (the connotation becomes a denotation).   The connotaion took place pretty quickly in the early 20th c. Now it denotes a style of art... as well as revolutionary thinking. I repeat, you are uneducated. Your ideas are not only unrevolutionary, they are just plain off the planet. You are not part of the civilized world. 
:Does your statement make sense in light of the fact that Boyer's self-written bio on his user page begins by saying "I am a surrealist painter"?
:Obviously, Surrealism includes art, and obviously it also includes much more. I haven't heard Boyer say "surrealism does not refer to an art style" as you claimed in the article. I believe he did say, and I'm paraphrasing here, that as a movement it is much more than just an artistic movement. Assuming that that stance is what you are referring to, your statement would still be misleading, as that notion is not "in conflict" with any experts I've heard of. And of all Daniel Boyer's surrealist work, to mention him in one sentence that really only complains about your personal disagreements with him, is not acceptable. ~leif ☺ HELO 22:00, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outlandish claim: 

message: Keith Wigdor used to have this link on his old website last year, http://www.museums.org.za/sam/conf/enc/law.htm
This is about a surrealist, Penny Siopis, you all should check this out and read the entire article. I am trying to work out an angle to create an article on Penny and Surrealism in South Africa, especially photomontage. Also, I am doing some digging into the strong link between labor struggles and surrealism, I need to see what I can turn up.24.168.66.27 03:42, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Surrealism from South Africa

message: I have a major problem with this passage from the Contents of the HISTORY Section of the Surrealism article. "and surrealist groups have also drawn on sources as seemingly diverse as Bugs Bunny, comic strips, the obscure poet Samuel Greenberg and the hobo writer and humourist T-Bone Slim."
I feel that the above passage should not belong in the History Section, it should be placed later on in the article, more towards the diverse influences passage, where, FREE JAZZ(Don Cherry,etc), is mentioned. 
:I don't have any problem with placing this anywhere else in the article; I have moved it down with slight modifications but if you'd like it anywhere else feel more than free to move it.  --Daniel C. Boyer 18:23, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: May Ann Caws' complete incomprehension of surrealism has been exhaustively documented by the Surrealist Movement in the United States, and the numerous glaring factual errors in some of her writing laid out in Arsenal.  In my opinion she is motivated by her hatred of the movement, but in any case, the sheer quantity of her errors and the great degree of her misinterpretations and misrepresentations leads me to ask, "Who cares whether she agrees or not?"  --Daniel C. Boyer 18:23, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: The 1960s, far from being a period of "falling apart," was one of the most dynamic periods of expansion in the movement's history.  --Daniel C. Boyer 18:23, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: For the record, I still suspect that "SHR" is the same person as 24.168.66.27 and 63.169.104.2 et al (I brought this up before and they did not deny it, though they go on "supporting" one another here). ~leif ☺ HELO 19:29, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: More Rosemont-Infested Bias

message: It is a well-known fact that surrealism did not start out as an art movement and its principles and beliefs are not determined by the art that is recognized as surrealist. However, from the significant truth(explicit full agreement in sensuous reality and subjective truth) that the public determines from the art, then the premise of the visual forms achieve the content that is considered by surrealism's aims and princples, thus satisfying the criteria for the dialectical consideration of surrealism's goals. 
:What are you getting at with this rambling?  --Daniel C. Boyer 18:23, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: So feel free to expand the mention.  You are free to edit the article.  Go for it!  --Daniel C. Boyer 18:23, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: What about the University of Texas Press, publisher of Surrealist Women?  (If this scrutiny had the slightest relevance.)  Read about it here, including the comments of Professor Bronner from Rutgers: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0292770871/qid=1096653887/sr=8-5/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i5_xgl14/104-5880585-5523953?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 .  --Daniel C. Boyer 18:23, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Even if what the MoMA recognized mattered one whit, several questions automatically occur to me: Did you ever read What Is Surrealism?  Most of the viewpoints you present are emphatically contradicted in it, not by anyone from Chicago, but by Breton's writings themselves.  And the notion that the Chicago Group has some kind of "monopoly over surrealism" is pure fantasy.  What you mean by your complaints of "monopoly" is that surrealists and members of surrealist groups are critical of those who claim the "freedom" to be surrealists while claiming they are not surrealists, who say they are surrealists while expressing contempt for everything surrealism is about.  If this be a "monopoly," make the most of it.  --Daniel C. Boyer 18:23, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: This is an utter fabrication.  I have no more "privileges" on Wikipedia than anyone else.  --Daniel C. Boyer 18:23, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Arsenal pointed out that the basic errors of fact Mary Ann Caws makes (having Le Revolution Surrealiste published in the wrong year, for example, and on and on) would guarantee any undergraduate a failing grade.  But the real point is that only anti-surrealists are entitled to be "experts" on surrealism.  --Daniel C. Boyer 18:23, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Right on, SHR!

message: Now read the following carefully, 
"Yet outside the movement, women's contributions to surrealism have been largely ignored or simply unknown. This anthology, the first of its kind in any language, displays the range and significance of women's contributions to surrealism. Letting surrealist women speak for themselves, Penelope Rosemont has assembled nearly three hundred texts by ninety-six women from twenty-eight countries. She opens the book with a succinct summary of surrealism's basic aims and principles, followed by a discussion of the place of gender in the movement's origins. She then organizes the book into historical periods ranging from the 1920s to the present, with introductions that describe trends in the movement during each period. Rosemont also prefaces each surrealist's work with a brief biographical statement."
Let's be honest here, after all, this is for the benefit of everyone here, this is one professor's favorable reviews and it is nice, but lacking in any real scrutiny. 
:But if any professor favourably reviewed any work supporting in any way or to any degree what you see as "one view" of surrealism by those who are attempting to "monopolize surrealism," would you ever say that it didn't "lack any real scrutiny"?  You want to set up a game in which you will always win.  --Daniel C. Boyer 15:21, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it really matters where the info is placed; I didn't "see it as an obvious error" and in fact it may be better here but I really don't see it as a major issue at any rate.  --Daniel C. Boyer 15:21, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: The claims about the "'surrealismo commie shindig'" are simply a lie.  The 1976 World Surrealist Exhibition had participation from many surrealists from many countries and was extensively covered in the press.  --Daniel C. Boyer 17:30, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Professor Bronner

message: "Mary Ann Caws' complete incomprehension of surrealism has been exhaustively documented by the Surrealist Movement in the United States, and the numerous glaring factual errors in some of her writing laid out in Arsenal. In my opinion she is motivated by her hatred of the movement, but in any case, the sheer quantity of her errors and the great degree of her misinterpretations and misrepresentations leads me to ask, "Who cares whether she agrees or not?" --Daniel C. Boyer 18:23, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Another revelation from Daniel C.Boyer. Dear Daniel, please explain your statement?

message: This is VERY COOL, INDEED!!!  Noam Chomsky's piece in the same review as Mary's!!! This goes back to 1972!!!  
Here take a look, http://www.nybooks.com/contents/19720518
I love Noam Chomsky's work!24.168.66.27 16:49, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Very Cool, Indeed!!!

message: Surrealists should read this book by Noam Chomsky,"NECESSARY ILLUSIONS: THOUGHT CONTROL IN DEMOCRATIC SOCIETIES". I read it and its real good! 
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/ni/
:Fine, but what is the relevance of this to the article?  This talk page is supposed to be about the development of the article.  --Daniel C. Boyer 17:28, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Dan, did you ever read the book?24.168.66.27 19:06, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Forces of Oppression

message: Those interested in actually improving and adding information to articles should take time to familiarize themselfs with Wikipedia formatting and conventions; see for example Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers and Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Please do not make edits that put things out of chonological order or add redundant linkings. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 21:02, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting 

message: I have been on here a long time and I have been editing this article for the benefit of those interested in Surrealism. Please do not change my information without providing any explanation on why you changed it. That does not show good faith at all.24.168.66.27 21:10, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you ask, reasons include adding things out of chronological order, wikilinking the same name twice in as many sentences, POV problems, dubious attributions of motives. -- Infrogmation 02:42, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Infrogmation

message: Anon editor, again I urge you to choose a user name and log in if you plan on sticking around Wikipedia. Perhaps you can help the Wikipedia's coverage of Surrealism by making a start on some of the articles linked (eg, you seem to consider Surrealism in 2004 to be important) or expand some of the linked articles that are still sad little stubs. Thoughts from Infrogmation 02:48, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Friendly suggestions 

message: Daniel, can you please be as so kind to show us or lead us to any photographs of Andre Breton with Franklin and Penelope Rosemont from the café Promenade de Vénus in Paris from 1965? Daniel, this would be of major historic value for everyone here and anyone who is researching surrealism and its history! Daniel, any photos of the Rosemonts with Breton is major, so can we please see them? I have been asking for months and I cannot find any pictures of the Rosemonts with Breton online. According to the Chicago Group's website,  "Two founders of the Chicago group, Franklin and Penelope Rosemont, had gone to Paris in 1965 to meet André Breton, and took part for several months in the daily reunions of the Paris group at the café Promenade de Vénus".24.168.66.27 00:06, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Dear Daniel,

message: You have to inlude TV in the article: Patrick McGoohan's cult TV series "The Prisoner", since it is about supression, revolt against the tyranny of order and reflects dream states where reality shifts freely.  Remember The Village, Portmeirion, Rover, Patrick McGoohan, Ron Grainer, George Markstein, Angelo Muscat, Leo McKern, The Prisoner Theme, The Green Dome, Lotus Seven, Number One, Number Two, Arrival, The Chimes Of Big Ben, Free For All, The Schizoid Man, Checkmate, Dance Of The Dead, It's Your Funeral, A Change Of Mind, A, B & C, The General, Hammer Into Anvil, Many Happy Returns, Do Not Forsake Me, Living In Harmony, The Girl Who Was Death, Once Upon A Time, Fallout, John Drake, Danger Man and Secret Agent.
You might want to mention Rod Serling's Twilight Zone.
Thanks, SRH
SRH, there used to be an old website called NowSurreal UK(now it is called The Hammond Gallery), (that was run by the Society for the Art of Imagination's webmaster) which had a surrealist forum. The surrealist artist Ray Bartrip used to talk about the TV show, THE PRISONER, with the surrealist Keith Wigdor on there. They both discussed the overwhelming surrealist elements in the TV show, THE PRISONER!  I agree with you, not only was THE PRISONER a great TV show, but I would have to say that it was Surrealism!!!  Real Intense!63.169.104.2 21:03, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I could see including The Prisoner in a section of the article that also mentioned other shows, but to have it be the only TV show in the Surrealism article (as it is currently) gives it too much credit, I think. If we are going to mention television in the article (and I'd really rather not), some other shows I think should be mentioned are Farscape, Teletubbies, Aqua Teen Hunger Force, and Space Ghost: Coast to Coast (among many others). ~leif ☺ HELO 20:07, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: But none of these have attracted any surrealist interest to my knowledge.  --Daniel C. Boyer 12:45, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The Prisoner

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiable#Degrees_of_verifiability
"At the other end of the scale are facts that can only be verified by subject matter experts.
In general, consider the kinds of people who are likely to edit the article in question: the article should be verifiable by these people. Therefore, an article on a sociology topic might include content that can only be verified by a sociologist - perhaps referencing some standard sociology text."
Now, Leif, are you providing fairness and good faith in your most recent attempt at establishing expert and credible information in regards to the Surrealism article? All you are doing is trying to remove Keith from the article without any consideration for content of the surrealism article and those who are researching surrealism and contemporary surrealism today.24.168.66.27 22:02, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia Information very important to this article

message: :Because this poll was replied to here on the archive page, I moved it back to Talk:Surrealism#Wigdor Poll for further discussion. ~leif 20:26, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Wigdor Poll

message: Leif, can you please read this entire page before you attack others here on Wikipedia, Thank You. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks 24.168.66.27 22:53, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Anon, no one is violating your rights. If you have a personal conflict with Leif, please take it to Leif's talk page. Let's keep this discussion about the article. Gamaliel 23:14, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Gamaliel, thank you, I have no conflict with the good gentlemen Leif. I thank you for your sincere and kind input. I would kindly ask of the good gentlemen Leif, to please be more respectful of those who post here on Wikipedia's surrealism article and also Keith Wigdor. He did admit in his own words to having bias against the surrealist Keith Wigdor. Thank You Gamaliel for your input and concern.24.168.66.27 23:21, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Still no response or apology from Leif