Jump to content

Talk:Surrealism/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Surrealism

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Graham87 (talk | contribs) at 11:22, 10 August 2011 (moved Surrealism/Talk to Talk:Surrealism/Archive 2 over redirect: revert). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

The Talk:Surrealism discussion page has been archived 9 times.

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

This page was 114k so I archived 18 sections from the top and moved them to Talk:Surrealism/Archive. In the future, please try to sign your posts with ~~~~ (automatic name+timestamp) so that the identity of comment authors will be preserved through archiving. Most of the text I moved was signed, but a lot of the newer discussion that is still here on the talk page is not. Signing one's old posts would be helpful in making the discussions here more readable. ~leif @ On preview, the page is still 97k, but a lot of the remaining text does relate to the current issues so I'm not archiving it all yet. ~leif @ 23:22, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What about Freud?

In Manifestoes of Surrealism by Breton, he clearly stresses the scientific foundation of Surrealism, nested in the thoughts of Sigmund Freud. I think this should be mentioned at the beginning of the article somewhere. I'll have to get back to you when I've read the manifestoes again so I can be sure this is right. Objections? - Sigg3.net 07:41, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Dali bias?

"Dalí was in fact expelled from the surrealist movement in the late 1930s for his far right-wing tendencies, and after that time his painting has little significance for surrealism, moving further and further away from the movement." -How exactly do you expel someone from a MOVEMENT. This entry also seems to point to a political POV or bias, specifically that one must be either left-wing or at least not right-wing to be involved in this form of art or a movement to participate or promote it. This seems to be a rather unfounded belief to claim that a person's political beleifs qualify or disqualify them as being an artist.

This is radically point-missing. Surrealism is not a "form of art" or an artistic movement, and qualification as an artist is irrelevant to qualification as a surrealist. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:49, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The fact that he was expelled, then? Change what he was expelled from. He was expelled from a group of people who didn't recognize his work as true surrealistic work. He lost his friends. - Sigg3.net 11:31, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I tried to compromise on the points made but saying somone has "far right-wing tendencies" is most defintely a POV. I took out far and because of the movement question I added reportedly. I think the authors point still gets across with these edits. -GrazingshipIV 19:22, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

Ok the current version is probably the best it is going to get. thanks.

GrazingshipIV 21:40, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

Article Format

I came here because I was interested in finding out what surrealism is. This article doesn't help me as much as I'd like. It opens with a very general statement about the movement, then instantly starts listing instances of surrealism (usually without explanation, forcing me to follow numerous links). I'm sure that it's a good compilation for those familiar with surrealism, but those of us who don't know it are left baffled. Most entries on movements (literary or otherwise) begin by identifying chief characteristics, etc. -- they certainly should, I think. Can someone here put in a paragraph early on that explains in more direct terms what, exactly, surrealism is? I'd appreciate it. Jwrosenzweig 16:56, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've made the same comment earlier. Perhaps also an additional article on surrealism (art) would be of use to those of us whom primarily identify the movement with art. --zandperl 02:47, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Surrealist postage stamps

Where should surrealist postage stamps be mentioned? --Daniel C. Boyer 00:19, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Why is "The Surrealist Group in St. Louis" in the external links section when it is not a link? Angela. 21:40, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

Angela- I agree, I had removed it earlier, but it keeps coming back. I have no problem with it being in the article, but it needs to be a link. I hope we are not offending by continuing to remove it, but to be included, it must have a valid hyperlink in my opinion. PM - May 7, 2004

Keith Wigdor and Daniel C. Boyer

In all fairness to Keith Wigdor, I deleted the accusations against him in here made by Boyer. This should not stand either. Your position as an "arbitrator" or someone who is acting on behalf of Wikipedia in "fairness" by deleting the response made to Boyer on behalf of Wigdor, is really biased in the favor of Boyer. Please show some restraint in favoring Boyer's accusations as well. Fair is only Fair and comrade Wigdor's position is entitled to a fair defense. If you delete responses on behalf of comrade Wigdor, then it is only fair to delete Boyer's comments as well. Please be fair.

I am not an "arbitrator" but am merely another member of the Wikipedia community, like you, who is trying to get the article right. I removed the accusations for the reasons stated here on your talk page, Boyer's comments, on the other hand, seemed fact-based, though certainly any rebuttal would still be welcome provided that its roots are not based on an ad hominem analysis of Boyer's shortcomings. I am hardly a partisan of Boyer's, and as he can attest, he and I have had several disagreements on suitability of various articles for the encyclopedia. I would welcome your help getting the Surrealism article right, as would many of us, and hope you are here to help with that. UninvitedCompany 23:23, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Dear Univited Company, I do not know Keith Wigdor, and I do not know Daniel Boyer (and I do not know you as well). It appears that there is a dispute over the Surrealism article in Wikipedia, between this Wigdor and Boyer. I am not here to take sides, but I do not agree with the anti-Dali sentiment that is taken by critics of Dali. I have been watching the Surrealism article here on Wikipedia during the past two weeks and though I do not agree with either this Wigdor's position, and this Boyer's position in regards to who is and who is not surrealist, I do take issue with any attacks on Dali and any bias towards this man's work. Dali was a great surrealist and I know for a fact that he was not officially, "expelled" from the surrealist movement. Andre Breton even stated in his own words, that Dali was not expelled, that no one gets expelled from the movement, they just leave. Read Parinaud's book, "Conversations: The Autobiography of Surrealism", Breton admits to differences between him and, "Avida Dollars" but that Dali just went his own way. As for this Chicago Group, whoever is posting in here on behalf of this Wigdor, has a very valid point. There is no website to this Chicago Group and I doubt they even exist.

Look, for example, in the Grove Dictionary of Art (see Wikipedia talk: Requested articles). --Daniel C. Boyer 23:41, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I do know that a man named Franklin Rosemont helped edit a book, "What is Surrealism" by Andre Breton, but I doubt that this man,(Rosemont) even met Breton. Wigdor's friends have a point. Breton was open to anyone taking pictures of him with his friends and followers, all the way up to 1966 when he died, so why are there no pictures of this Rosemont man with Breton. As far as I can see, the book, "What is Surrealism" edited by Rosemont, is a project written with Rosemont's observations being the dominate bias in this case. As far as I can see, I say just leave the Surrealism article as it is, that is the right thing to do. (--anon)

While the Chicago Surrealist Group may very well exist, perhaps the more relevant question is whether they (and Black Swan and the two Rosemonts and so forth) are notable enough to merit mention here. I doubt it, but I don't know for certain. I agree with you that Dali (and Miro and a few others) have left the most enduring legacy; Breton deserves coverage because of his role in initiating the movement.


By the way, the leading spaces you've been putting in front of your text make it hard to read because of the way the software formats it. I've taken them out twice now. UninvitedCompany 20:16, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Dear Uninvited Company, I Love Andre Breton and I also Love Keith Wigdor! Andre Breton is Surrealism! BJF is Brandon John Freels and he is an internet sabouter and has been banned from websites for harrassment and online abuse. I deleted his post attack against comrade Wigdor, if you feel it necessary to delete this post, Uninvited Company, then that is your wish. However, comrade Wigdor deserves to be treated fairly (same as Boyer) and both are entitled to their stake in the surrealist movement. Wigdor is an important part of surrealism! Breton is the most important,since he gave surrealism its international platform back in the day! The Rosemonts still have not shown the public any photos of them with Andre Breton, because it is very possible that they never met him, no matter what invalid statements Boyer and his friend Brandon will make. Again, if this post gets deleted, fine. But any unjust attacks against comrade Wigdor will get deleted as well. Fair is only Fair and Surrealism is for everyone to participate in. If we are to transform the world, then surrealism MUST maintain an open platform for everyone to take part in, not just elitists who stake claim to surrealism like its some kind of special drug to be kept to a few! That's how surrealism has been treated since Breton passed and it is very wrong! By the way, there have been no, "recent" activities of these fugazi, "groups" as BJF, Brandon falsely claims. There is no website for the Chicago Group online (as evident in the dead link) because there is no group! Uninvited Company, believe me when I tell you that BJF and his friends are elitists and in fairness to BJF and Boyer, you can delete this post, if you feel it proper. However, my friends and I will defend comrade Wigdor against any internet attacks in here. Peace! Daniel Jiminez, Surrealist (from Astoria) Word out!

Dear Uninvited Company, I respect your insight and fairness. I need your insight into this matter. Daniel C.Boyer has posted links on Wikipedia to a website called Surrealcoconut.com on to the Wikipedia pages for Surrealism and the Surrealist related pages. Daniel C.Boyer very well knows the fact that Keith Wigdor is being viciously Attacked on this website by his friend, Eric W.Bragg and it is illegal! I ask of you, Uninvited Company to please investiage this matter (regarding Wikipedia having this sites link) with fairness and tell Dan not to post any surrealcoconut.com links on to Wikipedia, for the website Intentionally Abuses Keith Wigdor online and it is libel. This Eric W.Bragg, is a close friend of Dan Boyer and he is stalking and harrassing Keith online for the past 2 years. If you do not believe me, then take a good look at what Dan's good close friend Eric did to Keith on Eric's surrealcoconut website,(which Dan posts the sites link on here) here take a look at this harrassment which Dan Boyer approves, http://www.surrealcoconut.com/doorwig1.html

Dan Boyer has posted links to surrealcoconut on to Wikipedia and it is not right that this surrealcoconut website gets traffic through Wikipedia thanks to Dan Boyer's friend Eric W.Bragg helping hurt Keith. What I am saying is that Dan does not post the page link that hurts Keith, but people can get on to there from the links on other Wikipedia pages and then go to the Doorwig Abuse Page. There are pictures of Keith on there that abuse and slander him and this Eric Still has not removed this libel offline! Or how about the other websites that Dan Boyer's friends created to abuse Keith? Uninvited Company, just look at this and then try to understand. Dan Boyer does not deserve such special treatment on here (or am I wrong?) since Dan has attacked innocent surrealist artists online. Dan will deny this, but I can show you the arson threat letter that he signed. Dan and his friends stated in their own words that they will hurt other artists and burn their paintings at BRAVE DESTINY's SURREALISM SHOW! Anyway, please take all surrealcoconut links off Wikipedia, if you cannot, then try to understand. Would you like people abusing you online as they have done to Keith? Here is the link in case you overlook it, http://www.surrealcoconut.com/doorwig1.html

Dear Mr. Daniel C.Boyer, Dan, may I call you Dan? Dan, as you well know, your manipualtion of information on the contributions of your friends, has obviously led to the expressed doubts concerning the validity of the contributions of this, "Chicago Group", or the website, Surrealcoconut that you have posted as a reference link on Wikipedia, when it obviously is a site that wrongly harrasses Keith. Dan, you did see what your friend, Eric did to Keith? Is that Fair? I ask of the Wikipedia Community: Is it Fair that the good gentlemen, Daniel C.Boyer, be allowed such a vast amount of bandwidth and available space on Wikipedia, when you all can see that he and his friends have used surrealism as an easy outlet of expression to wrongly attack Dali, Wigdor, and anyone who disagress with them! I ask of the Wikipedia Community that if Daniel Boyer cannot prove or provide any Photographs of the Rosemonts with Breton, or any current website of this, "Chicago Group" then he should provide more of an open point of view to the people who do not believe Dan nor his friends. The people that Mr. Boyer keeps on providing information for here on Wikipedia, Have no Concern nor Respect for Wikipedia in the first place! Did you all see the way Daniel Boyer's friends TREAT those who disagree with them? Did you all take a look at the, "Portland Surrealist Group" Wikipedia Attack on their Forum? What about all those personal pov bias attacks against the great Dali and his valid contributions to surrealism? That is not Fair. Please give others a chance at being involved in a voice. I know you all do.

Dan Boyer and his friends have been banned from websites in the past for forum violations and online abuse. Can Dan Boyer please allow a Surrealist Manifesto to be placed on Wikipedia?

There is a link to Breton's Manifesto. The whole source document is not appropriate for an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. --Daniel C. Boyer 23:16, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What about the Surrealist Terrance Lindall and his Surrealist Manifesto?

The URL for this is http://www.cinemavii.com/Events/BraveDestiny/NISM.htm . In my opinion it demonstrates practically instantly how little Lindall has to do with, and in fact knows about surrealism: he was "astounded" by the definition of surrealism Breton's Manifesto of Surrealism provides, and further states his ignorance of any writing about the Manifesto. --Daniel C. Boyer 23:16, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What about the Arson Threat to the Brave Destiny Surrealist Ball at the WAH Center in Brooklyn last year, that Dan and his friends sent wanting to hurt the people in the show and burn their paintings? Dan, could you please just show one picture of Franklin and Penelope with Breton?

Keith Wigdor

Would anyone dispute that Keith Wigdor is not a significant enough person in the history of surrealism to warrant mention on this page? If anyone disagrees I will not be adverse to his being mentioned on this page so long as it is made clear that he is an extremely controversial figure who has been the subject of bitter denunciations by surrealists. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:37, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Dear Daniel, I do agree with you on this point that Keith Wigdor is a very controversial figure who has been denounced by the surrealists alive today.
Given that you then go on to list a number of people as the "surrealist community" after mentioning "surrealists alive today", I would suggest that you have waived your right to say that they are not surrealists after this (unless you present new evidence that has caused you to change your mind). --Daniel C. Boyer 17:17, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Now, what makes Keith Wigdor so unique in regards to his contribution to surrealism is this: Keith Wigdor challenged the entire surrealist community, from Marie D. Massoni from the Paris Group, to Pierre, to Evi, to Brandon, to Dale, to Shibek, to Barrett John Erickson, to Stuart, to Eric, to Hannah, to X, to James Sebor, to Derek S., to Richard D., to Andrew Torch, to YOU, Daniel that Surrealism must maintain an open platform to the public and to denounce any closed door policy that the surrealist groups maintain. Dan, this is why your complaints(along with all your comrades) regarding surrealism being misrepresented by Dali Hacks is very weak to begin with because you and your friends offer no results, no clarity, no willingness to work with others! Dan, you have to admit, you and your friends have not made any attempt to collectively unite to PROVE to us all that YOU all are the real thing. That is Surrealism. For example, why has there been no major International Surrealist Exhibition with poets and artists alike, you know, YOU and Brandon and your other friends.

I took out the silly, I should have originally out in self-serving surrealists.

Dan, please stop avoiding the truth. Brandon is not a surrealist.
What is your basis for this assertion? --Daniel C. Boyer 19:28, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The reason is simple and easy to answer: Daniel, you and your friends cannot even organize any kind of proper collective event that would involve all your friends. Dan, I am not talking about that sham in Ohio, run by backstabbing Craig, either. Dan, if you can prove that you and say, Brandon, can collectively unite to put on a REAL Surrealist Event, International, you know, then you would have some credibility. Dan, what does Brandon look like? At least Artaud made his face accessible, though Brandon is no Artaud, and your friends Brandon is a rather sophmoric poet as well. Dan, I say, get your friends together and PROVE to the world that you all really EXIST! A real International Surrealist Event run by the so-called, real, "surrealists" who you claim are you and your friends. In the meantime, I doubt that you and brandon and all your friends can even put out any collective statement. You and your friends cannot unite on anything, and the world sees this. Dan, ask yourself this, why do you think Keith takes the opportuntiy that you all do not? Dan, you and your friends are not surrealists. If you were, then I say, Really show us! and please no Ohio shams, A Real INTERNATIONAL SURREALIST EVENT, poets and all. I say you cannot do it!!! Prove me wrong!!!
I don't know the background of this dispute, but my reaction to it is as follows; are you saying that a writer that hasn't published anything isn't a writer (using strawman)? Or that a brilliant painter that no one recognizes is no painter (e.g Edvard Munch)? A Surrealist Event? What?! Is it Events that makes the surrealist? I beg to differ... As mentioned, I do not know the background of this dispute, so I'm open for corrections. - Sigg3.net 07:25, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Dear Sigg3, I am not using the strawman fallacy in this case. Maybe Modus Ponen. Sigg3, thank you for your contribution and it would be nice to have more of your input. Sigg3, the case presented here is this: Daniel C.Boyer (and in fairness to the good gentlemen Mr. Boyer)has made attempts to dominate All of the Surrealism pages (and links, thereof) by literally posting way too many articles on him and his friends. This is not the first time that Dan had to debate this overwhelming presence on Wikipedia, look for user MB's protests against Dan as well. This is a case of Dan Boyer using Wikipedia as a means of a Vested Self-Serving Interest in regards to Dan and his friends, when it comes to Surrealism being referenced on this free encyclopedia service. Sigg3, there does exist way too many substantial gaps in validating the truth concerning the contributions of Daniel and All his friends in regards to Surrealism as it is recognized in a historic context. Sigg3, as you well know, Wikipedia is used as a reference for research, (though I will be open to criticism on this point as well), and Daniel C. Boyer has posted way too many articles in the Surrealism pages to warrant a proper investigation into whether or not Dan really has a financial and vested interest in his overuse of posting way too many articles.

Sigg3, the book, "SURREALIST SUBVERSIONS" is written by a friend of Dan's and Dan is a contributor to the book.

Sorry.. It was I using strawman:) I'll have to read this one later, though, I'm running out of cash here.. - Sigg3.net 12:53, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Who is Surrealist Subversions written by? It's an anthology. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:28, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Come on Dan, I know that! Does compiled by Ron the radio guy sound better?

The book is really dominated by a presence secular to the Rosemont's and there attempts at controlling a movement that cannot be controlled. Also, the Dali-bashing by Dan and his friends in their public statements is totally biased and not the way how the rest of the world sees Surrealism. Dan has maintained a secular and elitist presence in his attempts and trying to monopolize this great movement, along with his friends. There are 25 of them, along with Dan, that are way out of line when it comes to presenting Surrealism to the world. Sigg3, ask yourself this question, from a standpoint of curiousity, has Dan provided us all here a picture or a link to where we can find Any Photo of The Rosemonts, Franklin and his wife Penelope with Andre Breton. Sigg3, according to the Rosemont's version of their manufactured historic facts, they claim they met Breton in Dec.1965 and were welcomed into the Surrealist Movement by Breton and his group of friends, the Paris Surrealist Group. Sigg3, I admit that I can be wrong on this next point: Mark Pollizitti's (I maybe spelled his name wrong) biography of Andre Breton, REVOLUTION OF THE MIND, makes no mention anywhere of the Rosemonts. I could be very wrong on this, but I am sure that I remember upon reading the book from last year, and looking in it's index, there is NO mention of the Rosemonts. Not even in the index. Now, again, I could be wrong, but I am going to get the book again and search. Anyway, from what I understand, the official Paris Group disbanded in 1969, and what remains today is a select few friends of the friends of those from Breton's days. This current, "Paris Group" is a sham, as far as I see them. Jean S, disbanded the original group back in 1969, but I can be wrong. Anyway, Dan Boyer and his friends, the Rosemonts and all there comrades, claim that Franklin and his wife Penelope are the leaders of this, "Chicago Surrealist Group" and they are the leaders of, "THE SURREALIST MOVEMENT IN THE USA". They used to have a website, selling radical and revolutionary books and literature from Pathfinder, with a mandatory minimum purchase of $25, no less to one's credit card, (oh so revolutionary, Ka-Ching$$$). Anyway, these people, Dan and all his friends, State that it is HISTORIC Fact that the Rosemonts met the greatest living poet and surrealist of the 2O century, Andre Breton back in Dec.1965. I say that is a made up story, and I say to Dan and all his friends, PROVE it! Please show a picture of the Rosemonts with Breton, so we all here at Wikipedia can see the Truth! History will be verified and this story will become fact. As far as I am concerned, Dan and all his friends are just trying to make a name for themselves in the arts, (they will deny this) and use Surrealism as their platform to make some easy money. I really do want to be proven wrong. Please Dan, just ask the Rosemonts to show us the picture! That would be nice. By the way, Dan is a very good artist, but not a surrealist. He is somewhere in the Avant Garde, so it would be cool to the Wikipedia Community to decide, because Dan is a good artist, very experimental and interesting, that I will not deny. In the meantime, Dan, Please just show us a picture of the Rosemonts with Breton? Please....

What's this?

What's this:
Dali proved to become surrealism's greatest success even surpassing Breton.
Even though there was an element of internal competition within the group built around Aragon and Breton, also admitted by Breton himself, this has nothing to do with the result(s) of the surrealistic experiments the large group performed on numerous occasions. Heh, Soupalt almost killed someone when set into trance once, and during the same gathering others were brutally waken up before committing suicide. To say that Dali proved to be(come) surrealism's greatest success has got nothing to do with surrealism itself (or, an Sich), but the "level of fame" among outsiders. The outsiders, those who read and enjoy the result of surrealist experiences, should not be regarded as "an audience" to the same extent as the audience of Dada performances, normal bookreadings etc. etc. Blah, blah, blah. My point is this: would we like to write an article about how surrealism percieve itself or how others have "mistaken" it to be an artistic movement? (Failing not to repeat Boyer) - Sigg3.net 21:38, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think what you say is essentially true, and I think an article along these lines (but what would it be titled?) might be good. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:07, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I can see that most people wouldn't consider it "mainstream" enough to be 'pedia material, but should'nt this be part of it somehow? Maybe one should just do an external page and link to it? - Sigg3.net 17:15, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Dear Sigg3, it is a fact that Salvador Dali proved to become surrealim's greatest success, considering the overwhelming historical records and facts that document Dali's work. Sigg3, if you are to, " write an article about how surrealism percieve itself", you would then be placing yourself (and those few) that share your point of view as the sole reference on how surrealism is perceived by the world as they log on to Wikipedia to research this great movement. Please be fair, I requested closure on this issue, in regards to facts. I would like to build an article page for Terrance Lindall's Surrealist Manifesto. Sigg3, correct me if I am wrong, but Wikipedia is a Free Encyclopedia and we have an obligation to present facts, not favoritism to those, "in good standing". This is becoming a closed doors, private members only club, and I would like to be proven wrong. Please be fair.

Point taken and agreed. If I was understood as arrogant on this matter, I apologize, because that was not my intention. I do believe we're all better off presenting Surrealism as "an artistic movement", since we must expect students to use this in their tasks etc., but I also think that we should do an "alternate version" linked to it. This could be done by me and others writing and publishing on an external page and then link to it, or it could be done wikipediawise (which I do believe would be most 'democratic'). I'm no propagandist, and having "amateur-studied" Surrealism for at least a year, I'd say that most of "what the people thinks" about surrealism is wrong. But, as a 'pedia, the perspective at the matter should be broad enough to be acceptable to anyone. - Sigg3.net 10:55, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Intro

I don't know much about surrealism, but the intro looks odd to me. Are Keith Wigdor and this Terence fellow really the pillars holding up modern surrealism? It seems a very odd placement for controversial info -- I almost cut the sentence referring to them, but then decided that I don't know this movement well, and perhaps they are that notable. But can there be some references proving their notability? I think that would improve things. Jwrosenzweig 17:33, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Dear Jwrosenzweig, Yes, Keith Wigdor is a Surrealist who has established an online event of contemporary surrealism in 2003, this was called, SURREALISM 2003. It featured over 15 Surrealist Artists and Poets(including one of the founding members of The WEST COAST SURREALIST GROUP, GREGG SIMPSON, who is a Legend in Surrealism and has worked with JOSE PIERRE, Andre Breton's personal assistant! There is a fantastic reference material on this group and documented by Jose Pierre as well!) and was a huge online success. Terrance Lindall is the author of the NEW INTERNATIONAL SURREALIST MANIFESTO and he is the man responsible for the International Surrealist Event, "BRAVE DESTINY", at the WAH Center in Brooklyn, New York, last year, which featured 500 plus artists working within the context of Breton's psychic automatism. I am going to place the manifesto on here so you can read it. It is very good and of current historical value in regards to surrealism today. Let me go find it and I will be right back.

7/15/2003 NEW INTERNATIONAL SURREALIST MANIFESTO (NISM) by Terrance Lindall In creating the show Brave Destiny in September 2003 in cooperation with London’s Society for Art of the Imagination, I also, ultimately wanted to take a look at what the living and working surrealist/visionary/fantastic artists are thinking and doing in context of Breton. Going back to Breton’s Le Manefeste du Surrealisme of 1924 and looking once more at his definition, I was astounded.- “pure psychic automatism by which it is intended to express, either verbally or in writing, the true function of thought. Thought dictated in the absence of all control exerted by reason, and outside of all moral preoccupations. As applied to the plastic arts, it would mean the creation of works of art dissociated from attempts to represent anything, involving more the pure free action of the hands without hindrance of thought. In other words, the purest form of surrealism would be abstract expressionism! Since I have not bothered to read the undoubtedly many essays on Breton’s manifesto over the years, I would imagine that this is a conclusion which many have come to. Clement Greenberg said in the Edmonton interview in 1991: “The abstract painters took their Surrealism from Miro and Masson. Not from... and that seemed a liberty for them. And then they didn't paint like Surrealists. But, oh, automatic writing, oh sure. You start off free with a scribble and a few marks... you got started from that. And that was a Surrealist method. They wanted to invent and so they would sit down, a Gorky did, and do Picasso. That's putting them down, because when Gorky did Picasso it turns out he did some damn good stuff. Automatic writing, automatic painting became almost a matter of course in New York on 8th Street at the end of the '30s. It was a way of working up invention, as it were, without worrying about figuration, representation, or symbols -- whatever. The Surrealists were a great encouragement in that respect.” Breton, was most interested in the dream state. He considered Freud’s ventures into interpretation of, and the importance of dreams a great new science. Freud’s influence over psychology and psychiatry, even up until recently, has been great. His theories are perhaps entirely wrong. The one thing he was able to prove was that “belief systems” have a great influence on human behavior. It is the placebo effect. If one believes the interpretation of a dream will help the patient, then the patient can be cured of what ails him psychologically. Belief systems help us operate in the world, but they are not always based on fact. The Ptolmeic view of the world as the center of the universe probably was a very workable hypothesis until it failed to help in navigating at sea. Yes, the dream is the important central sustaining foundation of what the surreal, visionary and fantastic are about. Breton said at the beginning as a sort of lament, that “we are...living under a reign of logic.’ This was undoubtedly because the physical sciences and industry were beginning to show signs of dominating the thinking and spirits of men. But in fact, men’s spirits have never been ruled by logic, and the tools of logic as applied in science and mathematics only serve to deliver to the man what he irrationally desires as an animal. Breton says,” The mind of the dreaming man is fully satisfied with whatever happens to it. The agonizing question of possibility does not arise. Kill, plunder more quickly, love as much as you wish. And if you die, are you not sure of being roused from the dead? Let yourself be led. Events will not tolerate deferment. You have no name. Everything is inestimably easy. “What power, I wonder, what power so much more generous than others confers this natural aspect upon the dream and makes me welcome unreservedly a throng of episodes whose strangeness would overwhelm me if they were happening as I write this? And yet I can believe it with my own eyes, my own ears. That great day has come, that beast has spoken.” It is this freedom that the surrealist seeks in his art, to create spontaneously, without effort, automatically, to discover the wonder of the universe in all of its manifestation without the hindrance of cause and effect, to feel the fullness of both joy and horror without harm. This is not specifically what the abstract expressionists are offering, but it is what the surreal/visionary and fantastic artists of Brave Destiny are pursuing in their art. How important is this? If man’s intellectual and emotional response to innovation and the envisioning of possibilities is important, then dreams, which are free wheeling manifestations of possibility, based indeed upon the waking experiences of the individual, are important! What about the craftsmanship which is always an important part of the work of the artists of Brave Destiny? This preponderance of excellence, of draughtsmanship and composition, has been disparaged in the recent past by the nonrepresentational artists and their supporters who call them mere “illustrators.” Again, going back to the Greenberg Interview: Question: “Now to get back to this idea of modernism, are you saying that it really does not have as much to do with the way of structuring the picture or setting up the space in the picture?” Greenberg: “What did happen was that Manet started flattening the picture. Fromentin said he was painting playing cards. And Cézanne said about Gauguin and Van Gogh that they painted Chinese pictures because they didn't deal enough with the illusion of the third dimension, that they were too flat. Cézanne, who wanted to get that third dimension, turned out in his last paintings to get terribly flat. And then the Cubists came along, and then the Fauves. The Fauves... ah, that's a special chapter, the Fauves. And it happened... well, it's this way: you painted to make as good a picture as you could -- no program -- you might have a program for making good pictures but no program beyond that. You wanted to paint as good a picture as you could, as all painters try, and you found that it wasn't good enough if you continued to shade and model. That's what happened. I mentioned before: Pollock wanted to model and shade and he found out he couldn't. It didn't come out good. He had to go flat relatively. Nobody wants to paint flat pictures, it's tougher to make them good... “ That is an amusing comment. Greenberg seems to say that all artists would love to paint in the manner of the 16th century master, but the New York School failed! They did come into styles that had what Greenberg called “quality” by pursuing what, through their limited skills, they could in fact achieve, but it was not high representational art. The artists like Salvador Dali and his great living contemporary Ernst Fuchs were indeed masters of the craft of painting. Ernst carried his evolution of this mastery of painting to the point wherein he rediscovered the 16th techniques of the high renaissance masters - the Mische technique. Today he teaches this technique and has a number of master followers including Brigid Marlin of the Society for Art of the Imagination, who is world renowned and teaches worldwide. In America we have Roberto Venosa. In Europe and the United States, many artists are coming back to this method of painting. Today's artists of the surreal/visionary/fantastic genre have in hand two goals: mastery of technique and pursuit of the possibility envisioned in the dream state, as presented in a concrete representation of the waking state. Breton was looking for a time when dreams could be subjected to methodical examination. He said “When the time comes when we can submit the dream to a methodical examination, when by methods yet to be determined we succeed in realizing the dream in its entirety (and that implies a memory discipline measurable in generations, but we can still begin by recording salient facts), when the dream's curve is developed with an unequaled breadth and regularity, then we can hope that mysteries which are not really mysteries will give way to the great Mystery. I believe in the future resolution of these two states -- outwardly so contradict- tory -- which are dream and reality, into a sort of absolute reality, a surreality, so to speak, I am aiming for its conquest, certain that I myself shall not attain it, but too indifferent to my death not to calculate the joys of such possession.” His comment reminds me of this quote: “This is not a dream of a common language, but of a powerful infidel heteroglossia (Donna Haraway, "A cyborg Manifesto")." (I will now borrow heavily from my own “Epistemological Movement” essay, 2001, which appeared in New York Arts Magazine in February 2002. To fully understand the foundations of my statements here you can go to that. ) Amazingly we see Breton’s search for a perfect surreality of an understanding, an amalgam of waking and dream, reflected in Star Trek’s Borgs. They have perfect common understanding, they translate to each other all meaning perfectly, but they have no sense of love or beauty. Is this why our artists rejoice in the uncontrolled logic of the dream state, untranslatable to the waking? Because in the perfect amalgam and understanding of waking and dream there would be no beauty or wonder? Is Breton’s hope a self-defeating one: that the artist is trying to communicate as perfectly as possible an expression of waking and dream that would be opposed to the wonder embodied in the surreal? Would there still be the “Great Mystery” after his vision is fulfilled? The waking and the dream are seemingly in opposition to each other. The very idea that systems and people need not oppose each other and that there will be harmony in nature is absurd. If there is harmony, it is the harmony of process in which things and ideas are created and destroyed, or the harmony that is observed from a distance: the beauty of star systems colliding. At a closer look it is devastatingly violent and frightening. Krishna and Shiva, the gods of creation and destruction, a continual war of creation and destruction, the Great Dialectic. Perhaps the fires of the dialectic wars will burn away the dross to reveal the gold, as Breton's Merging of the waking and dream. The fires themselves have a terrible beauty. In fact, the contradiction of the dream state and waking state, the uncontrolled dream versus the controlled & practical and logical of the waking state, is a necessary condition whose energies of their dialectic yield new possibilities. They give impetus to invention in science and art. They will never be one thing, and should not. We should always be wondering and interpreting our dreams and trying to make them manifest. The wonderment should reside in the place where no language can describe the process of creation, destruction and change, a place of such unknown mystery, Breton’s Great Mystery! Between the realms of waking and dream and creation & destruction, there is an unknown land. It is that land that Breton wanted to understand. The physical sciences pursue that mystery too and have found that “Greater Mystery.” Scientists found a level at which matter did not behave in a predictably determined manner. To describe this in the language of mathematics Heisenberg stated his famous "Indeterminacy Principle." . Nothing stands as truth in the world, it is always toppling. Consciousness endlessly transforms. If it did not there would be no consciousness. Transformation is a necessary condition of consciousness. In dreams especially there is transformation without cause. One moment we are flying, next we are somewhere else. The composite self exists as two poles, the dreaming and the waking, reifying the world: The poles are like binary stars pulling upon one another and transforming one another exchanging tremendous energies of insight and creativity. The distinction between mind and body is not valid. That is not to say that only the material world exists. In fact, there is no proof that the material world apart from mind exists at all; rather all we really have evidence of is that there are perceptions. Therefore, mind states and brain states, the perception of either, are perceptions alone, pure and simple. The sensations of the body are also perceptions. All is perception. Dreams and waking reality are of the same fabric. Intelligence can create great art, and sometimes great natural "intuition" does. But "intuition" is the working of the subconscious “dream-state.” What is art? It is the changing of mind states to perceive the world in various new ways with no necessary condition of practical application for procreation or survival, but it does inspire practical inventiveness. Dreams and waking reality are one in the same: perceptions, dual aspects of consciousness! They inform one another, and continually transform the self.

Please don't spam talk pages with source material like this. It does nothing other than limit discourse and prevent reasonable dialogue. All right, you've made some assertions -- give me links to evidence that make your assertions verifiable. Preferably the links should establish the renown of these two surrealists and the fact that they are important enough to modern surrealism to warrant mention in the introduction to this article. Jwrosenzweig 18:08, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
You should just list the URL (which is already above on this page, provided by me) rather than reprinting the whole thing. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:41, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Dear Jwrosenweig, This is not a, "Spam" of talk pages as you so wrongly state. This is taken from a Direct Link of a URL placed on to Wikipedia by Daniel C.Boyer! Please do not attack me nor my posts! That is not fair. Again, Daniel C.Boyer placed the URL that contained Terrance's Manifesto on to Wikipedia, That is where I go this from! Please do not attack and abuse me, by calling my posts spam. That is just not fair.
Unknown poster, it's spamming to post a massive source document in the middle of a conversation. If you don't want to call it spamming, call it something else -- what it is, is unhelpful. It doesn't need to be here -- I can follow the link as well as you can, and read the document, if I wish to. Jwrosenzweig 18:43, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I would like to note once again that Keith Wigdor and Terrance Lindall have been the subject of vehement denunciations by actual surrealists (I took part in this, most notably in the statement against the "Brave Destiny" show, "Craven Destiny"), and to fail to mention this in the article is highly questionable, to say the least, from an NPOV perspective. In my opinion, Wigdor and Lindall claim to be surrealists despite the fact that they are hostile to everything about the movement, and this opinion has been much repeated by other surrealists. In particular, Lindall's extremely questionable connection to the movement can be seen throughout his manifesto (for example, by his being "astounded" by what Breton wrote, something that would be known by all surrealists like the back of one's hand).
If these two who are, in my opinion, minor figures in surrealism (and I do not hestitate to assert that I myself am a minor figure who should by no means be mentioned in this article), are to be mentioned in this article such mention should be severely qualified by the controversy among surrealists over their activities and even the accusations by surrealists that these two are "false surrealists". If this is done I am not adverse to the mention of them. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:28, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, Daniel. I appreciate your help -- what you're saying matches my impression of these figures. I'd say that they may have a minor place in this article, though I doubt it. I think they certainly have no place in the introduction, as though they were hugely significant figures in this movement. Is there any objection to my removing them? Or will someone else do it (you, Daniel?)? Jwrosenzweig 18:32, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I think it would be better if you did it as I was a signatory of "Craven Destiny" and so may not be impartial enough as regards Lindall. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:42, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Dear Jwrosenzweig, I object to any removal of Wigdor or Lindall. I also object to your attack of my post as, "spam" since I obtained the manifesto from a URL that Daniel C.Boyer posted on to Wikipedia. Please be fair.

Unknown poster, you haven't provided any evidence to oppose that removal but a lot of unsubstantiated assertions, and the posting of a huge source document unnecessarily. I'll agree not to call it spam in the now-current sense of "advertising". Spam, however, entered internet slang as a term meaning any unnecessary or unsolicited information that drowns out actual conversation. In that sense, your posting of that manifesto was spam. Jwrosenzweig 18:50, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Dear Jwrosenzweig, you are abusing your role as an administrator on here, since I obtained the information from a URL posted by Dan Boyer on to Wikipedia and the manifesto information was a response to your request for information. So now every post that I make is going to be labeled, "spam"? I feel the rope tightening around my neck as you lynch me. That is not spam, I totally disagree, since I provided the info as a response to the request. You are really going after me,I see, thanks for the fairness. Again, the manifesto info was taken from a URL posted on to Wikipedia by Dan Boyer, let the record show that fact. Please be fair, sir.

Dear Jwrosenzweig, this was the request you made, these are your words, "but then decided that I don't know this movement well, and perhaps they are that notable. But can there be some references proving their notability?" So I posted the manifesto from the URL posted by Dan Boyer on Wikipedia, written by Terrance so that You and the rest of Wikipedia can learn the reference facts that you request, after all, you stated you knew litte about Surrealism, correct?

Please stop overreacting. I am not abusing my role as an administrator at all -- I haven't protected any pages, deleted any pages, or blocked anyone, as a result of this conversation. I asked for references, not for the wholesale posting of a manifesto which proves nothing about its author's notoriety. Furthermore, all I'm saying is that it was unhelpful. I'm not saying you should be banned for it -- I just want to have a productive conversation. Do you object to that? I never claimed I would label all your posts spam. I labeled one of them spam for a very specific reason which I explained. Please stop making these accusations, which are entirely baseless. I have no desire to lynch anyone -- I am not lynching you. I am disagreeing with you. There is an enormous difference. Finally, to repeat an insistence I have made several times, I am looking for references which prove the fame and notability of these figures you are defending. You apparently do not understand this request -- I am not asking to "learn the reference facts". I am asking for reputable sites which explain why these alleged surrealists are notable enough to be mentioned in the introduction to this article when Dali, Breton, and others are not. You have not provided them. I hope you will do so. Until they are provided, however, we have no basis for allowing the intro to remain in your preferred state. Jwrosenzweig 19:12, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Dear Jwrosenzweig, I will agree with this one compromise which I seem to have no other choice.(You are really to forceful, sir.) I recommend that Dali and Breton be mentioned in the very first paragraph of the Introduction. I recommend that Keith Wigdor and Terrance Lindall be mentioned at the end of the article, OK?. I am really giving in to your force, sir. I feel really weak and invalid thanks to your cold communication with me, sir. I have rights and so do you and the good gentlemen, Daniel C.Boyer, who I respect, but strongly disagree with and I see nothing but total bias and favoritism to his POV. Dear Jwrosenzweig, by the way, according to what you said to me above, if I were to provide you any, "reputable sites" that you want, I would still be considered posting spam, correct. I am totally afraid of posting any URL's or Information now, since you have the power to revoke everything I write. You are going against everything I do. I thought this was a free encyclopedia. Thanks for the warm welcome!

I'm sorry you find me forceful -- I am seeing a situation that needs resolution, and am actively seeking it. You shouldn't feel weak and invalid -- why would you? I haven't done anything mean to you -- I've objected to one thing you did, and then generally asked for sources that verify assertions you've made. You wouldn't be posting spam by posting some URLs that verify your assertions -- I've never said that. Please don't imply I did. Just don't post a 5 page document in this talk space when it can easily be linked to. And it's not abusing my power if you fear I will revoke everything you write. If you look at my edits just now, I didn't revoke what you wrote. I can't be held responsible for your suspicions that I may in the future do something to you. I think if you ask around, you'll find I'm actually very careful about never using my admin powers unless it is blatantly necessary to combat vandalism. And please don't pretend I'm welcoming you here -- your comments have made it clear you've been around at least a little while. I'm not dealing with a user confused by this encyclopedia, I'm dealing with an editor who I believe is biasing an important article. I'm glad you're seeking compromise -- perhaps the issue is settled now? I do hope so. Thanks, Jwrosenzweig 19:43, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Well, the article as it exists makes no mention of The Surrealist Movement in the United States, which in my own opinion is unquestionably more significant than Wigdor and Lindall, but at any rate I think it should clearly be mentioned, as should be the fundamentally international character of the 1960s expansion. Yet mention of Wigdor and Lindall is not NPOV if it fails to state how controversial these characters have been in surrealism[1], if it does not indeed state that they have been accused, by surrealists, of being "false surrealists." --Daniel C. Boyer 19:02, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Dear Jwrosenzweig, Thank You! There is Fairness after ALL! PEACE!!!!

You are welcome. I hope this satisfies everyone. Jwrosenzweig 19:43, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Dear James Rosenzweig, There is a fellow Wikipedian friend of Dan Boyer who is making forceful demands on me to block me from deleting what I believe is slander! This is RickK. So, since this person and Dan want to violate my rights, I request that the case be reopened! I will proceed to defend my position!

Question

Has anyone else noted the irony of 24.168.92.117's complaints about Jwrosenzweig's admission that he knows little about surrealism when he keeps talking about Terrance Lindall, whose "manifesto" contains an admission that he was "astounded" by even the most basic information about the movement? In the interests of fairness, let me reiterate that I was a signatory of the "Craven Destiny" tract, but someone should note that Lindall himself admitted he was not a surrealist, but was merely a businessman. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:36, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Dan, You know there is no such thing as an actual, "surrealist" even Artaud knew that and Breton refused to admit it! Dan, really, it does not take on any title at all, only in an ideological sense, and I do mean sense. This level of thought that you exert is no different than Pierre's, when he wrote that essay, "Surrealism and the Machine". You and your friends focus way too much on the totality of methods to support all of your results, techniques, arguments and work, yet you refuse to take on real chance. Dan, look at it this way, think how much more effective your work in Surrealism would be if you just detached yourself from the technique? Andre Thirion sees you as I see you. Dan, you need to accept the random chance that you so much try to attain in your work, but it escapes you faster than you can grab it. That is why you have many automatics, I know it. I always knew that. I love how much you defend the gates, a good night protecting the eurocentric holy grail of surrealism.
24.168.92.117 is engaging some more in his ever-shifting arguments. Here is how the argument runs, to the best of my understanding: Since there is no such thing as a surrealist, Messrs. Wigdor and Lindall are surrealists. But by the same token George W. Bush and the Pope are surrealists! He fails to explain what he finds lacking in "Surrealism and the Machine," or what he means by such preciously inpenetrable phrases as "only in an ideological sense, and I do mean sense", "real chance", or [sic] "many automatics". Does this last mean automatically-generated work? One can only guess. And indeed it is unclear what possible relevance his confusing argument about my lack of acceptance of "random chance" (could 24.168.92.117 provide some examples of this?), escaping as fast as I try to grab it, would have to the content of the article. But when he describes surrealism as a "eurocentric holy grail," truly revisionism, or at least incomprehension, can go no further. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:19, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Dear Dan, I would have to agree with you that the Pope is definitely not a surrealist, but I must stand my ground and defend George W.Bush (he is the son of the CIA director and current president)as a surrealist! My goodness, Bush has done more to advance surrealism than Fantamos!!!!!!!!!

Page protection.

This page has been protected since June 26, 2004, and that's a long time. The edit war that preceded the protection is, appropriately enough, quite surreal. Did anyone really mean to have a duel over the link to Surrealist movement in the United States? I'm unprotecting, so play nice, okay? Quadell (talk) 19:48, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

The frequent reverts back and forth are inappropriate; if this continues the page will need to be protected again. -- Infrogmation 18:45, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Dear Infrogmation

Please don't protect the version that attacks Keith Wigdor and Terrance Lindall!

See my note below. If they're important, how about putting some effort into biographies of them? -- Infrogmation 20:48, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Wigdor and Ll

If Terrance Lindall and Keith Wigdor are important figures, how about articles on them? Wondering simply, -- Infrogmation 20:46, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

is a Surrealist

He is a legend and a recognized surrealist! "THE END OF MAN" by Terrance Lindall is a surrealist masterpiece! That is just one of his great masterpieces of surrealism! There are references to Terrance Lindall, the surrealist online, and his contributions to surrealism in the 21st century are now of legend! The surrealist event, "Brave Destiny" was a huge success and is now considered one of the most revolutionary breakthroughs in surrealism for the 21st century. There was over 500 surrealists on exhibit at that great event! Praise, Praise, Praise for the surrealist Terrance Lindall! Terrance Lindall has opened doors to this movement and brought it to the public! This great man is to be praised for his contributions to surrealism and also his brilliant legacy in art as well! Viva Lindall! Viva Surrealism!

Your allusion to the production of a "surrealist masterpiece" gives the false impression surrealism is an artistic movement. Not one of those 500 was a surrealist. And what about Lindall's own admission he is not a surrealist, just a promoter of art events? When am I going to get an answer on this? --Daniel C. Boyer 16:17, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Re-protect

I've reprotected the article after trying to include a good amount of the text from various versions (which I presume will be satisfactory to nobody). Actual discussion (rather than flippant comments and blocks of semi-relevent yoinked text)would be appreciated if people want this returned to unprotected status. -- Infrogmation 21:40, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)


This is not fair

Infrogmation is dictating that this article remain under the control of him only as evident by his unfair lock on the edit. He allows a false statement to remain that attacks Wigdor and he refuses to accept the overwhelming evidence of the reference material on Terrance Lindall, who is a recognized surrealist.

Lindall might be recognized as a surrealist, but he is not recognized as such by himself, and in my opinion, that is usually enough to preclude any other recognition. --Daniel C. Boyer 22:45, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Who is, "Infrogmation"? Is this person a surrealist? It is so unfair that, "Infrogmation" allows a fictitous entity like the, "Portland Surrealist Group" and "Brandon Freels" to have articles on them, Yet there is no proof that they even exist!

What you really mean (unless you are going to even claim anything to the contrary) is that you don't like them. Because I haven't heard any reason beyond this why you say this. Then you follow this up with a webcentric view of research. --Daniel C. Boyer 22:45, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Can we please find just one picture online on who these people are, this cannot stand that a reference site that is open to the public is providing special treatment to non-existent people, who are supposedly friends of Boyer. This Daniel Boyer is treated with such favoritism here it is sickening! I ask that the Wikipedia Community can have the oppurtunity to see if these people are real! Where are there any pictures of this, "Portland Group" and "Brandon Freels"? A compromise was made in the past on this article and I seek resolution.

A REQUEST

I wonder if anyone here with an interest in minor surrealist figures would review the newly-created George Reavey article? ThanksFiliocht 14:31, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

MASSURREALISM

About Massurrealism (see link):

What must be understood, like the nature of subconscious thought, surrealism is continually evolving. Although some do not want it redefined from its early roots, others understand the necessity of evolution or "revolution." Creativity is evolution, and surrealism is a creative movement. Here is another variation:

Massurrealism is a form of art that is rooted in the combination of mass media related art [ such as pop art ] and surrealist imagery. Essentially it is an evolution of surrealism that is strongly influenced by mass-media and technology. The term massurrealism was coined by artist James Seehafer in 1992. Shortly thereafter artists began writing about massurrealism. These essays came from a variety of artists including digital artists, video artists, as well as art directors and graphic designers. The first Massurrealist theme exhibit was held in 1995, in Connecticut, USA. One important point about massurrealism is the common thread among massurrealists, the marriage of pop-art/mass media subjects and techniques to the surreal, which are individually expressed in each artist. These are just a few techniques that bridge the gap between the "traditional" and the newer media. As time progresses, newer media and technology are being discovered. The evolving computer technology alone is changing what is considered "mass-media". A world wide, grass-roots art interest, massurrealism follows this evolution, embodies the mystery of today's society. Expressions of the imagination and the creativity are what surround its inspiration.

Surrealism is evolutionary in its essence as well as revolutionary. But when Massurrealism starts off its definition with "is a form of art," whatever else it might be, it has ceased to have anything to do with surrealism. --Daniel C. Boyer 22:46, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A suggestion, and an opinion

We just had a conversation with Terrance Lindall. He says that the comment in your article that he admitted he was “not a surrealist, just a promoter of art shows” comes from an email conversation with one of the people who threatened to kill the participants in the BRAVE DESTINY show in 2003.

Lindall admits it, you admit it, QED. If even Lindall admits that he is not a surrealist, he should not be described as such in the article. --Daniel C. Boyer 22:51, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Lindall's comment was made simply to dismiss the terrorists so he would not have to bother talking to them anymore. In fact he believes that the ones who threatened to “burn & kill” are obviously trying to re-write the history of surrealism on this site are not credible as artists or scholars.

A history of which he admitted, at the beginning of his "Manifesto," to be almost completely ignorant, given that in it he admits to being astonished at the basic principles of the movement, the first Manifesto, even the movement's very definition as given by Breton. "Re-write the history"? That's rich. And he descends further into obscurantism when he implies that surrealists are seeking credibility as "artists or scholars." --Daniel C. Boyer 22:51, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

He feels that Wikpedia will soon not be credible source for facts if it allows every Tom, Dick, Harry and terrorist to rewrite the history of the world. Also, your links in this article are to some not very important sites. You have completely forgotten about the Society for Art of the Imagination in London and Artvisionary Magazine with its 10 museum touring show in Australia. May we suggest you get a top art historian at a major university to write the article?

Why don't we get an electrical engineer to write the article on philosophy? Or an expert on the history of spiritualism to write an article on knitting? --Daniel C. Boyer 22:51, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Someone from Columbia or NYU? And then lock the page to keep hacks out. Your article is OK up to a point. But every average unimportant person wants to write himself into the latter part of the article.

Terrance lindall prefers that you do not inlcude him in the article if it is continually changed by Mr. Boyer and he is freely allowed to do so by Wikipedia. We appreciate the new edit by "rv,"(last) 20:40, 15 Sep 2004 24.168.91.84 (rv added link) which is finally accurate.


Dear Daniel C.Boyer

Dear Daniel C.Boyer, Daniel, please chill out for a moment and really read what I am going to write to you very carefully. First, you refuse to accept the fact that Terrance Lindall is a prominent figure and very well recognized for his surrealism as proven by the evidence online.

If Lindall himself says he is not a surrealist, I think we can pretty much accept he is not a surrealist. I don't see why we need to go any further than this. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:23, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Intimidation to get someone to state a falsehood to prevent harrassment is certainly understandable. Terrance Lindall is a surrealist.

Daniel, also Terrance is a real person and there is a picture to prove it.

I don't need a picture of Lindall; you are the one who seems to be obsessed with having (or finding) pictures online of everyone. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:23, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Daniel, I can understand that you are real sore at him for promoting Brave Destiny as Surrealism but you have to chill out and take this article from the perspective for the benefit of the public, ok? Daniel, also, I would recommend that you re-evaluate the alliances that you make with the people that you call your friends, since they were so irresponsible to send that threat to the executive director of a very-well respected museum and that also helps the local community as well as local artists, along with threatening the 500 plus artists on exhibit, who are real well respected in the arts and prominent figures themselves. Remember Daniel, some of those Craven Destiny signatures are artists, which was not smart to do! Daniel, I can see that your argument is attempting to deny anyone else that does not conform to yours (and your comrades) mutual convergences, but you still refuse to accept the fact that surrealism is really beyond your control as well as mine. I will quote Terrance Lindall, "men's spirits have never been ruled by logic" this is an exact quote by Mr. Lindall, 7 paragraphs down in his new surrealist manifesto. Daniel, if you want to stay locked into the inertia of Breton's thought, than you have to admit that there are contradictions that even Breton's friends and comrades have acknowledged as well, but just let your mind be open to your own thought too. Daniel, it appears that your good friend Evi Moechel, Zazie, is exhibiting with Pygoya and Ingrid Kamerbeek in their Webism travelling EHHC World Cyberart Exhibit and they are exhibiting with some of your surrealist friends. Is there any difference to the desire that Mr.Lindall and The Society for the Art of Imagination have in regards to staying true to surrealism's intentions as well as their's with the Webism shows? Daniel, Terrance Lindall's artwork is Surrealism and he is a recognized surrealist by others as proven by the evidence online. He deals with Archetypes primarily that break down the barriers of subjective conditioning, that I can see in one of his surrealist masterpieces, "THE END OF MAN". Terrance Lindall's Surrealism captures the relationships that exist with Anima, Animus, and Persona. I can see the heavy influence of Jungian Dream Analysis and Interpretation in his surrealist art. Mr. Lindall examines the archetypal foundations and brings to life the deeper areas of the psyche that is very unique to his mastery of technique. It is like he taps into the collective psyche all the time and amplifies the understanding of the long history of archetype that is so important to surrealist exploration. Daniel, you dislike his status and his experience because you cannot reach that level of insight, if you did, then you would not be making alliances with people who are literal unknowns in surrealism, as evident by their use of being totally invisible, I cannot see what is so covert about your friends, do they have something to hide?

If there is anyone who are literal unknowns in surrealism, it is the participants in the Brave Destiny show, who whatever they may have done in art, have not one of them participated in surrealism in any way, ever, so far as I know. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:23, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If they are so serious about surrealism, then why can't the public get access to looking at them and their work. The reason is because they are unknowns themselves and they can only make a name for themselves by harrassing and threatening established and well respected surrealists like Terrance Lindall. Daniel, even if Terrance Lindall makes a public statement saying he is not surrealist, I will always consider him a surrealist because of the strength and credibility of his work and legacy, plus he does not deserve to be abused by you and your friends, he did nothing to you and Zazie and the rest of your friends to deserve the unjust abuse. Daniel, also, I know that you and your friends claim surrealism as your territory only, then why does the surrealist article mention humanity's struggle and surrealism existing in other areas like Free Jazz? If that is the case, why can't Terrance be a Surrealist?

It is up to Terrance Lindall, and Terrance Lindall alone, that he is not a surrealist. He stated he was not a surrealist. He released a manifesto in which he at first expressed amazement at the basic aims and principles of surrealism, and has, in the manifesto and a number of occasions since then, expressed contempt for those aims and principles. His statements about "evolution" should be understandable to anyone as a thinly-veiled expression of anti-surrealism. Terrance Lindall is the only one excluding Terrance Lindall from being a surrealist. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:23, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Also, Evi Moechel, who is alleged to be an important part of Surrealism today, and she is also a signatory of that Craven Destiny, is exhibiting as a cyberartist with an ex-friend of Keith Wigdor's, Ingrid Kamerbeek? Either way, Daniel, you are faced with way too many fallacies and contradictions, plus I cannot understand the attacks against Mr.Lindall at all, he never did anything to you or your friends. You sent him a threat and you also threatened 500 plus artists as well, and word spreads fast, Daniel. That was really not cool at all. By the way, Daniel, it appears that some of your surrealist friends are not staying so loyal to your own surrealist dogma.

Is there some link to any wikipedia user and some threats of violence or of legal action? This is very important, please spell it out. == Infrogmation 02:05, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What is the reasoning behind the people who are editiing to assert the importance of some people, but who remove the links to their names? Wondering simply, -- Infrogmation 01:32, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Daniel

Daniel, one more thing. I would like to give you some good and sound advice. Please do not allow your friends to think that it is legal and acceptable to threaten and intimidate Terrance to get him to say he is not surrealist, especially if that statement comes from a private E-mail. Your friends were making threats to, "burn and kill" from what I read above and I can certainly understand the Fear that your friends installed into this man to get him to make a statement which is intended to get your friends to leave him alone. I cannot accept that Wikipedia allows you to dominate the Surrealism article (and related articles) while your friends who are responsible for illegal threats, intend to harm innocent artists by their public statements. Again, read the quote from above, "Lindall's comment was made simply to dismiss the terrorists so he would not have to bother talking to them anymore. In fact he believes that the ones who threatened to “burn & kill” are obviously trying to re-write the history of surrealism on this site are not credible as artists or scholars." So you can see why your friends frightened this man so much and here you get special treatment here on Wikipedia to write articles about surrealist people that we are not sure who they really are. Where is the credibility in that? Daniel, I suggest that you and your friends apologize to Mr.Lindall and admit that it was very wrong to threaten to, "burn and kill".


Craven Destiny

Anyone want to read the Craven Destiny threat with all the signatures including Dan's? He did admit to signing the Craven Destiny threat. Also, he is a small man but a big self promoter, trying to write himself into history: One way for a non-entity to become famous...write yourself into the history books! On Boyer in Wikipedia:

In March 2002, a very short article was created for Daniel Boyer. Daniel Boyer is a wikipedian editor, as well as a surrealist artist. The article was very quickly redirected (apparently at least by Stephen Gilber) to Daniel user page. It must be noted that a page for Daniel Boyer was created at the same time on meta, and was a redirect to the article page.


In Spring 2003, Tim Starling boldly created a longer article about Daniel, which Daniel expanded. Daniel also created article pages about himself and his work on at least two other wikipedias (see Talk:Daniel C Boyer/On other wikipedias).


In Spring 2003, Daniel also created a high number of articles about his works, many redirects from different spellings to his name, and added links to the article page in several articles (e.g. years in film). These articles were listed on votes for deletion in april 2003 (see Talk:Daniel C. Boyer/Archive). Strong opposition was voiced, widely considered to be a blatant case of self-promotion. The case was also discussed on vandalism in progress.


- An agreement was reached over these articles. References in other articles were removed. Redirects were deleted, and the content of some of the articles merged with Daniel article page. (This merging was the main cause of the radical expansion of the Daniel C. Boyer article.) Others were kept.


In july 2003, Daniel Boyer main article was also listed on votes for deletion. Were mentionned the fact it was promotional, auto-biographic and that the topic did not deserve inclusion in the encyclopedia (i.e. Daniel Boyer not being famous enough). Lengthy discussions occured throughout summer, and three policy suggestions were made (see Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies, Wikipedia:Auto-biography, Wikipedia:Verification).


- On the 30th of july, a non binding vote took place, which proposed, either "deletion" or "deletion or severe rewrite" or "keep". After approximatively 10 days of voting (no deadline apparent), the outcome of the vote was unclear, and no decision has been taken about the page (see Talk:Daniel C. Boyer/Archive 5). The article stayed in the encyclopedic space.


During summer a discussion over the proportionality of coverage of an non-famous versus famous artist took place (see Talk:Daniel C. Boyer/Article size proportional to fame). The article was edited for accuracy and "coverage proportionality" throughout August by several editors (see Talk:Daniel C. Boyer/Discussion over the content).


On the 7th of September, the page was moved to the user space (as a User:Daniel sub page) as a temp. The page on meta still redirects to the encyclopedic article.



Surrealist music

There should be information about music on this page. Mr. Bungle, Merzbow, The Residents, and some of Les Claypool's projects come to mind... Surely others could help make a large enough list to make the inclusion of these groups appropriate. ~leif @

Section added, though its not exactly what you had in mind. Hyacinth 07:56, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Work on Brave/Craven Destiny paragraph

I don't really care one way or another if the Brave Destiny / Craven Destiny thing is included in this article, but this paragraph is crap in it's current form. I've deleted it and placed it here for rewriting. I'm still somewhat new to wikipedia rules, and I don't know if this sort of thing is allowed, but I herby propose that the paragraph not be re-added to the article until some user or users who are convincingly not this person agrees the text is up to wikipedia standards. If the content is worth keeping, Brave Destiny and Craven Destiny and the involved people should probably get articles too.... I hope that the anonymous user is willing to rewrite this text here on the talk page, so as to avoid getting this article locked in another revert war.

If this action is inappropriate, let me know, and put the paragraph back I guess. But I maintain that this paragraph currently sucks. ~leif @ 07:30, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Here is the paragraph as it stands now (ie what I am describing as crap):

Surrealism of the 21st century is reflected in, "Brave Destiny" and Keith Wigdor's "Surrealism 2003, and has received wide support internationally and has also received criticism from a small contingent of, "surrealists" who are mostly responsible for the, "Craven Destiny" document. Terrance Lindall released an "International Surrealist Manifesto," in 2003." Brave Destiny was the largest exhibition of International Surrealism to date, with over 500 artists working within the context of Breton's psychic automatism as indicated in Lindall's manifesto. The "Brave Destiny" exhibit at the Williamsburg Art and Historical Center in Brooklyn, New York, was organized by Terrance Lindall.

Here is Daniel C. Boyer's rewrite, which is better written but not NPOV enough to satisfy the Wigdor/Lindall fan(s) here (based on their numerous previous reverts):

The "Brave Destiny" exhibit at the Williamsburg Art and Historical Center in Brooklyn, New York, was organized by Terrance Lindall, who in 2003 released an "International Surrealist Manifesto" critical of contemporary surrealist groups, despite later admitting that he was not a surrealist, just a promoter of art shows (though one anonymous person who has not even claimed to be speaking for Lindall said that Lindall so stated merely to avoid the "harassment" of the few surrealists who issued a statement entitled "Craven Destiny" attacking a number of aspects of the show and Lindall); the exhibit claimed to be the largest exhibition of "international surrealism" to date, although it also admittedly also included "Surreal/Conceptual, Visionary, Fantastic, Symbolism, Magic Realism, the Vienna School, Neuve Invention, Outsider, Naive, the Macabre, Grotesque and Singulier Art."[2] Some artists who participated in the show would later state they were not surrealists. Keith Wigdor's "Surrealism 2003" has received some international support, but has also received widespread criticism among surrealists.
  • What is wrong with the paragraph as edited above? It gives a factual view of the events and the controversy; the only complaint might be that it gives too much space to some things (Brave Destiny, the Craven Destiny statement in response to it) and people (Keith Wigdor and Terrance Lindall) who are not very significant in the history of surrealism as a whole. If anyone wants to add to the paragraph that one anonymous person claims -- not even presenting it as a statement by Terrance Lindall -- that Lindall claimed he was not a surrealist just to stop "harassment" by the signers of the Craven Destiny tract, I wouldn't be adverse to that necessarily, but we are really getting into too great a level of detail for an article on Surrealism as a whole. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:01, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • The problem is that another editor wants these artists included fairly, and there as adequate information in a google search that it seems they're worthy of inclusion here. Your version sounds as if the majority of "surrealists" wrote them off. If some did, fine. Put that in. "some international support, but has also received widespread criticism" is not NPOV if it's not indisputably accurate. ~leif @ 18:45, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • A Google search will show that there is much more vehement denunciation of Lindall and Wigdor among surrealists (not the public in general) than support for them. If anything, the version of which you complain already goes too far in the direction of inflating their support among surrealists, which is basically zip. If you want to add something about the support for these individuals among the public, among gallery owners, among art historians, whatever, there is a much larger field of acceptance, even approaching the moderate. But any statement about support among surrealists has gone as far as it can go. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:18, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • I disagree with the line you are drawing between the "general public" and "surrealists". Anybody can be a surrealist if they so desire.
          • This statement is true as far as it goes, but clearly those who explicitly and vehemently reject the basic aims and principles of surrealism are not surrealists (no matter what they say), any more than someone who expressed primary faith in "free markets" is a communist. Furthermore, someone who says outright he is not a surrealist, I think for the most part we would have to accept that he is not a surrealist. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:54, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • If the fact is that there was a large art exhibit billed as surrealism, and wealthy people spent money on pieces of art that they believed were "surrealist", then it was surrealism and it's worthy of mention.
          • Surrealism is not an artistic movement, and it never so situated itself. Furthermore, as I set out in my most recent edit to the Wigdor/Lindall paragraph, the show was not entirely billed as surrealist, despite the anonymous editor's attempt to so mischaracterise it; check out the source. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:54, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • If there was a statement against it written by other surrealists, great, write a wikipedia article about the statement. ~leif @ 18:45, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
            • That's not what I was saying; I was saying that the show itself did not claim to be completely surrealist, and some of the artists said they were not surrealists, which is why I think claims made that the show was surrealist by others (not by anyone at the WAH and not by Lindall) are inappropriate. --Daniel C. Boyer 22:50, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Here is Leif's edit, aiming to becoming NPOV enough to satisfy the other involved editors:

The "Brave Destiny"[3] exhibit at the Williamsburg Art and Historical Center in Brooklyn, New York on (insert date) featured Surreal/Conceptual, Visionary, Fantastic, Symbolism, Magic Realism, the Vienna School, Neuve Invention, Outsider, Naive, the Macabre, Grotesque and Singulier Art, and claimed to be the largest exhibition of "international surrealism" to date. The event was organized by Terrance Lindall, who in 2003 released an "International Surrealist Manifesto" critical of contemporary surrealist groups. Lindall's event drew contempt from many surrealists, provoking a threatening statement against it titled Craven Destiny. Some critics went so far as to claim the show was not really surrealist at all. Despite the criticism, the show was considered a success by it's promoters. Similarly to Lindall's work, Keith Wigdor's "Surrealism 2003" was the subject of both widespread acclaim and criticism.

Here is my (Dan's) revision, which hopefully is NPOV enough to be accepted by everyone:

The "Brave Destiny"[4] exhibit at the Williamsburg Art and Historical Center in Brooklyn, New York from September 20 through November 2, 2003, featured "Surreal/Conceptual, Visionary, Fantastic, Symbolism, Magic Realism, the Vienna School, Neuve Invention, Outsider, Naive, the Macabre, Grotesque and Singulier Art," and claimed to be the largest exhibition of "international surrealism" to date. The event was organized by Terrance Lindall, who in 2003 released an "International Surrealist Manifesto" critical of contemporary surrealist groups. Lindall's event drew contempt from many surrealists, provoking an arguably threatening statement against it titled Craven Destiny. Some critics went so far as to claim the show was not really surrealist at all. Despite the criticism, the show was considered a success by its promoters. Similarly to Lindall's work, Keith Wigdor's "Surrealism 2003" was the subject of both widespread acclaim and criticism.

--Daniel C. Boyer 14:27, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Looks good enough to me. I'm not going to add this back in myself, but if people still want Lindall in the article I support this version of the paragraph. If this does not satisfy somebody, please edit here and wait for someone else to support it, as adding drastically different versions back to the article is likely to result in more reverts. ~leif @ 22:46, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Leif

"I'm still somewhat new to wikipedia rules, and I don't know if this sort of thing is allowed". That is an exact quote made by this person, Lief. First, I really do not see the credibility to mention that Mike Patton, and Les Claypool and Primus as Surrealists, though they are really great musicians and I like their music, especially Claypool's side project from the past, SAUSAGE. I have reservations about them be considered as Surrealists, however I will show good faith and consider their mentioning in the article. This is a big compromise and I request that if you are already opening doors to mentioning hardcore musicians like Mike Patton, who does not promote himself as a Surrealist, then certainly Terrance Lindall can be mentioned here. I still do not see the conclusions that you will not produce, instead of saying the article, "sucks". Then you add the hardcore information. OK, that is cool. I like SAUSAGE and I do find some elements of surrealism related grooves in Claypool's, "RIDDLES ARE ABOUND TONIGHT", so I will allow it as you do. But the Lindall and Wigdor information must stay, even though you are extremely biased towards mention of them and you refuse to provide a credible premise to your argument. Is there any reason why we cannot mention Jacques Lacan as well?

The fact that you blatantly misspell a name that is right in front of you really doesn't help with people's suspicions that you are just a troll.
I did not say Lindall (or anyone else) shouldn't be mentioned here! I merely said that the current mention of him was poorly written and should be fixed. And since the paragraph has been the cause of many article reverts, I suggested doing it on the talk page.
Furthermore, I didn't say the article sucks, I said your paragraph did. I doubt you could find any other editor who would say your paragraph (which I've saved above to give this discussion context) is wikipedia quality.
Lindall probably should be included, and he will be as soon as someone writes some decent text about him. He should have his own article too, but it seems so far all that anyone has done there is copy and paste a copywritten magazine article (see Terrance Lindall). I would like to see a much lengthier Surrealism article that has room for Lindall as well as well as a wide variety of surrealist music, past and present. ~leif @ 18:21, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

See the Terrance Lindall/temp article. Until an expansive analysis of his work is written to supplement his basic history, this will do. Will someone from Wikipedia please properly post it? There was a very cogent bit of material written here on this discussion page by whoever liked his END OF MAN painting.


Leif

Why do you get so bent out of shape over a typo and the misspelling of your name? So what. I misspelled your name! So that gives you the right to call me a troll? I agree that the Surrealist Music should stay. In the meantime, please refrain from name calling and nasty responses. I also suggest an extensive analysis for your input into surrealist music in this article which needs clarification for the benefit of the public that researches surrealism. Leif, just because you and I agree that Claypool and Patton's music is surreal, still needs more support from the analytical perspective. Also, please tell us what you think about Andre Thirion? I would find your response to be very revealing and informative? Leif, Did you get the chance to read, REVOLUTIONARIES WITHOUT REVOLUTION?

"So what. I misspelled your name! So that gives you the right to call me a troll?"
No, I said you're acting like a troll troll because you accuse published groups and authors of "not existing" until you see a photograph of them (see Talk:Brandon_Freels). And because you're not editing the paragraph in question here, and instead just posting your nonsense version back into the article. The name misspelling was just another not-so-subtle example of your edits that could be perceived as trolling.
Please stop reverting to your version, the version where the quotation marks are scattered about randomly and Lindall is implied to be 'the surrealist of the 21st century, and try to work with Daniel on the talk page to make an NPOV coverage of these topics. I'm sure an admin will lock this page again if you persist, and I suspect that may even be your goal. Why do you keep restoring your version and refuse to cooperate?
As for your questions about what I have and haven't read, I'm not trying to have a conversation with you about other subjects, I'm trying to get this article fixed. ~leif @ 21:36, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Who is this Leif?

What is with the unfair and rude troll label? If someone wants to verify the existence of someone who is a current author, wouldn't you want to know if that person was real, instead of the information being prone to total falsehood. It is obvious Daniel Boyer does not want to reach any compromise.

I have repeatedly edited the paragraph in question, despite my believing that it gives far too much prominence to individuals of marginal importance in the history of surrealism as a whole, and includes one individual who by his own admission is not a surrealist, and also gives far too much prominence to one fairly insignificant (in the history of surrealism as a whole) and the relatively insiginifance (in terms of the history of surrealism as a whole) reaction to it. My suspicion is that what you mean by "compromise" is a complete capitulation to your version of events, and this I am unwilling to do. I am willing to do further work on the paragraph in question, and will do so after this edit. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:20, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I cannot see why it is so difficult to honor the integrity of the credible information on the Wikipedia Service. By refusing to verify the subject of an article, the public needs to know if there exists such a person, instead of being overwhelmed with postulates instead of verifiable facts. Leif, look, for the benefit of the public and the ones who use this service to verify facts and information, there exists a need to apply a rigorous discipline to making sure that the facts can be verified!!!! How hard is that to understand? When 63 asks to see a picture of this "Brandon Freels", what is the problem? Why can't anyone lead us to a picture of who this unknown entity is? If minor information is going to be considered hermeneutically more important than actual face value proof to validate that the information is accurate, then you are misleading people with information that cannot be proven credible. After all, we all must consider the facts when someone uses the Wikipedia Service for research and when they are researching Surrealism and even Brandon Freels, can you imagine the feedback that a student will get from his professor if he submits a term paper on a contemporary surrealist named Brandon Freels, but cannot validate whether or not the information is not a prank? Again, one simple picture will prove that a person exists, one who is a contemporary author. Your nasty response proves the need for you to be more sincere to the quality and integrity of Surrealism and its related information, instead of your input on, "minor influences" on musicians. Imagine the effect that will have on a student who is studying surrealism? You give more credence to your tastes than you do to the presentation of facts. Now, can we all please see if this Brandon Freels is a real person, Please???? Also, I have made compromises myself with Jrosenwieg who was an administrator and he provided the necessary closure on the Surrealism article. Remember Leif, you said you were new to all of this, so please chill out with the unnecessary name calling. There can be a consensus and compromise made with Daniel, he has to come to terms with the fact that Lindall and Wigdor are surrealists and both their events are recognized as Surrealist Events. Daniel will again and again provide the statement made by Lindall from a private E-mail to a peson who was harassing and threatening Lindall, coerced by intimidation which is invalid. Where is the civility and credibility in that? Is this what this all has come down to Dan?24.168.91.84 04:35, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I find it very strange that you dismiss Lindall's admission that he was not a surrealist so easily as the result of "coercion" when no reasonable person could conclude that that was the result of the effort of the issuing and signing of the "Craven Destiny" statement. Furthermore, I find it odd that while you presumably do not see any problem with criticising the commitment of the signatories to surrealism after they failed to carry out the "threats" in it, you do not, apparently, see anything to criticize in what may well be a lack of commitment to surrealism on the part of Lindall, who so easily recants after what he supposedly sees as "harassment" on the part of the "Crevel gang." (Do you see anything wrong with Lindall and Nii not having the faintest idea who Crevel was?) Nevertheless, these are essentially irrelevancies as regards the article. I attempted in editing the paragraph to include the supposed motivation for Lindall's disclaimer while not giving it more date than it deserves. If you can produce a statement from Lindall saying that this was the reason for his disclaimer, the qualification should certainly be given added weight. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:20, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Not well knit

i think it must be becoming obvious that Mr. Boyer is not well knit. I think that he will never abide by a consensus. He should really get his own web-site and define surrealism any way he wants. If you go to a page he has set up for himself, his automatic drawing shows extreme jagged lines, which my background in psychology indicates is a fellow who is agitated and a determined fanatic if not something worse. I say we yield to the consensus, which does not include Boyer, and have the article locked.

What are you even talking about? Mr. Boyer has been cooperative in attempting to reach a NPOV version of the paragraph in question, on the talk page, while you have repeatedly reverted the article to your version of the paragraph (with several misplaced punctuation marks, aside from the disputed POV) without making any changes at all. You are the one ignoring consensus. Your references to his drawing style in the context of his wikipedia edits is further evidence that you are a surrealist internet troll. And I must admit, I have found some of your words amusing, but this is getting old. Perhaps in many years from now surrealist internet trolling will be worthy of inclusion in the Surrealism article. In the meantime, please, go play somewhere else. ~leif @ 21:48, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Just to clarify, my comment above is based on the assumption that 69.86.67.198 (who posted "Not well knit", further above) is the same person as this. If this is not the case, I apologize; it would make matters easier if you would make an account or at least sign your posts. ~leif @ 22:07, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Amusing! Since you do not know who I am, whether simply a troll or not, I still say this article should be written by scholars at a university and locked. It is simply not professional enough. Boyer is not informed enough, and a bit "off." When I write an article on this amusing discussion board for a larger paper, it will get some laughs! You people are playing in a sandbox. It is fun, but it will not define surrealism for the 21st century. And it certainly does not do the credibility of Wikipedia any good at all!

It would sure help if I did know who you were; I don't need a real name, just a psuedonym. Are you saying you are not the user I'm referring to above? If you are not, I am truly sorry. Look at the edit histories for the IP's I linked and you will see the problem.
You said "I still say this article should be written by scholars at a university and locked" and that shows your severe misunderstanding of how wikipedia works. If "scholars at a university" wish to edit here, they are welcome and invited! But a page lock is only a temporary measure to protect articles from people who can't play by the rules (ie, this user). Pages are not ever locked permanantly; that would be contrary to the nature of the wiki. If you think this system is "just fun" and not a valid way to write an encyclopedia, please, take your disgust and leave us in peace. ~leif @ 22:07, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Quite right, but leave Lindall and his NISM out of the article! Or you are inviting difficulties. That you have a problem with scholars is quite clear! That says everything!!!

A "problem with scholars"? Where did you get such an idea? Certainly not from my comments above. You're still not signing your posts. Are you or are you not the same person as the other anonymous user who has edited this page recently? ~leif @ 22:40, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Infromation

You asked: What is the reasoning behind the people who are editiing to assert the importance of some people, but who remove the links to their names? Wondering simply, -- Infrogmation 01:32, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

At the time I deleted it, we felt that the article was becoming defamatory to Mr. Lindall, which it would be if Mr. Boyer had his way. It did not seem in the interests of Mr. Lindall to be in a non-scholarly article dominated by a fanatic who hates Mr. Lindall for his achievements. Mr. Lindall's fame does not depend upon this article. I do believe Mr. lindall deserves to be in a good article, since he has literally given public rebirth and recognition to surrealism with the show BRAVE DESTINY. Surrealism has been disparaged for so long in the art world, and thanks to Mr. Lindall's efforts it has been given new credence for all of the surreal/visionary/fantastic artists, not just for himself.

Whether Mr. Lindall wants to be mentioned in the article depends upon how well Wikipedia can control the site to protect the material from small people who want to rewrite a history they have invented solely in their own minds (very surreal, but oviously borderline psychotic). As they say, "neurotics build castles in the sky, psychotics live in them."

Leave him out!

At the request of Terrance Lindall, please leave him out of the article. He finds this whole thing not worthy of being included in. It will also satisfy the incredible Mr. Boyer! If Mr. Lindall is included, we will contact the FCC. It defames Lindall to be included with a group of extreme Left Wing fringe people and in an article which does not reflect the course of surrealism ih our time.

Just a question here: are threats to contact the FCC really appropriate in the context of Wikipedia? I think it would be very problematic to have Wikipedia's content influenced in this way. That said, I would not be adverse to mention of Lindall being excised from the article, but not because you say Lindall says that is what he wants, because he is not significant enough to the history of surrealism. As for your saying "[i]t defames Lindall to be included with a group of extreme Left Wing" people, this is tantamount to an admission that he is not a surrealist. If surrealism is not radical, it is nothing. --Daniel C. Boyer 13:20, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just a question Boyer: are threats to mass murder artists (which you have done) appropriate anywhere???

As for the extreme left wing being "radical, that it is not. It is passe'. it died an ignominious death having proven itself to be detrimental to the civilized world!

I don't object to leaving Lindall out, but it's not Mr. Lindall's decision to make (and the FCC certainly doesn't have anything to do with it either!). So if the above comment indicates that the pro-Lindall contingent here will stop trying to insert him into the article, so be it, that makes things easier. If people continue to put the old poorly written paragraph about him into the article, then I suggest we use the version of the text I said I supported above (Dan's edit of my edit of the anonymous user's original text).~leif @ 23:03, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Quite right, leave Lindall out whatever the reason. His pro-lindall contingent here must realize that it does not help any cause for him to be in it. This article is obviously not going to be of any use to serious scholars on the subject, and this will be pointed out to all of the universities over the years. Better focus all of your energies on a credible presentation in other venues. Best to all!

As for the FCC, it does have something to do with things. Furthermore, Wikipedia is proably a 501 (c) 3 organization. I am a not for profit expert and I know the standards that Wikipedia is expected to maintain. I assume Wikipedia was registered in Florida, so they are subject to the charitable laws of that state too. I guess you can take Wikipedia abroad and fight the pro-Marxist fight there. But here you in a democracy which can protect its population. Maybe you should start a radio free Marxist radio station too.

C.S. Lewis predicted this

Dear Lief: C.S. Lewis warned us about you and Boyer in the Screwtape Letters. You and Boyer have found a way to poison the educational system of the West by using this “free’ encyclopedia to foist Marxist Leninist doctrine on the public by redefining things like “surrealism’ in an extreme left wing slant. I notice that you are deleting most of my comments that support my contentions against Boyer. That is another thing…only your comments can stand in this “free and open discussion.’ I do not expect to win any points on this discussion page because the Wikipedia is obviously infested with extreme Marxist Leninists who want to rewrite the history they have so ignominiously lost. I will in fact take this matter outside of Wikipedia where the matter can be joined. When you redefine things with exteremne left wing anti-American, anti-democratic doctrine as with the web sites you list here do, the intent is obvious. And when you use the sterling All-American names like Terrance Lindall in your cant, you are inviting extreme difficulties.

C.S. Lewis predicted this

- Dear Lief: C.S. Lewis warned us about you and Boyer in the Screwtape Letters. You and Boyer have found a way to poison the educational system of the West by using this “free’ encyclopedia to foist Marxist Leninist doctrine on the public by redefining things like “surrealism’ in an extreme left wing slant. I notice that you are deleting most of my comments that support my contentions against Boyer. That is another thing…only your comments can stand in this “free and open discussion.’ I do not expect to win any points on this discussion page because the Wikipedia is obviously infested with extreme Marxist Leninists who want to rewrite the history they have so ignominiously lost. I will in fact take this matter outside of Wikipedia where the matter can be joined. When you redefine things with extreme left wing anti-American, anti-democratic doctrine as with the web sites you list here do, the intent is obvious. But when you use the sterling All-American names like "Terrance Lindall" in your cant, you are inviting extreme difficulties. + Dear Lief: C.S. Lewis warned us about you and Boyer in the Screwtape Letters. You and Boyer have found a way to poison the educational system of the West by using this “free’ encyclopedia to foist Marxist Leninist doctrine on the public by redefining things like “surrealism’ in an extreme left wing slant. I notice that you are deleting most of my comments that support my contentions against Boyer.

Your accusations against me might be relevant to an article on Daniel C. Boyer, or perhaps a number of other articles, but given that I am not even mentioned in the surrealism article, they are not relevant, and furthermore, such irrelevant attacks, coupled with amateur psychoanalysis, threats, exhortations for people to get criminal proceedings going against me, and, essentially, advocation that the FCC should become involved in controlling the content of Wikipedia -- not only do none of these have anything to do with the content of any current article, but it could be argued that they are damaging to Wikipedia as a whole. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:18, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Do you want a cookie? Because, I am stunned by these allegations and must congratulate the allegator. Yes, Wikipedia itself is infact a "Marxist Leninist" plot against the american education system, conceived by Boyer and myself and foretold by C.S. Lewis, with an end goal of destroying the good american name of Terrance Lindall. I will be happy to discuss this with you further if you'll please start signing your posts (~~~~) to make the discussion readable. Until then, I'm going to have to ignore futher comments from you. But I must congratulate you, as you have finally figured out our dastardly scheme; please, have a cookie, and consider going elsewhere. Goodbye. ~leif 19:59, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That is another thing…only your comments can stand in this “free and open discussion.’ I do not expect to win any points on this discussion page because the Wikipedia is obviously infested with extreme Marxist Leninists who want to rewrite the history they have so ignominiously lost. I will in fact take this matter outside of Wikipedia where the matter can be joined. When you redefine things with extreme left wing anti-American, anti-democratic doctrine as with the web sites you list here do, the intent is obvious. But when you use the sterling All-American names like "Terrance Lindall" in your cant, you are inviting extreme difficulties.

Mr. Boyer is now cutting up my own words on this site and reediting them!! See history!



Roberto Venosa

I strongly doubt whether this individual, who has to my knowledge never participated in any surrealist activity whatsoever, should be included here, and certainly it is questionable to do so without mention of Terrance Lindall, who seems to be the only person who recognizes the great contributions of M. Venosa to surrealism. But I am open to documentation on this point. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:54, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You have to bring respected scholars from major universities into this definition of surrealism. And get rid of this Boyer. He is simply uneducated about "ostensive" definitions which include Giger as a surrealist. Boyer is living in 1930. Boyer's ad baculum fallacies against Wigedor early on were evidence of his lack of an education too!
I never used the word "ostensive" [sic]. Where did this even come from? --Daniel C. Boyer 17:08, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Do you even know what an ostensive definition is?
Yes, but how does it even remotely apply in this case? Definitions of surrealism including Giger, someone who has never participated in any surrealist activity or adhered to surrealism in the slightest, that exclude Giger from surrealism are hardly "ostensive". --Daniel C. Boyer 17:14, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I must say I almost like this new paragraph. Boyer, I am beginning to admire you:
"Some artists, such as H.R. Giger in Europe, who won an Academy Award for his stage set, and who also designed the "creature," in the movie "Alien," have been popularly called "surrealists," though not identified as such by those in the movement, who have criticized their activities. The Society for the Art of Imagination has come in for particularly bitter criticism from the surrealist movement (though this criticism has been characterized by at least one anonymous individual as coming from "the Marxists [sic] surrealist groups, who maintain small contingents worldwide")."

Look Boyer

You and I can get this goose cooked if you will accept this edit:

"Some artists, such as H.R. Giger in Europe, who won an Academy Award for his stage set, and who also designed the "creature," in the movie "Alien," have been popularly called "surrealists," though not identified as such by Marxists in the movement, who have criticized their activities. The Society for the Art of Imagination has come in for particularly bitter criticism from the Marxist surrealist movement (though this criticism has been characterized by at least one anonymous individual as coming from "small contingents worldwide")."

Absolutely not. It makes it seem as if criticism of Giger is, or only could be, limited to Marxists and Marxist criticism, when it is not. And what on earth is the "Marxist surrealist movement"? I've never heard of this tendency (or entity). The below is what I'm thinking is the farthest I could go.
"Some artists, such as H.R. Giger in Europe, who won an Academy Award for his stage set, and who also designed the "creature," in the movie "Alien," have been popularly called "surrealists," though not identified as such by those in the movement, who have criticized their activities. The Society for the Art of Imagination has come in for particularly bitter criticism from many in the surrealist movement (though these criticisms has been characterized by at least one anonymous individual as coming from "the Marxists [sic] surrealist groups, who maintain small contingents worldwide")." --Daniel C. Boyer 19:05, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Daniel, I really must object to statements like "though not identified as such by those in the movement" as they imply that the all of surrealists agree in their application of the surrealist label (clearly, not the case!). It's relatively easy to qualify such statements by saying "some in the movement" and so on. I'm not just talking about the Giger paragraph; there are a number of other places where this applies too. ~leif 20:04, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Leif and Daniel C.Boyer's unjust attacks

Let the record show that the first article posted by Leif was the, "International Surrealists against the RNC", which was immediately Voted for Deletion.

No, this is still in process, though as the vote has gone so far, it is all but certain that it will be deleted. Let the record show that I voted to delete. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:52, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This individual admitted in his own words that he thought that the article was not going to last on Wikipedia. Upon going to this individual's user page, it is evident that this individual's expertise is in computers and programming. That is noble and I commend him on his achievements in his technical expertise. What I do not approve of is this individual's current domination of the Wikipedia Surrealism article and his brazen attempts at providing his version of the Surrealism article, while it is very obvious that this individual, Leif, has no background in Surrealism, no background in the arts, no background in publishing, no background in history nor any connections to anyone in the arts,

Once again you may be implying that surrealism is an artistic movement (which it is not); else what would be the significance of expertise in the arts? --Daniel C. Boyer 16:52, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

especially the surrealist arts and all of the genres that encompass the surreal and visionary. At least Daniel C.Boyer and the internationally recognized surrealist Terrance Lindall and H.R.Giger (and Robert Venosa) have a background in the arts and SURREALISM! The good gentlemen Terrance Lindall's accomplishments are of legend and goes back close to 40 years!!!! H.R.Giger is a recognized Surrealist all over the world!!! There is an overwhelming history of this great surrealist's contributions to surrealism and the arts. Remember, Ladies and Gentlemen, ANDRE BRETON died in 1966!!!! Jean Schuster officially disbanded the Paris Surrealist Group in 1969!!!! Read Polizitti's book for crying out loud! This current, "Paris Surrealist Group" is a sham and not at all recognized by the public nor anyone in academia as current evidence of surrealism! Terrance Lindall's Surrealist Event, "BRAVE DESTINY" received an OVERWHELMING response from the public and press as a SURREALIST SHOW!!!!! I would like to kindly apologize to the good gentlemen Terrance Lindall for adding his great contribution to this terrible encyclopedia service that is on lockdown by Daniel C.Boyer (who is a struggling artist, yes that is the truth!). What total hypocrisy!!! Then, Daniel has the nerve and utter gall to publically denounce a great surrealist, Terrance Lindall, who is world known and promoted as a surrealist!!!! H.R.Giger has been exhibiting as a Surrealist for decades!!!! This is an outrage!!! Daniel and his, "surrealist" friends make up a total of around 25 to 30 people the most, and believe me when I say that they are real unknowns and struggling artists,

Many of them aren't artists at all. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:52, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Yes, Daniel, why don't you tell Terrance Lindall and his people from the WAH Center your long history of Harrassing and Terrorizing Artists!!!!!???? Mr.Lindall, you need to know this information!!! This is not the first time that Daniel and his friends have tried to ruin a surrealism event! I was so Happy that, "BRAVE DESTINY" WAS A HUGE SUCCESS and that the great Terrance Lindall did not cave in to the terrorist threats and abuse!!! I can understand an artist having a disagreement over the presentation of the show, but to stupidly send arson threats and wanting to, "Burn and KILL" is downright criminal! This is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE coming from anyone involved in the arts!!! Be it surrealism or any other activity, that CRAVEN DESTINY is NOT a form of expression and protest, IT IS AN ARSON THREAT and word spreads real fast Dan!!!! How do you think that you and Zazie and the rest of the your friends can think you can get away with threatening and harrassing a world respected legend like Terrance Lindall AND the entire SHOW and MUSEUM as well????!!!! 500 artists were on exhibit there and if you do the math, 500 compared to Daniel Boyer's friends, they are a total of 30, is a HUGE DIFFERENCE!!!! Their is much support for the WAH Center and their SURREALIST ACIVITY!!!!!! I make post this on behalf of Keith Wigdor, He would LOVE to MEET TERRANCE LINDALL!!!! The WAH Center DESERVES SUPPORT and their is going to be a premier of, "DaDA Changed My Life" on Oct.4th at the WAH. Dear Mr.Lindall, KEITH WIGDOR would like to meet you!!!24.168.91.84 03:37, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

24.168.91.84, I've taken the liberty of editing your references to me in the above paragraph to use my wikipedia username (Leif); I ask that you please not call me by other names here. Of course, this being a wiki, I have no way to "force" you to do any such thing, but I'm asking you, and perhaps you will be friendly enough to oblige me of this simple request. As to your above comments about the surrealists international article, it was not actually the first article I posted, but I did say I "had a feeling in might not withstand VfD" (only slightly different than your "thought that the article was not going to last"). As I said when I first entered Talk:Surrealism, I don't really care one way or the other if the references to Lindall stay, but rather I just want the article to look good. The paragraph had typos and mistakes and I said it should be fixed, and that any POV disputes with it should be settled on the Talk page instead of in the article. I don't see how you can say I've "dominated" the article by my removing that one paragraph for editing. Anyhow, carry on ~leif 09:56, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

...and the beat goes on (music)...and the beat goes on...

Dear Leif and Daniel C.Boyer

I have taken the liberty to remove the paragraph written by Dan in regards to the NowSurreal, where he provides false information about Keith Wigdor. In all fairness, I cannot let this stand either. Leif, I do not need your permission to, "carry on". I will comply with your request not to refer to you by your full name as you wish. Dan has proven that he is beyond any concessions or compromise in regards to the Surrealism article. If the Wikipedia Community feels it necessary to remove posts by me in reference to Dan, then so be it, but I cannot stand by and allow Dan to spread false information about Keith Wigdor in regards to the Now Surreal UK website and Keith Wigdor. As for Terrance Lindall's name not being in the article, you are all doing a major disservice to the public and to any students who are researching contemporary surrealism. Leif, please do not tell anyone here to, "carry on". Your own admission on the International Surrealists Against the RNC has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that your arguments are not valid and you do not wish for the integrity of the Surrealism article as evident by your input here. Daniel, you are monopolizing the Wikipedia Article and Surrealism and I ask that since you refuse to reach any consensus, that you allow the article to stand as it was under Jrosenwieg. If not, I will continue to edit this article for the quality and integrity of information in regards to surrealism and its history all the way to today. It is revolting to allow any statements made out of coercion to be allowed as credible. Either way, I have about a good 40 years to keep on editing, you know, so I will not give in to your attempts at monopolizing this article and any article regrading surrealism. I will keep on editing. Forward.... 24.168.91.84 18:39, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

All attempts at a consenus and agreement with Boyer have been exhausted

I ask of the Wikipedia Community, I cannot allow the paragraph written by Dan in regards to him providing false information about Keith Wigdor and Now Surreal Uk to stand. I have the right to prevent this misinformation from spreading online and I ask Dan to stop replacing that paragraph in there. I will have no choice but to remove it, or if I am not allowed to remove it, I will add the true information within the above paragraph. As you can see, I will stand by my decision to maintain the integrity of this information. I thank Dan for providing the information on the Dali magazine, why he would even allow anything written by him to appear in a publication that honors Dali proves Dan's history of contradictions. Also, Surrealism today is no longer involved in the activities that Dan and his few friends engage in. Since Breton's death, and since the world recognizes the real potentials of Surrealism thanks to the great Dali, Surrealism today is primarily engaged in the arts and is recognized as an art movement, even by friends and associates of Boyers. Yes, Dan, your friends do exhibit their surrealist art, even with people that have collaborated with Keith Wigdor!24.168.91.84 18:40, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dan's retraction request granted

Dan, your request for retraction about selling your art in Dali Collector's Magazine has been granted. I removed the passage, Since you have clarified that you wrote a cricism of Dali in the magazine. Now, I ask you to remove the Keith Wigdor information from the paragraph that you wrote above.

No. The information is accurate. I will only remove it if you remove the inaccurate accusations about me concerning nowSurreal and either explain, to my satisfaction, why you say that I was involved in wrecking SURREALISM 2002, or retract that statement as well. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:12, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Dan's request granted, now let us see if he shows good faith and compromise

I have removed All the information in the post about Now Surreal UK. Let the record show that the response by Dan was not accurate, AND that I showed good faith in granting his request to remove the passages. Let us see if Dan can do the same honor in return.

If you are going to continue to say my response was not accurate, when in fact it was, I am not going to even consider removing the passage, as what it would in essence do is condemn me without the evidence remaining here to defend myself. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:24, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)


I have removed the passages as you requested! I have shown good faith!24.168.91.84 18:34, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Dan, you are totally impossible to reach any kind of agreement on anything!!! Let the record show that when Dan requested the passages to be removed, I removed them, NOW he is saying that they were accurate which they were not!!! I will continue to edit without the interference of Dan. I showed good faith and complied with his request!!! 24.168.91.84 18:37, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Notice you are still claiming that it was accurate when you fail to explain how I wrecked SURREALISM 2002. (Not that this is germane to the article). --Daniel C. Boyer 18:45, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Psychedelic Furs

Should surrealist analysis of the group be mentioned in the article? --Daniel C. Boyer 19:13, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, Daniel, The Psychedelic Furs were surrealist from the perspective of surrealist analysis. I agree to add them to the article.24.168.91.84 19:51, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

David Lynch

I think it would be a real important addition to the surrealist filmmakers. "Industrial Symphony No.1" by David Lynch is surrealism (the filmed preformance). I have the video tape somewhere, I need to find it first, then I have to see if anyone will agree that it would be a good idea to add David Lynch as a surrealist.24.168.91.84 03:55, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

David Lynch is not a surrealist filmmaker, although it could certainly be argued that some of his films have some interest from the surrealist perspective. If something along these lines could be mentioned, I would not be adverse to it; the only thing I would object to is if it were claimed he was a surrealist filmmaker without any contrary POV being mentioned. --Daniel C. Boyer 12:37, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I do disagree with Daniel on the issue of David Lynch being a surrealist filmmaker. I find all of his movies (except DUNE) to be surrealist, but that is my opinion.24.168.91.84 19:25, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Leif, please...

Leif, please do not attack my posts as vandalism which it is not. That is not proper, also you refuse to provide any analysis of surrealism yourself and you are not a surrealist. Your expertise is in computers.24.168.91.84 23:28, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Lets be clear what the issue here is: You keep adding "Surrealism is an active movement today thanks to the work of Keith Wigdor" to the opening paragraph of the article. I think this sentence very much implies that Wigdor, more than anyone else, exemplifies surrealism "today". I think this is not appropriate for wikipedia. Prior to reading your contributions, I was familiar with many surrealists but I had never heard of Keith Wigdor. After reading about him here, I have researched him and agree his work is interesting and definitely "surrealist" in nature. He is not, however, so significant as to warrant the mention you insist on giving him. Several other users have reverted your addition of this sentence repeatedly. Your statements in your edit summaries and on your talk page (from a different IP) indicate you believe you are are allowed to keep making the same revert once a day. That is not the case. Based on the article's edit history, there is clearly a consensus that this sentence does not belong in the introduction. Please stop re-adding the sentence.
As to your statements about my "expertise"; I don't need to self-identify as a "surrealist" to edit this article, thats not how wikipedia works. I appreciate many surrealist acts and am interested in seeing wikipedia have high-quality content in the surrealism article. Your contributions are consistently at odds with that goal; your additions almost always POV and poorly written. I think your continued reverts to this article have crossed the line of reasonability and are classifiable as vandalism. Am I wrong? ~leif 01:54, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I just wanted to note that it is, arguably, a bit more than this: it is not merely a question of the colorable non-notability of Wigdor but the fact that many surrealists have vehemently denounced him, saying that he has attempt to totally redefine surrealism while claiming to personally represent it. Given these claims, whatever one thinks about Wigdor, one would have to say that putting him in this place in this way and in this context is inappropriate. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:03, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Leif and Daniel C.Boyer

The both of you are attempting to preserve your version of Surrealism and the current state of Surrealism. Leif, your own admission on the article about the, "International Surrealists" indicated that you have a biased POV towards Boyer and his few comrades who attempt to monopolize the surrealist movement. At the same time, you base your edits and reverts for the benefit of the Wikipedia Community, while admitting that your contribution towards the Surrealism related article, "International Surrealists..." would be voted for deletion. This indicates that you have not provided the substantial research to validate your argument and edits in regards to the Surrealism article and its related pages. Also, why do you debate against my request for a picture of the contemporary surrealist author, "Brandon Freels", (you obviously know what Keith looks like), so you know that the person is real, why not for Brandon, who has an entire article written especially for him?

So write an article about Keith Wigdor. I don't take your point at all. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:06, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is not an issue of whether or not you are a surrealist, your expertise is in computers and it appears from your first article contribution that your bias is with Dan, after the way the executive director (and surrealist, whose name I will not mention here to respect his wishes not to be mentioned in this article) of WAH, was treated in his good faith attempts at consensus and agreement.

If the whole WAH situation is not going to be mentioned in this article, you should stop bringing it up. This talk page should be dedicated to how to make the best article on surrealism, not to debate issues that are not going to be included in the article. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:06, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I see a lockdown on this article ready to take place, and at the same time, preserving your biased version of surrealism. There is no vandalism on the good faith attempts at presenting information in regards to surrealism, and when any attempts are made to validate the facts concerning whether or not contemporary surrealists exist, by just asking for a simple picture, stalling tactics are used by the both of you. Keith Wigdor is certainly a noteworthy figure in current surrealism and he is responsible for the reform that surrealism is currently going through at this moment. The legendary surrealist from Canada, and one of the founders of the West Coast Surrealist Group, Gregg Simpson agreed to be exhibited in Keith Wigdor's Surrealism 2003 as well as other surrealist artists. If you do not like Keith Wigdor, that is your point of view, but he will be mentioned in the surrealism article and that is not vandalism. Also, Keith Wigdor has a huge online cult following on the internet and is recognized as a surrealist. He is an important figure in contemporary surrealism, Dan don't like that fact. Brave Destiny was huge as well and if you do the simple math(500 plus vs.30 of Dan's, "many surrealist friends"), the doors of surrealism are open! Oh, Dan, please refrain from using the word, "many", there are only around 25 to 30 the most that are your friends in the closed sector of this movement. Some of these people have no credible history in surrealism as indicated by the lack of support from anyone credible in the arts or academia and though Dan and his few friends claim that surrealism is not an art movement, we all know that, but the public is very interested in the surrealist art and that is a fact. I think it will be a good idea to also mention the Contemporary Surrealism show that Max Ernst's grand-daughter Amy Ernst, just did a show with Gregg Simpson in Barcelona, called CONTEMPORARY SURREALISM. more to come....24.168.91.84 03:25, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"If you do not like Keith Wigdor, that is your point of view, but he will be mentioned in the surrealism article and that is not vandalism."
I did not say that Wigdor shouldn't be included in the article! I didn't even say I didn't like him! I simply said that your statement that surrealism exists today "thanks to the work of Keith Wigdor" is not appropriate for the opening paragraph.
And again, I am really not interested in arguing with you about all these other subjects; I just want you to stop forcing your POV on this article. As far as I have seen, no users besides yourself have ever restored that phrase in the months you've continued to re-add it yourself. There is a clear consensus, besides it being common sense, that the article shouldn't single Keith Wigdor out as the surrealist of today.
Please try to cooperate here and stop vandalizing the article. Have you even read NPOV ? (If you reply to me again, please, answer that question) ~leif ☺ HELO 04:17, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Sir, Leif, please try to cooperate by not attacking me and my posts as vandalism and please stop speaking for others, let them debate my edits as it is their right. You still have not provided any credible answer on proving the facts concerning Surrealism and its related articles. Please leave stop attacking me and my posts. I just added factual information on the paris group of surrealists and the society for the art of imagination.24.168.91.84 05:29, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
You didn't answer my question (re:NPOV).
As to the information you just added, as usual, you forgot spaces and linked to nonexistant articles while not linking to existing ones. I take issue with the contents of the Giger paragraph; to have the sole mention of him in an encyclopedia article on surrealism say that "surrealists criticized his activities" is not right. This paragraph needs to change significantly, but I haven't changed it myself yet. ~leif ☺ HELO 06:39, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dear Daniel C.Boyer, please help me by providing an answer to this question about Craven Destiny?

Dear Daniel, Dan, can you explain why you would protest against the WAH's BRAVE DESTINY SURREALISM SHOW and send that CRAVEN DESTINY protest when one of the comrades and contributoring surrealist artists to your friends in THE PARIS SURREALIST GROUP was on exhibit in the BRAVE DESTINY show? Why would you threaten to, "burn all the paintings" of one who is a contributor to the PARIS SURREALIST GROUP and was also on exhibit in Brave Destiny? I am real confused.24.168.91.84 03:33, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am not going to engage in any discussion with you concerning Brave Destiny/Craven Destiny on this talk page as information concerning this controversy has how been agreedly excised from the article, and particularly as mention of Terrance Lindall has now been excised from it. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:00, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

GPMS and Society of Art of the Imagination cover

I am not critical of the existence of this information in the article in general, but it should be mentioned that GPMS does not control its members in the sense that they would allow one of them to illustrate the cover. And why don't you name the individual in question? Revising as well as I can with what I've been given. --Daniel C. Boyer 13:41, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I believe the individual in question is Kathleen Fox a member of the Society for Art of the Imagination. But apart from that embarrassment for the Paris Marxists and their affiliates, I think what Boyer's groups want most is publicity and commercial sucess. Many of them are very good artists such as our own (their own?) Kathleen Fox. I do wish them well in a healthy participation in mainstream society whose democartic principles allow for the greatest good for as many members as possible through the vote and free elections.
At least as is given in the information on this page she is not a member. Could you provide me with any documentation on the cover? If you do so I will include this information in the article. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:02, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dear dan: I think the articel is already too self indulgent and is becoming a ridiculous embarrassment to your groups, Franklin Rosemont and many others. I say minimal mention of anybody or anything for now. For everybody's sake. Keep names out of it, only groups and cease the harshly couched wordage like "severly criticized" and the like. Remember NPOV rule. Sjall i give myself a name? One of my pen names --S.H. RYKE

A Face to face

It might be possible to arrange a face to face debate on the definition of "surrealism" between Daniel Boyer's groups worldwide and the intellectual heavies in the Big Apple. Daniel Boyer is clearly the leader and perhaps the only credible apologist for the devil's side of the argument, except possibly Franklin Rosemont, whom we would also like to have present...otherwise sine quo non. The debate can be recorded for TV or even be on live radio. This is just a preliminary idea with no commitment yet from New york.

Although I would be opposed to mention of myself in this article, as I am certainly not notable enough or significant enough to the history of the movement, I would have to note that 69.86.67.198's position is that I should be mentioned. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:43, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Dear Dan: I did not mention that you should be noted in the article. Perhaps at such a future time when you have established yourself more. You are becoming more credible to me as someone defending a postion strongly, although I think that you must give more credence to opinions of the opposition. Give a little, and maybe your opponents will give a little. Let's do this like gentlmen. I have given you some credit, so do not exagerate my remarks. In fact the history of now should not be written by any of us. You talk about NPOV. Well we are ALL too involved and have no NPOV. Don't you agree? S.H.RYKE
Well, when you compare the significance of my participation in surrealism to Franklin Rosemont's, even implying that there is some chance that his participation might be less significant, it is difficult in the extreme to know how to take this other than as saying that mention of me should be included in the article, something I find more than a little ridiculous, but why I bring this up is that it tends to undermine your own positions about the insignificance of the entire surrealist movement in preference to a few individuals who have expressed astonishment at reading some of the basic primary sources of the movement, who have declared that they are not surrealists, and who, while openly declaring hostility to everything about the movement and its basic aims and principles, characterise their anti-surrealism as an attempt to "redefine" surrealism, but the anti-surrealist "redefiners" are surrealists (some of the most significant surrealists in history, natch) while surrealists are not. Be all that as it may, however, if Lindall is not going to be mentioned in this article, if Boyer is not going to be mentioned in the article, this proposal should not appear on the talk page. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:30, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hey Dan!

You are a better spin doctor than Bush!!! Hahahaha!!!!!!!I never stated, "he considers the hypocrisy of one of the members of the Groupe de Paris du Mouvement Surrealiste having, allegedly, illustrated the cover of one of the issues of the Society's bulletin)." Please go back and read my previous post.24.168.91.84

I did. I am characterising the claim from what I consider to be an NPOV, not quoting. Please let me know if you think this could be improved. (Did you ever notice how both you and the "great" Wigdor both have a habit of bursting out with "Hahahaha"? Just wondering.) --Daniel C. Boyer 17:51, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The FACTS

FACT: On September 20 – November 2, 2003, BRAVE DESTINY had its SURREALISM SHOW at the WAH! FACT:http://www.wahcenter.org/exhibits/2003/surreal/BD_artists.html FACT: Scroll down the above URL's page and you will see KATHLEEN FOX, two names above Prof.Ernst Fuchs! FACT: Again, let the RECORD show that on Sept.20 to Nov.2,2003, Kathleen Fox was in the WAH's BRAVE DESTINY exhibit as INDICATED by the above Link! FACT: The WAH receives the CRAVEN DESTINY threat to, "burn all the paintings,etc,etc,...." from Daniel C.Boyer and his few friends in the surrealist movement. FACT: ZAZIE(EVI MOECHEL) and PIERRE PETIOT are MEMBERS of THE PARIS GROUP OF SURREALISTS and ZAZIE's signature is on the CRAVEN DESTINY threat to WAH! FACT: exact quote from CRAVEN DESTINY threat, "To this end, we will converge upon this exhibition during its final days, burn the paintings, and hurl the squirming participants, ridiculous costumes or not, into the East River!" FACT: NONE OF THE PEOPLE THAT SIGNED THE THREAT EVER SHOWED UP TO PROTEST! FACT: On, 7 March 2004, The PARIS SURREALIST GROUP releases,S.U.RR…#4 TRANSMUTATION du LANGAGE. FACT: Directly stated on their website, dernière mise-à-jour Dimanche 7 Mars 2004 at, http://ed.surrealistes.free.fr FACT: KATHLEEN FOX IS THEIR COVER ARTIST!!!! FACT: KATHLEEN FOX WAS ON EXHIBIT IN BRAVE DESTINY THE PREVIOUS YEAR on the following dates, On September 20 –November 2, 2003. FACT: THE PARIS SURREALIST GROUP HAS A SOCIETY OF THE ART OF IMAGINATION ARTIST, KATHLEEN FOX, WHO WAS ON EXHIBIT IN BRAVE DESTINY DOING THEIR COVER FOR, S.U.RR…#4 TRANSMUTATION du LANGAGE. FACT: Both the WAH's BRAVE DESTINY and THE PARIS GROUP OF SURREALISTS have the same artist helping them. Hey, Dan, Please explain. I am dying to hear your spin on this. Oh, You do realize that this is major.24.168.91.84 17:40, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Oh My GOD! MORE FACTS!

The more evidence that I will show you all, will prove that Keith and Terrance's(500 plus) position is valid! Daniel, will you PLEASE explain this?!: FACT: One of Daniel Boyer's surrealist friends and comrades is STUART INMAN! FACT: STUART INMAN's NAME is on the CRAVEN DESTINY threat to WAH's BRAVE DESTINY! FACT: He is one of the signatures on that document stating to, "burn all the paintings,etc..." FACT: STUART INMAN AND KATHLEEN FOX appear to have been in the SAME group of surrealists! FACT: The overwhelming evidence is here: http://ed.surrealistes.free.fr/tantque.htm scroll down the page and you will see this, Les surréalistes en Grande-Bretagne : Krzysztof Fijalkowski, Kathleen Fox, Stuart Inman, John W. Welson, Francis Wright. FACT: STUART INMAN, one of the CRAVEN DESTINY signatures and friends of Daniel's is ALSO on the same group list as KATHLEEN FOX!!!! FACT: This information on the PARIS Surrealist Group Website goes back to 1995 and the group of Grande-Bretagne goes back to 1992!!! (please tell me I am wrong on that fact, I am open to discussion on this)

Now, ASK yourself, WHY would STUART, who is one of the signatures (and surrealist) on CRAVEN DESTINY, Sign that Document, along with DAN and their friends, while KATHLEEN FOX is on exhibit in BRAVE DESTINY at WAH and the evidence PROVES that KATHLEEN FOX was in the same surrealist group as Stuart, who threatens to, "burn all the paintings"???? OH MY GOD!!! Someone, please EXPLAIN??? Please??? This gets more embarrassing upon discovering the evidence!!!24.168.91.84 21:18, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Zazie(Evi Moechel) and Kathleen Fox???

FACT: Paradoxical Awakening Exposition of the Paris group of the surrealist movement, of some friends d’ailleurs and other alchemists of the street Pernelle. June 2000 -House of the Arts of Conches (Eure) FACT: http://ed.surrealistes.free.fr/Expos/Eveil_Paradoxal/eveil_paradoxal.html Why??? 24.168.91.84 22:01, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)


More Facts

http://surrealisme.ouvaton.org/article.php3?id_article=40

sells for 15 euros24.168.91.84 22:49, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

currency conversion from Euro to U.S. Dollars, 15.00 EUR Euro = 18.4243 USD United States Dollars24.168.91.84 01:36, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Craven Destiny, "surrealists"?

Hey Dan, is your friend and comrade Johannes dedicated to both surrealism and music or music and surrealism, or just music?24.168.91.84 02:02, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This question (showing your complete incomprehension of surrealism, as it suggests that surrealism and music are somehow mutually exclusive) doesn't have anything to do with the article. --Daniel C. Boyer 12:50, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

MORE FACTS

Wait to you see this gem! This is my favorite! It appears that one of the BRAVE DESTINY artists(and contributor to the PARIS SURREALIST GROUP and a past surrealist group member and contributor along with Stuart, the surrealist ones in Great Britian according to the Paris Surrealist site)KATHLEEN FOX is also a member of the "INTERNATIONAL SURREALISTS" and here is the evidence, http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/33628/index.php Please scroll down the page and you will see that a BRAVE DESTINY artist who was in the WAH show that CRAVEN DESTINY protested against is also a signature and member of INTERNATIONAL SURREALISTS!!!!!!24.168.91.84 02:22, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


FIRST PLACE WINNER

http://images.google.com/images?q=Kathleen+Fox+&ie=UTF-8&hl=en FACT: go to the image for the art of imagination and you will see that KATHLEEN FOX was in a juried exhibition for THE SOCIETY FOR THE ART OF THE IMAGINATION at Cork Street London back in 2003!!! She won first place and the same artwork was in a Paris Group of Surrealist publication! Its like one big family!24.168.91.84 02:56, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


ONE BIG HAPPY SURREALIST FAMILY

Hey Dan, is this The Society for the Art of Imagination's First Place Winner from the juried selection at Cork Street in London from 2003 and also the BRAVE DESTINY Surrealist Artist, KATHLEEN FOX with none other than Paris Surrealist Group member Pierre Petiot??? FACT: here take a look at the picture! http://www.zazie.at/Fellows/00_Images/PragVernissage99/KathleenPierre.jpg 24.168.91.84 03:05, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This works for me

Ok Boyer, well done! I am pro Brave destiny, but this is accurate. Some artists, such as H.R. Giger in Europe, who won an Academy Award for his stage set, and who also designed the "creature," in the movie Alien, have been popularly called "surrealists," though not identified as such by those in the movement, who have criticized their activities. The Society for the Art of Imagination has come in for particularly bitter criticism from the surrealist movement (although this criticism has been characterized by at least one anonymous individual as coming from "the Marxists [sic] surrealist groups, who maintain small contingents worldwide;" he has also pointed out what he considers the hypocrisy of any surrealist criticism of the Society for the Art of Imagination given that Kathleen Fox designed the cover of issue 4 of the bulletin of the Groupe de Paris du Mouvement Surrealiste, S.U.RR... and also participated in the 2003 "Brave Destiny" show at the Williamsburg Art & Historical Center, which was criticised by a number of surrealists in a tract entitled "Craven Destiny." However, though some presented "Brave Destiny" as the largest-ever exhibit of surrealist artists, the show was billed as exhibiting "Surrealism, Surreal/Conceptual, Visionary, Fantastic, Symbolism, Magic Realism, the Vienna School, Neuve Invention, Outsider, Naive, the Macabre, Grotesque and Singulier Art.").

Also Giger is a Visionary artist and does not claim to be surrealist

S.H.RYKE

Cleanup the talk page

Anyone else notice the WARNING: This page is 145 kilobytes long. Please consider condensing the page and moving the detail to another article so it is not approaching or in excess of 32KB notice? I think that this talk page needs to be archived, and without all that nonsense ranting (stuff which has nothing to do with the article or anything else on wikipedia). Surely there is a more general forum on the internet where that stuff is appropriate; it is not here. If someone else would do the cleanup work that would be great, otherwise I'll do it myself in the near future (reply with any objections below). I propose that this talk page be entirely cleared, and the parts of it that are on-topic can be saved on Talk:Surrealism/Archive. If people still want to respond to any of the previous threads they can simply copy them from the Archive page back to here. OK? ~leif ☺ HELO 23:13, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Fine with me. --Daniel C. Boyer 23:29, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

One last comment. The article should include a sentence to the effect. "Daniel C. Boyer is an active spokesman of the movement." I do this, not because i agree with him, but because it is a fact. SHRYKE

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Surrealism/Archive_2&oldid=444041699"