Talk:Surrealism/Archive 7

message: Does anyone else think Slacker (film) and Waking life should be added to the surrealist Film section? Most of Linklater's films seem to be surrealist cinema.--Geedubber 19:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Slacker and Waking Life

message: I can't believe, after all the debate we've had on this matter, that someone still persist in the use of surrealism as a rigid designator for the movement/group around Breton. There is no end to Surrealism (I would add: as long as mankind exists), see Boyer on Post-Surrealism.
I recognize the quotation marks and their qualitative weakening of the fallacy, but why couldn't this title be expressed as the sentence it builds upon: "the death of André Breton in 1966 marked the end of Surrealism as an organized movement."   Which is the view of an art historian whom, I would say, does not know of the Stockholm surrealists etc.
Still, I recognize the need of this article to have a consistent "encyclopedia" format and can settle with: The "end" of Surrealism as an organized movement.
Which is what I've changed it to. - Sigg3.net 14:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Really the group of Stockholm surrealists was a total sham. Their activities were so minimal and weak, they really had no influence on surrealism in terms of longevity. Their main scope of activity was between 1986 to 1996 (and that is really pushing it). They have such a limited creative output that nobody really cares about this lot. Some members of this bogus group became right wing swedish dandies anyway, too fugazi. As for it I cannot accept it anymore. It doesn't make any sense. it is a way of life. Surrealism wants nothing more than complete revolution on all terms. Johannes should be more interested in his stupid classical music that he bores us with anyway. VIVA SURREALISME!!!Classicjupiter2 18:09, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Very many arguments could be taken with this question-begging rant, but in the end it is just a personal POV.  This POV might be expressed in the article as one POV regarding the Stockholm group, but that is the extent of attention we should pay it.  I would also like to note that Classicjupiter2 has alternated his claims that surrealism is not an art movement with his claims that surrealism is an art movement.  --Daniel C. Boyer 20:14, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Really, Daniel it does not make any difference. You are a surrealist, and you are also an artist. To be totally honest with you, I really like your surrealist art. I also am totally convinced about your passion for surrealism. I know that you will defend the surrealist movement on any level and that is good. However, I want to mention this discovery that I made the other day: I was doing research in the library and I came across some books on Surrealism that I was not aware of, they are really good books. Anyway, one book was called, "Dreaming with open eyes" and it was a detailed account of the collection of Andre Breton's good friend, Arturo Schwarz. His historic collection of DaDa and Surrealism is in the Israel Musuem in Jerusalem. Anyway, the book has the coolest reference section that I came across, literally hundreds of document scans of letters, pamphlets, newspapers, books etc, all on surrealism. Now, one particular item, just completely blew me away: Un cadavre, Paris,15 January 1930/Leaflet in newspaper format, condemning Andre Breton and accusing him of being a false communist and revolutionary, with texts by Jacques Prevert, Georges Ribemont-Dessaignes, Michael Leiris, et al. Illustrated 4pp., 36.5x32
Classicjupiter2 17:23, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

text: What was really stunning was the picture of Andre Breton as Jesus Christ. The picture was a photomontage of Breton with a crown of thorns on his head. Remember that this is 1930.Classicjupiter2 17:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes; we've all seen it.  That is to say, I'm surprised that you have not seen this until now.  I wonder what your point is in bringing up this well-known photograph and tract, and what it has to do with the development or possible development of this article.  --Daniel C. Boyer 18:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you speaking for everyone? How do you know others have seen it? As for the development of this article, it is worth mentioning. I really do not desire to enter in debates with you sir. This is an encyclopedia, not a debating forum. Anyway, I made an addition to the article, if anyone cares.Classicjupiter2 00:10, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just mean that it's extremely well-known, or at least it would have to be, as it's reproduced in practically every secondary source on surrealism.  About your desire to enter into debates with me, if you don't want to enter into debates with people, stay off the talk page, though I am puzzled as to how you would interpret what I wrote, if that's indeed what you're doing, as an invitation to debate.  People may debate on the talk pages (in addition to other kinds of discussion) as part of a general attempt to improve Wikipedia; this is obviously what the talk pages are for.  Your "lack of desire" (or, might I say, you "lacks no desire") sounds suspiciously like a blanket concession, however.  --Daniel C. Boyer 19:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Fine; I agree.  But what (if anything) does any of this have to do with your previous points (if one may so dignify them)?  --Daniel C. Boyer 18:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please keep your friends out of the links section. They already had articles deleted. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a means of promotion.Classicjupiter2 03:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is question-begging on a number of levels and in a number of ways.  --Daniel C. Boyer 18:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: To ''the "end" of surrealism''

message: Revolution: "A sudden or momentous change in a situation": What we are looking for in this revolution is the destruction of logic. We wish to change the common (logical) way of looking at things. It is a revolution of the mind. It is a revolt against the ordinary. It can be personal as well as broadly social. When we revolt, we refuse to accept the accepted and are enlightened by a new truth. Read about Robert Sagerman, the Jewish mystic of the Kabala.  Each of Sagerman's paintings are revolutions. SURREALISM is,  a priori, truth by definition, REVOLUTION!!!! (unsigned by user 24.215.213.250 08:07, October 2, 2005)
:I'm sorry, but my sense is that you're writing as a partisan ("what we are looking for in this revolution is", "we wish to change", etc.), not as an encyclopedia editor making carefully thought out judgments from an objective point of view.  The encyclopedia article about surrealism is not supposed to be written from the point of view of a "we wishing to change" anything, that's what's called POV,  but of people relatively dispassionately communicating knoweldge from a relatively objective point of view.  If we were to go into Wikipedia and write every article from the perspective of the person in it who believed that they were making "a sudden or momentous change", then there would be several hundred thousand revolutions in Wikipedia and the word "revolution" would be meaningless (that was my point about the "snowboarding revolution", although it IS legitimate to report that certain people, writers, artists, inventors, historical figures BELIEVED that they were making a revolution.  It's not possible for there to be an artist or musician or writer every one of whose works is a revolution:  art historians wouldn't even say that about Giotto, Michelangelo, Rembrandt, Cezanne, Picasso!  And NOTHING in the world can be revolution a priori or by definition, since whether surrealism or anything in the world is or is not revolution is an a posteriori, empirical judgment.  If it's true by definition, then by definition it's meaningless.  The point is, that we Wikipedia editors have to write objectively, and not as partisans, even about the things that in our personal lives we are partisans about.  If I were a communist or fascist or fundamentalist and went into Wikipedia and wrote every article from that point of view, then Wikipedia would be ruined (and, fortunately, what I had written would be almost immediately reverted).  To say that surrealism is revolution a priori or by definition is a fundamentalist statement, no different than any other fundamentalist statement about God or evolution or anything else.  If it's of any personal interest to you, I believe that if you knew me you would discover that I am as partisan in favor of surrealism as you are.  But my responsibility as a Wikipedia editor is to write and edit from an encyclopedic, NPOV perspective, not to write from the perspective of my personal prejudices.  Jeremy J. Shapiro 16:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Jeremy. Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV. It is not the consensus view in society that Surrealism is a revolution: "Surrealism is a style"  "Surrealism, movement in visual art and literature" . Even in Breton's Manifesto of Surrealism  , he only uses the word 'revolution' once and that is talking about the french revolution. Cfitzart 04:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't know what on earth you're talking about.  The complete non-sequitur about artists is particularly confusing -- are you repeating the very tired misconception that surrealism is an artistic movement?  And as for "fundamentalist statement"s and all that crap -- what are you saying?  I agree with what you're saying about POV but it's not a POV that surrealism was conceived of as revolutionary at its founding and continues to be so conceived of by surrealists down to the present day.  In my view it would be better to put it this way, that it is and was conceived as a revolutionary movement, with acknowledgment of the POVs of those outside the movement who have (in my view, with no real justification) attempted to subsume it into other non-revolutionary meanings, going down so far as The Surreal Life.  There's a way to resolve this and I think we're getting closer to it.  --Daniel C. Boyer 23:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Why don't you respond to the actual things I've said and the actual points I've made?  I have responded to what you said about the "fact" status of something being a revolution.  But you have not responded to what I said about it.  I thought that the point of these Talk pages was to have actual discussion leading to understanding and consensus.  I have tried to respond to what you said, but you have simply repeated what you said before without responding to my points about whether something being a revolution is a fact or an interpretation or theory, and that there must be explicit criteria for something being a revolution.  I am writing these things in good faith, in accordance with the norms of Wikipedia about manifesting and assuming good intent.  Would you please assume my good intent and respond to what I've said?  Jeremy J. Shapiro 18:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Surrealism being a revolution, or as I would put it, revolutionary, is an interpretation or theory, but only to the extent that it is the interpretation or theory of surrealism held by surrealists.  Obviously some people don't agree with surrealism, and certainly this should be acknowledged in the article; obviously some people overlapping with the first category don't believe surrealism to be revolutionary.  But the theory is entitled to be given a certain importance as it's the theory expressed by surrealists.  (The theory that communism is revolutionary is only an interpretation or theory, and some out-there people would probably disagree with this interpretation, but it's the theory held by communists, so it would have to assume a very important place in any article about communism.)  --Daniel C. Boyer 23:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

text: If you are responding in good faith, then please respond to my point about facts, interpretations, and criteria. Jeremy J. Shapiro 18:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't understand your point.  I have been reading Andre Breton and surrealist texts for 40 years.  My point is about the definition of revolution.  I notice that you still won't respond to my points.  If you won't, perhaps you would at least explain why you won't.  Jeremy J. Shapiro 18:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition

message: I will support the following edit by Daniel C.Boyer because it is fact and worthy of mention in this article. 
"However, many surrealists and surrealist documents have said that surrealism is not an artistic movement for a number of reasons, among which is the conception of the "artistic" manifestations of surrealism as just one form of manifestation among many, various conceptions of visual work being created which somehow "goes beyond" traditional conceptions of art or aesthetics, or even the complete cessation of creative visual production."
Classicjupiter2 01:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: For the Record

message: I believed it made sense to give here (on the page about surrealism) a passing, bottom of page reference to groups who believe they have a surrealist activity, and mention those I know, whether they have web sites or not and publish magazines.
User Classicjupiter2 thinks that they are "not active in the area of surrealism". That's his appreciation and obviously in contradiction to what these groups think, but I would like to hear what others think, be they authors of this page or simple browsers as I was, as I do not think fair that one single person owns this space and rules as he seems to be doing. Or I am mislead and know too little about wikipedia, its policy and what is regarded "notable" according to its standards, ... and disappointed!
see below 1) my exchange with Classicjupiter2,  and 2) my list
* regarding this edit 18 september
The context : "Revision as of 03:15, 18 September 2005 Classicjupiter2 (Talk | contribs) removed groups that are not notable and also had articles deleted here on Wikipedia."
This deleted a list of groups who are active in the area of surrealisme and I thought could be of interest to readers of wikipedia.
Can you give a bit more depth into what you consider "notable" and "not notable" and about deleted articles : created by who, deleted by who, why ?
If they were active in the area of surrealism, then the articles would not have been deleted. You need to talk to all of the Wikipedians who voted to delete the articles. You are more than welcome to do the research here on Wikipedia to investigate. In regards to your question of what is and what is not notable, you need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy. All the best.Classicjupiter2 01:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Groups

message: Sorry, ClassicJupiter2, you are wrong about these external surrealist links.  All of the groups added are current and active in surrrealism.  They have exhibits, meetings and publications.  What more do you ask of them to prove their validity to surrealism?  I have readded the links. --Sam Wegtor 16:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  the external links are pertinent to this article! 

message: "They have exhibits, meetings and publications." 
Please stop adding these non-notable, "groups" to this article. If they were notable, none of their articles would have been deleted by the Wikipedia Community. You do not need to use a free encyclopedia as a tool of promotion for these people. If they were notable, they would be recognized as notable and they are not. Again, online blogs and rants and the harrassment against other surrealist artists does not make these entities notable at all. Their articles were deleted. Note: this user, "Sam Wegtor" is a new user to this article.Classicjupiter2 01:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding, "Sam Wegtor"

message: ClassicJupiter2, do you have any links that you'd like to add to the external links section?  As it stands right now, I'm pleased with the representation of current surrealist groups and collectives. --Sam Wegtor 18:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: I put the american links back in.  ClassicJupiter, I don't understand how  you can eliminate the american groups while keeping non-notable, unverifiable individual artists.  Who the hell is Keith Wigdor?  Who the hell is Terrence Lindall?  Who the hell is Adriano Monteiro (goetia fine art link)?  All of those guys are nobodys. 
Seems to me that you've got some kind of grudge or personal vendetta against these american surrealist collectives.  As crazy and childish as "Ernie and Bert" are as editors, they are right in their perceiving you as excessively "bossy and authoritative".  Unfortunately, your approach is highly unprofessional and inappropriate to this wikipedia article-building process.  The next step would be to eliminate all of the "contemporary" links, both groups and artists, and just stick with the old-fashioned academic links of 20th century surrealism.  I would prefer, however to keep ALL the links.  I repeat: ALL of the links. --Sam Wegtor 15:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link Wars, again 

message: My understanding is that the point of Talk pages on Wikipedia is for constructive, collaborative discussion (including occasionally debate) among those TRYING TO COLLABORATE ON MAKING GOOD WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES, not for personal vendettas or in-group or secret conversations or messages or personal diaries, blogs, or personal expression.  I consider it quite legitimate for people to conduct all of the latter type of communication in the world at large and in various places on the Internet, but I don't understand why people do it on Wikipedia Talk pages.  Seems to me that it is just a distraction from getting the work done.  Please excuse me for lecturing or moralizing, but many Wikipedia editors are hugely busy in the rest of their lives but are donating some of their time because they believe in the value of creating a truly great global, universally accessible encyclopedia, and putting on distracting or personal or in-group material just means that they have to spend more time wading through all of this stuff.  All of us have too much information to deal with as it is, and so on Wikipedia pages it seems that what we need is information that is directly related to the articles, not all kinds of personal stuff.  I, too, have my personal likes and dislikes, preferences in music, movies, friends, and so on, but I am not trying to take up other Wikipedia editors' time -- and Wikipedia servers' storage space -- with these things.  There are some good things about the surrealism article, and some things that could be improved.  Can we try to keep our focus on the article and not our personal egos?  Let's get a grip! And let's remember that the point of this article is not to be a mouthpiece or advocacy piece for surrealism.  It is to produce a "neutral point of view" article.  This requires of all of us, no matter how much we ourselves identify with surrealism or think of ourselves as surrealists, to suspend part of our identity in working on this article, because our identity here is as Wikipedia editors.  Of course we can draw on what we know from our surrealist identity.  But, according to Wikipedia rules, we have to produce an article that is not itself surrealistic and that someone who hates or opposes surrealism would think of as a fair representation of surrealism. Jeremy J. Shapiro 19:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that this jockeying for position and self-assertion among people, whether real, fictional, fantasied, etc., whom the world at large is not interested in is an example of what I was identifying as time-wasting behavior. The world at large is not interested in Keith Wigdor, Ernie and Bert, Jeremy Shapiro, Classicjupiter2, Terrance Lindall, etc. or whether they exist or don't exist.  But it might be interested in a truly excellent article about surrealism if we put energy into that.  I recognize that most people in the world do not get the recognition that they deserve as individuals.  But the fact that some of them will go to extreme lengths to get it is the source of a lot of nuisance to others. Jeremy J. Shapiro 21:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's Get a Grip

message: As an article about surrealism, it's turning into a fairly decent article that would answer many of the information needs that people have who would consult an encyclopedia to find out about surrealism.  Since almost all of the juvenile behavior, narcissism, grandstanding, trolling, sockpuppeting, sectarianism, POV ranting, propagandizing, reverting, pseudo-dueling, and adolescent male behavior that occurs both in the article and in this Talk page seem to be predominantly about current surrealist groups and current surrealist artists and which ones are real and legitimate and so on, and since most people in the world wanting to find out about surrealism won't be interested predominantly in these current groups and artists or at all in the neurotic, juvenile, hostile, or unco-operative behavior and verbiage on the Talk page, I have a proposal.  Let's make a separate article, called something like "Current surrealism" or "Post-classical surrealism" or something like that, with a wikilink to it, and confine the present article to classical surrealism up to the time of the end of surrealism as an organized movement, in line with the current organization of the article.  That way, those who are interested in participating in this sort of silly behavior could do it all on that page and not have to waste the time of other editors or members of the general public.  The article already discusses the end of surrealism as an organized movement and differentiates between "classical" and current surrealism.  So having a separate article for current surrealism is warranted in terms of the logic and structure of the existing article.  It seems to me that this would solve everyone's needs: those just trying to make a reliable, responsible article about "classical" surrealism and its legacy, and those who want to make such an article about current surrealism as well as those needing to act out the abovementioned forms of behavior.  By the way, I mean this as a serious proposal.  I really think that it would solve some problems and contribute to Wikipedia. Jeremy J. Shapiro 19:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A fine idea, Jeremy. I tend to think that if an artist warrants an external link, they warrant a wikipedia article and an internal link to it. Sparkit 00:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

text: My proposal for moving all of the current issues in a separate article has no implications for rehabilitating groups banned from Wikipedia.  If they've been banned, they're banned.  And all of the stalking, trolling, ranting, and juvenile, narcissistic, and hostile behavior is already occurring here.  So why worry if it goes on there?  Let it.  Let a thousand flowers bloom!  If you study the history of Christian and Islamic sects and left-wing factions (not to mention the psychoanalytic movement), you'll see that this sort of behavior has been going on for hundreds, even thousands of years, and it usually takes the same form:  some males claiming to be in possession of the truth and claiming to be the true spiritual, intellectual, or cultural heirs of some other males who claimed to possess the truth and to bring about the universal salvation or emancipation of the human species.  You can't easily stop this, it's a deep interaction between some psychological problems (often having to do with male adolescence and males' unresolved relation to their fathers, and extreme narcissism) and some cultural pattern (having to do with monotheism, possession of the truth, and moral purity).  So the main issue, it seems to me, is how to channel this activity in a way that keeps it from spilling over and making other people's lives miserable.  It's actually similar to the problem of how to control juvenile delinquency or terrorism, which come from similar motivations.  I suggest that creating a separate article on current post-surrealist groups and artists or current self-described surrealist groups and artists would enable those who need to engage in these delinquent or terrorist activities to do so with less impact on and nuisance value to those of us who care about surrealism and making a good, NPOV wikipedia article about it, which is the only legitimate mission of those who work on the article and discuss things on this page.  Jeremy J. Shapiro 09:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

text: No personal attacks, no original research, no legal threats and NPOV please. If you want to promote your own viewpoints, write it on your own web sites. It should also be noted that threatening disruption of wikipedia is grounds for permanent banning. Stirling Newberry 01:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to create separate article for current surrealist groups and artists

message: A nice feature article just came out on the "New Surrealists" in the March issue of Art & Antiques Magazine, the world's most read art & antique collectors magazine (Readership: 412,315, Average household income: $628,000 Average household net worth: $2,066,000). This is an upscale magazine on the international arts and museum world. About half of the "major international artists" mentioned there are women. None of the artists mentioned there are mentioned in this wiki article. Perhaps the historians here necessarily are behind the advance guard of the movement. In any case the article sheds light on who are the major players today. You all should read it. Your article, being "historical" should at least mention O'Keefe, Kahlo and a number of others for fairness. I have no interest to add them, since I have no particular inclination to the subject...just a suggestion, since there are some major women players, especially today in the arts. Best to All
Sorry, the article does mention H.R. Giger as a major figure and your article mentions him (although not as a surrealist). But the A&A article seems to clarify, at least to museum administrators like me,  the issue of "What 'surrealism' is in the arts." Again, Congratulations!
:Thanks for your feedback! :-) The articles on Wikipedia are constantly in the works, and unfortunately, it may not reflect all the knowledge that is relevant and out there. It is just waiting for someone with your knowledge and expertise to add it. Hopefully in a bit of time, someone will come by and improve the article as you suggested. --HappyCamper 22:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More Women in Surrealism

message: An editor continued to add information on "Dimitri Spanoa" to this page. The editor adding this person has done so three times and has had the item removed each time by myself and by others. This is not a useful inclusion on this page, which seeks to deal broadly with surrealism as an art form and historical movement. Please don't continue to add this information, or risk running afoul of the three revert rule Thanks! - Docether 20:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Dimitri Spanoa]] 

message: Boyer says in his second vandalism that ""Undocumented" IP address does not recognise extensive documentation of 'non-mainstream' surrealism." There is no evidence for that statement. In fact I recognize the fact that there are small self labled "groups"
(many one person web-sites calling themselves "surrealist groups")  that live in the past, that do not recognize mainstream scholarship on surrealism and live in a world of imagined "revolution" that almost everybody does not want. These are fringe cults. Interesting, but not important. SHR
:Clearly this is a combination of various mere POVs and statements of the obvious that are nevertheless completely worthless.  As for "self-labelling," who else would be qualified to do the labelling, or what are you trying to get at by this?  Is there an accreditation board outside surrealism deciding who does and who doesn't qualify as a surrealist?  What's your point?  What's you proof of or support of "one person web-sites" [sic] -- can you even identify one and state what your evidence is concerning it?  I can't imagine there's anything on this that could go into the article beyond stating that one anonymous or pseudonymous person claims, without evidence, that some of the "groups" are in fact websites run by one person, and if this is how you want to edit it, I'm all for it.  As for "living in the past," that is truly question-begging at the least, but surrealism never conceived of itself as a historical era or something existing purely therein, and any examination of primary materials would confirm this.  As for "mainstream scholarship" I would have to have more details before engaging in an argument on this point.  As for "[revolution]... that almost everybody does not want," this is a statement that is eminently risible as that would be true of almost every revolution (at least initially, and usually quite beyond this, as people in general tend to be either opponents or apathetic about revolutions) that there has ever been, so, again, what's your point?  The statement that they are "fringe cults" is a POV, and it could be incorporated in the article, but only as such -- something like, "Some people regard contemporary surrealist groups as fringe cults."  It doesn't contribute much to the article but I'd not be averse to that.  --Daniel C. Boyer 18:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Daniel C. Boyer Vandalism

message: I think there should be an article about peter-pansurrealism.  The article could have reproductions of contemporary peter-pansurrealists.  I work in a museum, so i have access to lots of great peter-pansurrealist art.  I'd like this article to be a group effort, so that we could all work together in harmony and love.  --Sloppy hairpiece 17:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  peter-pansurrealism 

message: I just wanted to let my fellow Wikipedians know about a new art book coming out called, "METAMORPHISIS"! Everyone from Prof. Ernst Fuchs to James Sebor is in it! Its great to see Surrealism back in the limelight again! Fuchs, Sebor, and a lot others, it should be real good.Classicjupiter2 20:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Prof.Ernst Fuchs and other Surrealist's New Book

message: International Surrealism 
International artists
August 15 - September 18, 2006
EXHIBIT SPONSOR:
Northwest Federal Savings & Loan
I just wanted to let all the 'comrades' know about this cool show. The sponsor is NORTHWEST FEDERAL SAVINGS and LOAN by the way. In case you wanted to open an account after taking in the show!Classicjupiter2 18:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Surrealism Show upcoming in Iowa

message: Yes. I know what Sloppy is talking about. He does not mean “Peter Pansurrealists.” He means “Peter Pan Surrealists.” Yes, there are a handful all over the country. They are one-person web sites calling themselves “surrealist groups.” They live in the past with the Bolsheviks, with ideas of revolution long past and irrelevant to our times. One web site said “Take over the factories,” when in fact there are no factories to take over…the factories are now in Malaysia. Another web site in Chicago says there are no white people, a cute provocative idea from the Black revolution of the 1960’s. The Peter Pan Surrealists will never grow up and they are the Peter Pan Surrealists of Sloppy, living in the Midwestern United States. Another adolescent trick is that they post ridiculous material on interactive web pages like this one. They have no serious ideas and like to play like the children they remain in their own minds, while they are in fact growing old and tiresome to others. Your Welcome, Tinkerbell
Oh, 'Tinkerbell', as much as I LOVE YOU, you appear to be a disgruntled mascot, or maybe even an impostor.  Btw, your IP address looks very familiar -- maybe from somewhere in New York?  The Tinkerbell that I know wouldn't say such spiteful things.  The above post was probably written by a wannabe-peter-pansurrealist, who is bitter because his green pantyhose has ripped and because none of the peter-pansurrealists want to have anything to do with him!  PLEASANT DREAMS AND HAPPY PINK PIXIE DUST FOR ALL OF THE GOOD LITTLE INDIGO BOYS AND GIRLS LIVING NEAR LONG ISLAND! THANKYOU, SLOPPYHAIRPIECE, PETER-PANSURREALIST. --Sloppy hairpiece 15:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Peter Pan Surrealists of the Midwest

message: Tinkerbell, this is the best idea you've had all day!  Please, lead the way for this very important discussion.  There are many of us who do want to deal with these bigger issues, like those neo-"nazies" you mention.  This peter-pansurrealism talk doesn't further the surrealism article anyway.--Classicsaturn7 22:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global warming, overpopulation, Palestinian genocide by the Israelis who have adopted the policies of the Nazies 

message: Surrealism wants YOU!Classicjupiter2 19:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Surrealism in the service of Revolution

message: It is because of people like Keith Wigdor/Jacques Stenzack/Sloppy hairpiece/Classic8uranus/Tinkerbell/ClassicJupiter2 (who are all the same person, using these sockpuppets) that the surrealist movement remains in occultation.  Furthermore, all of the people-bashing that Wigdor and his sockpuppets are doing is really just a case of "sour grapes". Nobody in the surrealist movement wants to have anything to do with this Wigdor, and so K.W. is just angry about it.  He's been like this for years.  Even before this issue of peter-pansurrealism arose, you can search the above discussions for this sort of people-bashing, like from May 22, 2006, for example.  All of the sockpuppets for the wikipedia surrealist vandal are also Keith Wigdor.  Take a look:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_the_%22surrealist%22_vandal
Now can we please return to the important stuff, like the neo-"nazies" in Palestine?  --Classicsaturn7 01:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Occultation of Surrealism 

message: Tinkerbell, just wanted to clarify a few things. There is no Steven Torch, that is Andrew Torch, he is a friend of Eric W.Bragg, who is posting in here as, Jacques Stenzack, Classic8uranus,   Sloppy hairpiece, and        Classicsaturn7, and not forgetting User:Biff Mullins
all of the above alias names are Eric W.Bragg. He is even cross-posting attacks against Classicjupiter2 on the Hawaii Indymedia Site, old news really.
Eric W.Bragg is not their leader. Really, its Franklin Rosemont and his reputation sucks outside of Chicago due to the fact of him and his 'group' have a long history of attacking those they do not agree with. Everyone from art critics from the NY Times, to art scholars and museum directors, (this even goes back to the late 1960's) have scorned the wrath of the mighty gasbags from Chicago. There is an account in the book, "Surrealist Poetry" that one of the members of the Chicago Surrealist Group allegedly helped hide a suspected terrorist who blew up an army-draft station office and was being investigated by the Secret Service. This was in the book, whether or not its true, its in that book. Also I read about Robert Bly, the poet who at one time was writing some real good surrealist poetry, was pelted with bags of flour at a public reading of his poetry by gasbags from the Rosemont 'surrealist' mafia. Plus the accounts of various fistfights at galleries in and around Chicago, as well, from back in the day. Oh, and not forgetting the most stupid of all 'surrealist' statements coming from the bowels of Chicago, the rant against Andy Warhol, written by the Chicago Surrealist Group, which praised that sick headcase Valerie Solanis for shooting him. If that didn't totally alienate Franklin Rosemont from the New York City Art world, I don't know what did. Lou Reed would probably kick his ass if he ever seen him! 
Anyway, Franklin Rosemont's stronghold on Surrealism is only limited to Chicago. There has been no major surrealism event from this gasbag since 1976, and the account of that event raises some red flags as well. Only local papers cited the event with positive remarks, besides one or two, 'friends' of Rosemont from Paris, etc. 
As for Eric W.Bragg, who is 34, he is a wannabe Franklin Rosemont clone, kind of sad really. Besides the fact of his tireless and boring online crusade against Keith Wigdor and also Terrance Lindall (and the WAH) as well. Eric's online antics are spread out all over Indymedia comments, while impersonating Wigdor, and others, and endlessly discrediting, attacking, mocking and humiliating everything Wigdor and Surrealist related, with a parade of Adobe Photoshop pictures of shit-filled toilets, and Batman and Robin pictures, besides some really vicious others as well. Read the above posts from Eric W.Bragg's alias user names, 
Jacques Stenzack, Classic8uranus,   Sloppy hairpiece, and        Classicsaturn7,
then you will understand.
Tinkerbell, as for this 'feud', there really is none. Wigdor is just a surrealist, who does his own thing, from what I seen online. Many surrealists and surrealist artists support him and collaborate with him on his site, so its obvious that this drives Eric nuts, but I guess that everyone has their stalker, remember John Lennon? 
Tinkerbell, what is unfortunate is that others have been attacked by the Bragg clan (the Cravenites, is what I call them) for the historic BRAVE DESTINY show. This was the largest ever SURREALISM show on record, over 500 exhibited, so go figure. Bragg's friends only number around 15 to 20, and they are all marginals, who after signing that stupid 'Craven Destiny' threat against the WAH, and threatening to burn and destroy the artworks, have literally put the last nail in their own coffin! You wonder why they only exhibit together in group shows way, way, way out in the midwest, like Spencer IA and Ohio. This is all the doings of CRAIG BLAIR, who is their organizer. If only Eric W.Bragg knew what Craig Blair did (a private secret joke between me and Tinkerbell). 
Anyway, this constant posting of 'Peter-panusrrealism" is just another online attack against any artist, like Prof. Fuchs, (who just collaborated with surrealist James Sebor and others on a new book)and others from AOI who create art, so that is old news. Also I would like to mention Eric W.Bragg's surrealist friend, Dale Michael Houstman (who had articles deleted on Wikipedia thanks to endless promotion by his friend Daniel C.Boyer) who just recently had an entire anti-Prof Fuchs website pulled offline as well. Dale really hates Prof. Fuchs and went as so far to create a mock website to humiliate and attack Prof. Fuchs, that was pulled offline as well.
So, Tinkerbell, what you are really dealing with here is totally juvenile behavior and old news. Its kind of sad that people will go to such limits to get attention, like a chihauaha constantly nipping at one's pants leg.Classicjupiter2 16:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tinkerbell, some clarifications

message: I intend to place this into the article. it is accurate and verifiable: 
"With the fall of the Soviet Union, and the rampant growth of Democratic Capitalism, the developed countries have witnessed the highest point in the satisfaction of human needs (food, shelter, clothing) and also human desires (entertainment and leisure). The investment of man’s labor and intellect into products for sale, such as automobiles, real estate, computers etc., investments made because of the possibility of harvesting profits, have caused a blossoming of the human condition unthinkable in centuries past. The unconscious desire, the surreal freedom of “DESIRE UNBOUND” to reap the possible utopia of abundant food, abundant leisure, and abundant capital has driven mankind toward a future of freedom quite beyond imagination. With the ultimate and absolute triumph of democratic capitalism or surrealist capitalism in both the East and the West the world is shaking off the tyranny of a failed Marxist struggle for an absolutely controlled economy which delivered only human misery, falling behind the West in the competition for improvement of the human condition." KAPITALISIMO
What part of the article would you put it in, whoever you are?  Since you're new here, like so many of us are, you need to remember to sign all your posts.  Your proposed paragraph which discusses things like "surrealist capitalism" is not so accurate and verifiable.  Where did you get this information?  What information source did you consult?  Do you have any bibliographic references?  All of that would be most helpful in verifying the accuracy of the many sweeping assertions that you make in this paragraph.  Can you please explain what surrealist capitalism is?  That almost reminds me of something from peter-pansurrealism.  In fact, this paragraph might be more appropriately added to the peter-pansurrealism article, and not to the surrealism article. --Biff Mullins 17:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Biff Mullins: these statements are neither accurate nor verifiable.  Wikipedia is not a site for publication of "self-evident truths", particualrly if they are not self-evident nor the truth.--StN 22:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I freaking love this talk page. Geedubber 14:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Triumph of the Surreal in World Economics

message: Sorry, I had thought that the educated among you recognized the revolution of the free individual in society which is what surrealism is about. The surrealist revolution is not for chaining  ofthe individual under a Marxist yoke and having a Stalin or even Chicago's “Black Stalin" and his white slaves dictate how one may think and behave. 
Here, I have added some more material. You will find that true Surrealist Capitalism is more formally called “Anacho-capitalism” which is the free exercise of desire unbound of the free individual. I have simply added the Freudian dimension. Is this acceptable?
“With the fall of the Soviet Union, and the rampant growth of Democratic Capitalism, the developed countries have witnessed the highest point in the satisfaction of human needs (food, shelter, clothing) and also human desires (entertainment and leisure). Also “the nations of Eastern Europe are engaged in revolutionary programs of economic, political, and social reform moving them toward the combination of democracy and market economics.” The Social Critic Winter, 1998, The Conceptual Foundations of Democratic Capitalism  by Dr. Edward Younkins, author of Capitalism and Commerce 
“The investment of man’s labor and intellect into products for sale, such as automobiles, real estate, computers etc., investments made because of the possibility of harvesting profits, have caused a blossoming of the human condition unthinkable in centuries past. The unconscious desire, the surreal, anarchical freedom of “DESIRE UNBOUND” to reap the possible utopia of abundant food, abundant leisure, and abundant capital, has driven mankind toward a future of freedom quite beyond imagination. With the ultimate and absolute triumph of democratic capitalism (which has it’s roots in the revolutionary philosophy of Anarcho-capitalism in both the East and the West, the world is shaking off the tyranny of a failed Marxist struggle for an absolutely controlled economy which delivered much human misery, falling behind the West in the competition for improvement of the human condition. 
“Anarcho-capitalism recognizes that Capitalism is by its very nature “surreal” or a revolution of individual freedom. It represents the “practical” surrealist revolution of the dominance of the id (subconscious dream of desire) over the ego and superego in achieving its unfettered desires. The ego and superego were always meant to be slaves of the id!  “Freedom of Desire Over All!!!” Without desire, we desire nothing, not even to live. The very definition of id is “desire.” What service can the superego provide to the self (ego) without the id. The id is the GOD of the ego, and the superego is the soldier in the service, a “capitalist tool,” as it were.”
KAPITALISIMO
Yes oh yes, this is indeed a fascinating subject for us to consider. Viva el Kapitalismo! LOVE YOU, SLoPPYHAIRPIECE, PETER-PANSURREALIST.--Sloppy hairpiece 19:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Surrealist Anarcho-capitalism

message: “F. R. is their Black Messiah lovingly nicknamed “ Black Sambo,” living in the Midwestern United States. Their mascot is Eric W. B. “The Poodle”, a Downes Syndrome adult, who met F.R. at Rikers Island Prison. Eric had gleefully torched some buildings and was caught, thus ending up at Rikers. Sambo remembers those days at Rikers by saying,” My only comfort was my dear ‘poodle’ Eric.” As in many repeated rape incidents, much like the Patty Hearst incident, the victim comes to love the victimizer. Thus poor mindless Eric became a follower of Sambo. As  make-believe Peter Pan-surrealists, these children are unfortunately growing old. Buffoons to others, to themselves they are “surrealist” warriors. As Daniel C. B., their apologist, recites, ‘You do not know the seriousness of this (Peter Pan-surrealist) movement.’ Yes, we do know! It is not serious at all from everything we have seen on interactive web-sites abounding! (Many quotes from the interactive sites provided here) 
“…It is amusing that “Sambo” has a weight problem from eating pancakes with too much butter and ribs and watermelon, all kindly providing by the earnings of his working “ceiling inspector” wife Penelope. (amusing picture provided here)”
Hope you enjoyed the snippet. The Publisher, White Swan Press, says the book will be published in time for the Christmas rush!
And congratulations on the Peter Pan-surrealist “art” show in Iowa. I am sure it will be lovely! I will try to make it out there for the opening. Dowager Kapitalisimo
Dear Dowager, I thoroughly agree! You are the leader of kapitalist surrealism!!! --Classic8uranus 17:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: “Frauds and Buffoons - a look at Midwestern Surrealism in the United States” – some quotes

message: Really, its kind of sad that Eric W.Bragg is on this crusade. As for Franklin Rosemont and his wife Penelope, they really distance themselves from the rest of Eric's friends (except for Andrew Torch and maybe J.Karl Bogartte), the ones that are in the upcoming, 'International Surrealist Show' in Spencer IA. This is the show that was organized by Craig Blair (a really great artist, but a major follower). Craig Blair, along with his friend, James Sebor, are the kinds of 'Surrealists' that want to please everyone, and not ruffle anyone's feathers or upset anyone else, James, especially. The 'surrealists' Zazie and Bernard Dumaine are both from the WEBISM ART MOVEMENT, the one started by Ingrid Kamerbeek and Pygoya. Now, all of a sudden, Zazie and Bernard are full blown radical surrealists, wanting nothing to do with Webism. This was after Marie Domique Massoni and her Paris Surrealist Group denounced Webism in a Surrealist Statement, now Zazie claims she was never involved in Webism, where in fact, she and Bernard toured all over Europe, with Ingrid and Pygoya, as well as the other 'surrealist' Willem den Broeder in Webist (surreal) art shows.
Focusing on the Rosemonts for a moment, the dynamic duo from Chicago, they are really isolated from the rest of the Bragg/Boyer clan (though Eric Bragg did contribute an essay, "On Miserabilism and the New Eugenics" which was referenced in Sakolsky's book, Bragg now thinks he is this major force in radical surrealist revoltion). The Rosemont's, I believe are completely embarrassed (or annoyed) by all the alleged misinformation on Surrealism today. You see, according to Franklin, he was supposed to be handpicked by Breton himself to lead the Surrealist Movement in the USA, since the 1960's. A real lot of people outside of Chicago HATE Franklin Rosemont. That is old news, makes you wonder. The running joke among the Surrealists in South America is that Eric W.Bragg is Franklin Rosemont's spy and snitch, so there you can see the lens clearly. The Rosemont/Bragg clan is supposed to be this super-radical and revolutionary surrealist dynamo that denounces 'Whiteness'! Go Figure. How many African American brothers are hip to this jive from Rosemont and Bragg, after all, Rosemont and Bragg are WHITE! When your skin is White, your jive is TIGHT!
Back to the scoop. As for this 'International Surrealist Show' in Spencer IA, I see no mention of Franklin Rosemont or his wife Penelope, supporting the show. Maybe its because Craig Blair is the organizer and they think Craig is an opportunist, only the mighty Rosemonts know that answer! As for Richard (OH WOW MAN!) Dotson and the other backstabber slug, Derek Scefonas, the poet, they are both total sheep. There is nothing at all radical and revolutionary at all about them, they are just followers. Andy Torch, the toy man, is a radical, but only in his head. This Bruce Brodie, I really know nothing about, poor bastard probably doesn't know what kind of lot he is wrapped up with. The most radical and obnoxious of all this lot, is Xtain and his lame girlfriend Lady Hannah Cadaver, two of the most obnoxious and stupidest people that you would ever have the displeasure of seeing, even online. Two Hardcore Goth-Punkers from Melbourne, who are into all kinds of crazy shit, some stuff I will not mention, but it really has nothing to do with Surrealism. We all know Daniel C.Boyer's story, from his years long promotions of him and all his friends on Wikipedia and his constant fighting with any Wikipedian that disagrees with him. 
By the way, Dowager Kapitalisimo, do you know the answer to the following question? Where does Craig Blair, (the surrealist organizer of Eric's friends surrealist show in Spencer), stand on the issue of Terrance Lindall's International Surrealist Manifesto? Do you know if he supports it or if he is against it? just curious....Classicjupiter2 17:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Surrealists?

message: I just took a look at A & A June. I was mistaken about who wrote the article. It was not Hilton Kramer, but Terrance Lindall, the surrealist philosopher. Craig Blair said in the letter published in June, " I was delighted with Terrance Lindall's article "What's New in the Surreal World." Mr. Blair then went on to mention the Iowa show in context with the article. So I assume that Daniel C. Boyer and the rest of the artists in the show endorse Pansurrealism and the New International Surrealist Manifesto. Those Iowa artists are the artists called "Peter-pansurrealists" mentioned on this page, right? And Blair is speaking for the artists in that Iowa show, right? The article mentioned the world's largest ever show of surrealism, Brave Destiny, and mentioned that the New International Surrealist Movement (NISM) was better defined as Pansurrealism...the new surrealism or "art movement," and named several members of the Society for Art of the Imagination as the world's top surrealists. A really wonderful article. I am sure you would all agree on that view of contemporary surrealism and who the major players are today. I believe Mr. Lindall is the world's foremost authority on contemporary surrealism. We will serve Matza Balls on Saturday Boys & Ladies! And a special surpise! Love, Dowager Kapitalisimo
What did Craig Blair SPECIFICALLY STATE, word for word, Please scan the article or post a link where we can all read his letter. PLEASE!Classicjupiter2 22:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Terrance Lindall has specifically disclaimed being a surrealist, as you well know.  --Daniel C. Boyer 23:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I would like to point out for the sake of accuracy, though it really doesn't have much to do with the subject of this article, that I've two articles in Surrealist Subversions, in addition to my illustration.  --Daniel C. Boyer 17:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who cares, Dan.Classicjupiter2 23:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you admit you don't care about accuracy (this is all I was saying) you are essentially saying that we should all take your edits with a grain of salt.  --Daniel C. Boyer 16:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Craig Blair in A & A Magazine

message: "Nontheless, "Art and Antiques Magazine," one of the world's formost international magazines for art, stated in March 2006 that surrealism will ultimately be vindicated as being "...the foundation for all modern and contemporary art forms." The essay says that in first part of the 21st century new forms of surrealist art have manifested themselves."
Maybe a mention of Craig Blair's endorsement of Lindall too, what do you think?Classicjupiter2 16:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dan, we should at least leave this in

message: Ride em' Cowboy! I thought I was tripping when I read this, but it really is true, honest! I am not making any of this up! You have to admit, this is Surreal! 
International Surrealist Group's next show
"Surrealistic art at a county fair? This could be an Art History first! Spencer, Iowa will play host to a 2006 show of The International Surrealist Group. The show is set to run from August 15th through September 18th, 2006 at the "Arts on Grand Gallery". 
Surely, the group will be blazing new territory for Surrealism with this one. As an extra "surreal" twist, the show is planned to coincide with the Clay County Fair, billed as the largest county fair in the U.S. I've heard we may even have some sort of "hands-on" display promoting the show right on the fair grounds. This promises to be quite a different type of venue than most of us are used to. Then of course, our art will probably be quite different from what most of the fair goers are used to as well. I hope they like it. 
Where the usual policy has always been "anything goes" and "No censorship"; this particular show will most likely have some self-imposed restraints. With a county fair being a family oriented type of event, several group members have expressed the idea of choosing to restrict nudity and other things which may offend fair goers. This is probably for the best...we wouldn't want to recreate any of the Dada riots. Of course there will be those of the Surrealist world upset with us for making such choices. Oh well, I guess controversy works in both directions. 
As you may know, the group's two other shows took place in Austria in 2004, and in Bowling Green, Ohio in 2003." Classicjupiter2 20:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Daniel C.Boyer and Surrealist Friends at The Clay County Fair!

message: The section on Post WW2 surrealism ends with the death of Breton. That is why we need a section post breton to chronicle the developments which are very significant, eg the Belgiunm and Chicago groups. 195.92.40.49 15:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please point to the archived discussions on this - the Chicago group have a wikipedia entry, as self defining surrealists and that history is documented and verifiable, including work with the IWW and the SI. 195.92.40.49 10:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You still have not put any arguments against Chicago and any edit war that you are threatening will be dealt with. You have still failed to point to any discussion history on this or put any arguments forward. If you want to address appropriation and recuperation, we really have to start with the 'centrality of Breton' - and look at the criticisms presented in the 'cavalier history of surrealism'. 195.92.40.49 10:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Post Breton Surrealism

message: I added current surrealist groups to the article, just to show how wrong Classic8uranus can be regarding my involvement in Surrealism and Surrealist Revolution. Viva Surrealisme!Classicjupiter2 01:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Faith and Fairness

message: Where did they meet? I am very interested in this information. I actively study Surrealism on a daily basis and I would even being willing to PAY$$$$$ for any information on this, "meeting" between Rosemont and Debord. I know that Herbert Marcause knew Rosemont.Classicjupiter2 23:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Classicjupiter2 - check the referenced book "Dancin in the Streets" (although i notice u have deleted the reference!!!) - if u are in London we can meet up and have a look at the copy i have at my house. As for Ms. 64.131.246.173 you maybe a philosopher but u are also a liar. I am not HP! And I will agree to your additions on a case by case basis - bring them on!! I would be glad to see wot u got! 195.92.40.49 13:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Even though you quote Rosemont just above, you misquote him in the preceding paragraph.  He does not say "millions do not want to be white" as you can well see.  He says, "Millions of those who are deceived into thinking they are white are unhappy about it, but don't quite know how to divest themselves of this debilitating delusion," which is obviously a very different thing.  You might agree with this, you might not, but as it is you are clearly attacking a straw man.  --Daniel C. Boyer 18:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: What is your standard?  There is extensive material.  Do some research.  --Daniel C. Boyer 18:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Your idea that there should be a lot of "visual material to go on" seems to stem from your misconception (and you've gone back and forth on this) that surrealism is an artistic movement.  Obviously, though, your assertion (though subjective) would be difficult for anyone not sharing your bias to view as correct.  As for pictures of the Rosemonts, I've seen a lot, but again, I don't know what this obsession with photographic evidence is.  I'm just holding my breath waiting for you to say there is "no evidence" Franklin Rosemont exists.  It's going to be your next claim.  Though what any of this has to do with this article, again, I'm at a total loss.  --Daniel C. Boyer 18:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  And I pretty much think it's the job of a surrealist to be a "pain in the ass".  --Daniel C. Boyer 18:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rosemont and Guy Debord

message: Daniel, if Surrealism is not an Art Movement, then can you please explain why you and your friends are promoting Surrealism as an Art Movement? 
By the way, I am being totally honest with you, when I say, that your pieces were the best in your show. The others were terrible, especially Xtian's and Torch's, Oh, and Hannah's too. Real Bad! Richard Burke needs to take more Photoshop lessons. Pablo Weisz Carrington (a great artist and son of Leonora) needs to pick it up a notch. Zazie appears to be selling her art for $300 dollars a print. That is too much for that trash. What Derek Scefonas was doing in your show was beyond me, and I really do not see any, "Revolutionary" or "Marxist-Hegelian" Surrealist and Dialectical elements in any of Bruce Brodie's work, though he seems to be a nice guy. As for Bernard, he and James Sebor, are the best artists in your show, but they are also Total Sheep: Willing to follow along with anything Xtian and Torch and Zazie fill their minds with, which is not much. Hannah and Craig Blair's, "Collaboration" was awful, totally lacking any Revolutionary elements in the work. Hannah is a sheep too, total sheep, doing anything her boyfriend wants her too, real lame. 
I couldn't help but notice that there was no OTHER artworks or poetry added to your show, by your real, "Revolutionary" Comrades, like Brandon Freels, or MK Shibek or Jill Fenton, or my favorite tool, Eric W.Bragg??? Was the frozen white milk chocolates too radical for the country bumpkins attending the show? Also, I did see pictures of the exhibit, which was layed out Terribly! The Gallery you exhibited in has this sickly death-like coffee look to it, like something from Sears or K-Mart. Brown does not make a good gallery backdrop Daniel! However, I give Daniel C.Boyer an A for his art, it is Surrealism, the others are total phonies. Daniel, why you choose to exhibit with them is beyond me! I saw your contribution to the International Festival of Surrealism, that was good too.Classicjupiter2 23:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dear Daniel C.Boyer, welcome back Daniel! A Question?

message: Love it! 
To Mr. Boyer: It is not the function of a surrealist "to be a pain in the ass." It is the function to be absolutely on line to break through accepted ways of looking at things to arrive at a higher consciousness and new perception of the world around us, including society. It is the only way to advance the human cause. Unfortunately, Rosemont & followers like you only want to create the impression of "revolution." You are publicity seekers. You are children playing "cowboy," or like Rosemont playing "Dick-tater." That's ok! You are good foils to our intelligence and the true surrealists, us. 
I am always glad to see artists showing their work. I am sure that you can all do better than the Iowa production. You may have been limited by the restrictions of the space and the gallery director. However, if you want to show how good you are, you have to be adamant about how you are presented. You must be as perfect as you can be every time. Or else your reputation becomes that history of sloppy work in a sloppy exhibit. You are measured by the intelligence of your thinking in your essays, your poetry and prose and art. Next time give us your best and we will measure you by it. And please, for your own reputation: distance yourself from Rosemont. He will not be remembered as anything but a fraud and not a very clever one at that. Good luck!Surreal-one 16:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture of [[Franklin Rosemont]] with [[Andre Breton]] and [[Guy Debord]] (delete as applicable)

message: Just to talk about leadership. Leadership requires:
1) A thorough knowledge of the current players in surrealism
2) A thorough knowledge of the history of surrealism, especially the two camps
3) It requires a position on the issues
4) It requires a openness to new ideas about the subject
5)  It requires an ability to argue and defend positions
6) It requires a supportive and open attitude to those interested in surrealism, especially artists poets, writers and the public in general
7) It requires a concerted effort to find means of promoting the artists and their work
8) It requires professionals willing to support and follow the leadership
I am not the one. Currently there is only one person with all of these qualifications: Keith Wigdor.  And he has highly renowned supporters. 
The “Other” camp:
1) Drives people away
2) Has a narrow and “old” view of surrealism
3) Is unwilling to change or even listen to new ideas or even argue their position
4) Exists to promote only a few and only for the purpose pf self promotion
However, if both camps came to an understanding of mutual self-interest, they could work together as binary suns, using the full resources of both camps. This seems unlikely, however. 
Also, the person you follow F.R. is indeed a fraud and he must be cut loose for the sharks of history. It will only get worse for him.Surreal-one!
Oh yes, surreal-one, I agree!  When you explained yourself that way, now I do understand that Keith Wigdor is the centre of the surrealist movement.  He definitely has a lot more going for him that the people of the "other" camp.  Viva le Wigdor!
Since you are a writer, of sorts, I take it that you know the literary reference to "The Other?" Just curious. I can see by the "style" of your comment that you are "true disbeliever" in KW. Time will tell. And "tempus fugit." Just do not become a "blazing sun" in the shape of things to come. Good Luck!Surreal-one 15:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: LEADERSHIP IN SURREALISM  AS OF TODAY

message: In my lifetime, I have seen some of the most stupidest crap that my eyes have unfortunately come upon! However, this tops them all, Eric W.Bragg presents, SIDEWALK STAINS! (I am not making this up):
http://www.surrealcoconut.com/surrealism_gallery/Found_Objects/stain.html
:In my opinion, some of these found objects are indifferent, some are truly amazing, but all of this begs the question, What does this have to do with the development of the surrealism article?  The stains aren't mentioned in the article and I don't think anyone is proposing that they be.  --Daniel C. Boyer 14:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Surreal-one - the photo of breton etc has been presented above - you do not believe your eyes? your ears? your mind?  You and Classicjupiter2 are just bretonian white supremacist capitalist cops and nothing to do with Surrealism, which is itself nothing but a stain on the sidewalk of history... 195.92.40.49 12:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Eric W.Bragg's Contemporary Surrealism: SIDEWALK STAINS