Talk:Surrealism/Archive 9

The Talk:Surrealism discussion page has been archived 9 times.

• Talk:Surrealism/Archive 1 - until Sep 17 2004
• Talk:Surrealism/Archive 2 - until Sep 28 2004
• Talk:Surrealism/Archive 3 - until Oct 13 2004
• Talk:Surrealism/Archive 4 - until Nov 11 2004
• Talk:Surrealism/Archive 5 - until Jan 25 2005
• Talk:Surrealism/Archive 6 - until Aug 06 2005
• Talk:Surrealism/Archive 7 - until Sep 03 2006
• Talk:Surrealism/Archive 8 - until Sep 29 2006
• Talk:Surrealism/Archive 9 - until Mar 03 2007

If you wish to reply to something that was said in an archived comment, please copy the relevant text to the current talk page rather than editing the archives.

Dear Stirling,...

Franklin Rosemont is friends with Boyer and I cannot stand by and watch this article be given away to Daniel C.Boyer or any of his friends. Franklin Rosemont is NOT the person who carries on Breton's work!!! That I will never tolerate, please do not allow one self-labeled surrealist gain all the credit for carrying on Breton's work. There are countless experts on Surrealism, Mary Ann Caws (in particular) and others and I do recommend that you try to get in touch with them, if you need to work on this article. However, as for Surrealism after Breton, NOBODY gets credit for personally carrying on the work of Breton!!!!!!24.168.66.27 05:22, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mary Ann Caws' work is riddled with inaccuracies, distortions and glaring errors, as was thoroughly documented in Arsenal. This self-labeled expert on surrealism should not be listened to to the exclusion of surrealists, especially as these self-described experts have fabricated, while failing to give any reason for it whatsoever, that surrealism is "over." Moreover, Rosemont is only one of the significant figures who have carried on surrealism; if you feel that others have been neglected, include mention of them in the article, but not to mention Rosemont (look up the Grove Dictionary of Art, for example, if you need expertise), given his significance, is to have a significant axe to grind. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:43, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

We are not here to "decide" which POVs on surrealism are "correct", we are here to document those that have made themselves notable, and what they said - including what they have said about each other. If there are critiuqes of particular works on surrealism, then it is certainly reasonable to include those critics. Rosemont, regardless of one's position on his work, has published a number of books on Surrealism, these books are cited by others, and the Surrealist Group of Chicago has been recognized as a voice in the meaning of post-Breton Surrealism. The same for each of them. This page is not the web site of belonging to a particular group.

It is disheartening to see so many editors fighting to try and remove information, and mixing their edits in an attempt to make it difficult to separate positive contributions from attempts to censor POVs on Surrealism they do not like.

But you are also guilty of this; you have repeatedly removed information without stating what you have against it, such as that on VVV, the World Surrealist Exhibition, Breton's statement that surrealism would continue after him, &c. That said, I do think that the article has improved significantly, and it strikes me that a lot of the information in it about surrealism not as an artistic movement later on could be merged with that at the beginning, or vice versa. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:32, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is further disheartening because this infighting is preventing the page from reaching a thorough documentation of the activities of surrealists and surrealist groups, the impact of surrealism on contemporaneous and contemporary movements, and so on. If editors would spend the time currently fighting over putting POV in the top few paragraphs, or removing personae non grata from the text - on documenting the material then the presentation would be far better.

More over, there is a tremendous amount of work involved in linking surrealism and its major figures into other parts of wikipedia. Currently there are dozens of articles on post-structuralism and post-modernism, and few, if any, contain proper referencing of the influence of Breton's work on figures such as Lacan, Derrida and others. The surrealist film section here is a stub - it does not mention, for example Wild Strawberries or other works which attempted to translate ideas of surrealism into film. It does not talk about the relationship of Surrealism to French Cinema, particularly Jean Renoir - one of the most important figures in the history of film making.

I would ask the other editors to place as a priority 1) increasing, not decreasing what is documented 2) increasing the depth of what is documented - why is Rosemont's own article a stub? If he is important, why isn't he getting the space? If he is wrong, why aren't his positions critiqued? There are half a dozen articles linked off of this page which are a in a similar shabby condition. 3) Increasing the breadth of linking to this article, so that Surrealism's impact on other figures, works and movements be visible to other readers. The more links, the more traffic, the more traffic, the more people will read the page and come to understand the importance of the movement in all of its manifestations.

Presently people have heard the world "surreal" or "surrealism" and associate it with a limited range of contexts, the best that this article can do is give them the entire range of meanings, and make some attempt to document the connections between them. Declarations about which sources are "primary" is counterproductive - Dali wrote on Surrealism, as did many other people who were regarded as important surrealists, they didn't all agree with Breton.

True, but there are none of these sources that would say that surrealism is an artistic movement. None. --Daniel C. Boyer

Even Breton didn't always agree with Breton - which one reason that Surrealism maintained its importance to intellectual currents long after many of the competing intellectual revolutionary movements were reduced to footnotes and scraps of paper.

On a personal note, dealing with editors who seem to regard this page as their own, and Surrealism as Surrealism(tm), goes against the entire grain of a movement which offered one of the most influential critiques of ownership and attempts to impose particular interpretations on the past. Breton's plea that art must be done by all, and not one, surely applies: and it is to have faith that those works which reflect the eternal realities of the human condition will, over time assert themselves.

Since the topic of post-Breton surrealism seems sufficiently sensitive I would propose that it be written here first, and editted here first, until everyone is certain that all of the major figures, works and POV's of Surrealism after his death have been represented.

O.k. Proposal accepted. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:51, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Further, I propose that the section on Surrealism as a movement during Breton's life time - a period that spans from 1919-1966, or some 47 years, be given a full documentation, because it is only in the context of his work and activities that readers can judge for themselves the relationship of the other uses of the term "Surrealism".

More over, there is a major rewrite needed on the influence of surrealism in the context of critical theory and the disputes there in. Stirling Newberry 17:04, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is currently a Request for comment on this page, should Mr. Boyer continue to attempt to disrupt the page, I will RFC his behavior.

But I would argue that you have, to some degree, disrupted this article. What about the removals of material you don't even argue with, or argue against the relevance of? --Daniel C. Boyer 17:32, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[1] Request for mediation filed against Daniel C Boyer. I am going to request that he be warned on his behavior on this page specifically for violating NPOV and for repeated vandalism of the page, as well as personal attacks. Mr. Boyer, I don't have anything further to say to you at this point. Stirling Newberry 17:34, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Notice how you have ducked what I am saying. Request for mediation filed against Stirling Newberry. I am going to request that he be warned on his behavior on this space specificially for repeated vandalism of this page. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:51, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I refer new people coming to this talk page to the previous archives on a proposed outline on the page. As for Mr. Boyer being friends with Mr. Rosemont, this could be all to the good if he spends time documenting Mr. Rosemont's works and activities as part of the article rather than as the point of the article. Stirling Newberry 17:28, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

I have temporarily moved this here so people can work on it as per Stirling Newberry's proposal, and I've a few notes on it. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:09, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Second World War and Beyond

As with many artistic movements in Europe,

• this assumes POV that surrealism is an artistic movement, and that it is limited to Europe. A surrealist group, e.g., already existed in Japan prior to this. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:09, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

the coming of the Second World War proved disruptive: both because of the rift between Breton and Dali over Dali's support for Francisco Franco, and because of a diaspora of the members of the surrealist movement itself. Mark Tansey's painting The Triumph of the New York School depicts what might be called the orthodox history of modernism: namely that European movements, particularly those lead by Picasso and the surrealists, were supplanted by Abstract Expressionism.

By this point many surrealist artists had begun to deny surrealism: Dali said to remain a surrealist forever was like "painting only eyes and noses", and declared he had embarked on a "classic" period; Max Ernst in 1962 said "I feel more affinity for some German Romantics". Magritte began painting what he called his "solar" or "renoir" style.

• O.k., but why is the discussion limited to "surrealist artists"? What about those who were surrealist writers, and what about those surrealists who were neither writers nor artists? --Daniel C. Boyer 19:09, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

However the works continued, many surrealist artists continued to explore their vocabularies, including Magritte. Many members of the surrealist movement continued to correspond and meet, in 1960, René Magritte, Marcel Duchamp, Max Ernst, and Man Ray met in Paris.

• Neglects fact that meetings of groups continued, and had even more attendance, e.g. Paris Surrealist Group. Gives a distinct misimpression. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:09, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And while Dali may have been excommunicated by Breton, he neither abandoned the themes from the 1930's, including references to the "persistence of time" in a later painting, nor did he become a depictive "pompier". His classic period did not represent so sharp a break with the past as some descriptions of his work might lead one to believe.

Magritte's work became more realistic in its depiction of actual objects, while maintaining the element of juxtaposition, such as in [1951]'s Personal Values and 1954's Empire of Light. Magritte continued to produce works which have entered artistic vocabulary, such as Castle in the Pyrenees which refers back to Voix from 1931, in its suspension over a landscape.

Other figures from the surrealist movement were "expelled", for example Roberto Matta, but by their own description, "remained close to surrealism." More over, many new artists explicitly took up the surrealist banner for themselves,

• Again, POV that surrealism is an artistic movement. What about surrealists who were/are not artists? --Daniel C. Boyer 19:09, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

some following what they saw as the path of Dali, others holding to views they derrived from Breton, still others taking surrealism as inspiration. Duchamp continued to produce sculpture and, at his death, was working on an installation with the realistic depiction of a woman viewable only through a peephole. Dorothea Tanning and Louise Bourgeois continued to work, for example with Tanning's Rainy Day Canape from 1970.

With the 1970's, Surrealism's desire to be understandable,

• Documentation? Surrealism desiring to be understandable? Give me a break. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:09, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Duchamp quipped the only universal "ism" is eroticism, it became a point of departure for many artists, including Mark Tansey, who regard abstraction as fragmented, and incomplete as a tool of artistic conversation. It also remains enormously popular with museum patrons, the Tate Modern in 2001 held an exhibition of Surrealist Art that attracted over 170,000 vistors in its run. Surrealism, having been one of the most important of movements in the Modern period, proceded to inspire a new generation seeking to rebel, or expand, the vocabulary of art, that the Modern period focused on.

• If you are going to say this, surrealist denunciation/protest of "surrealist" shows should be mentioned somewhere in article beyond "Brave Destiny," although text could be merged to some extent and this used as an example. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:09, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Since "Surrealism" ceased to have as much cachet in the world of modern art criticism, there has been an explosion of self-identified surrealists, having no more connection to the original surrealist movement than an admiration for one or more aspects of it. A sampling of current working artists who identify in one way or another might include Howard Newman, Quentin Shih, Kunihiro Shinohara and Alan Turner.

• What is this about the "original surrealist movement"? POV. Not too bad (besides citing a bunch of people with no connexion to surrealism), but "original surrealist movement" should be identified as POV. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:09, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That surrealism has remained commercially successful and popularly recognized has lead many people associated with the Surrealist Groups that Breton established to criticise more general uses of the term, and to argue that many self-identified surrealists are not grounded in Breton's work, the techniques of the movement, or even basic talent and ability.

• This characterisation is wildly off. Gobbledygook. Don't you know that in surrealism, "talent" is a dirty word? --Daniel C. Boyer 19:09, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The 1960s saw an expansion of surrealism with the founding of The West Coast Surrealist Group as recognized by Andre Breton's personal assistant Jose Pierre and also The Surrealist Movement in the United States, and surrealist groups around the world, including many in areas in which surrealism had not previously existed, such as the Surrealist Group of Pakistan.

• Should include mention of VVV and World Surrealist Exhibition, at a minimum. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:09, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Clarity about the "artistic movement" dispute

As a recent drop-in here, I am confused about the nature of the objection to Surrealism an "artistic movement." Some of the objections simply seem directed at the implication that it was a "visual art" movement. Of course it wasn't only, or even primarily, that, and the fact that Surrealism did not begin or end with visual art should be made clear. But I also don't think "artistic movement" conflicts with a more expansive definition that crosses formal and other categories. "Art" or "Artistic" ,in that sense, casts a very wide umbrella. Other objections here seem to insist that surrealism was no kind of movement at all. That part I just don't understand, unless you want to separate Surrealist ideas from Surrealist activity. Please clarify. 68.164.132.95 19:31, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thoughts on the article

User 24. is right about this Rosemont being a self-labeled surrealist. Boyer's argument that his friend is significant because of a submission to an online website GROVE shows the lack of credibility in his assertion.

Your assuming that printed source edited by others is an online source Rosemont submitted to himself, without any basis for your assumption, shows your bias. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:50, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ask yourself this, did Prof. William Rubin (in 1968) document the surrealist (upon curating Dada, Surrealism and its Heritage in NY and Chicago in 68) activities of Rosemont and his group? The answer is NO!

They denounced this with both a statement and counter-exposition. And who cares what anti-surrealist Rubin "documents"? --Daniel C. Boyer 15:50, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You see, after Breton died in 1966, a self-labeled surrealist and a small group of his marginal radical friends called themselves The Chicago Surrealist Group and have announced themselves as THE SURREALIST MOVEMENT IN THE USA. So, ask yourself, this simple question as a serious researcher who is sincerely interested in surrealism, WHERE ARE THERE ANY PICTURES OF THE CHICAGO SURREALIST GROUP that DOCUMENTS THEIR SURREALIST ACTIVITIES?????? There are many documented photographs of surrealists (in group pictures too) that show their activities and explorations. Can Boyer scan a few copies of ARSENAL to help us out?

Why do you have this obsession with computerized sources? Have you ever heard of a library? Why if someone has provided a citation is he, in your opinion, obliged to "scan a few copies" of it? --Daniel C. Boyer 15:50, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you want Boyer's friend to be mentioned as a historic figure in surrealism for this aricle, then go ahead. I do suggest that you will need to be true to the record and PROVE that this man, Rosemont is real (first, show us a recent picture of him)

Because he ceases to be "real" with the passage of time? Where did you get this idea that photographs have to be provided of everyone to prove they are "real"? --Daniel C. Boyer 15:50, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

and PLEASE provide any visual and text-reference material that we can access WITHOUT having to make a purchase from Franklin and Penelope's "BLACK SWANN" Mom and Pop Store for Radicalism!!!!

If you don't want to buy the books from them, check them out of a library. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:50, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As for Boyer, Hey Dan, you need to go back and re-read what Breton had to say on the record in "INDICE", May 1935. I still have NOT seen evidence of any, "necessity of social revolution" provided by you and your friends, except for a price. By the way, at the bottom of the Wikipedia Surrealism article page, there is a book referenced, called, "SURREALIST SUBVERSIONS" by Ron Sakolsky. Daniel C.Boyer is in the book and you are helping promote SALES of a book while giving special priviledge

I don't have any "priviledge" [sic] that you do not have. Everyone is free to edit Wikipedia. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:50, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

to an editor who is also a contributor to the book that is on the article page as a reference. Bling, Bling$$$ right Dan?63.169.104.2 22:57, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Recent drop-in here. Franklin Rosemont is for real--he edited a copy of the magazine "Cultural Correspondence" in the late 70s that was reprinted as "Surrealism and its Popular Accomplices" by City Lights Books (the beat poet Lawrence Ferlinghetti's press in San Francisco) that was quite widely distributed for years--it may still be available, I don't know. It consists of a bunch of short articles (including a few by FR) that take a very expansive view of surrealism--basically, the book looks at works in popular culture (e..g. The pre-surrealist comic strips "Little Nemo in Slumberland" and the "Upside-Downs", Buster Keaton, the Marx brothers, "Voodoo" Blues, an early article on Henry Darger) that somehow seem to partake in a surrealist sensibility. It did include a few bits by and about contemporary surrealist practitioners, most of whom I've never encountered elsewhere. The anthology argues here and there for an ongoing surrealist movement, but mostly it just discusses stuff that seems interesting from the perspective of an admirer of surrealisist ideas, with some emphasis on the associated leftist cultural critique. Anyway, the guy (or someone using that name) is for real. 68.164.132.95 23:26, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

User 63 comments on Franklin Rosemont appears to be questioning the validity of Mr."Andre" Rosemont, but I will definitely agree that he is real. Yes, we all know that Mr.Rosemont is real, but is he a real historic and significant figure in contemporary surrealism, even considering the period from after Breton's death, 1966, to now? I do fully agree and know that Franklin Rosemont is real and he is alive and living in Chicago. What kills me is that anyone who is seriously interested in surrealism and the wants to do some serious research as well, has much difficutly in obtaining any extensively documented material, basically the RESULTS of the Chicago Group's Surrealist Explorations and Activities, without having to pay a price$$$$. He and his wife do run a, "store" hawking $urrealist publications that are completely the dominant containment of him and his group of friends. 63 has a point. There is so much visual material of surrealist groups in pictures alone, that provide a worthy investigative research into this wonderful movement, from the 20's to the 50's, but after 1959, it does go kind of downhill from there, I am referring to the visual group pictures, etc,etc. Remember the sleeping pictures of DESNOS? They are historic, but also very enlightening and revealing. Even some of the apparently staged surrealist group photos of Breton and company in the 20's (them all huddled around Breton's first wife at the typewriter or the picture from the 1930's of the surrealist group listening to a reading by Gisele Prassinos) still provide very good evidence for RESEARCH! Boyer can prove me wrong here on this point, but didn't Rosemont and his group FAIL at creating ANY LASTING SOCIAL ACTION for Surrealism? Wouldn't that fact be recognized in the history books? It is not. Oh, before I forget, in Mr.Rosemont's edited book by Andre Breton, "What is Surrealism" (Pathfinder Press, $34.95) go to page 471 and read Franklin's own words, "The French group, it is true, later disbanded after a long internal crisis." He is referring to the GPMS, Paris Surrealist Group in the years around 1968 to 69, two years after Breton died. Jean Schuster did disband the group. I recently went to the current, "GPMS: Paris Surrealists" website (that is what you see online now, Marie D. Massoni, Guy Girard,etc) and I came across a statement from one of their, "members" that the group did not disband, I think it was Vincent Bounoure or Michel Zimbacca (Boyer can again prove me wrong, I do encourage it Dan) that they claim it never ended, but hey, isn't that statement a little late on the fugazi?24.168.66.27 05:24, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You can include this information (debate as to whether or not the group disbanded) in the surrealism article, though it may be a little too detailed for this and you might want to include it in the GPMS article. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:50, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Surrealism After Breton

The "Surrealism after Breton" should document all of the above POVs. NPOV means documenting POVs and giving some ability of the reader to judge credibility.

1. Whatever anyone thinks of Rosemont. He is notable - there are paper publications and recognitions of the Surrealist Group of Chicago in places such as the New York Review of Books. Not friendly recognition, but "notable" is the standard here. Having published and been commented on by others means notable.

Agreed. --Daniel C. Boyer 21:20, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

2. Document the controversy - if there are conflicting statements about what happened to Surrealist groups after Breton, then it is NPOV to document who said what about whom.

Agreed, so long as it is truly NPOV and comprehensive. --Daniel C. Boyer 21:20, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

3. Document the activity - I have been trying to add bits that link to documentable activity of Surrealists, including Post-Breton shows and exhibitions. There were shows including new works in 2000 and 2002 by people who had been in Paris in the 1930's.

As long as this is not restricted to "shows and exhibitions," agreed. Plus there is no reason to exclude exhibitions by The Surrealist Movement in the United States and other "new" groups including the World Surrealist Exhibition (which was the most extensive-ever surrealist exhibition). Other shows, such as the 1993 Totems Without Taboos show, are perhaps too great a level of detail to get into here. --Daniel C. Boyer 21:20, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

4. Document influence.

Stirling Newberry 13:55, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Surrealism the category

Added Chagall, Maddox, Gascoyne to Category Surrealism. Added Surreaslism to Modernism and Postmodernism. Stirling Newberry 13:57, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Boyer statement for today

exact quote, "Moreover, Rosemont is only one of the significant figures who have carried on surrealism". Well, Dan, I kindly ask you, please PROVE that your friend is, "significant"? I ask Stirling to contact Mary Ann Caws (she is an expert on Surrealism, no matter what Boyer says) and I think you can reach her at the CUNY (in New York City) University, or just go to her site and drop her a note. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't she and Jennifer Mundy (another expert on Surrealism) CURATE the, "SURREALISM DESIRE UNBOUND" exhibit at the Musuem of Modern Art in 2002? They have a book on it too, I have it, its real good. I think Mary Ann Caws has a website and contact info, see what she has to say about the, "significance" of the man who trashes her in his publication, ARSENAL?24.168.66.27 05:41, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Document the controversy. Stirling Newberry 13:47, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So, how is this article now?

Well,Daniel, how do you think this article is going now?63.169.104.2 21:03, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ok, put Rosemont in

but please take out the brainstorming passage, it is complete garbage and it ruins the article. Please take it out. It might be a good idea to let Boyer present material that is more credible to the article. Stirling, I am going to have ask you to please sit back and re-think any future additions you make to this article. You place way too much emphasis on how surrealism has, "influenced" many of the components of what surrealism originally intended to destroy. When someone removed one of your HUGE additions, it is not vandalism, by the way. I am going to have to ask you to let Boyer review this article and present the material that really upholds the integrity of surrealism, while creating a great article. Boyer(though I do hate him) has more knowledge of surrealism than you. Stirling, you really have no real grasp of surrealism, if you did, you would know that it really intends to (leave as its cultural legacy) overthrow capitalist society. This article makes me want to puke.24.168.66.27 05:30, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Instead of trying edit wars, censorship, blanking, turf edits and so on. Why not write a section on "the aims of the Surrealist Movement"? Stirling Newberry 14:16, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC) (edited my own typo) Stirling Newberry 21:09, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This might be a good idea. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:12, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Honolulu Surrealist Group/Portland Surrealist Group

Are these really notable? Wiki isn't a web guide. Is there someone associated with either who is notable? The Chicago Surrealist Group is notable - one can find examples of who they are and what they did. HSG on google comes up with --- 3 hits. Have they run an exhibition? These have been taken out and put in several times. Alternate suggestion if they are not notable is to have a page "List of Surrealist Groups" - and

A message to Stirling in good faith about the "brainstorming" passage

Stirling, I can see that you are intent on letting the "brainstorming" passage stay in the article. To avoid any edit war, I will no longer remove the passage, since you feel that the information is important to the article. I just need to know that the reference source IS from any books on Surrealism and where I can find it. Also, can the passage be condensed at least? It is real long, but that is how I see it.24.168.66.27 18:55, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I withdrawing it as too controversial for this group. The relationship of Brainstorming and Surrealism is a commonly established link in what is called "creativity studies". Stirling Newberry 19:07, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My suggestion would be that the brainstorming passage be pruned down to be quite short as it is really, at best, of minor significance to the article. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:36, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Another message to Stirling and to all about Contemporary Surrealism today

Stirling, I need to let you know that IF there is ever going to be any passage or paragraph on Contemporary Surrealism or Surrealism after Breton, I must stress the importance of this fact as it is inevitable to begin with, as you will see. ANY, "Surrealist Groups" and any, "Surrealists" that are active today and operating under the surrealist label are: SELF-LABELED or SELF-IDENTIFIED SURREALISTS, even if they share affinities with one another and acknowledge the other as an authentic surrealist, they are not!!!! There is no such thing as, "being a surrealist" because some relative fellow traveller and unknown claims they are. Stirling, Daniel C.Boyer is a SELF-IDENTIFIED SURREALIST and so are his friends. They are: "The Portland Surrealist Group" consisting of Brandon Freels and MK Shibek (real name Jim Redden) and Morgan Miller (who is a bartender in Portland) and two others whose names I forget, they claim to be authentic surrealists, but they are not. Then there is "The St.Louis Surrealist Group", which consists of Andrew Torch and Ronnie Burke and Susan Burke, obviously you can see that this is a group of three friends. Then there is Eric W.Bragg, a self-identified surrealist who runs a terrible do-it and build it yourself website, surrealcoconut.com who writes about himself on his website and his friends as contemporary surrealists. They are self-identified surrealists and the website is very misleading too. Then there is this "Honolulu Group" that Boyer tries to keep promoting on here in the links section, that NOBODY knows about. Then there is Xtian and Lady Hannah Cadaver, from Melbourne, Australia. They are two self-identified surrealists, who are really Goth Artists, who are also friends of Boyers. In fact, everyone mentioned above is friends and collaborators of Boyers. Then you have Zazie, a self-identified surrealist and friend of Boyer's, who is really a WEBIST and denies this fact! She exhibited all over Europe in Webism Art Events and now she claims she is an Ex-webist because the self-identified surrealists in the "GPMS, Paris Surrealist Group" denounced Webism in a public statement. Stirling, can you see why Boyer is so intent on editing this article with his POV? Stirling, when I was rude to you, I apologized. When I insulted you, I apologized and when I removed your edits, I offered good faith in no longer editing what you wanted in, like the brainstorming. At least I can work with you. Boyer has an angenda to promote him and his friends as surrealists and they are the ones who really capitalize on this great movement, and they are all full of shit. That is a fact.24.168.66.27 19:18, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The standard is notability. Has anyone other than members of this group written about thm as surrealists? Stirling Newberry 20:31, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What group do you mean here? I can reiterate that Rosemont is mentioned in the Grove Dictionary of Art, and add that the World Surrealist Exhibition was written about in ArtNEWS, as part of the extensive media coverage of that event. I would also look at the Amazon.com entry on Penelope Rosemont's Surrealist Women (published by the University of Texas Press) and note that Franklin Rosemont online for Britannica. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:25, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There was an excellent book called, "Making History" about Surrealism written by Kristen Strom, that does have Franklin Rosemont's, edited book, "What is Surrealism" by Andre Breton mentioned in its index. As for the people mentioned above, the answer is no. Again, I recommend that if you are REALLY interested in getting the facts on Surrealism, get in touch with Mary Ann Caws. These friends of Boyer's are really a scattering of writers, poets and artists that claim they are surrealists, like the pirate-radio expert Ron Sakolsky's "Surrealist Subversions" which Boyer is a contributor. That is why I protest any edits by Boyer in the Surrealism article, he DOES have a stake in promoting him and his friends and Wikipedia Surrealism articles and surrealist related articles are there for him to exploit. Even the, "Craven Destiny" turned out to be a major dud, as did the attempts by Zazie and Boyer's friends to morph Webism with Surrealism, also backfired on them, big time! Even Zazie's comrades denounced the Webism Art Movement. Stirling, you are really new to all of this, I can see. Its a shame you were not around to see what Boyer's friends did to Now Surreal.24.168.66.27 20:46, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've been in contact with Mary Ann Caws already, along with some other people on post-Breton Surrealism. The question is not whether I approve of their activities, the question is whether it is notable. I've heard of Ron Sakolsky, which means the entire controversy at least impinges on being notable. If there is a controversy, then it is to us to document it. Is there a page on Webism, a denunciation is, at least, notability. Stirling Newberry 21:08, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Need to add Radovan Ivsic and Annie LeBrun. Stirling Newberry 21:08, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes, Annie LeBrun, who was active in surrealism from 1963 to 1969, and is still active (on and off), yes, yes?24.168.66.27 21:30, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Stirling Newberry 21:48, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You might want to read about her, and many other women who participated after the approved period of surrealism, in Surrealist Women. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:26, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Stirling, please take a look at this overwhelming evidence

Stirling, please take a look at this overwhelming evidence regarding WHY Daniel C.Boyer is so intent on promoting his POV and version of the Surrealism article. Please take a look at this URL here on Wikipedia no less and read down to the second paragraph, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Daniel_C._Boyer "Two of my articles, "Are You Crazy?: Mental Illness and Whiteness" and "Seattle 1999 - Just the Beginning," and one of my drawings, "The Breakfast Club," were published in Surrealist Subversions, edited and introduced by Ron Sakolsky."

Now, Stirling, go to the Wikipedia Surrealism article and scroll down to SOURCES and look for the Sakolsky book, which Boyer blantantly promotes on here. I will remove this from the article tomorrow. It cannot stay while Boyer is allowed to edit this article to promote him and his friends.

Stirling, I also ask that a complete review of the Surrealism article be made and any and all of Boyer's edits and additions be investigated with the fullest degree of scrutiny to prevent anyone from using this service to promote their goods. Stirling, I will continue to support your edits, even those I disagree with and challenge, I will do so in good faith.24.168.66.27 21:11, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Notability is fairly simple: has anyone other than themselves taken them seriously? Franklin Rosemont is cited by others, and hence, notable. Since I am adding entries such as Robert Barro, Henry Jenkins and Mary Ann Caws - people should be at least at that level of notability. Stirling Newberry 22:00, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Stirling, what did Mary Ann Caws say to you?

Stirling, what did Mary Ann Caws say to you? Please let us all know! Also, please SPECIFY the SOURCE of the, "Notability" that you assign to your subjects. By the way, Stirling, are you recently NEW to Surrealism, that is, in studying and researching it? Please let us know.24.168.66.27 21:17, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also, please name the people from the post-Breton era that you spoke to and please tell us what they had to say to you, for the benefit of the surrealism article.24.168.66.27 21:23, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Stirling, what did Mary Ann Caws say to you and who are the people that you spoke to from the post-Breton era?

We need to know.24.168.66.27 21:41, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It was Prof Caws recomendation to add Annie LeBrun and Radovan Ivsic. On the advice of others, I linked in Maddox and Gascoyne, and made some changes to Marc Chagall. A friend who is a professor of literature remembered the Shattuck incident and allowed me to find the NYRB letter from the Chicago Surrealist Group. In each case sources, or enough to find sources, were provided, and therefore stand on their own, or not, based on those sources. Stirling Newberry 21:46, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the Roger Shattuck reply (from 1972) is old news, but very helpful for those interested in researching how uncompromising and obnoxious, "The Arsenal Group" was in their own words as can be found here at this link. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/10133 24.168.66.27 04:46, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If we didn't look at art by obnoxious people, we'd be left with very little. Stirling Newberry 04:53, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Then Shattuck ends his brilliant response to these gasbags, "I urge them to read the best and most recent account of Surrealism by a participant: André Thirion's Révolutionnaires sans Révolution". Remember Stirling, this was back in 1972 and even Shattuck states his doubt about this, "group". Notice how he does not state in writing that the, "Arsenal Group" are active participants in surrealism and recommends they read Thirion's personal account. Then ask yourself if Rosemont and company then responded to Shattuck's reply on record and if they did, where can we find it? Stirling, please try to examine this information with severe critical scrutiny if you are going to consider writing any information on Rosemont and his group. I always thought they were full of shit, but that is only my opinion. I know Dan is full of shit, he signed a protest letter, Craven Destiny, stating in writing no less, that he and his friends would show up to the WAH to, "burn all the paintings, etc, etc." They never even showed up to protest.24.168.66.27 05:02, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And Boulez said we should blow up all the opera houses, and later ran one. What is more important is, again, notability. Franklin Rosemont, himself has reached notability, even if a negative kind. What I have not found is anyone who takes the rest of that branch of surrealism seriously as surrealists other than themselves.

Could you please explain why those outside the movement alone are qualified to say who are surrealists and on what basis the Chicago Surrealist Group may not be to be "taken seriously as surrealists?" Is there any argument here whatsoever besides a dislike of surrealism itself? --Daniel C. Boyer 17:05, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Citations anyone? Clearly they exist, but it is easy to get hoardes of websites with references. I'm looking for neutral documentation such as "The Portland Surrealist Group held an exhibition of computer automatic drawings" etc. etc. Stirling Newberry 15:03, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here we go again with your novel POV that surrealism is an artistic movement. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:05, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Great, add the Annie LeBrun passage, I like her. Also, please add anything on Conroy Maddox, he was a true surrealist. Where is the NYRB letter from the Chicago Surrealist Group, I want to read it too!!!24.168.66.27 22:07, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I corresponded with Maddox, in case that poisons him as a surrealist in your book. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:05, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hey Dan, you also exhibited in a show that Terrance Lindall curated, "Apocalypse 1999" at the WAH center! Your name is on the website page! ITS LIKE WE ARE ONE BIG HAPPY SURREALIST FAMILY!!!

I'm still not finding anything but self promotion here. Stirling Newberry 17:39, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Its not self-promotion, its fact. As for you completely taking over the article, I completely disagree with ALL your edits and I retract my previous reproach with you since you do not edit the surrealism article in good faith. The article was much better when Boyer was editing it, even though I vehementely disagree with Dan and do not like him, I respect his edits! Dan did not take over the article like you did! You are treating this article like it is your own playground for promoting your opinions on Surrealism. When you see that it is a fact that surrealism is not an art movement and you flood the article with art information and then you are challenged on it, you call it vandalism, that is not good faith. I disagree with Dan and I have much hatred for his version of surrealism, but he has the right to edit as do I and its not self-promotion.24.168.66.27 18:14, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Wigdor gets mentioned if you mention Rosemont and the other groups!!! Surrealism is not a closed movement made up of scattered groups, its an open movement for many artists and poets and writers that participate in Surrealism, like Wigdor did with SURREALISM 2003, the online event and like Lindall did with BRAVE DESTINY!!! Fair is Fair and Surrealism can only transform life if it involves all, including Stirling Newberry.24.168.66.27 17:29, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Self-promotion=not notable. Wiki isn't a web guide, and it isn't a free site for distributing press releases. So far the documentation that anyone cares about these people other than themselves has been zero.

I'm not sure which people you mean here. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:18, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please reread wiki-standards on NPOV, notability, not promoting a personal website, citation of sources, wikiquette. Stirling Newberry 17:51, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Much needed revisions on this article. Surrealism is not an art movement

I decided to agree with Boyer on this very important fact: SURREALISM IS NOT AN ART MOVEMENT! All misleading and unsubstantiated claims cannot stay in the article, like all the overwhelming art information that Stirling has flooded the article with, I have to agree with Boyer on this fact. Surrealism does not leave its cultural legacy to someone who edits this article as a preface to an art catalogue.24.168.66.27 17:57, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why no passage on Louis Aragon?

This is an outrage! Aragon's contributions to surrealism in its development are historic.24.168.66.27 18:21, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree he should be mentioned. Be bold and do it yourself! --Daniel C. Boyer 19:14, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Four Reverts by Stirling today, count them

Four in one day! He has literally taken over this article. Its ruined!24.168.66.27 18:24, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In case you did not see what happened

Stirling is now accusing me and Daniel C.Boyer of violating Wiki rules today and he has reverted the page five times today. I gave my last revert today (the third and last in accordance with Wikipolicy) and Dan only gave one revert, if I am correct. I did not violate any rules today and neither did Dan. Then Stirling makes a statement that we did violate rules but has no evidence. Now he wants us blocked just because we disagree with him. Hey, I disagree with Dan practically 99% of the time, but I reach agreement with him. Stirling, it appears wants to control this article, am I wrong?24.168.66.27 19:03, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am requesting that you both be blocked, and procedings to permanently ban you both as being unable to follow even a modicum of wiki rules, as well as obvious attempts to game the system. You and Boyer are both POV trolls and problem users, and my patience is at an end with both of you. Stirling Newberry 19:11, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You are a POV troll who is "unable to follow even a modicum of wiki rules". If you will read this talk page and the archived talk pages you will see that there have been a number of times I have agreed with you, I was willing to work with you on the post-World War II section, but you have persisted in reverting (including valuable information you've not disputed the value of) and stonewalling. And what do you mean, "obvious attempts to game the system"? --Daniel C. Boyer 19:17, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)