Talk:Surrealism/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Slacker and Waking Life

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

Sawin removal

Removed:

According to Martica Sawin, the Second World War represents "Surrealism in Exile", and he traces the connections to the founding of the "New York School" focused on Abstract Expressionism, and the increasing influence of Existentialism as competing with, and in many cases displacing, Surrealism's place in the American avant-garde. This view, that Surrealism would be submerged by later movements, is held particularly by American art historians, many of whom link the end of the Second World War with the end of Surrealism as an organized movement.

The view that Surrealism was submerged by later movements, seems to me important to understanding why some folks consider WWII to be the end of Surrealism.

>>sparkit|TALK<< 23:52, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Sparkit, that passage is too weak for this article on Surrealism. I am sorry, but I gave way too much to you and Stirling for the past couple of weeks. This passage is too weak. Surrealism was never submerged by later movements. Read Jose Pierre's works for God's Sake. This is a Surrealism article, not an art catalogue. Sparkit, are you really sincere in presenting the facts on Surrealism? You ignored my past references to Le Libertaire, which stuns me! By the way, Marcel Duchamp was never, "courted" by Breton. Duchamp was alway a surrealist and Breton's admiration for him was eternal. Duchamp was very much involved in Surrealism, even when he was scoffing down cigars and playing way too much chess, he was always surrealist.Classicjupiter2 01:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The passage doesn't say that Surrealism _WAS_ submerged by later movements, it says people _VIEW IT_ as submerged by later movements.

Ignored your references to Le Libertaire? You suggested I read it. Thanks for the suggestion.

As for Duchamp's involvement... it depends on one's criteria for "involvement." He participated in designing Surrealist exhibitions, but not much else.

In Tomkin's biography of Duchamp after quoting Breton's piece on Duchamp in Oct. 22 Litterature, Tomkins writes:

Breton's hero worship of Duchamp was based to some degree on the hero's elusiveness. His own attempts to claim Duchamp for the Surrealist cause were never successful, but Breton understood that if he pressed too hard he would risk losing him entirely. Breton, a natural leader who demanded almost unlimited moral authority over the lives of his followers and who ended by excommunicating most of them from the Surrealist movement, continued to venerate Duchamp for the rest of his life -- always from a respectful distance.

Now I know, of course, that no source is infallable, but this pretty much says to me that Duchamp did _NOT_ join the movement.

---

Sparkit, you are so wrong! Shame on you! Marcel Duchamp was ALWAYS part of the Surrealist Movement!Classicjupiter2 01:06, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but it's my understanding at the moment for which I feel no shame. >>sparkit|TALK<< 22:05, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

---

Frankly, I think both men have been myth-alized way out of proportion.

IMO this article should accommodate both the Bretonian Surrealism movement and what is perceived as Surrealist art, or two articles so the two aren't continually confused. >>sparkit|TALK<< 01:56, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

---

Sparkit, one more thing: SURREALISM WANTS YOU!!!Classicjupiter2 01:06, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

LOL. What does that mean? Perhaps this is a thread we could take up on our personal talk pages? >>sparkit|TALK<< 22:05, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

American World Supremacy

The end of surrealism after the second world war is actually the end of European cultural dominance of the world. After America became a military superpower in contention with Soviet Marxist expansionist philosophy, America needed an art that it could call its own. How can a major power have no art reflecting its own greatness? Abstact Expressionism came along, an art that aptly expressed ”freedom.”

I believe that Ton Wolfe’s “The Painted Word” describes the process. By propaganda the US Government supported the new art …aided of course, by such critics and writers as Rosenberg, Steinberg and Greenberg )”Cultureberg”). American art historians and museums loved the idea of a great American Art Form of its own. Combine the need and desire with a powerful American economy and European Modernism ends, and especially Surrealism with its taint of socialist Soviet revolutionary rhetoric. Necessarily surrealism must end, if not in reality, then it must be buried by the Western writers and historians as an active movement.

Interesting points that you make, but I respectfully disagree, however, I welcome this input. In regards to Surrealism, the Surrealist Movement was never tainted with socialist Soviet revolutionary rhetoric, Breton and many surrealists strongly denounced Stalin and even Breton lost a very close friend and comrade, Louis Aragon to Stalinism. AS for European dominance of the world, really Europe was disintegrating long before WW2. Marx knew this as well as many others. AS for Surrealism and Breton, this eternal movement has no interest or involvement with any form of cultural dominance, but a desire for intense freedom. As for Abstract Expression, thanks to Surrealism and its marvellous experiments with Automatism, you have the evolution of Abstract Expression. Both Jackson Pollack and Lee Krasner (Jimmy Ernst too!!!) exhibited in Surrealist Exhibitions back in the day, that is a fact. My own two cents: I myself LOVE, LOVE, LOVE Abstract Expression!!! That is my feelings. I believe that as long as Abstract Expression was and is around, Surrealism is also around. I know that this kind gentlemen Bell, is going to curate a huge Versitic Surrealism Event sometime in 2006, if I am correct. I wish he would be more open to Automatism and AbstractSurrealism. Its really an intense Surrealist Experiment. Boris Margo is a favorite of mine too! VIVA SURREALISME!!!!!Classicjupiter2 23:50, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Well said and I am correcly admonished! Go forward and conquer!!! Your Friend...

I agree with Classicjupiter2. Witkacy commited suicide when Soviet troops invaded Poland, since they abolished free-thinker art.

That said, the preface for a third (or 4th?) Manifesto by Breton was in collaboration with Lenin. - Sigg3.net 14:11, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

---

To the "end" of surrealism

I can't believe, after all the debate we've had on this matter, that someone still persist in the use of surrealism as a rigid designator for the movement/group around Breton. There is no end to Surrealism (I would add: as long as mankind exists), see Boyer on Post-Surrealism.

I recognize the quotation marks and their qualitative weakening of the fallacy, but why couldn't this title be expressed as the sentence it builds upon: "the death of André Breton in 1966 marked the end of Surrealism as an organized movement." Which is the view of an art historian whom, I would say, does not know of the Stockholm surrealists etc. Still, I recognize the need of this article to have a consistent "encyclopedia" format and can settle with: The "end" of Surrealism as an organized movement. Which is what I've changed it to. - Sigg3.net 14:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Really the group of Stockholm surrealists was a total sham. Their activities were so minimal and weak, they really had no influence on surrealism in terms of longevity. Their main scope of activity was between 1986 to 1996 (and that is really pushing it). They have such a limited creative output that nobody really cares about this lot. Some members of this bogus group became right wing swedish dandies anyway, too fugazi. As for it I cannot accept it anymore. It doesn't make any sense. it is a way of life. Surrealism wants nothing more than complete revolution on all terms. Johannes should be more interested in his stupid classical music that he bores us with anyway. VIVA SURREALISME!!!Classicjupiter2 18:09, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Very many arguments could be taken with this question-begging rant, but in the end it is just a personal POV. This POV might be expressed in the article as one POV regarding the Stockholm group, but that is the extent of attention we should pay it. I would also like to note that Classicjupiter2 has alternated his claims that surrealism is not an art movement with his claims that surrealism is an art movement. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:14, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Really, Daniel it does not make any difference. You are a surrealist, and you are also an artist. To be totally honest with you, I really like your surrealist art. I also am totally convinced about your passion for surrealism. I know that you will defend the surrealist movement on any level and that is good. However, I want to mention this discovery that I made the other day: I was doing research in the library and I came across some books on Surrealism that I was not aware of, they are really good books. Anyway, one book was called, "Dreaming with open eyes" and it was a detailed account of the collection of Andre Breton's good friend, Arturo Schwarz. His historic collection of DaDa and Surrealism is in the Israel Musuem in Jerusalem. Anyway, the book has the coolest reference section that I came across, literally hundreds of document scans of letters, pamphlets, newspapers, books etc, all on surrealism. Now, one particular item, just completely blew me away: Un cadavre, Paris,15 January 1930/Leaflet in newspaper format, condemning Andre Breton and accusing him of being a false communist and revolutionary, with texts by Jacques Prevert, Georges Ribemont-Dessaignes, Michael Leiris, et al. Illustrated 4pp., 36.5x32

Classicjupiter2 17:23, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

What was really stunning was the picture of Andre Breton as Jesus Christ. The picture was a photomontage of Breton with a crown of thorns on his head. Remember that this is 1930.Classicjupiter2 17:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes; we've all seen it. That is to say, I'm surprised that you have not seen this until now. I wonder what your point is in bringing up this well-known photograph and tract, and what it has to do with the development or possible development of this article. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Why are you speaking for everyone? How do you know others have seen it? As for the development of this article, it is worth mentioning. I really do not desire to enter in debates with you sir. This is an encyclopedia, not a debating forum. Anyway, I made an addition to the article, if anyone cares.Classicjupiter2 00:10, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I just mean that it's extremely well-known, or at least it would have to be, as it's reproduced in practically every secondary source on surrealism. About your desire to enter into debates with me, if you don't want to enter into debates with people, stay off the talk page, though I am puzzled as to how you would interpret what I wrote, if that's indeed what you're doing, as an invitation to debate. People may debate on the talk pages (in addition to other kinds of discussion) as part of a general attempt to improve Wikipedia; this is obviously what the talk pages are for. Your "lack of desire" (or, might I say, you "lacks no desire") sounds suspiciously like a blanket concession, however. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Surrealism is Alive!!! VIVA SURREALISME!!!Classicjupiter2 01:17, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Fine; I agree. But what (if anything) does any of this have to do with your previous points (if one may so dignify them)? --Daniel C. Boyer 18:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Please keep your friends out of the links section. They already had articles deleted. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a means of promotion.Classicjupiter2 03:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

This is question-begging on a number of levels and in a number of ways. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that having links to present-day surrealists and manifestations of surrealism is a great idea for this article. If Boyer has some contacts with some real, present-day surrealists, then I just don't understand your reluctance, Classicjupiter2. --Sam Wegtor 20:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Really Mr. Wegtor, that is so nice of you to mention. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tool for cheap promotion for non-notable people. Mr.Wegtor, you should be very aware of the Wikipedia policies and rules since you feel so strong about this article. Oh, I forgot. You, Mr.Wegtor appear to be a newcomer to Wikipedia. I apologize.Classicjupiter2 02:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm confused by your obsession with "cheap promotion", Classicjupiter2. You mention it a lot on this talk page. How do you draw the line between valid surrealist groups and "non-notable people"? ((For instance, because I said so, you fool. Or the Paris surrealists? I think they should be added immediately. Would anyone here object to that?)) What makes you the judge of the notability of people, Classicjupiter2? --Sam Wegtor 16:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

communism, anarchism, individuals, and groups

I see that Daniel Boyer has changed the statement that surrealist groups affiliated with communism and anarchism to the statement that individual surrealists did. I don't have time right this minute to take out my history of surrealism, but I thought that Andre Breton did move the surrealist group around him to affiliated with left-wing communism as a group, and that he ejected from the group various surrealists who individually wouldn't go along with that. Isn't that so? Jeremy J. Shapiro 17:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

This looks like an old discussion but I wanted to weigh in here. For whatever it's worth, I have long been under the impression that Surrealism (not just some individuals within) had, at one point, aligned itself with the Comintern. This is purely from recollection, I don't have the source at hand (I could, however, dig out the paper I wrote when I had learned about this). Just $0.02 from a third party, if you will, who is not otherwise involved with the maintenance of this article. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 04:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Jeremy, history usually likes to portray Breton as a dictator or a pope, but really, it's not so. One really useful volume you could consult is "what is surrealism: selected writings of AB" which is edited and introduced by F. Rosemont. The intro to that book really debunks a lot of the myths regarding Breton. In any event, surrealist groups are made up of individuals making individual choices. There are no leaders. Therefore, Boyer's changes should be respected. --Sam Wegtor 14:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, at one level all groups are made up of individuals making individual choices. And no groups are exempt from general principles of group and social behavior. I'll check my Nadeau and a biography of Breton and see. Jeremy J. Shapiro 15:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Jeremy, you might also want to consult a book called "Surrealism against the current", edited by Michael Richardson. It's a very up-to-date volume with a killer intro that gives some great perspective on Breton's role in relation to other surrealists, as well as the internal dynamics of surrrealist groups, in general. I think it might be worth your while to give it a look, especially if you want to get a surrealist perspective, rather than one from art historian. The Nadeau volume is still good, even though it's been around for a while. I mentioned these two other books (Rosemont and Richardson) here, because the surrealist wiki-article has an art historian kind of bias, which is very disappointing to encounter, here and in places other than wikipedia. --Sam Wegtor 20:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Why, Thank you so much for mentioning comrade Richardson, Mr.Wegtor. That is very nice of you. As for Mr. Rosemont, he is a capitalist. One who makes money off of surrealism. You should know that by now. Oh, I forgot. Mr.Wegtor, you are new to Wikipedia. I apologize.Classicjupiter2 02:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Welcome, Jeremy and Sam to the bizarre world of the wikipedia article on surrealism, where you just don't know from day to day who or what will pop out of the rabbit hole. >>sparkit|TALK<< 02:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Sparkit, with all due respect, both you and Stirling ruined this article. It really was much better when Daniel C. Boyer was editing the article. I only disagree with him on current surrealism, post-Breton to today. Surrealism is not a philosophy. Surrealism is a revolution. This article is an art catalogue and that is a shame. I am the only one that added books to the Surrealism in Literature section. Have you ever read, "Irene's Cunt" or "Death to the Pigs"??? Have you ever read Dan's essays in Surrealist Subversions??? The answer is no.Classicjupiter2 03:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the answer may be not to remove the description of surrealism as a philosophy (after all, one of Breton's definitions was an encyclopaedia definition under the "philosophy" heading) but to explain in more detail how the surrealists who believe surrealism has "outclassed" philosophy define it as a revolution rather than a philosophy, and this is quite significant, as surrealism's initial journal showed. The solution is not really removal but expansion of the discussion of surrealism as revolution. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Most of what I've done with this article is copyedit -- rearranged the information I found here into what I think is a workable framework. The philosophy/revolution section has gone virtually unchanged since I rearranged it. There is, undoubtably much more that could be written considering that people have written entire books about it. There may come a day when I do so myself, but it is not any day soon. Perhaps someone, maybe yourself, will flesh out that section before then.

Does not the revolution and the philosophy go hand-in-hand? We differ on what to call it. I don't disagree that revolution is called for, or that surrealism is a way of revolution. It's damnably slow, though. How do you believe the revolution is progressing? >>sparkit|TALK<< 04:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Read, Surrealist Art & Writing 1919/1939, "The Gold of Time" by Jack J.SpectorClassicjupiter2 19:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

It amazes me that there is no mention of the, "La Verite sur les colonies" exhibition arranged by Aragon, Eluard and Tanguy!!! Outrage!!!Classicjupiter2 19:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Discussion continues

Upon changing the article, Classicjupiter2 wrote, (diff) (hist) . . Surrealism; 13:22 . . Classicjupiter2 (Talk) (rv see today's discussion. Please do not change my edit without talking to me first.)

I don't see that any agreement was reached in the discussion of the past few days.

After all the discussion in the past about whether to use the term "revolution" or the term "philosophy", it surprises me that these changes are again made without agreement by someone who KNOWS that the usage is contentious.

So, talk, Classicjupiter2. >>sparkit|TALK<< 23:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Sparkit, I sincerely disagree with you. Read, "Dreaming with Open Eyes" about Arturo Schwarz and his lifetime collection. Surrealism is Revolution and always will be.Classicjupiter2 02:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I think there is some confusion going on here. The point of an encyclopedia article is not to propagate an ideology, nor should an enyclopedia article about any literary, cultural, or political movement or ideology be written from within the perspective of that movement or ideology. The term "revolution" simply can't be applied in an encyclopedia article to ANY cultural movement, be it surrealism, romanticism, cubism, Nazism, the Internet, or whatever, because in such a context "revolution" is an evaluative and interpretive, not a descriptive term, because there is no clear, generally agreed upon definition of what counts as a revolution in those contexts. And, since the French Revolution, many major cultural movements have invoked revolution as part of their ideology. So we can't use that term no matter how much we personally approve of or identify with that movement or ideology. For every such claim that something is a revolution, somebody else will dispute it. So there's no way of calling a cultural or artistic movement a revolution that is not POV. To do is actually to debase the word revolution. The only way it would be legitimate to use it would be to accompany it with a definition of revolution that was generally accepted. Otherwise, there's no difference between the surrealist revolution and the Nike revolution or the Pepsi revolution or whateve. I personally resonate with surrealism and its revolutionary intent. But that's a personal matter. The article could talk about why the surrealists thought of or think of themselves as revolutionaries and what they mean by a surrealist revolution. But the article can't use the term "revolution" as a descriptor of surrealism or any other cultural movement. The Nazis also described themselves as making a revolution. Is surrealism a revolution in that sense or in some other sense? It's a bottomless pit. We have to rise above our personal attachments and emotions to be responsible Wikipedian editors. Jeremy J. Shapiro 18:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Please, Mr.Shapiro, you are not allowing me to present what is already been documented as fact in the countless books, sources and documents on Surrealism. It is a fact that Surrealism is a revolution. I am well aware of the Wikipedia policy and as an editor on here, I have the right to present what is fact. Thank you.Classicjupiter2 22:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Whether something is a revolution or not is not a matter of fact, it is a matter of interpretation according to some theory of or criteria of what makes something count as a revolution. Why don't you state here what your criteria are for counting something as a revolution, and then show how surrealism fulfills that criterion? That would contribute to clarifying the discussion and contribute toward our being able to arrive at a consensus through rational discussion. Toward this end, you might also want to edit the Wikpedia revolution page so that it would accurately reflect the theory or criteria of revolution that you are relying on. Jeremy J. Shapiro 22:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. As it happens, I went to the movies tonight and, while there, saw a preview for a new movied called "First Descent: The Story of the Snowboarding Revolution." This is an excellent example of why, without a clear definition of or criteria for what a revolution is, it doesn't make sense to call anything a revolution, because currently "revolution" is so often a hype word or propagandistic one or term of approbation, not a descriptive or analytical one.

By the way, I looked in several reference works, such as the Blackwell's Dictionary of 20th Century Social Thought for the articles on "Revolution, and what they basically give three definitions of revolution with the criteria thereof: 1) A radical and total transformation of the political and social structure of an entire society or nation, usually one completed in a short period of time, such as the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Revolution, etc. sir Ronald Syme's history of the transition from the Republic to the Empire in Ancient Rome is calle "The Roman Revolution." 2) A large-scale transformation of the social structure and social life of a society, usually driven by a technological change. Such a revolution may take decades or centuries. The main examples are The Agricultural Revolution and The Industrial Revolution. 3) There is a small number of intellectual and cultural developments, such as the Scientific Revolution or the Sexual Revolution or the rise of capitalism, that are called revolutions because even though they were cultural and reflected changes of knowledge, artitude, behavior, or the combination of all three, they had such s huge impact on the way of life, culture, behavior, or self-understanding of broad strata of the population in many societies for large periods of time. It seems to me to claim that a cultural shift or innovation or movement was a revolution, it would have to meet the criteria for one of these three categories. It seems to me that there is also another, subordinate dimension in which new cultural developments are revolutionary, namely within specific knowledge disciplines or artistic fields. For example, one could claim that or at least argue whether Beethoven or Schoenberg constituted revolutions IN MUSIC, but not in the larger world, and the same holds for other major shifts in the arts or knowledge, e.g. linear perspective in painting, the writing of Kafka in literature, Marxian theory or postmodern thinking in the humanities and social sciences, etc. But if these are revolutionary, it is not at the general level of the society ror culture, but rather within intellectual or cultural fields or disciplines. I think that usually one of the criteria for this sort of revolution is that it is not merely an important style or movement or idea but that it produces irreversible changes or a "paradigm shirt" in its field or discipline. In any case, it is in the context of this kind of consideration that one could carry on a reasonable discussion about whether surrealism counts as a revolution. Jeremy J. Shapiro 08:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Saying "is not merely an important style" shows a basic misconception. Surrealism is not a style, however important. The slightest examination of surrealist visual works would confirm this. How are Miro and Dali alike? Magritte and Penelope Rosemont? Tristan Meinecke and Hans Bellmer? Give me a break. --Daniel C. Boyer 23:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Definition

Revolution: "A sudden or momentous change in a situation": What we are looking for in this revolution is the destruction of logic. We wish to change the common (logical) way of looking at things. It is a revolution of the mind. It is a revolt against the ordinary. It can be personal as well as broadly social. When we revolt, we refuse to accept the accepted and are enlightened by a new truth. Read about Robert Sagerman, the Jewish mystic of the Kabala. Each of Sagerman's paintings are revolutions. SURREALISM is, a priori, truth by definition, REVOLUTION!!!! (unsigned by user 24.215.213.250 08:07, October 2, 2005)

I'm sorry, but my sense is that you're writing as a partisan ("what we are looking for in this revolution is", "we wish to change", etc.), not as an encyclopedia editor making carefully thought out judgments from an objective point of view. The encyclopedia article about surrealism is not supposed to be written from the point of view of a "we wishing to change" anything, that's what's called POV, but of people relatively dispassionately communicating knoweldge from a relatively objective point of view. If we were to go into Wikipedia and write every article from the perspective of the person in it who believed that they were making "a sudden or momentous change", then there would be several hundred thousand revolutions in Wikipedia and the word "revolution" would be meaningless (that was my point about the "snowboarding revolution", although it IS legitimate to report that certain people, writers, artists, inventors, historical figures BELIEVED that they were making a revolution. It's not possible for there to be an artist or musician or writer every one of whose works is a revolution: art historians wouldn't even say that about Giotto, Michelangelo, Rembrandt, Cezanne, Picasso! And NOTHING in the world can be revolution a priori or by definition, since whether surrealism or anything in the world is or is not revolution is an a posteriori, empirical judgment. If it's true by definition, then by definition it's meaningless. The point is, that we Wikipedia editors have to write objectively, and not as partisans, even about the things that in our personal lives we are partisans about. If I were a communist or fascist or fundamentalist and went into Wikipedia and wrote every article from that point of view, then Wikipedia would be ruined (and, fortunately, what I had written would be almost immediately reverted). To say that surrealism is revolution a priori or by definition is a fundamentalist statement, no different than any other fundamentalist statement about God or evolution or anything else. If it's of any personal interest to you, I believe that if you knew me you would discover that I am as partisan in favor of surrealism as you are. But my responsibility as a Wikipedia editor is to write and edit from an encyclopedic, NPOV perspective, not to write from the perspective of my personal prejudices. Jeremy J. Shapiro 16:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Jeremy. Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV. It is not the consensus view in society that Surrealism is a revolution: "Surrealism is a style" [1] "Surrealism, movement in visual art and literature" [2]. Even in Breton's Manifesto of Surrealism [3] , he only uses the word 'revolution' once and that is talking about the french revolution. Cfitzart 04:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

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

I have no interest at all in Robert Sagerman, the Jewish mystic of the Kabala. You are going on and on and on without accepting the facts. Surrealism is a revolution! Ask Daniel C.Boyer. He will tell you the same thing. As well as the hundreds of Surrealism books, pamphlets and documents. Does, "The Surrealist Revolution" mean anything to you? Surrealism is a revolution, whether you like it or not.Classicjupiter2 18:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you respond to the actual things I've said and the actual points I've made? I have responded to what you said about the "fact" status of something being a revolution. But you have not responded to what I said about it. I thought that the point of these Talk pages was to have actual discussion leading to understanding and consensus. I have tried to respond to what you said, but you have simply repeated what you said before without responding to my points about whether something being a revolution is a fact or an interpretation or theory, and that there must be explicit criteria for something being a revolution. I am writing these things in good faith, in accordance with the norms of Wikipedia about manifesting and assuming good intent. Would you please assume my good intent and respond to what I've said? Jeremy J. Shapiro 18:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Surrealism being a revolution, or as I would put it, revolutionary, is an interpretation or theory, but only to the extent that it is the interpretation or theory of surrealism held by surrealists. Obviously some people don't agree with surrealism, and certainly this should be acknowledged in the article; obviously some people overlapping with the first category don't believe surrealism to be revolutionary. But the theory is entitled to be given a certain importance as it's the theory expressed by surrealists. (The theory that communism is revolutionary is only an interpretation or theory, and some out-there people would probably disagree with this interpretation, but it's the theory held by communists, so it would have to assume a very important place in any article about communism.) --Daniel C. Boyer 23:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

As you can clearly see in the very article that you are editing, "La Révolution surréaliste". Sir, I am responding to you in good faith. I really do not intend to use these talk pages as a forum. I only present what is fact. Now, I am going to put back my edit, which is supported by the hundreds of books on Surrealism. In the meantime, do yourself a favor and study the topic that you edit, before you take such a stance on editing this article. Surrealism is a Revolution.!Classicjupiter2 18:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

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

Mr.Shapiro, let me help you. You are looking into all the wrong places. Blackwell's "Dictionary of 20th Century Social Thought" is not what you should be researching when editing this article. First, start with everyhting that you can devour on Andre Breton, then get back to me.Classicjupiter2 18:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

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

Mr. Shapiro, we are looking at the definition of "surrealism," not the definition of "revolution." That is where your argumentation fails and is irrelevant. I realize that you are a well educated man given to excessive verbage and non-sequitor. But this "sea of excess" cannot sink the boat of surreaiism as revolution. I say this as an epistemologist. This is not POV. This is what surrealism is, plain and simple...revolutionary idea carried into...whatever. What is POV about the very definiton of surrealism being revolution as clearly promulgated by Breton? Classic J. doesn't get you, I do not get you, and Boyer probably will not "get" you, although we cannot speak for him. Why not go define revolution in some other article? What is your interest in "our" domain?

Mr.Shapiro, Surrealism is Revolution and we want you!!!Classicjupiter2 22:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. read some of Daniel C. Boyer's essays in, "Surrealist Subversions". I have to admit, they are real good!Classicjupiter2 22:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

For the Record

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

I tried to attend to the concerns and statements of colleagues Daniel Boyer and Classicjupiter2 by a) strengthening the emphasis on and link to revolution in the first paragraph, and b) consolidating the critique of the notion of surrealism as an artistic movement in the surrealism and the arts section, moving Boyer's statement from the introduction to that section and connecting it to the similar prior material in that section, so that the section now makes an even stronger statement on that topic. Jeremy J. Shapiro 07:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Let the record show that I agree with Mr.Shapiro. Great work!Classicjupiter2 00:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Groups

I believed it made sense to give here (on the page about surrealism) a passing, bottom of page reference to groups who believe they have a surrealist activity, and mention those I know, whether they have web sites or not and publish magazines.

User Classicjupiter2 thinks that they are "not active in the area of surrealism". That's his appreciation and obviously in contradiction to what these groups think, but I would like to hear what others think, be they authors of this page or simple browsers as I was, as I do not think fair that one single person owns this space and rules as he seems to be doing. Or I am mislead and know too little about wikipedia, its policy and what is regarded "notable" according to its standards, ... and disappointed!

see below 1) my exchange with Classicjupiter2, and 2) my list

• regarding this edit 18 september

The context : "Revision as of 03:15, 18 September 2005 Classicjupiter2 (Talk | contribs) removed groups that are not notable and also had articles deleted here on Wikipedia."

This deleted a list of groups who are active in the area of surrealisme and I thought could be of interest to readers of wikipedia.

Can you give a bit more depth into what you consider "notable" and "not notable" and about deleted articles : created by who, deleted by who, why ?

If they were active in the area of surrealism, then the articles would not have been deleted. You need to talk to all of the Wikipedians who voted to delete the articles. You are more than welcome to do the research here on Wikipedia to investigate. In regards to your question of what is and what is not notable, you need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy. All the best.Classicjupiter2 01:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• proposed list of groups

• • The London Surrealist group (magazine: Arcturus)
  • Le groupe de Paris du mouvement surréaliste (magazine: S.U.RR.)
  • Czech and Slovak Surrealist Group (magazine: Analogon)
  • Surrealist group in Athens
  • The Surrealist Movement in the United States (Chicago group) (Black Swan Press)
    • Minnesota Surrealists (Blue Feathers)
    • Honolulu Surrealist Group
    • Houston Surrealist Group
    • the Seattle Surrealist Group
    • the Surrealist Group of Wisconsin (CounterClockwise)
  • Grupo Surrealista de Cantabria (magazine SIAMÉS)
  • the Stockholm surrealist group (magazine Stora Saltet)
  • information on web sites not available for other groups in Leeds (Magazine Manticore), Santiago-de-Chile, Madrid (Magazine Salamandra), Ioannina, ...

To the good gentlemen, Mr.Shapiro

Dear Mr.Shapiro, I kindly disagree with you on the issue of the edits regarding Surrealism as Revolution. Please let me explain, in order to clarify this matter and assist you in your understanding of Surrealism when editing this great article. First, Surrealism is Revolution. This is Historic Fact and continues to be Fact. Surrealism wants nothing more than the complete destruction of Capitalism, Organized Religion, Government, Nationalism and all forms of Organized Oppression, such as mandatory work, etc. Surrealism continues to be a force to be reckoned with and surrealists want to transform life itself, in order to free humanity from the grips of closed rationalism and formal logic. Surrealism strives to unite us all through its many investigations into the collective subconscious and automatism, while striving towards the complete synthesis between reality and sur-reality. Andre Breton's manifestos continue to resonate as do many contemporary surrealists essays, writings, polemics, rants, arguments, desires, investigations, etc. ALL to bring forth the Revolution of the MIND!!! Mr.Shapiro, it is the MIND that will overcome all obstacles, all indifference, all injustice and all physical phenomena. Freud was right on target, Breton exposed the target to a world audience and created a Revolution. This Revolution continues today. Go out and read, "Surrealist Subversions", talk to a couple of anarchists and radicals and get involved in discussion and debate. Allow Surrealism to infect everthing that is around us, the more people that are exposed to Surrealism, the better.Classicjupiter2 01:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure its fact? Breton's Manifesto of Surrealism doesnt say anything about 'revolution'.. he says: "Therefore, I am defining it once and for all:

SURREALISM, n. Psychic automatism in its pure state, by which one proposes to express -- verbally, by means of the written word, or in any other manner -- the actual functioning of thought. Dictated by the thought, in the absence of any control exercised by reason, exempt from any aesthetic or moral concern." [4] Cfitzart 04:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

While I agree with the intent of Cfitzart with regard to surrealism -- he/she wrote that it's an artistic movement, not a revolution (compared to the French Revolution) -- I agree with the statements that several people have made on this page that surrealism is more than an artistic movement. Indeed it has had partisans who have been surrealistic -- and has had influences on others -- in art,poetry, philosophy, politics, and the conduct of everyday life. I think that this is covered by the formulation "cultural, artistic, and intellectual movement". Furthermore, the revolutionary intent and commitment of some (but not all) surrealists is truthfully and responsibly captured in the formulation "For many Surrealists, this orientation toward transcending everyday reality toward one that incorporates the imaginative and the unconscious has manifested itself in the intent to bring about personal, cultural, political and social revolution, sometimes conceived or described as a complete transformation of life by freedom, poetry, love, and sexuality." So I think that "Classicjupiter2"'s grounds for changing the wording to "surrealism is revolution" or "a revolution'" have no merit, since the introduction already captures in strong wording the orientation of many surrealists toward revolution of a fundamental kind. I don't think there's any point in responding directly to "Classicjupiter2"'s tirade, since so far he has refused to write, think, or discuss as a Wikipedia editor presenting a neutral perspective on a topic but only as a propagandist or true believer, and probably doesn't even believe the things he's writing, because no-one who took surrealism seriously would refuse to be a well-intentioned or co-operative collaborator or would refuse to write about surrealism except as a propagandist. He may even be a person who is trying to make people discount surrealism and/or Wikipedia, because if any person from the general public goes to Wikipedia and reads an article on communism from a communist perspective or on fascism from a fascist perspective or on surrealism from a surrealist perspective will a) discount Wikipedia as a serious and reliable work; and b) will not take seriously the article about surrealism (or communism or fascism, etc.). So it is very hard to believe that Classicjupiter2 really sympathizes with surrealism and wants to "infect everything around us" -- the choice of the word "infect" may reveal an underlying hostility to surrealism == or that he really supports the Wikipedia project. Anyone who falls back on their particular worldview as a "fact", no matter how many people before them have claimed it to be a "fact", has disqualified himself as a Wikipedia editor. I say "himself" because I think it's something that in general is a characteristic of patriarchal and male thinking and writing much more than it is of female thinking and writing, although of course there are exceptions. In any case, by claiming that surrealism's being a revolution is a fact, Classicjupiter2 has no way of differentiating himself from a true believer communist, fascist, or religious fundamentalist, since they all believe that their worldviews are based on facts. I predict that Classicjupiter2 will prove me right by responding to this with the same statements he made before, and go back to reverting the introduction to present a propagandist's perspective. Jeremy J. Shapiro 04:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

We discuss the location of one word, ONE WORD!, in the lead paragraph. It seems to me that the view that Surrealism is revolution is significant, yet the article contains little explanation of that view. A quote or two from one of these books might get the ball rolling on expanding this view in the article. >>sparkit|TALK<< 04:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Mr.Shapiro writes,

"because no-one who took surrealism seriously would refuse to be a well-intentioned or co-operative collaborator or would refuse to write about surrealism except as a propagandist".

How does he know this. Is he an expert on Surrealism? Is he a Surrealist? How long has Mr.Shapiro been editing this article??? Why does he attack me? I am only making a one word edit. I tried to be nice to this man and it is obviously not working. Well, I tried.

As for Sparkit, you can read, "Surrealist Subversions", and "What is Surrealism" to help you. Sparkit, I can tell that you are really into Surrealism. I know that you really dig Marcel Duchamp. So do I.Classicjupiter2 17:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not looking for help or reading assignments. I would like to see the revolution aspect of surrealism covered in the article. I've already said that I may write it some day, but not any day soon. Several editors of this article seem to have citeable resources readily available, and could perhaps flesh out the revolution aspect of surrealism in the article.

I find it odd that you, Classicjupiter2, question comments about yourself, then two sentences later do analysis of someone else.

Would anyone besides myself like to focus on the article, rather than each other? >>sparkit|TALK<< 19:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it would be nice to have a section called "Surrealism and Revolution" that would describe both how the surrealists thought of themselves as making a revolution and their relationship to political revolutionary movements. I also can't take the time to work on it now because huge amount of my job work, but will be glad to co-operate on this in the future. Jeremy J. Shapiro 19:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Sparkit, I have not done any, "analysis" on anyone here, that is just not true. Please leave my one edit alone. I can cite many book sources as well. Please take the time to do the research or go to your local library and take out, "What is Surrealism" to help you.Classicjupiter2 19:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Then I suppose I took the comment, "I can tell that you are really into Surrealism," to be analysis -- a conclusion drawn from I don't know what. I'll repeat, I'm not looking for, nor at this point do I appreciate, help or assignments. >>sparkit|TALK<< 19:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Your own words have proven that you are not willing to help this article in any way, shape, or form. Surrealism is Revolution and I have the sources to prove this fact! In the meantime, I am going to place my edit back to its orginal state, third and last for today in accordance with Wikipedia policy. I know you will change it out of pure spite and hatred for my edits, but I will wait and come back to add it right back in, since my one and only edit is supported by the many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many books on Surrealism, which I can cite! Also, it is documented fact right here in this very article, "The Surrealist Revolution", read the passage.Classicjupiter2 21:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I think those who try to argue with Classicjupiter2 are wasting their time, since he is unwilling to commit himself to the principles of responsible Wikipedia editorship and is acting as a saboteur. As long as he won't commit himself to the principles of Wikipedia discussion and the responsibilities of Wikipedia editorship, it would be like trying to engage in rational argument or conflict resolution with someone who was also holding a pistol at your head, in other words he is operating out of violence, or it is like trying to have a rational conversation with someone who acts like a thug. Until ClassicJupiter2 stops acting like a thug and demonstrates his intention not to, there's no point in having these arguments with him. Better to just discuss what would make a good surrealism article. There are three ways ClasicJupiter2 could easily demonstrate that he is not a thug, vandal, or troll -- but you will see that he won't do so. First he could make an explicit statement of his understanding of what is involved in being a responsible Wikipedia editor. Second, he could state his criteria for distinguishing between a fact and an interpetation. Third, he could show how his actions were implementations of those two statements. As long as he won't do these things, he is really just operating like a thug outside of the norms that the rest of us who are trying to produce a good and responsible encyclopedia here feel bound by. I see from looking at other pages that there are all kinds of thugs and vandals who mess around with articles either out of pure destructiveness or because they think it makes them cool or because through doing things they could get a rise out of other people who had to undo their vandalism or silliness and that made them feel important. One of Wikipedia's norms is to assume good intent on the part of those working on Wikipedia. But in a case like this, a person acting like a thug has to go out of their way to demonstrate this good intent. I personally would be happy if he would demonstrate his good intent. But I predict that he will continue to act like a thug rather than demonstrate his good intent. And it's not really possible to negotiate with or carry on rational or co-operative discourse with thugs. I disagree with SparkIt that the disagreement is about one word in the introductory paragraph; that word is really just a symbol of the issue of whether ClassicJupiter2 is a thug, is a genuine Wikipedia editor with good intent, and can distinguish between a fact an an interpretation. I say he can't and won't, because for some reason this thug behavior on this article gives him some kick or personal gratification or gets him some attention or something like that. Or he's literally a fundamentalist or propagandist who can't really grasp the idea of what an encyclopedia is or what scholarship is. I have been in plenty of groups in real life where one person set himself as the bottleneck to try to prevent the group from working co-operatively or making progress on the group project. It's not that unusual a phenomenon. Jeremy J. Shapiro 09:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

One word... a comment borne of frustration. Indeed, the problem isn't about one word.

Intent... Classicjupiter2, my intent in asking for no more help or assignments is to focus on the article rather that myself, yourself or other selfs. >>sparkit|TALK<< 17:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Sir, with all due respect, I do not like being called a, "thug" or "vandal" or "troll". That is a blatant attack against me and your intentions to provide a clear and open-minded discussion without addressing the facts is obvious. I have been editing this article long before you and with all due respect, I am only making a one-word edit, while you are taking entire control over this article. Now, that this article is under your control, the public will be given a Surrealism article with your slant to it and that is not fair. I totally disagree with your, "Critique of Surrealism" passage, but if you want it in, then so be it. As for Surrealism being a Revolution, that is a fact. Please stop attacking me. There a countless books and sources that can back up my one word edit. Surrealism is a Revolution and always will be.Classicjupiter2 17:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with JShapiro's assessment of the vandalism of classicjupiter2. I've been following the development of this surrealism article for a few months, and have noticed that Classicjupiter2 seems intent on causing these "bottlenecks" or disruptions, as you put it, Jeremy. Usually he tells this or that person to read this or that article, but really it's all just a smokescreen for his disruption of the article-writing process. I wonder what ClassicJupiter2's stake in all this really is?

On the subject of the article, I'd like to see more external links to currently active groups. It's very disappointing that the presence of post-WW2 surrealism isn't taken very seriously. There's a french group, a czech group, a couple of british groups (like upland trout, for instance) a swedish group, a portuguese group, and some american groups, as well. I've noticed that someone (jjmeric) tried to put these in, from previous entries on this talk page, but apparently ClassicJupiter2 took it upon himself to veto this inclusion by user: jjmeric. --Sam Wegtor 18:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I have re-added the omitted groups to the article (and there are still a few more I hope to add). They are all noteworthy and relevent to surrealism. They are also important because they demonstrate the internationality of the movement. --Sam Wegtor 20:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear Mr.Shapiro,

I can work out the beginning with you for the benefit of consensus. As for this user, "Sam Wegtor", they are attempting to use this article for the promotion of clubhouse-oriented, "groups" that are so non-notable, all their articles were deleted off Wikipedia. Mr.Shapiro, I understand your intentions for the article, and I respect that, you and I can talk. I can work something out with you. Tell me what you think. As for this Sam Wegtor, I have a feeling that this new user is someone who was given a warning by an administrator in the past to cool it and now they are coming in under a different user name, to promote these extremely non-notable and fringe clubhouse groups who keep online blogs and other rants, total waste of research. Mr.Shapiro, I can talk to you.Classicjupiter2 01:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

the external links are pertinent to this article!

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

I have reinserted the external links for current surrealist groups, which were again deleted by Classicjupiter2. Classicjupiter2 claims that these are just non-notable "clubhouse" links to groups whose wiki articles have already been deleted, anyway. His logic sounds circular, to me. I disagree with his assessment of their non-notability, for reasons already stated above (october 25). ClassicJupiter2, please stop interfering with the success of this article! --Sam Wegtor 17:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Regarding, "Sam Wegtor"

"They have exhibits, meetings and publications."

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

Classic Jupiter, you can use your circular logic (that anything not in wikipedia or deleted from wikipedia must, ergo, be non-notable, by default) in your vendetta against current surrealist groups, and you can also attack my name, but guess what: the links are replaced again. I have already explained why they are noteworthy. Please stop vandalizing the surrealism article, ClassicJupiter2 --Sam Wegtor 13:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

With regard to the current controversy about the links to various groups, I'm wondering whether it would attenuate the controversy to subdivide that section into links to documents and material from and about the "classical" age of surrealism, links to current groups that ally themselves with surrealism or see themselves as continuations, etc.? I imagine that someone reading a general article about surrealism would be interested in both, especially if they weren't all lumped together but clearly differentiated and organized. Jeremy J. Shapiro 19:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Jeremy, that is a brilliant idea! Having the external links organized into subdivisions would be convenient for the reader: for those who want to learn about the classical, academic side of surrealism, they could chooose from one set of links, and for the "clubhouse" folks who want to know about the surrealism of today, they could choose from another set, but all on the same page! Whad'ya say, ClassicJupiter2? --Sam Wegtor 21:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I am all for it. It is a brilliant idea. In fact, ALL the Surrealist Groups should in fact go back in. I will agree to add them back. Go ahead Mr.Sam Wegtor, you have my blessing to all ALL the links back in the article. I will no longer remove them. By the way, when you add all the links back in, you know, of all your friends in the surrealist movement, please don't leave out our one special surrealist friend.Classicjupiter2 01:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The timing is also perfect. His recent surrealist essay should go live Nov. 1st! A groundbreaking document on Surrealism and Photomontage! Yes, Mr.Sam Wegtor, I will agree to ALL of the Surrealists ALIVE today to be in the links of this very article!!! VIVA SURREALISME!!!Classicjupiter2 01:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I put ALL of the Links back in! There is still one more that I need to add!Classicjupiter2 01:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Uh, hello, we're new here, but we'd like to suggest our site for inclusion in the external links section: [5]

Oh, and because it's halloween, we're having a bobbing-for-apples party in our bathtub this weekend, out at our Fire Island bungalow, and everyone's invited! Surrealist greetings! --Ernie-and-bert 15:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The link you posted does not work. What happened to Sam Wegtor? All of a sudden, this new user, "Ernie and bert" come along? I will contact an administrator. This is a serious discussion about surrealism, not about invitations for, "bobbing for apples".Classicjupiter2 21:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

"Bobbing for apples," huh? That's cute. Thanks for the invitation, Ernie and bert, but I spent my halloween weekend in Nashville. ClassicJupiter2, I'm glad you like the idea of having various subcategories within the external links section. I'd propose that there be categories of: 1) academic/classical links, 2) current group/collective links, and 3) individual artists. Any thoughts? --Sam Wegtor 14:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

External Links

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

You forgot comrade Juan Carlos Otano and The Surrealist Group of Argentina!!! VIVA SURREALISME!!!Classicjupiter2 02:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I just added some preliminary categorization of the links into the 3 groups I proposed November 2. Classicjupiter2, if you know the URL for the Otano link, then please feel free to add it. --Sam Wegtor 15:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Please do not place that Dale Housman link back on this page. It is not a proper reference link for Surrealism, also it attacks Prof.Ernst Fuchs, using copyright-protected images of him, while attacking and slandering him online, besides linking the WAH Center as well. I will contact an administrator if it is placed on here again. Wikiepedia is NOT the place to promote flame wars and website attacks. Thank you.Classicjupiter2 17:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Did you know that the good professor Fuchs was at our halloween party last weekend? He sat next to us in the hot tub. BTW, both ernie and myself are simply delighted that Keith Wigdor's link has been added to the page. The entire page looks splendid. Also, we're going to have thanksgiving in our bathtub this year, so everyone is welcome to stop by that day for some marijuana and a little turkey-basting. Surrealist greetings! --Ernie-and-bert 02:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I am going to report you to an administrator, surrealist X.70.19.75.190 19:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

ClassicJupiter2, we restored the united states surrealist groups that you deleted. If you think these groups are to be removed, and "unverifiable," then Bert and I can't see how we should keep links such as, say, "Keith Wigdor". Please consider this very, very, very, very carfully. If the links to the surrealist groups must go, then the links to the individual artists might as well go, too. Your choice. --Ernie-and-bert 02:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Xtian, its not gonna happen, please stop your attacks and go away, please.Classicjupiter2 02:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Its amazing how, "Ernie and Bert" become so serious as soon as their friends blogs gets deleted. What happened to the marijuana and, "little turkey-basting" that you were stating as fact? Let the record show that nothing this, "Ernie and Bert" writes is credible. This user stated they were in a hot tub with Prof. Fuchs at a halloween party. Then this user has the nerve to offer us marijuana online, which is illegal. Please stop harrassing this article and leave us all alone. I am going to talk to Mr.Shapiro and then to a Wikipedia authority. I kept the other links, I only removed the one we cannot verify as legit. Who knows who these people are with these blogs and geocities freeby websites? Anyone that comes on here pushing drugs and lies has no credibility.Classicjupiter2 03:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Classicjupiter2, it is so unfair of you to attack us in this way. Ernie and I have talked it over, and decided that you are too bossy and authoritative on this site. We are trying to work with you to make this article the best that it can be, and here you are, just deleting whatever doesn't appeal to your personal tastes. Please leave us alone and stop trying to degrade us. WE NEVER ATTACKED YOU, SO WHY ARE YOU ATTACKING US? And it is our right to smoke marijuana as long as we don't inhale it. If it makes you feel any better, Fuchs is here with us right now in the bathtub, and he said that he doesn't approve of your behavior, either. Surrealist greetings! --Ernie-and-bert 03:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, our names are "Ernie and Bert" and we would appreciate it if you would address us only as such. Some genuine politeness on your part would be greatly appreciated, please. --Ernie-and-bert 03:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Link Wars, again

I put the american links back in. ClassicJupiter, I don't understand how you can eliminate the american groups while keeping non-notable, unverifiable individual artists. Who the hell is Keith Wigdor? Who the hell is Terrence Lindall? Who the hell is Adriano Monteiro (goetia fine art link)? All of those guys are nobodys.

Seems to me that you've got some kind of grudge or personal vendetta against these american surrealist collectives. As crazy and childish as "Ernie and Bert" are as editors, they are right in their perceiving you as excessively "bossy and authoritative". Unfortunately, your approach is highly unprofessional and inappropriate to this wikipedia article-building process. The next step would be to eliminate all of the "contemporary" links, both groups and artists, and just stick with the old-fashioned academic links of 20th century surrealism. I would prefer, however to keep ALL the links. I repeat: ALL of the links. --Sam Wegtor 15:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Classicjupiter2, these american surrealist groups are bogus. I cannot find anything solid on these groups except Chicago, which Classicjupiter2 already left in. As for these Keith Wigdor, Terrance Lindall, and Goetia, they are solid, and they are already categorized in the surrealist artist category of the external links, they are not in the surrealist groups section, so why does this sam wegtor all of a sudden care? We are talking about current surrealist groups and the ones that were deleted are bogus. Who are these people? Blue Feathers? Please? Come on Sam wegtor, this ernie and bert are talking about pot and hot tubs.70.19.56.209 17:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I put the american links back again. I think user 70.19.56.209 is ClassicJupiter2's sock puppet. --Sam Wegtor 17:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi everyone, to introduce myself, my name is Keith Wigdor, and I'm new to wikipedia. I've already noticed someone on this site has posted a link of "keith wigdor" in the external links section of the surrealism article, but it makes me wonder if this guy is an impostor, or what. Either that, or it's just a small world, a true coincidence. I will put the link to my new website right next to his. Hopefully someone can get in touch with the other Keith so that we can come up with a way to distinguish us from each other. Anyways, as you might have guessed, I'm a surrealist artist and have been a surrealist since college. I sell my art for a living, and particularly thrive in group exhibits. Hope to hear from you! THANKYOU KEITH WIGDOR.---keith-wigdor- 23:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The above is online harrassment. I contacted the real artist. I would recommend that you stop creating websites that harrass this artist online, unless you want to be sued. I removed the link and I suggest you remove that website offline.70.19.27.152 17:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Let's Get a Grip

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

Mr.Shapiro, I added Rene Char to the article. Also, I completely agree with what you wrote above. I recommend that the users, "Ernie and Bert" and "keith-wigdor" (an imposter who uses the internet to harrass the real surrealist artist Keith Wigdor and Terrance Lindall) be permanently banned from Wikipedia. I agree that we have all had disagreements in the past and debate can be healthy, but these two users are deliberately disrupting the article and using it to harrass, defame and slander innocent people online. These users do have IP's, and they need to be banned from Wikipedia, forever.Classicjupiter2 20:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Shapiro, you obviously think that Ernie & Bert are CONSTRUCTIVE...and LEGITIMATE??? I only ask the question, let others decide whether Mr. Shapiro has good judgement. AB

I think that this jockeying for position and self-assertion among people, whether real, fictional, fantasied, etc., whom the world at large is not interested in is an example of what I was identifying as time-wasting behavior. The world at large is not interested in Keith Wigdor, Ernie and Bert, Jeremy Shapiro, Classicjupiter2, Terrance Lindall, etc. or whether they exist or don't exist. But it might be interested in a truly excellent article about surrealism if we put energy into that. I recognize that most people in the world do not get the recognition that they deserve as individuals. But the fact that some of them will go to extreme lengths to get it is the source of a lot of nuisance to others. Jeremy J. Shapiro 21:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I quite agree. But you seem to find Bert & Ernie legitimate enough to abuse people on this talk page. This is the curiosity! All the while you rant saying that this page should be exclusively about creating a good article on surrealism. I ask you to use good judgement and not be arbitrary. Is that too much to ask? AB

Mr.Shapiro means well and I agree with him on the issues of improving the article. However, we all must agree on the main issue of preventing online harrassment, defamation and slander, as well as the disruptive actions and intent by those who want to harm others online while using Wikipedia. Lets face the facts, the users, "Ernie and Bert" and the imposter, "keith-wigdor" need to be banned. I hope that Mr.Shapiro can understand that there are people who are being hurt by these users. As for the surrealist artists Terrance Lindall and Keith Wigdor, they are real and they do not deserve to be harrassed by these users here on Wikipedia. As for the contemporary surrealist groups, they now have their links on here, what more do they want? Mr.Shapiro is very sincere and also very helpful, but I must also agree with the above user's point about the actions of, "Ernie and Bert". Mr.Shapiro, you can obviously read the abusive and harmful slander that this, "Ernie and Bert" have posted, we all must agree that this particular user be banned. As for the surrealism article, you have done a wonderful job, and even though you and I have had strong disagreements in the past, we both have resolved them together and we both have a new respect for one another. I really respect Mr.Shapiro's intentions to improve the article, however, I do not respect this user, "Ernie and Bert" for their blatant attacks and harrassment against innocent people. This user must be banned so we can all move on. There is no other way. "Ernie and Bert" have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they are hear to harm others with lies, defamation and slander. It needs to stop, now. Mr.Shapiro, you are more than welcome on my discussion page to address this matter. We all need to focus on the article and this discussion page has already be ruined by "Ernie and Bert", who needs to be banned.Classicjupiter2 22:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Ban ernie and bert, they are trouble.70.19.101.178 19:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi everyone, we're so sad that we have evoked such a negative response from Classicjupiter2 and his sock-puppets, which is a total shame. We'd like the surrealism article to be just as good as he'd like it to be. For thanksgiving, we'd like to remind everyone here that we're still having that turkey-basting party at our house in Fire Island, so please remember to bring your speedos. Also, to make sure that nobody feels left out, we have personally extended invitations to Keith Wigdor, Terrence Lindall, Eric Bragg, the good professor Fuchs and of course, you too, Jeremy. We're not trying to be party-poopers, but please be reminded that this is going to be a feces-free weekend, so please leave all the crap in Staten Island, before you hit the Long Island Sound. Meanwhile, we must remind you that art is the only religion. VIVA LA SURREALISME!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! --Ernie-and-bert 19:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposal to create separate article for current surrealist groups and artists

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

Jeremy, dude, you've got all the best ideas for this article! A separate article about current surrealist groups might solve this current dilemma. KW

Youa have a copyright violation of NYC channel 13 TV property at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Ernie-and-bert

A fine idea, Jeremy. I tend to think that if an artist warrants an external link, they warrant a wikipedia article and an internal link to it. Sparkit 00:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear Mr.Shapiro, its really not a good idea, its only asking for major trouble. First, there is the issue of notability. All of the current surrealist groups, except for The Chicago Surrealist Group had their articles deleted upon a VfD vote by the Wikipedia Community. Second, you are not addressing the issue of online harrassment here on Wikipedia. The Talk Pages for this proposal of a current surrealist article would be an open invitation to the, "Ernie and Berts" and God knows how many others that would literally stalk the talk pages and the article. You are correct about Wikipedia being a neutral enyclopedia, please do not create an article that cannot be substantiated by notability and credible sources. The only credible source on any current surrealist group activity is Franklin Rosemont's Chicago Surrealist Group and they already have an article. Plus, if you were to create an article on Current Surrealism, I can guarantee you that there would be problems from the start. How do you substantiate and legitimize the reference sources? For every headcase that has an online blog that rants about surrealism and their group, does that mean they deserve notablility in an encyclopedia? I am just one voice, but if You and Sparkit decide that this is the solution, be prepared for some fireworks. The debate over current surrealism here on Wikipedia has been going on since 2003. Mr.Shapiro, have you ever taken the time to read the Surrealism Archive Logs? Do you know anything about current surrealist groups, like say, The Portland Surrealist Group composed of Brandon Freels and M.K. Shibek? They have an online blog, now you want to give them and all their comrades an article. I really suggest that you offer a vote to the entire Wikipedia community. They are the ones who voted to delete non-notable current surrealists and their groups. Believe me, if you want it, don't say I never told you so, but be in for a bumpy ride.Classicjupiter2 01:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

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

And I'd like to have a wiki-article just for me, thankyou! Here is a link to my website: [6] Lately, with all the discussion here on this talk page, it seems that someone has been trying to supress my art and links, harrassing me. (I have indicated this on my website, as a show of the good faith.) I haven't really said anything about it in a while, after all of these childish ego-wars have been going on lately. Either way, I'd like to start a Keith Wigdor article. I'm the greatest modern surrealist that has ever been! Earlier on, someone called me an impostor, but I can assure you I'm real. Please check my website. Thankyou :) ---keith-wigdor- 01:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Sir, what you are doing is wrong, please stop harrassing this artist online. I did a Whois domain name lookup on the above website link and the Administrator Contact's E-mail is ewbragg@hotmail.com, which one needs to register the website online. Also this defamation, slander and harrassment is being carried on Web.com, the same provider for surrealcoconut.com that displays the Thike Doorwig Gallery that also harrasses the real Keith Wigdor. I really think that it would be a good idea to listen to reason and STOP harrassing the real Keith Wigdor online and here on Wikipedia. It might be good idea for law enforcement to investigate this matter.Classicjupiter2 02:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? ---keith-wigdor- 13:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

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

This user, "keith-wigdor" is an imposter. I already contacted the real artist.Classicjupiter2 03:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Keith_Wigdor

Link farm

I removed the whole list here. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for their promotion. If they are notable, please write articles about them and refer to these articles from this one. If not, then good-bye links. Wikipedia is not a link farm. mikka (t) 23:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The article certainly seems less cluttered and more encyclopedic this way. Jeremy J. Shapiro 00:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Much better. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-9 17:46

I agree with Mr.Shapiro and Brian.Classicjupiter2 19:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Current Surrealist Groups & Collectives:

• The London Surrealist group (magazine: Arcturus)
• Le groupe de Paris du mouvement surréaliste (magazine: S.U.RR.)
• Czech and Slovak Surrealist Group (magazine: Analogon)
• Surrealist group in Athens
• The Surrealist Movement in the United States (Chicago group) (Black Swan Press)
  • Minnesota Surrealists (Blue Feathers)
  • Honolulu Surrealist Group
  • Houston Surrealist Group
  • Portland Surrealist Group (Publication: Flying Stone)
  • the Seattle Surrealist Group
  • the Surrealist Group of Wisconsin (CounterClockwise)
• Grupo Surrealista de Cantabria (magazine SIAMÉS)
• the Stockholm surrealist group (magazine Stora Saltet)

Surrealist Artists:

• Surrealism on the Web: A collection of information on Surrealism, Surreal artists, and surreal websites.
• Surrealist photomontages of Keith Wigdor
• Surrealist ball point pen illustrations by Shlomo Felberbaum
• Goetia Fine Art - Surrealism
• Jan Svankmajer: Alchemist of the surreal
• [link removed]

Can we discuss groups here?Stuart Inman 16:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible to mention more women surrealists in the article?Lady Hannah Cadaver 17:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

More Women in Surrealism

A nice feature article just came out on the "New Surrealists" in the March issue of Art & Antiques Magazine, the world's most read art & antique collectors magazine (Readership: 412,315, Average household income: $628,000 Average household net worth: $2,066,000). This is an upscale magazine on the international arts and museum world. About half of the "major international artists" mentioned there are women. None of the artists mentioned there are mentioned in this wiki article. Perhaps the historians here necessarily are behind the advance guard of the movement. In any case the article sheds light on who are the major players today. You all should read it. Your article, being "historical" should at least mention O'Keefe, Kahlo and a number of others for fairness. I have no interest to add them, since I have no particular inclination to the subject...just a suggestion, since there are some major women players, especially today in the arts. Best to All

Sorry, the article does mention H.R. Giger as a major figure and your article mentions him (although not as a surrealist). But the A&A article seems to clarify, at least to museum administrators like me, the issue of "What 'surrealism' is in the arts." Again, Congratulations!

Thanks for your feedback! :-) The articles on Wikipedia are constantly in the works, and unfortunately, it may not reflect all the knowledge that is relevant and out there. It is just waiting for someone with your knowledge and expertise to add it. Hopefully in a bit of time, someone will come by and improve the article as you suggested. --HappyCamper 22:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this would be a useful source of information on peter-pansurrealist women: http://www.surrealismnow.com/femalesurrealistartists.html --Sloppy hairpiece 16:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Dimitri Spanoa

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

==Boyer blanking== I added these facts (below) to the INPACT OF SURREALISM section in the articlle...which Boyer subsequently blanked in an edit. Since the info I added is accurate, documented and relates specfically to material in the article, I hope that we can all agree to have it remain. I know Boyer has a mission dedicated to a retrogarde 1960's idea revolving around "R." But we must keep up with true scholarship. SHR

New additon:

Nontheless, "Art and Antiques Magazine," one of the world's formost international magazines for art, stated in March 2006 that all of the aforementioned art forms derive from surrealism and should be categorized logically as "Pansurrealism." The essay further stated that surrealism will ultimately be vindicated as being "...the foundation for all modern and contemporary art forms." The essay says that in first part of the 21st century new forms of surrealist art have manifested themselves in both Massurrealism and a "pop" surrealist movement called "Characterism," and will continue to generate new offspring, perhaps forever. In other words, there was no "end" to surrealism in the arts.

Daniel C. Boyer Vandalism

Boyer says in his second vandalism that ""Undocumented" IP address does not recognise extensive documentation of 'non-mainstream' surrealism." There is no evidence for that statement. In fact I recognize the fact that there are small self labled "groups" (many one person web-sites calling themselves "surrealist groups") that live in the past, that do not recognize mainstream scholarship on surrealism and live in a world of imagined "revolution" that almost everybody does not want. These are fringe cults. Interesting, but not important. SHR

Clearly this is a combination of various mere POVs and statements of the obvious that are nevertheless completely worthless. As for "self-labelling," who else would be qualified to do the labelling, or what are you trying to get at by this? Is there an accreditation board outside surrealism deciding who does and who doesn't qualify as a surrealist? What's your point? What's you proof of or support of "one person web-sites" [sic] -- can you even identify one and state what your evidence is concerning it? I can't imagine there's anything on this that could go into the article beyond stating that one anonymous or pseudonymous person claims, without evidence, that some of the "groups" are in fact websites run by one person, and if this is how you want to edit it, I'm all for it. As for "living in the past," that is truly question-begging at the least, but surrealism never conceived of itself as a historical era or something existing purely therein, and any examination of primary materials would confirm this. As for "mainstream scholarship" I would have to have more details before engaging in an argument on this point. As for "[revolution]... that almost everybody does not want," this is a statement that is eminently risible as that would be true of almost every revolution (at least initially, and usually quite beyond this, as people in general tend to be either opponents or apathetic about revolutions) that there has ever been, so, again, what's your point? The statement that they are "fringe cults" is a POV, and it could be incorporated in the article, but only as such -- something like, "Some people regard contemporary surrealist groups as fringe cults." It doesn't contribute much to the article but I'd not be averse to that. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Love it!!! Every cast of the fly draws you to the surface. But a very intelligent rejoinder, as usual, just wrongheaded (my opinion, if I am allowed to have any opinions not agreeable to you). Best regards, SHR

SHR, you do provide an excellent argument that is based on the factual record. Yes, there is an article on Surrealism that was in ARTS and ANTIQUES that was written by a noted art scholar, museum director and art historian, besides the fact the he is also a surrealist. Boyer's argument for self-inclusion for his surrealist friends is understandable, he does possess desire, there is no denying that, but Daniel C.Boyer has great difficulty in providing coherent and credible documentation for the record for us all to investigate. I do have issues with the term, "pansurrealism" though, no offense, its sincere, but I only argue the use of the term, "pansurrealism" from the standpoint of basic semantics. Surrealism today is a revoltionary movement that is taking place primarily in the arts, with the unity of various Surrealist and Surreal Artists exhibiting with Fantastic and Visionary Artists, The Society for the Art of the Imagination, Lindall's Brave Destiny Surrealism shows, Keith Wigdor's Surrealism in 2003 and others. SHR, you see, Daniel C.Boyer and his small group of marginal friends are trying to dominate the discourse on Surrealism and any discussion of it in the art realm. However it was Terrance Lindall that truly opened the doors of the marvelous and not forgeting the above mentioned as well. I strongly support, "The New International Surrealist Manifesto" and its true intentions to channel the Hegelian Dialectic, its strong in content. However the term, "pansurrealism" on the standpoint of semantics, does trouble me, it does conjur up wizards and fairies and that will only feed Daniel C.Boyer and the other Cravenites argument. I say do not give in to them one bit. Brave Destiny was Surrealism, Terrance Lindall is a Surrealist, The Society for the Art of the Imagination are Surrealists as well as Fantastic and Visionary Artists and this drives Boyer and his friends totally crazy. Since the term, "pansurrealism" was published, I can live with it, but Surrealism is Surrealism and the word in and of itself, does not need to be subjugated to subset-categorizations. I truly admire Terrance Lindall, I consider him a true surrealist, not a pansurrealist. Boyer hates all of this anyway. Daniel and his small group of friends are going to have an International Surrealist Show this coming August in Iowa, the link to the banner is on James Sebor's bogus website, http://www.surrealists.org click on Art Shows. This is a scam, Boyer and his, "radical" friends claim to be the heirs to Breton, they are not, no one is.Classicjupiter2 01:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

One more thing, ARTS and ANTIQUES Magazine is a credible reference source that cannot be debated for inclusion in this article. SHR's edits should stand. Why Boyer debates this is beyond me.Classicjupiter2 03:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Classic! Yes, whether "pansurrealism" as a term survives is whether it enters the general lexicon. I have nothing to say about that. Some people do not like it. Daniel is a bit amusing when he says "... Is there an accreditation board outside surrealism deciding who does and who doesn't qualify as a surrealist?" I thought that this is just what he thought he himself was...the sole arbiter of who is and is not a surrealist. Daniel is intelligent, obviously. If he turned hs mind toward serious scholarship he could build a good reputation even yet. He should put away his make believe surrealist toys (mental blocks), abandon his fringe playmates and move on. Playing at being a revolutionary Trotskyite as Daniel is doing is like when I was a kid pretending I was a cowboy. The difference between Daniel and "R" is that Daniel builds dream castles in the sky and "R" lives in them...if you get the drift SHR

SHR, great points. What Daniel C.Boyer doesn't understand while he's trying to shortcut him and his friends way to notability and fame is this: You need to provide something credible, coherent, accessible and open to anyone that is interested in your work, be it art, poetry, writing etc. Online Blogs of marginals do not cut it. Boyer has been trying to get an Administrator's title here on Wikipedia, which will make it easier for him to promote his friends on here. Note that every article that he created for his friends was Voted for Deletion by the Wikipedia community. They are wise to him and his friends. Granted, Daniel C.Boyer is a very exceptional artist, on the experimentational level, but that's it. SHR, you know how the New York City Art Scene is, there are literally hundreds of Boyers out there, making paintings using the automatic technique: nail polish, wax, magic markers, etc.,etc. SHR, Daniel Boyer is going to be exhibiting in an, "International Surrealist Show" this coming August 15 to Sept.18 in Spencer, Iowa at the Arts on Grand Gallery. Daniel will be on exhibit with 16 other artists. These people are supposed to be the representatives or in other words, "the true and real surrealists" and they are putting on this show in Iowa, thanks to the artist Craig Blair, who put this together. SHR, you will recognize some of the names: ZAZIE, ANDREW TORCH, DANIEL C.BOYER, etc.,etc. These are the same signatures on that stupid, "Craven Destiny" threat against Terrance Lindall's, "BRAVE DESTINY" Surrealism Show back in 2003, which was HUGE! Terrance Lindall was able to organize 500plus artists, also some real heavywieghts in the Surrealism and Visionary movements, besides others as well, Kenny Scharf, who's art is in the private collection of Dennis Hopper, no less. Anyway, back to Daniel Boyer: Dan and his group of friends, claim that they are the true and real surrealists, they shut out anyone that they disagree with on any of the fundamentals of Surrealism. Remember, SHR, as anyone who is a scholar can tell you, BRETON IS DEAD, he died in 1966, and Jean Schuster did disband what was left of the Paris Surrealist Group in 1969, no matter what the two surviving members say, the record speaks for itself. Breton's personal assistant, Jose Pierre, went looking for surrealism up in Canada, during the 1970's and he found it. Anyway, from the books that I have read and studied, written by Prof.Mary Ann Caws and Dawn Ades, also Alice Mayhoun's recent book is good to, is that the Andre Breton Surrealist Movement did start to disband in 1969. Now, Boyer's argument could be that it never did, well to a point. However, look at the record: Many Surrealist Shows during the late 60's up to the year 2002, were major Surrealist Retrospectives. The largest gathering of artists working in Surrealism and its other affinities was BRAVE DESTINY, in 2003. There is no denying that. Boyer and his friends argue that there version of Surrealism has been somehow sanctioned by Andre Breton's principles, but they provide no evidence. Read the stupid, "Craven Destiny" threat, where is their argument, except for insults and threats? Daniel C.Boyer and his other 16 artist friends, who claim to be the representatives of Breton, provide very little evidence to the public, besides making public statements online that there is an active movement, but where? SHR, Can you imagine any art student from Pratt Institute studying Surrealism and looking for contemporary surrealism today, what will they find? Boyer and his friends. The Professor would give this student a D. AS for Boyer and his friends the Rosemonts, Franklin and his wife Penelope, their base is in Chicago and they are really not well-liked in the Art World outside of Chicago, where they receive awards for, "ALGREN AWARD", etc. They are book publishers who run Charles Kerr Inc. Great books, but truly ignorant people. What kills me about the Cravenites is that when they were supposed to be protesting the WAH, none of Boyer's friends showed up to protest Brave Destiny. What does that say about their credility? Boyer's main friends in Dan's upcoming Surrealisme show in Spencer,IA, ZAZIE and BERNARD DUMAINE are both from the WEBISM ART Movement. Ever since the remaining Paris Surrealist Group issued a statement denouncing Webism for posing as Surrealism, Zazie and Bernard are now full-blown surrealists, who deny their roles in Webism, particularly Zazie. What does that say about their integrity and credibility? Boyer's friends in theses, "surrealist" groups that he claims are active post in online blogs and such, so can anyone. That is why the Wikipedia community has deleted all of the surrealist group articles that he created to promote his friends. You will not find Surrealism in the corn belt, you will find artists exhibiting and selling their art, just like any other art show. The only difference with Boyer and his friends is that they allege that they are the true surrealists. Well, being referenced in independent publications from automedia, like Sakolsky's (who is a pirate radio expert, not an expert on Surrealism as he claims) don't cut it. Also, Boyer and his friends were all banned online from Now Surreal for trying to sabotage Now Surreal's, "Surrealism 2002" which they did. Anyway, when the public sees a noted art scholar, art historian and museum director, and also a surrealist, and also who's art and illustrations can be accessed, Terrance Lindall, then you are dealing with credibility. Same goes for Prof.Mary Ann Caws too. Boyer does have Leonora Carrington's son Pablo Weisz Carringtion in his, "Surrealisme" show, I wonder if Boyer and his friends will sign a protest letter against Leonora Carrington for accepting an Award in a capitalist ceremony in 2005 from the Mexican President, Vicente Fox, the Mexican George W.Bush, like they did with, "Brave Destiny" denouncing Surrealists who accept awards. The Rosemonts accept awards too, Daniel. Total hypocrisy and lack of credibility. At least when Terrance Lindall puts on a show, you get 500plus and its a HUGE SUCCESS.Classicjupiter2 15:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Classicjupiter, it's nice to see how politely you are replying to your own previous comments " Thank you classic !...." ; Btw, is this about what some call " Peter-Pansurrealism ? J.Stenzack

Dear J.Stenzack, I am not replying to my own comments. Please let me help you. On the very top of this page, there is a history tab button. The user SHR forgot to sign their posts, however you can access the history log of this Discussion page. The IP of SHR will appear above my posts. I do not reply to my own posts on here. A Wikipedia Administrator will not allow that. As for your comment on "Peter-Pansurrealism", I do not agree with the term "Pansurrealism" at all. Only from the issue of semantics. Surrealism is Surrealism. As for Terrance Lindall's work in Surrealism and his success with the Brave Destiny Surrealism show, and his manifesto, it has much support.Classicjupiter2 16:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, J. Stenzack and SHR, you both need to sign your posts like I am.Classicjupiter2 16:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

What an exciting article this is! But shouldnt there be one about peter-pansurrealism, too? --Sloppy hairpiece 16:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

peter-pansurrealism

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

Sloppy Hairpiece, I am not totally convinced by the necessity of such an article; a "peter-pansurrealism " google search leads towards a very few links. --Jacques Stenzack

Jacques, I love you. You are correct that there are not many links for peter-pansurrealism, but the movement is in a period of occultation right now, so that might help you understand the situation. But there should still be an article written, for the indigo children of the future. Its surprising you would lack interest in peter-pansurrealsim, since you were so curious about it in your post above, when you asked Classicjupiter2 about it. THANKYOU, AND WITH MUCH LOVE, --Sloppy hairpiece 19:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jacques Stenzack. Peter-pansurrealism might be growing in importance, but until it reaches a higher level of recognition, it doesn't warrant its own article. --Classicsaturn7 20:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Sloppy Hairpiece, may be there was some misunderstanding in my previous post, cause I am still very curious about it ! Now, Classicjupiter... oh sorry, Classicsaturn7, I suppose that an article would obviously help "peter-pansurrealism" to grow up in notoriety ! --Jacques Stenzack

Jacques Stenzack, wikipedia is an encyclopedia for documenting the important stuff, not for popularizing it! Shame on you! --Classicsaturn7 21:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Jacques and Classicsaturn7, I love you both very much. Jacques, the idea of peter-pansurrealism growing up in notoriety is good, but the problem is that due to its very nature, it cant grow up. Peter-pansurrealism is a movement that is timeless, and that can grow out of itself into new offshoots that eventually lead back to its original self. Peter-pansurrealism has its own green pantyhose social myths! The indigo children will someday use these myths! Open your doors and embrace the Batman & Robin artshow! As you can tell, I am very enthusiastic about all of this! THANKYOU, AND WITH LOVE, --Sloppy hairpiece 02:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I apologize about what has been said above by Classicjupiter...oh, sorry ... Classicsaturn7 ; I am feeling really ashamed; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tool for cheap promotion for non-notable people. Peter-pansurrealism is worth an article. --Jacques Stenzack

Yay!!! It's a wonderful day in the neighborhood! You don't need to apologize, oh, highly esteemed Jacques, the importance of peter-pansurrealism has only just begun! I will begin working on a preliminary version of the article. Methinks pink magic crystals will play a very important role in the world dominance of the peter-pansurrealism movement, as well as hairy apes with prehensile genitalia! THANKYOU, AND WITH MUCH, MUCH LOVE ALWAYS, --Sloppy hairpiece 13:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Sloppy H., your interest in peter-pansurrealism is a good idea, but you need to describe the importance of indigo children, and how aura crystals are important too. --Classic8uranus 14:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, boys and girls! This is what we have so far: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Peter-pansurrealism . What a wonderful day in the neighborhood! THANKYOU, AND WITH UNCONDITIONAL LOVE, --Sloppy hairpiece 15:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks like your "peter-pansurrealism" article is going to be deleted, Sloppy hairpiece. I told you that it had no place in wikipedia. --Classicsaturn7 15:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, what a total bummer. It looks like the world just isn't mature enough to handle peter-pansurrealism yet. But there's nothing wrong with the movement remaining in occultation. I will discuss all of this when I meet up with Batman and Robin in NYC today. We'll probably head over to Staten Island for drinks and then to look at some cafe art. Sloppy H, I'll tell B & R you send them your best regards! --Classic8uranus 14:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Prof.Ernst Fuchs and other Surrealist's New Book

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

Surrealism Show upcoming in Iowa

International Surrealism International artists August 15 - September 18, 2006

EXHIBIT SPONSOR:

Northwest Federal Savings & Loan

I just wanted to let all the 'comrades' know about this cool show. The sponsor is NORTHWEST FEDERAL SAVINGS and LOAN by the way. In case you wanted to open an account after taking in the show!Classicjupiter2 18:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Classicjupiter2, Wikipedia is not a bulletin board for you to announce upcoming events. This is the talkpage for the surrealism article. The news of the Metamorphosis book and Iowa show should be posted somewhere else. You should know the rules by now. --Classicsaturn7 19:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

This is the Discussion page, not the article. You should know that by now, however you are new as are your sockpuppets, Sloppy Hairpiece and Classic8uranus.Classicjupiter2 19:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

But this discussion page is germane to the surrealism article, and the exhibition and the book are not noteworthy enough to be discussed here for addition to the article. You are breaking the rules. FYI, I don't know who SH and Classic8 are, and they are certainly not my "sockpuppets". We might all be new, but that is entirely coincidental. --Classicsaturn7 20:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I never stated that the exhibition and the book are to be added to the article. This is a discussion page. The sockpuppets you are using are Classicsaturn7, Classicuranus8, Sloppy Hairpiece and Jacques Stenzack, too. I forgot about your other sockpuppet. I already gave notice to a Wikipedia Administrator. Read your own posts, all the flamebait in the posts and the responses between your sockpuppets. By the way, SHR is a totally different person as indicated by their IP Address.Classicjupiter2 23:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Classicjupiter2, all of these accusations & talk of sockpuppets is inappropriate for this surrealism discussion page. If you want to gripe about this stuff on my user talkpage, then please feel free, but otherwise, this type of discussion doesn't belong on this page. --Classicsaturn7 03:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This is interesting, especially since you are the one instigating this, 'peter-pansurrealism' with your other sockpuppet. Read your above post to your other sockpuppet Jacques from 20:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC). There is no such thing as 'peter-pansurrealism' yet you stated that, "it might be growing in importance". This is an obvious attempt by you to troll this article and incite flamebait among your other sockpuppets to mock and humiliate this article. Also, this Discussion page is the place to discuss your input as indicated here on this very discussion page. If you would like contact an Administrator, then by all means, please do so. I already have, and I recommend to them to look at the IP Addresses of Jacques Stenzack, Classic8uranus, Sloppy hairpiece, and Classicsaturn7. Thank you and please refrain from posting discussion on "peter-pansurrealism", since it is trolling this discussion to incite flamebait.Classicjupiter2 15:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This is what I said: "I agree with Jacques Stenzack. Peter-pansurrealism might be growing in importance, but until it reaches a higher level of recognition, it doesn't warrant its own article." Do you really consider that to be trolling? Yikes. Why are you so concerned about this "peter-pansurrealism" stuff anyway? You don't have the right to tell me not to comment on peter-pansurrealism or any other topic on this page. --Classicsaturn7 16:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Classicjupiter, I LOVE YOU VERY MUCH, and I am soooooo sorry that you were offended at the idea of adding a peter-pansurrealism section to the surrealism article or even the creation of an article just for peter-pansurrealism! But the truth is that the peter-pansurrealist movement is important and growing in popularity. Are you an idigo adult/child, or maybe a crystal adult/child? That might explain why you hesitate to embrace the goodness of this movment. The aura from your writing shows you have a blue aura, that's why I asked. It's a wunderful day in the neighborhood!!! WITH MUCH LOVE AND BLESSINGS, --Sloppy hairpiece 16:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Sloppy Hairpiece, I do not understand your questions. However, this 'peter'pansurrealism' movement that you keep talking about is confusing. Let me help. I think you mean 'pansurrealism'. When you keep stating 'peter-pansurrealism', I think that you are just making fun of it. However, this 'pansurrealism' that you are talking about has much support. Did you know that the Surrealists who are going to exhibit at the Arts on Grand Gallery in Spencer, IA, this coming August 15, just issued a statement in support of it? This is fact.Classicjupiter2 23:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ClassicJpiter2, I LOVE YOU!!! It is so sweet of you to try to help me understand the pansurrealist movment, but that movment is extremely differnt from peter-pansurrealism, definitely! But thanks anyway, and no, Im not making fun of the pansurrealist movment!!! If you really wanna know, rumour has it that the peterpansurrealist movment began in New York City, like in the Bronx or maybe Staten Island, when Batman and Robin mobelized an army of hairy, flamboyant monkeys to take control of the city back from some evil villain who robbed all of the surrealist paintings from the museum of modern art. There was supposed to be a third superhero involved, but there are too many conflictng reports to verify that. (and if anybody can provide more info about this third superhero, then wikipedia is truly the place for such information to be gathered!!) And anyway, the peter-pansurrealist movment is in a state of occultation anyway, so th einfomration about it all is scarce. Thankyou so much for your kindness, Classicjupiter, and HAVE A WUNDERFUL DAY IN TH ENIEIGHBORHOOD!!!!! WITH MUCH LOVE AND BLESSINGS, SLOPPYHAIRPIECE, PETER-PANSURREALIST. --Sloppy hairpiece 13:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No, Sloppy Hairpiece. The Surrealist Show in IA is the peter-pansurrealist movement that you are talking about. Its the same thing. They gave a statement in support of pansurrealism.Classicjupiter2 18:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I LOVE YOU VERY MUCH, but sorry, Dear Classicjupiter2, the two movements are distinct. As you said, the Iowa group has no mention of "peter" with their variety of pansurrealism manifesto. My loyalties are with PETER-PANSURREALISM. Do the Iowa Group wear green pantyhose and cavort with BATMAN & ROBIN, and take control of NYC with flamboyent hairy sub-humans? I think not, dearest comrade. Only the Peter-Pansurrealists can claim that titel. There is the difference. WITH MUCH LOVE, THANKYOU, SLOPPYHAIRPIECE, PETER-PANSURREALIST. --Sloppy hairpiece 20:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Sloppy Hairpiece, are you saying that pansurrealism is different than 'peter-pansurrealism'? Also, when you are talking about 'peter-pansurrealism', who are you talking about?Classicjupiter2 20:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Dearest ClassicJupitr2, peter-pansurrealism is different from pansurrealism. Take some time to reread my last 2 entries. Peter-Pansurrealists can be found all over the world, from Staten Island to Siberia. WITH MUCH LOVE, THANKYOU, SLOPPYHAIRPIECE, PETER-PANSURREALIST. --Sloppy hairpiece 21:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Be more specific, this is an encyclopedia. Who are these peter-pansurrealists that you are talking about?Classicjupiter2 00:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Peter Pan Surrealists of the Midwest

Yes. I know what Sloppy is talking about. He does not mean “Peter Pansurrealists.” He means “Peter Pan Surrealists.” Yes, there are a handful all over the country. They are one-person web sites calling themselves “surrealist groups.” They live in the past with the Bolsheviks, with ideas of revolution long past and irrelevant to our times. One web site said “Take over the factories,” when in fact there are no factories to take over…the factories are now in Malaysia. Another web site in Chicago says there are no white people, a cute provocative idea from the Black revolution of the 1960’s. The Peter Pan Surrealists will never grow up and they are the Peter Pan Surrealists of Sloppy, living in the Midwestern United States. Another adolescent trick is that they post ridiculous material on interactive web pages like this one. They have no serious ideas and like to play like the children they remain in their own minds, while they are in fact growing old and tiresome to others. Your Welcome, Tinkerbell

Oh, 'Tinkerbell', as much as I LOVE YOU, you appear to be a disgruntled mascot, or maybe even an impostor. Btw, your IP address looks very familiar -- maybe from somewhere in New York? The Tinkerbell that I know wouldn't say such spiteful things. The above post was probably written by a wannabe-peter-pansurrealist, who is bitter because his green pantyhose has ripped and because none of the peter-pansurrealists want to have anything to do with him! PLEASANT DREAMS AND HAPPY PINK PIXIE DUST FOR ALL OF THE GOOD LITTLE INDIGO BOYS AND GIRLS LIVING NEAR LONG ISLAND! THANKYOU, SLOPPYHAIRPIECE, PETER-PANSURREALIST. --Sloppy hairpiece 15:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Tinkerbell, dear, you need to sign in with your username and password when you post on this page. LOVE, --Sloppy hairpiece 16:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

"Another adolescent trick is that they post ridiculous material on interactive web pages like this one." Tinkerbell, is this http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/05/339931.shtml the kind of stuff you are speaking of ? --Jacques Stenzack

Hi everyone! SENDING LOTS OF LOVE!!! "Jacques," that's most likely one of the many adolescent pages that YOU have made. WITH MUCH LOVE, THANKYOU, SLOPPYHAIRPIECE, PETER-PANSURREALIST. --Sloppy hairpiece 21:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Just an idea guys & guys/gals: How about ending the internal feud and getting together and investing energy in the real problems: Global warming, overpopulation, Palestinian genocide by the Israelis who have adopted the policies of the Nazies. We can all agree on the real issues for revolution. Am I wrong? The rest is nonsense! Tinkerbell

Global warming, overpopulation, Palestinian genocide by the Israelis who have adopted the policies of the Nazies

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

OK! But we first must get Eric W. Bragg to stop harrassing Keith Wigdor. If Eric wants to agree, I know Keith will agree to a treaty. The evidence will be that no more postings on interactive sites of that trash, except to say the war is over. You may have noticed thw K.W. has actively brought on board his "SurrealismNow" most of the known living "surrealist" artists of the world, whether or not you agree that surrealism is an art movement. This was done because he has shown support for them. When the surrealists who claim that surrealism is not an art movement ridicule and attack those who think so, they lose support, especially from the academic community whom we need to convince the world of a need to change social direction from exploitation to cooperation for the common good. The thing is...accept anyone who calls themselves a surrealist. It is simply good policy. They will soon discover for themselves whether they want to change the course of the world, which is surely heading for a major disaster within 20 years if we do not do something NOW. Working together, we can convince fellow artists, writers and poets, philosophers, activists that we have the intellectual material to change the thinking of America and the world. WE CAN PERSUADE!!! But we cannot persuade if we look ridiculous by all of this posting that makes us look so. Can we agree to this first step? The next step is that we meet. Until then, we apologize and no more trashing and abuse. With Good Will, Tinkerbell

Tinkerbell, I'm extremely sure that Eric W. Bragg is not the least bit interested in working with Keith Wigdor, in the latter's effort to recuperate surrealism, but I'm definitely interested in working with K.W. We can join our voices, and eventually meet, in order to cement our everlasting friendship and solidarity towards the neoliberal recuperation of the surrealist movement. Let Keith Wigdor come to be seen as the neoliberal figure that he is, and please quickly move him into the center of this new neoliberal-recuperational-capitalist-consolidation that desires to wear the word "surrealist" on its sleeve. For the recuperation of surrealism, let's all say YES to Keith Wigdor! I vote YES! You have my total support, in good faith and good will! When can I get to meet Keith Wigdor? --Classic8uranus 02:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Mr. Torch! We know where to send the "invitation." The meeting will be in Portland at the Stormfront firing range very soon. Many Thanks for your cooperation! Tinkerbell

For those of you who do not know who Eric W.Bragg is, he has a website called Surrealcoconut.com, and you can see Eric here in the video of his 'art statement' (click on the PLAY Button to see Eric in his video), http://www.surrealcoconut.com/bio.htm Classicjupiter2 21:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Why does Classic8uranus go on and on about, "neoliberal-recuperational-capitalist-consolidation"? It makes no sense. I thought that the hardcore "surrealists" in the upcoming Spencer, IA show at the Arts on Grand Gallery are being sponsored by Northwest Federal Savings and Loan? Are their ATMS open 24 hours?Classicjupiter2 20:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

According to the surrealist groups down in South America, Eric Bragg is Franklin Rosemont's spy. Eric goes and snitches everybody out to the big man up in Chicago. How lame.Classicjupiter2 20:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ClassicJuniper2, I LOVE YOU, and thankyou so much for posting all of this information about that Eric W. Bragg character. From that video, you can see that he sure is one scary creature! I can assure everyone that the Peter-Pansurrealist movment would NEVER allow the likes of THAT into its midst! By way of contrast, I would say that a wholesome artist like Keith Wigdor would be most welcome in our movment. Classicjupiter, would you please relay my cordial invitation to Keith Wigdor? I think Wigdor would make a W-U-N-D-E-R-F-U-L peter-pansurrealist! THANKYOU, AND WITH MUCH LOVE, SLOPPYHAIRPIECE, PETER-PANSURREALIST. --Sloppy hairpiece 22:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Sloppy Hairpiece, you are correct, that video of Eric W.Bragg is very scary. Who in their right mind would broadcast that on the internet about themselves? Especially on their own website. Anyway, this is an encyclopedia for serious research and study. Please do not expect that kind of material to ever get an article. People see you for who you are and when one says that about himself, especially in a home made video, put on their own website for the whole world to see, its not for wikipedia.Classicjupiter2 22:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

ClassicJuniper2, thankyou ever so much for alerting the world to this evil, despicable Eric W. Bragg menace. You speak very passionately about this particular subject. You go, girl! I think you'd also make a very W-U-N-D-E-R-F-U-L peter-pansurrealist, just like Keith Wigdor. The reason why is because I say so, for I am the leader of the peter-pansutrealist movment. LOVE ALWAYS, SLOPPYHAIRPIECE, PETER-PANSURREALIST. --Sloppy hairpiece 00:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Surrealism in the service of Revolution

Surrealism wants YOU!Classicjupiter2 19:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The Occultation of Surrealism

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

Now can we please return to the important stuff, like the neo-"nazies" in Palestine? --Classicsaturn7 01:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

VIVA LE WIGDOR !!!!AHAHAHAHAH --Jacques Stenzack

Jacques, although I LOVE YOU VERY MUCH, dear, please don't mock Keith Wigdor like that. That's not fair. It's a wunderful day in the neighborhood!! WITH MUCH LOVE, THANKYOU, SLOPPYHAIRPIECE, PETER-PANSURREALIST. --Sloppy hairpiece 15:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Salute Peter Pan Surrealists of the Midwest

Just wanted to clarify and have everyone keep in mind who the Peter Pan Surrealists are. “Peter Pan Surrealists” are a handful of one-person web sites calling themselves “surrealist groups.” They live in make believe past with the Bolsheviks, with ideas of revolution long gone and irrelevant to our times, fighting the bad old pirate of J.P. Morganism. One web site said “Take over the factories,” when in fact there are no factories to take over…the factories are now in Malaysia. Another web site in Chicago says there are no white people, a cute provocative idea from the Black revolution of the 1960’s. The Peter Pan Surrealists will never grow up and they are the Peter Pan Surrealists led by Eric W. Bragg, Daniel C. Boyer, Steven Torch and Franklin Rosemont living in the Midwestern United States. Their Current leader is Eric W. Bragg. They post ridiculous material on interactive web pages like this one. They have no serious ideas and like to play like the children they remain in their own minds, while they are in fact growing old and tiresome to others. Although they say, “Surrealism is not an art movement,” they all make believe (the Peter Pan Syndrome) they are artists as well as revolutionaries. They “”play with themselves” in an exclusive group because no one else wants to play with them. We do give credit to the Chicago Surrealist “Group” for having initiated the Peter Pan Surrealist Syndrome. Yes, This syndrome should have it’s own article. In that I agree with Sloppy.

Congratulations on the Peter Pan Surrealist “art” show in the cornfields of Iowa. I am sure all of the chickens and cows will enjoy mooing and clucking in appreciation and add their own dung to the pile. I hear the show is sponsored by a Pirate Bank (J.P. Morganism!). Shame on you Peter Pan!!! Tinkerbell

Tinkerbell, some clarifications

Tinkerbell, just wanted to clarify a few things. There is no Steven Torch, that is Andrew Torch, he is a friend of Eric W.Bragg, who is posting in here as, Jacques Stenzack, Classic8uranus, Sloppy hairpiece, and Classicsaturn7, and not forgetting User:Biff Mullins all of the above alias names are Eric W.Bragg. He is even cross-posting attacks against Classicjupiter2 on the Hawaii Indymedia Site, old news really.

Eric W.Bragg is not their leader. Really, its Franklin Rosemont and his reputation sucks outside of Chicago due to the fact of him and his 'group' have a long history of attacking those they do not agree with. Everyone from art critics from the NY Times, to art scholars and museum directors, (this even goes back to the late 1960's) have scorned the wrath of the mighty gasbags from Chicago. There is an account in the book, "Surrealist Poetry" that one of the members of the Chicago Surrealist Group allegedly helped hide a suspected terrorist who blew up an army-draft station office and was being investigated by the Secret Service. This was in the book, whether or not its true, its in that book. Also I read about Robert Bly, the poet who at one time was writing some real good surrealist poetry, was pelted with bags of flour at a public reading of his poetry by gasbags from the Rosemont 'surrealist' mafia. Plus the accounts of various fistfights at galleries in and around Chicago, as well, from back in the day. Oh, and not forgetting the most stupid of all 'surrealist' statements coming from the bowels of Chicago, the rant against Andy Warhol, written by the Chicago Surrealist Group, which praised that sick headcase Valerie Solanis for shooting him. If that didn't totally alienate Franklin Rosemont from the New York City Art world, I don't know what did. Lou Reed would probably kick his ass if he ever seen him!

Anyway, Franklin Rosemont's stronghold on Surrealism is only limited to Chicago. There has been no major surrealism event from this gasbag since 1976, and the account of that event raises some red flags as well. Only local papers cited the event with positive remarks, besides one or two, 'friends' of Rosemont from Paris, etc.

As for Eric W.Bragg, who is 34, he is a wannabe Franklin Rosemont clone, kind of sad really. Besides the fact of his tireless and boring online crusade against Keith Wigdor and also Terrance Lindall (and the WAH) as well. Eric's online antics are spread out all over Indymedia comments, while impersonating Wigdor, and others, and endlessly discrediting, attacking, mocking and humiliating everything Wigdor and Surrealist related, with a parade of Adobe Photoshop pictures of shit-filled toilets, and Batman and Robin pictures, besides some really vicious others as well. Read the above posts from Eric W.Bragg's alias user names, Jacques Stenzack, Classic8uranus, Sloppy hairpiece, and Classicsaturn7, then you will understand.

Tinkerbell, as for this 'feud', there really is none. Wigdor is just a surrealist, who does his own thing, from what I seen online. Many surrealists and surrealist artists support him and collaborate with him on his site, so its obvious that this drives Eric nuts, but I guess that everyone has their stalker, remember John Lennon?

Tinkerbell, what is unfortunate is that others have been attacked by the Bragg clan (the Cravenites, is what I call them) for the historic BRAVE DESTINY show. This was the largest ever SURREALISM show on record, over 500 exhibited, so go figure. Bragg's friends only number around 15 to 20, and they are all marginals, who after signing that stupid 'Craven Destiny' threat against the WAH, and threatening to burn and destroy the artworks, have literally put the last nail in their own coffin! You wonder why they only exhibit together in group shows way, way, way out in the midwest, like Spencer IA and Ohio. This is all the doings of CRAIG BLAIR, who is their organizer. If only Eric W.Bragg knew what Craig Blair did (a private secret joke between me and Tinkerbell).

Anyway, this constant posting of 'Peter-panusrrealism" is just another online attack against any artist, like Prof. Fuchs, (who just collaborated with surrealist James Sebor and others on a new book)and others from AOI who create art, so that is old news. Also I would like to mention Eric W.Bragg's surrealist friend, Dale Michael Houstman (who had articles deleted on Wikipedia thanks to endless promotion by his friend Daniel C.Boyer) who just recently had an entire anti-Prof Fuchs website pulled offline as well. Dale really hates Prof. Fuchs and went as so far to create a mock website to humiliate and attack Prof. Fuchs, that was pulled offline as well.

So, Tinkerbell, what you are really dealing with here is totally juvenile behavior and old news. Its kind of sad that people will go to such limits to get attention, like a chihauaha constantly nipping at one's pants leg.Classicjupiter2 16:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

So can we talk about art now? --Biff Mullins 16:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear ClassicJuniper2, and I thought you were on MY side! I still love you anyway, though. Is it really true that you think of the Peter-Pansurrealist movment as an attack on Professor Fuchs and "any artist"? I think not, dear friend. Peter-Pansurrealism is only for a select few. Although I love you very much, I'm still mad at you for saying that. I also still think there's a very big place for you, too, in the peter-pansurrealist movment. Sorry you're having such a grumpy day, ClassicJuniper2. Cheer up! WITH MUCH LOVE AND BLESSINGS, --Sloppy hairpiece 18:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like Keith Wigdor/Tinkerbell/Stenzack/Classicjupiter2/SloppyH/et. al. is obsessed with all of these other surrealist people. For someone who claims to be persecuted by them, it's kind of weird that he'd follow their every move, with such venom. It's like he's stalking these other people whom he claims are stalking him. Now THAT'S sad. --Biff Mullins 12:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The Triumph of the Surreal in World Economics

I intend to place this into the article. it is accurate and verifiable:

"With the fall of the Soviet Union, and the rampant growth of Democratic Capitalism, the developed countries have witnessed the highest point in the satisfaction of human needs (food, shelter, clothing) and also human desires (entertainment and leisure). The investment of man’s labor and intellect into products for sale, such as automobiles, real estate, computers etc., investments made because of the possibility of harvesting profits, have caused a blossoming of the human condition unthinkable in centuries past. The unconscious desire, the surreal freedom of “DESIRE UNBOUND” to reap the possible utopia of abundant food, abundant leisure, and abundant capital has driven mankind toward a future of freedom quite beyond imagination. With the ultimate and absolute triumph of democratic capitalism or surrealist capitalism in both the East and the West the world is shaking off the tyranny of a failed Marxist struggle for an absolutely controlled economy which delivered only human misery, falling behind the West in the competition for improvement of the human condition." KAPITALISIMO

What part of the article would you put it in, whoever you are? Since you're new here, like so many of us are, you need to remember to sign all your posts. Your proposed paragraph which discusses things like "surrealist capitalism" is not so accurate and verifiable. Where did you get this information? What information source did you consult? Do you have any bibliographic references? All of that would be most helpful in verifying the accuracy of the many sweeping assertions that you make in this paragraph. Can you please explain what surrealist capitalism is? That almost reminds me of something from peter-pansurrealism. In fact, this paragraph might be more appropriately added to the peter-pansurrealism article, and not to the surrealism article. --Biff Mullins 17:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Biff, if I may call you "Biff": Surreal Capitalism is described in the statement put forth already above. I am putting it into the article under "Surrealism in Economics (a new heading)." It is self-explanatory and a self-evident truth. What is your authority to question self-evident truth? Democratic Capitalism is in the news in every language every day verifying its successes! KAPITALISIMO

I agree with Biff Mullins: these statements are neither accurate nor verifiable. Wikipedia is not a site for publication of "self-evident truths", particualrly if they are not self-evident nor the truth.--StN 22:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear StN: Your expertise is Karl Marx. You are biased against capitalism. I am right. Capitalism is by its very nature “surreal” because it represents the “practical” surrealist revolution of the dominance of the id (subconscious) over the ego and superego in achieving its unfettered desires. The ego and superego were always meant to be slaves of the id! “Freedom of Desire Over All!!!” Without desire, we desire nothing, not even to live. The very definition of id is “desire.” What service can the superego provide to the self (ego) without the id. The id is the GOD of the ego, and the superego is the soldier in the service, a “capitalist tool,” as it were!

Democratic (Surrealist) Capitalist wars, to suppress the silly aspirations of ““Liberal/International/Marxist/Progressive//Socialists (or “LIMPS”),” are good and moral wars. “LIMPS,” in fact, have produced most of human misery in the last century. Persuading its enemies, Democratic Capitalism bequeaths the peace and richness of surrealism, id est, a true and abundant surrealist “DESIRE UNBOUND!”

KAPITALISIMO

I freaking love this talk page. Geedubber 14:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh Geedubber, AND I FREAKING LOVE YOU, you crazyboy! Since you like this talkpage so much, why don't you consider joining the Peter-Pansurrealist movment? ClassicJuniper has already joined, and so have Tinkerbell and Keith Wigdor. To be a member, all you really need are some green pantyhose and the desire to sell yourself to the kapitalist world! PEACE BE WITH YOU, AND WITH MUCH LOVE! THANKYOU, SLPPYHAIRPIECE, PETER-PANSURREALIST. --Sloppy hairpiece 19:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

KAPITALISMO, as long as you can provide a reference source, it can go in the article. As for Karl Marx, I understand your feelings, but after all that is said and done, Karl Marx was really the man who provided one of the best critiques of Capitalism during its history. Though I do agree with you on the matter of the great intellectual flaws that you have pointed out, but in order to be fair to Karl Marx, I myself greatly admire him, though I loathe the Communism of the 20th Century that completely perverted and distorted practically all of Marx's beliefs. Even the great capitalist economic thinkers (Keynes,etc) respect Marx, you have to give him credit for his analysis. Marx would not have tolerated Stalin, or the Kims of North Korea that we know. Its better to be an Anarchist Thinker, that is my belief. Also, I didn't know that the surrealist Eric W.Bragg had Down Syndrome, I learn something new every day.Classicjupiter2 16:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it would be very interesting to see what kind of references & sources Kap will be able to produce. --Classicsaturn7 16:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Surrealist Anarcho-capitalism

Sorry, I had thought that the educated among you recognized the revolution of the free individual in society which is what surrealism is about. The surrealist revolution is not for chaining ofthe individual under a Marxist yoke and having a Stalin or even Chicago's “Black Stalin" and his white slaves dictate how one may think and behave.

Here, I have added some more material. You will find that true Surrealist Capitalism is more formally called “Anacho-capitalism” which is the free exercise of desire unbound of the free individual. I have simply added the Freudian dimension. Is this acceptable?

“With the fall of the Soviet Union, and the rampant growth of Democratic Capitalism, the developed countries have witnessed the highest point in the satisfaction of human needs (food, shelter, clothing) and also human desires (entertainment and leisure). Also “the nations of Eastern Europe are engaged in revolutionary programs of economic, political, and social reform moving them toward the combination of democracy and market economics.” The Social Critic Winter, 1998, The Conceptual Foundations of Democratic Capitalism by Dr. Edward Younkins, author of Capitalism and Commerce [7]

“The investment of man’s labor and intellect into products for sale, such as automobiles, real estate, computers etc., investments made because of the possibility of harvesting profits, have caused a blossoming of the human condition unthinkable in centuries past. The unconscious desire, the surreal, anarchical freedom of “DESIRE UNBOUND” to reap the possible utopia of abundant food, abundant leisure, and abundant capital, has driven mankind toward a future of freedom quite beyond imagination. With the ultimate and absolute triumph of democratic capitalism (which has it’s roots in the revolutionary philosophy of Anarcho-capitalism in both the East and the West, the world is shaking off the tyranny of a failed Marxist struggle for an absolutely controlled economy which delivered much human misery, falling behind the West in the competition for improvement of the human condition.

“Anarcho-capitalism recognizes that Capitalism is by its very nature “surreal” or a revolution of individual freedom. It represents the “practical” surrealist revolution of the dominance of the id (subconscious dream of desire) over the ego and superego in achieving its unfettered desires. The ego and superego were always meant to be slaves of the id! “Freedom of Desire Over All!!!” Without desire, we desire nothing, not even to live. The very definition of id is “desire.” What service can the superego provide to the self (ego) without the id. The id is the GOD of the ego, and the superego is the soldier in the service, a “capitalist tool,” as it were.”

KAPITALISIMO

Yes oh yes, this is indeed a fascinating subject for us to consider. Viva el Kapitalismo! LOVE YOU, SLoPPYHAIRPIECE, PETER-PANSURREALIST.--Sloppy hairpiece 19:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

KAPITALISIMO, I completely agree with your sentiments towards Surrealism but as for the belief that capitalism is the central determining factor in solving mankind's trouble, well, I have to disagree. When you stated, "the world is shaking off the tyranny of a failed Marxist struggle for an absolutely controlled economy which delivered much human misery, falling behind the West in the competition for improvement of the human condition", you do not clarify what is the failed Marxist struggle. Marxist thinkers analyze and critique capitalism, and they even suggest that subsystems of capitalist economy remain intact, in order for a centralized economy. Remember, also, that Marx was a 19th Century Philosopher writing his works, in the pre-Indusrtrial Revolution, right at its very aggressive beginnings. Take the Capitalist Economist John Maynard Keynes for example, who no doubt, you can agree with, since he was totally pro-capitalist, when he anticipated that Capitalism would really prove that it is Mankind's saving grace when the 8 hour work week would be reduced to only 3 hours a day, 100 years from when he was alive. So when you go back to, say, 1930, we, you and I (and the stupid peter-pansurrealists who pour food coloring on their bottoms), live to the year 2030, we should see the 3 hour work day. However, I don't see that happening, due to the inherent intellectual flaw that exists in the Capitalist's way of philosophical thinking, (Hume, Kant, etc) that some type of Enlightenment way of thinking about wage slavery is some kind of great trade off of one's labor and time. KAPITALISMO, remember the "SCIENTIFIC METHOD" from back in the day of the factory? Even the Labor Unions and Government Official denounced that, it all comes down to Control of Production and now that Production is Automated, well, the human equation becomes obsolete, thus, Capitalism is not the overall "Saving Grace" to render us from harm and misery. I believe, here in America, you have both, Capitalism and Communism, look at any Federal Program here in the USA, that is really based on a Communist model.Classicjupiter2 22:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

hi keith! Nancy W. sends her best! --Superthike 14:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Professor “Kapitalisimo” is dead! He was shot at his desk by an intruder while he was finishing up his latest book on “Frauds and Buffoons - a look at Midwestern Surrealism in the United States.” A note was left on his body, “How many times do I have to repeat that surrealism is not an art movement.” The professors last words were something about “that Surrealist Sambo out in Chicago.” I am the professors wife sending this last message to all you dear people. He especially appreciated Sloppy hairpeace. Sincerely, The Widow

Eric W.Bragg is on a surrealismo crusade to save Surrealism from the Thikes! He uses the internet to harrass the miserabilist gorilla Thikes from hijacking Andre Breton's precious movement! Eric's best weapon in defeating the Thikes is his use of Smoke! Eric has a new book out now called, "AUTOMATIC SMOKE SIGNALS" by Eric W.Bragg, which shows photographs taken by Eric Bragg of various bonfire smoke. He is charging close to $50 dollars for a hardcover edition of his book. Eric W.Bragg is even posting Ads for, "AUTOMATIC SMOKE SIGNALS" in the Online Classifieds to sell the book. I really feel sorry for the poor dumb bastard that forks over $50 bucks for a book on Smoke! You would be better off buying a bag of pot for $50 bucks and smoking it and looking at the smoke trails off the joint! Same effect and you will get high too! By the way, Eric's book is getting rave reviews from the notable Ribitch (? what the hell is a 'Ribitch') and Lady Hannah Cadaver, the vicious and vanity addicted preformance artist (?) from Melbourne!Classicjupiter2 15:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

hi keith! http://info.interactivist.net/search.pl?op=comments&sid=4259 --Superthike 15:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

? More Flamebait crap. Eric W.Bragg has way too much time on his hands. Classicjupiter2 16:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC) 16:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

“Frauds and Buffoons - a look at Midwestern Surrealism in the United States” – some quotes

“F. R. is their Black Messiah lovingly nicknamed “ Black Sambo,” living in the Midwestern United States. Their mascot is Eric W. B. “The Poodle”, a Downes Syndrome adult, who met F.R. at Rikers Island Prison. Eric had gleefully torched some buildings and was caught, thus ending up at Rikers. Sambo remembers those days at Rikers by saying,” My only comfort was my dear ‘poodle’ Eric.” As in many repeated rape incidents, much like the Patty Hearst incident, the victim comes to love the victimizer. Thus poor mindless Eric became a follower of Sambo. As make-believe Peter Pan-surrealists, these children are unfortunately growing old. Buffoons to others, to themselves they are “surrealist” warriors. As Daniel C. B., their apologist, recites, ‘You do not know the seriousness of this (Peter Pan-surrealist) movement.’ Yes, we do know! It is not serious at all from everything we have seen on interactive web-sites abounding! (Many quotes from the interactive sites provided here)

“…It is amusing that “Sambo” has a weight problem from eating pancakes with too much butter and ribs and watermelon, all kindly providing by the earnings of his working “ceiling inspector” wife Penelope. (amusing picture provided here)”

Hope you enjoyed the snippet. The Publisher, White Swan Press, says the book will be published in time for the Christmas rush!

And congratulations on the Peter Pan-surrealist “art” show in Iowa. I am sure it will be lovely! I will try to make it out there for the opening. Dowager Kapitalisimo

Dear Dowager, I thoroughly agree! You are the leader of kapitalist surrealism!!! --Classic8uranus 17:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Ate-ur-anus: Oh gracious me! That is kind of you. But I am sure that you mean the late brilliant Professor Kapitalisimo. I know we all revere his thinking on Das Surreal Kapital. Ja! I am merely a housewife. His fortune (several billion) is being given to aid the deforestation of Africa and the depopulation of Palestine. A generous philanthropic man! If you want to attend the ceremonies, they are at the Temple Israel-City-NY 212) 249-5000 Park & Lex 112 E 75th Street, New York, NY. Love, Dowager Kapitalisimo

The Surrealists?

Really, its kind of sad that Eric W.Bragg is on this crusade. As for Franklin Rosemont and his wife Penelope, they really distance themselves from the rest of Eric's friends (except for Andrew Torch and maybe J.Karl Bogartte), the ones that are in the upcoming, 'International Surrealist Show' in Spencer IA. This is the show that was organized by Craig Blair (a really great artist, but a major follower). Craig Blair, along with his friend, James Sebor, are the kinds of 'Surrealists' that want to please everyone, and not ruffle anyone's feathers or upset anyone else, James, especially. The 'surrealists' Zazie and Bernard Dumaine are both from the WEBISM ART MOVEMENT, the one started by Ingrid Kamerbeek and Pygoya. Now, all of a sudden, Zazie and Bernard are full blown radical surrealists, wanting nothing to do with Webism. This was after Marie Domique Massoni and her Paris Surrealist Group denounced Webism in a Surrealist Statement, now Zazie claims she was never involved in Webism, where in fact, she and Bernard toured all over Europe, with Ingrid and Pygoya, as well as the other 'surrealist' Willem den Broeder in Webist (surreal) art shows.

Focusing on the Rosemonts for a moment, the dynamic duo from Chicago, they are really isolated from the rest of the Bragg/Boyer clan (though Eric Bragg did contribute an essay, "On Miserabilism and the New Eugenics" which was referenced in Sakolsky's book, Bragg now thinks he is this major force in radical surrealist revoltion). The Rosemont's, I believe are completely embarrassed (or annoyed) by all the alleged misinformation on Surrealism today. You see, according to Franklin, he was supposed to be handpicked by Breton himself to lead the Surrealist Movement in the USA, since the 1960's. A real lot of people outside of Chicago HATE Franklin Rosemont. That is old news, makes you wonder. The running joke among the Surrealists in South America is that Eric W.Bragg is Franklin Rosemont's spy and snitch, so there you can see the lens clearly. The Rosemont/Bragg clan is supposed to be this super-radical and revolutionary surrealist dynamo that denounces 'Whiteness'! Go Figure. How many African American brothers are hip to this jive from Rosemont and Bragg, after all, Rosemont and Bragg are WHITE! When your skin is White, your jive is TIGHT!

Back to the scoop. As for this 'International Surrealist Show' in Spencer IA, I see no mention of Franklin Rosemont or his wife Penelope, supporting the show. Maybe its because Craig Blair is the organizer and they think Craig is an opportunist, only the mighty Rosemonts know that answer! As for Richard (OH WOW MAN!) Dotson and the other backstabber slug, Derek Scefonas, the poet, they are both total sheep. There is nothing at all radical and revolutionary at all about them, they are just followers. Andy Torch, the toy man, is a radical, but only in his head. This Bruce Brodie, I really know nothing about, poor bastard probably doesn't know what kind of lot he is wrapped up with. The most radical and obnoxious of all this lot, is Xtain and his lame girlfriend Lady Hannah Cadaver, two of the most obnoxious and stupidest people that you would ever have the displeasure of seeing, even online. Two Hardcore Goth-Punkers from Melbourne, who are into all kinds of crazy shit, some stuff I will not mention, but it really has nothing to do with Surrealism. We all know Daniel C.Boyer's story, from his years long promotions of him and all his friends on Wikipedia and his constant fighting with any Wikipedian that disagrees with him.

By the way, Dowager Kapitalisimo, do you know the answer to the following question? Where does Craig Blair, (the surrealist organizer of Eric's friends surrealist show in Spencer), stand on the issue of Terrance Lindall's International Surrealist Manifesto? Do you know if he supports it or if he is against it? just curious....Classicjupiter2 17:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh My!! I think you should have been co-author of the professor's book. You are so knowledgeable!! Regarding Rosemont, my husband always said that anyone who thinks he is Black because he denies the existence of the White Race is indeed what he thinks he is, because race is just an "idea." So F.R. is indeed Black, not by virtue of skin color. Yes, I remember that Craig Blair wrote to Art & Antiques Magazine, which we receive. In the June 2006 issue in a letter to the editor he kindly complimented the article in the March 2006 issue on the International Surrealist Art Movement written by Hilton Kramer, endorsing Pansurrealism.

By the way, the ceremonies will be held at another location. Professor Kapitalisimo was a Hasidic Rebe, and so on Saturday there will be a day of remembrance at Congregation Yetev Lev D'Satmar in Williamsburg Brooklyn, USA. All of you are welcome to attend. Services begin at 10 A.M. Wear a hat!! No Nazis please! Love, Dowager Kapitalisimo

Dowager Kapitalisimo, I need to ask this you again!!!!! Are you telling me that CRAIG BLAIR, the CRAIG BLAIR of the "INTERNATIONAL SURREALISTS" Gave a Statement to ARTS & ANTIQUES Magazine (June 2006) ENDORSING Terrance Lindall's "NEW INTERNATIONAL SURREALIST MANIFESTO" and PANSURREALISM???????????????????????????? I must be tripping!!!! Dowager Kapitalisimo, Please do not be offended, but I find that hard to believe!!!! IS is really true!!! If I WAS to go out and get a copy of the JUNE Issue of ARTS & ANTIQUES Magazine, then you are telling me that I would find a STATEMENT By Craig Blair ENDORSING Lindall and Pansurrealism!!!!!!!! I am tripping!!! This makes no sense!!!!! I thought that Craig Blair was the organizer of the Bragg/Boyer surrealist clan in the 'International Surrealist Show' in Spencer IA this coming August!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Dowager Kapitalisimo, let me ask you this, WAS CRAIG BLAIR SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THOSE IN THE SHOW????? DID CRAIG BLAIR MENTION THAT LADY HANNAH CADAVER ALSO ENDORSES LINDALL's SURREALIST MANIFESTO and PANSURREALISM???????? DID LADY HANNAH SAY, "IF SURREALISM IS DEAD, THEN I AM A DIRTY NECROPHILE"??????? OH MY GOD, if this is ALL TRUE, THEN THIS IS MAJOR NEWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Classicjupiter2 19:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Craig Blair in A & A Magazine

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

What did Craig Blair SPECIFICALLY STATE, word for word, Please scan the article or post a link where we can all read his letter. PLEASE!Classicjupiter2 22:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Terrance Lindall has specifically disclaimed being a surrealist, as you well know. --Daniel C. Boyer 23:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Daniel, you are changing the subject. We are talking about Craig Blair's endorsement of Terrance Lindall and his manifesto and article. I already read the letter Craig sent to Arts & Antiques Magazine, which they published in their June issue. Daniel, you did not know about this letter that Craig sent to A&A, now you do. Craig, speaking on behalf of you and all your little friends, endorsed the 'New Surrealism' along with Lindall and Craig even praised Lindall's article too. Craig Blair also stated that the Surrealist Movement is still alive, in regards to your upcoming show and also Lindall's Manifesto too. I doubt that you will bring any of this up in your panel discussion before your big show. As usual, you and your friends will come up with the typical spin-diversion to hide the FACTS! Now, that Craig Blair has PUBLICALLY ENDORSED TERRANCE LINDALL and the 'New Surrealism' you cannot change the FACTS! Craig Blair was the man who ORGANIZED You, Zazie, J Karl, Willem, Xtian, Derek, Richard, Bruce, Lady Hannah, Andrew, James, Bernard, Helmuth, Pablo, and the rest. There are a total of 17 of you and Craig is your spokesperson. If you say he is not, then he is your organizer and he now represents us all.Classicjupiter2 00:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Boys! I think it I silly to fight. You are both surrealists and Terrance lindall is not (according to my husband). Why don't you all get along, as Rodney King would say. New Surrealism or old, you are all God's Chil'un. Bless you. After sunset I cannnot send any more messages. My 5 year old grandchild is doing this for me because I do not know how to handle a computer. Being Hasidic, Sabbath begins at sundown and we are not allowed to use a computer or talk on phones, etc.. Bless you all, and especially Israel as she defends herself in her time of need, and see you tommorrow! I am burning the manuscript on the Midwestern surrealists. It is vulgar. I do not want my husband remembered for such a book. I will personally write to A & A and ask if mr. lindall can review the Iowa show. I understand that it is his policy never to write a bad review. So, if he does it, it will be good for all the artists! Dowager Kapitalisimo

Really, I never 'fight' with Daniel C.Boyer, I just strongly disagree with him. I consider Daniel C.Boyer a true surrealist and noble, though I do loathe his friends and Dan's allegiance to Rosemont, Torch, X, Bragg, etc. However, with all due respect, you should read the 'Surrealist Subversions' book anyway. Boyer's essay was worth the price of the book. Plus the fact that Daniel's art is very automatic and experimental, too. That would be good to see Lindall writing a review on Dan's friends show.Classicjupiter2 16:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out for the sake of accuracy, though it really doesn't have much to do with the subject of this article, that I've two articles in Surrealist Subversions, in addition to my illustration. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Who cares, Dan.Classicjupiter2 23:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

If you admit you don't care about accuracy (this is all I was saying) you are essentially saying that we should all take your edits with a grain of salt. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

No Dan. You are wrong. These are your words, "though it really doesn't have much to do with the subject of this article".Classicjupiter2 16:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Dan, we should at least leave this in

"Nontheless, "Art and Antiques Magazine," one of the world's formost international magazines for art, stated in March 2006 that surrealism will ultimately be vindicated as being "...the foundation for all modern and contemporary art forms." The essay says that in first part of the 21st century new forms of surrealist art have manifested themselves."

Maybe a mention of Craig Blair's endorsement of Lindall too, what do you think?Classicjupiter2 16:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with Dan's edit removal on the Philosophy of Science being removed.Classicjupiter2 16:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Comedy and Surrealism

I've just edited out The Mighty Boosh and Green Wing from the 'Comedy' section, as they are both examples of highly tame and obnoxious 'wackiness' being passed off as surrealism. - morgan daniels

Daniel C.Boyer and Surrealist Friends at The Clay County Fair!

Ride em' Cowboy! I thought I was tripping when I read this, but it really is true, honest! I am not making any of this up! You have to admit, this is Surreal!

International Surrealist Group's next show

"Surrealistic art at a county fair? This could be an Art History first! Spencer, Iowa will play host to a 2006 show of The International Surrealist Group. The show is set to run from August 15th through September 18th, 2006 at the "Arts on Grand Gallery".

Surely, the group will be blazing new territory for Surrealism with this one. As an extra "surreal" twist, the show is planned to coincide with the Clay County Fair, billed as the largest county fair in the U.S. I've heard we may even have some sort of "hands-on" display promoting the show right on the fair grounds. This promises to be quite a different type of venue than most of us are used to. Then of course, our art will probably be quite different from what most of the fair goers are used to as well. I hope they like it.

Where the usual policy has always been "anything goes" and "No censorship"; this particular show will most likely have some self-imposed restraints. With a county fair being a family oriented type of event, several group members have expressed the idea of choosing to restrict nudity and other things which may offend fair goers. This is probably for the best...we wouldn't want to recreate any of the Dada riots. Of course there will be those of the Surrealist world upset with us for making such choices. Oh well, I guess controversy works in both directions.

As you may know, the group's two other shows took place in Austria in 2004, and in Bowling Green, Ohio in 2003." Classicjupiter2 20:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Post Breton Surrealism

The section on Post WW2 surrealism ends with the death of Breton. That is why we need a section post breton to chronicle the developments which are very significant, eg the Belgiunm and Chicago groups. 195.92.40.49 15:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

No, first off, there has been a three year plus edit war in regards to any mention of the "Chicago Surrealist Group". The research and information on them is so weak that it has been acknowledged not to mention them in the article. Franklin Rosemont has a long history of bogus self-promotion and unverifiable info besides on what he alleges is true. This is an encyclopedia not a source for weak info. I can deal with the Belgium group, but Chicago stays out.Classicjupiter2 00:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Please point to the archived discussions on this - the Chicago group have a wikipedia entry, as self defining surrealists and that history is documented and verifiable, including work with the IWW and the SI. 195.92.40.49 10:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

User 195.92.40.49, I think inclusion of the Chicago group and other contemporary, surrealist groups (post-bretonian) is a great idea. As Classicjupiter2 has said, there has been a long edit war about this, with ClassicJupiter2 being the main opponent of including these current groups, like that of Prague, Paris, Chicago, Athens, Madrid, Portland, Stockholm, etc.

In fact, you will find that ClassicJupiter2 will most likely block your attempts to add these groups to the article. Perhaps some kind of a vote is necessary. As it stands right now, I support your proposal to include a "post-bretonian" section, and would also suggest that such an addition stress the fundamental difference between groups that are truly interested in surrealism versus those groups that are strictly limited to art, who define themselves as "surrealist", and who are inspired by surrealism but who are not really surrealist at their core. Yes, there is a profound difference.

Basically, the new section should help people understand the difference between surrealist visionaries & revolutionaries, versus those art-loving poseurs and gallery owners who approprite the "surrealist" label for themselves. --Classic8uranus 15:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Classic8uranus on this one great point that he did bring up about mentioning groups (or individuals). I can agree to inclusion of groups, however, ALL are surrealists! This is a Surrealism Article and any mention of, "art-loving poseurs and gallery owners who approprite the "surrealist" label" is just the opinion of one person. Also, I can add many surrealists who are not, "strictly limited to art". If the groups can go in, than Keith Wigdor, Terrance Lindall, Jon Beinart, etc, etc, The Society for the Art of the Imagination, Brave Destiny, and countless other Surrealists get mentioned AS SURREALISTS and part of The International Surrealist Movement, as well as Portland, Chicago, London, etc, etc. I can compromise. However, I will only agree to ALL CAMPS being SURREALIST, that includes EVERYONE! Do you hear me Eric!Classicjupiter2 00:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

You still have not put any arguments against Chicago and any edit war that you are threatening will be dealt with. You have still failed to point to any discussion history on this or put any arguments forward. If you want to address appropriation and recuperation, we really have to start with the 'centrality of Breton' - and look at the criticisms presented in the 'cavalier history of surrealism'. 195.92.40.49 10:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

User 195.92.40.49, Classicjupiter2 has had a long-standing feud with many of these surrealist groups, such as those from Chicago & Portland. These groups see him (Keith Wigdor) as an artist who is posing as a surrealist. Many pseudo-surrealist "aesthetes", including Wigdor, make art that look surrealist, but that is all they do: just make art and nothing more. I wouldn't have a problem including Wigdor and his art friends in the article, as long as they are distinguished from other surrealist groups (those who do more than just make art). If you have an infinite amount of time, you could look at ClassicJupiter2's lengthy, cantankerous postings over the past few years to see that he has repeatedly sabotaged the articles of these other surrealist groups I mentioned. Outside of wikipedia, these groups have refused to have anything to do with him, and Wigdor does not like them for this reason.

Either way, I support your proposal to write a new section about post-bretonian surrealism as long as this important distinction is made between the poseurs and those who really are dedicated to furthering the interests of the surrealist movement. Really, this whole argument boils down to defining those who are truly surrealist (in the original meaning of the word) versus those who are merely imitative of surrealists. Painting pictures of dreamy skies and melting watches doesn't necessarily qualify one as a surrealist, but ClassicJupiter2 is not happy with this distinction, as you are witnessing right now. --Classic8uranus 16:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

As someone with no stake in the feud between ClassicJupiter2 and others, I can say that a section on post-Breton Surrealism would be of interest to a great many people, and would represent a valid extention of the general entry. As an academic I encounter too many people in the field who seem to think of Surrealism as a dead-and-buried entity rather than a still-living movement, and an addtion to the Surrealism entry of the kind suggested would be a valuable step in changing this bias. It will be worth the wrangling it will take to get something close to a consensus, I hope. User: Robert8525 12:44 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Robert, so as an academic, how do you distinguish between people whose sole purpose in life is to make trippy pictures versus those others who want to change the world by transforming the modern psyche and culture (through any number of means, like direct action, surrealist inquiry, revolution, and of course, poetic expression (art))? Do you see a difference between these 2 groups, or are they all the same to you? Just wondering where you stand. --Classic8uranus 17:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. Dear Mr. Uranus, Please clarify your off the wall comments. Just what do you think the "interests of the surrealist movement" are? Whose "surrealism? Yours? I agree with Classicjupiter2 on all issues. The Chicago Group and their fringe followers are a sham and a farce, and their ideas should be "flushed." Today's living surrealism is a serious and expansive international art movement, not a midwestern fair sideshow displaying freaks whose deformed thinking never left the 1920's. Surrealism is a shark, it has to move forward or sink to the bottom and die. The ideas of "Ur-anus" have the stink of death(?) about them! Surrealist-one

Here's a clue: Surrealist-One = ClassicJupiter2 = Keith Wigdor. Keith, your statements in the previous message are flamebait. You're not fooling anyone. --Classic8uranus 19:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Got news for you! I am not ClassicJupiter2 = Keith Wigdor. But i do stand for truth, justice and surrealism...and you do not represent me or my many cohorts. I stand with REAL surrealists. Exactly what do you intend to change the world into with your "revolution" that is not wanted by anyone. Describe your "Anus-revolting." Are you a Progressive Liberal running for President? I would bet your real name is Hilary Clinton=Classic8uranus. Regards!!! Surreal-one 20:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Surreal-one, you can say whatever provocative stuff you like on this talk page, but what really counts is what goes into the article. --Biff Mullins 20:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so assuming I'm really supposed to be answering a question, and not just take on a supporting role in some kind of drama-queen act, or being recruited into some kind of turf war, I'd say this about the difference between people who want to paint trippy pictures and people who want to change the world as surrealists: Surrelism has been wracked almost since the beginning by differences between those who saw it as a matter of creative expression in media like painting and those who saw the movement as something that would be revolutionary (in life, in politics, etc). Andre Breton held the line on being revolutionary, not aesthetic, but others, like Artaud, were less interested in the kind of politics Breton emphasized. And in 1933 there was a kind of split between Breton and some others, mostly visual artists, when the old magazine Surrealism in the Service of the Revolution closed down and a new journal that kept revolutionary talk out became the main publication of the movenment (the magazine was called Minotaur, run by Albert Skirra). So if I were talking about contemporary Surrealism, I suppose what I'd do is say that this kind of split continues, and that people in these various camps still have their quarrels about this stuff, and look at each other as illeginimate. They don't, however, seem to have much of a sense of just how old their argument is. User:Robert8525 23:01 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with User:Robert8525 . Also, I will allow the Chicago Surrealist Group to be in the article. However, Classic8uranus is using Wikipedia to push his views and beliefs on others without letting the record and history speak for itself. In regards to Contemporary Surrealism, who is Classic8uranus to say who is a surrealist and who is not? That is not so revolutionary to me! That is elitist. Classic8uranus wants to shove his views down everyone's throats. He hates that the true Surrealist Revolution is taking place primarily in the arts and that activity, in and of itself, is Revolution intended to transform life. Not taking pictures of toilets at Fort Ord! Classic8uranus wants to segregate Surrealism, not let it grow as the future unfolds before us. As for the Chicago Group, put them in, I will allow it. I am fair. Classic8uranus is not. However there should be no distinctions between camps, if we are to express surrealist idealogies, then all are equal, that is only fair. Surrealism is Revolution and Surrealism is Art and Action!Classicjupiter2 01:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Good Faith and Fairness

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

Just wanted to add: A new essay is being written for DIRECT ART MAGAZINE in 2007, a surrealist publication put out by Tim Slowinski of Limner Gallery [[8]]. It will address the question of where contemporary surrealism stands and who the major players are. I believe it will be fair and professional. Good Luck to All. A Friend

Wow! That is very cool. I look forward too that. I am really into Surrealism.

Chicago Surrealist Group

I am reverting the vandalist removal of the Chicago Surrealist Group. No reasons, apart from inane ramblings, have yet been put forward as to why the reference is still being repeatedly removed. I don't care if you are bretons hate-child or a paid employ of the FBI- present reasons as to why u are deleting the reference or else u are just vandalising and nothing more. btw, breton your holy father is just another business man and recuperator. ciao ciao!62.25.106.209 10:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Contrarily, I think that it would be up to you to prove that the Chicago SG should be included, not up to me to prove why it should not be included. This is an encyclopedia, not a list of every non-entity that wants to be included in a list. Put up your argument or shut up!Surreal-one 15:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Self-defining as surrealists.

2. Well known as surrealists.

3. Attended surrealist international meetings.

62.25.106.209 15:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I'm new enough here to be surprised by the venom, but I'll put my 2 cents in, not knowing who might get upset. Here's my background on this: basically, I'm not a member of the Chicago Surrealist Group, nor am I a friend or associate of any of the members. I'm a college professor near but not in Chicago. I'm not a specialist in surrealism, but I've written about the movement a bit for academic publishers and I teach units on surrealism, so by the standards of the academic community (with all of its flaws and limitations) I suppose I could be considered someone who knows a bit about surrealism and someone without any direct conflict of interest (I'm not a surrealist, not in the group, etc.). And here's my thinking on the issue, for what it is worth: the Chicago Surrealist Group (I'm tired of typing that out, so I'll call it the CSD for short) is an organization that has been around for decades, and that considers itself surrealist. It publishes a lot of material (books, a journal, art) and has had art shows that have had a little press. When you hear about them in the media, they're described as surrealist. (Here's a link to an article like this I found within a few seconds on Google: http://www.autonomedia.org/surrealistsubversions/review.html ).And Franklin Rosemont, a leader of sorts, has written on Breton for a prominent press, and edited a selection of Breton's work (it is called "What is Surrealism," and you can find it on Amazon. Their artwork hasn't had a big presence in the high-prestige venues like the Art institute of Chicago or the Museum of Contemporary Art, and with some real exceptions (like the Breton book) their publications have come from their owb presses. One could argue that this is actually a part of one of the surrealist traditions, though, in that many in the classical phase of the movement were keen on establishing their own institutions and avoiding commercial galleries and public museums (like a lot of things in the movement, this had another side: Dali was deeply into museums and galleries -- though his wife Gala tended to handle the interactions with bureaucrats and businesspeople).

So the arguments for including them are these:

A. They are a real group, with with endurance over time and stable membership. B. They call themselves surrealists, and have exhibited/published as such. C. Perhaps more importantly, others have called them surrealists in print and the like. D. Their work has many stylistic features of surrealism E. They claim (see, for example, any number of pieces in the journal "Arsenal: Surrealist Subversion" available from amazon) to link art with politics in the manner of most surrealists and in accord with the main surrealist manifestos (one could say they haven't accomplished much, or that they've gone about it wrong, or whatever, but the point I want to make is that they identify as part of this tradition).

For me the key is item C -- that others besides the group have called them surrealist. I gave you one link, but you could root around for more, and an old print media search will give you some press clippings in which they are called surrealists during a protest of the installation of a Claus Oldenberg sculpture in Chicago. There was also an Exquisite Corpse show they put together that got some press in which they were called surrealists. If people need me to look up the clippings I suppose I could get my research assistant on it, but she's got other stuff to do for the next couple of weeks, so if you're skeptical (yeesh! I mean, has it come to this level of hostility here?) I hope you'll make the effort before tapping me.

Anyway, here's my suggestion: if the identity of the group as surrealists is questioned by some people here at wikipedia, but affirmed by others out there in the world, including press, I suppose the thing to do would be to mention the group and describe its status: "while the CSD has identified its work as surrealist, and been described as such by the press, some other artists..." (I gather that the two wikipedians who are against including the CSD in the article are artists -- please correct me if I'm wrong) "... have questioned their work as legitimately surrealist."

I hope everyone can live with this -- the reverting/re-reverting thing doesn't solve anything. User: Robert8525 11:38 August 21 AM Central Time

It is not enough to call yourself a surrealist (self-defining) to be included in the article. It is not enough to attend a meeting. It is not enough to have someone in the press call you a surrealist, otherwise about ten thousand artists should be mentioned in the article. You mention that they have “continuous membership.” Who are the members? The Society for Art of the Imagination has members and lists them openly. The free membership of SurrealismNOW.com lists them. The fact that CSD are mentioned as surrealists while they protested Claus Oldenberg means nothing. If someone in the press called Omar Bin Laden a surrealist because he is a revolutionary who created the 9/11 massacre, should we include him in the article...after all, he is more noteworthy and not a fraud. Rosemont may have self published a lot of nonsense, but a lot of people publish rubbish. It does not make them important. The fact is, most noted scholars on the subject of surrealism at universities and at the major museums disregard GSD because they are not credible and not important. They should not be mentioned in the article. Surreal-one 17:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think this is the kind of discussion that will get us anywhere, and I really do feel like this is something personal for some of the people here, and that to even respond is to become part of someone's wikipedia-arguing hobby, but I'm going to have to say I can't buy Surreal-one's argument. I mean, he/she demand a very high standard of proof for arguments of inclusion -- a membership list etc -- though you could put that together from published sources -- again I refer you to Arsenal. But Surreal-one makes assertions (calling what Rosemont does nonsense, telling us what he imagines the motives of museum curators to be, etc.) without any standard of proof. The asserion that noted scholars ignore Rosemont is not entirely true -- his work has been cited by scholars from major universities in the kinds of journals academics respect (Monthly Review, Angelaki, etc.) as even a short Ebsco search will show, if you take the time. Heck, I've taught at two major universities, and I'm tenured now (God help me) so I think I have some experience here. I mean, I think surreal-one has made his or her point clear about where he or she stands, and I think the entry should reflect this. But I don't the evidence supports all of this reverting. I can understand that some people find the Chicago Surrealist Group illegitimate, but there's a record out there of people who disagree, and it seems to meet the standards of wikipedia. (I know, I know, surrealist-one, you disagree -- and I think the entry should reflect this, but I don't think your disagreement should dictate the whole shape of things. Let's not repeat ourselves, ok?). I'd add, too, that the article I cited clearly describes the CSD as surrealist in art and politics, and not metaphorically, as in the hypothetical "Omar Bin Laden" (I assume you mean Osama) example. Again, I'm not asking anyone to agree with the article, but to recognize the most important claim I made: that there is a record out there of people recognizing the CSD as surrealist. User: Robert8525 Aug 24 1:22 pm CST

Dear Robert: This is the way a discussion should go! You do argue cogently, although you are wrong. However, let us talk about “importance.” To be important enough to be in an encyclopedia article on surrealism, one assumes that the mention of CSD is because they have had considerable influence in the realms of surrealism.. CSD wants to be important and that is why they create press events like to protest of Oldenberg. Creating a mess does not make you important as a surrealist, even of it is mentioned in the press. And that is why CSD and their fringe followers want CSD mentioned in this article... to create the illusion of importance and influence. But in fact they have no influence on revolutions anywhere in the world and on serious scholarship in the art world or the socio-political world or the world pf philosophy, or poetry and prose. They should not be mentioned in the article. Let’s keep the article high-minded and focused on the important influences in the history of its IDEA.

I also come from the world of scholarship and academics. I must tell you that just because some professor mentions CSD does not make them important. Such a professor is probably not of the highest standard if he thought CSD is important. . CSD has no influence outside their very, very small brotherhood. They are merely local talent, and not very good talent at that. In the art world there is something called regionalism. They deserve the mention that ClassicJupiter2 gave them…on a list with the other minor regional surrealist “groups.”Surreal-one 19:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Surreal-one made a very good point User: Robert8525! Come on, Robert! Lets get real. I went as so far as to put them back into the article with the other groups! Why you are so insistent in placing them back into the other paragraph proves to me that you are helping promote them. Why repeart them twice? Robert, I don't know you and you do not know me, but lets be real, you did state you were a Professor from Chicago! For all we know, you are friends with Rosemont and you are trying to use this article to promote him and his group. Well you can go tell Franklin that Classicjupiter put his group back into the article with the other surrealist groups and there is no need to mention them twice. That is blantantly taking advantage of my good faith. Surreal-one is only trying to help, you are only making matters worse by inserting them into the article twice. Dude, let it go, stick to your dayjob as a Professor and pay more attention to your students.Classicjupiter2 01:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, about the Chicago Surrealist Group, Robert. I have been researching them for ten years now, and let me tell you that they are bogus! Go to their own website and use the common detective skills of STATEMENT ANALYSIS and read Franklin Rosemont's own words on his site, SURREALIST MOVEMENT IN THE USA.Classicjupiter2 01:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Classicjupiter. As I said, I don't know Rosemont personally, and have never met him, and I'm not a promoter of his, whatever that means. And I'm not from Chicago, but from about 35 miles away, for what it is worth. I don't think questioning one another's motives helps -- and you've certainly given more evidence that you've got a partisan view than I have, so let's drop that angle. How about this: let's agree to keep the CSG mentioned in the paragraph where it is, without any more reverting (I think this is what you're proposing). Works for me if is absolutely all that will work for you.

Since I originally put them back into the article, with all the other groups, they are already in there. I think you might be confused Robert. Lets agree to leave them where I put them with all the other groups, now they are in the article and everyone is happy, even Franklin Rosemont! However, lets please not add them in twice, that is like raiding someone's refrigerator for more food after having a dinner over someone's house as an invited guest, really. They are in the article, now we can move on.Classicjupiter2 23:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

User: Robert8525, you claim to be a Professor, well use your skills to digest this crap taken from the Chicago Surrealist Group's website, SURREALIST MOVEMENT IN THE USA, http://www.surrealistmovement-usa.org under the category about the recent, "INTERNATIONAL SURREALIST MINI-CONFERENCE". This is a total crock, read the passage from http://www.surrealistmovement-usa.org/pages/news_mini_conference.html,

"The meetings were informal. Most were held at restaurants, cafes, or the homes of members of the Chicago Surrealist Group; at least one took place in the lobby of the Palmer House Hotel. No minutes were taken. Discussions were often interspersed with surrealist games. What follows are a few hurried notes and jottings contributed pell-mell by various participants, touching on at least some of the many matters which, at one point or another, came up for discussion.

Jill Fenton summarized the current and complex situation of surrealism in England: the recent split into two small London groups, and her hopes of bringing them back together. It was noted by others that surrealist activity in London has lacked stability for many years, as a succession of short-lived grouplets produced a broadsheet or two and then dissolved.

Guy Girard in turn summarized the current situation of the Paris group, which includes—as has always been the case—a number of "satellite" members who live elsewhere in France. The Paris group too suffered a split some years ago, when some younger participants withdrew over political issues. The current group continues to be very active, however, as evidenced by its recent tracts and the diversity of material in the new (fifth) issue of SURR.

Specific problems of various groups were also touched on. In France, for example, a number of aging ex-surrealists, having convinced themselves that surrealism could not survive their own defection from it, regularly clutter the media with the tired old falsehood that surrealism as a movement no longer exists. In the U.S., a plethora of moronic pseudo-surrealist websites perform a similar confusionist function."

Well, Prof. Robert, when you use the common detective skills of STATMENT ANALYSIS reading the above passage, do you SEE how Franklin Rosemont stumbles on his own words? How can the, "current" Paris Surrealist Group be active when Rosemont writes that, "The Paris group too suffered a split some years ago, when some younger participants withdrew over political issues." Prof. Robert, the real truth is that Jean Schuster disbanded the Paris Surrealist Group in 1969 as documented in countless books. However, there is a website run by Franklin Rosemont's friend, Marie Dominique Massoni and Guy Girad, but there is very little to go on. I have been trying to investigate this bunch and I come up with very little. Also, How can you take Frankline Rosemont's word about any meetings in cafes and the homes of the Chicago Group??? WHERE DID THESE MEETINGS TAKE PLACE??? What are the names of the cafes? I want to know! Why go to the trouble of writing about this and telling us all about this and STILL Franklin Rosemont as usual, leaves us hanging!!!!! Prof. Robert, ALSO, Where is there a picture of ANDRE BRETON WITH FRANKLIN ROSEMONT from their so-called, "Historic" Meeting in 1965, or was it 1966???? Both Rosemonts give differing accounts in statements they have made through the years. Read Penelope Rosemont's interview with Danny Postel, I busted her BIG TIME!!!! She and her husband never met Andre Breton! If they did they would have a picture of him with them. You see Prof. Robert, you are NEW to this article. I have been on here for YEARS and I can tell you that when you come in here to edit, Please come prepared. What you could do is GET US A PICTURE of ANDRE BRETON WITH FRANKLIN ROSEMONT, that would help Amazingly! I really want to be proven wrong about Rosemont, but the truth is, that he is full of shit! In the meantime, listen to Surreal-one and understand that CSD has already been mentioned in the article, thanks to me. SO please do not insert them twice.Classicjupiter2 01:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of Surrealism, this is what an exhibit should look like, not that crap from the midwest,

"Flight of Imagination" selected works from Society members Now showing at the Giger Museum June 17th through October 17, 2006 Classicjupiter2 01:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

no, CSG is not a current group - in fact was part of the post-surrealist pro-situ current so i am returning it to the correct section. photos of breton are irelevent - the position of CSG is well documented. 62.25.106.209 15:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You are not reading the discussion. We have debated the inclusion and the consensus of Robert, Classsicjupiter2 and surreal-one is that CSG CSD is a minor regional group with little impact on surrealism and should not be given special mention.

The Chicago Surrealist Group has nothing to do with, "Situationist" or "Situationism", why this user 62.25.106.209 is intent on adding them there is beyond me. They are already mentioned in the article with the other groups, why mention them twice? Especially in the wrong section, they have nothing to do with Situationism.Classicjupiter2 23:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

CSG were contemporary to the SI and are known to have met Debord and corresponded with the SI. I have provided a reference. Also as I noted before they are not current but historical. 62.25.106.209 10:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

62.25.106.209 has reverted this mention over four times against the consensus. What can we do? The consensus is that CSG is not important enough to have any special mention, regardless of someone having mentioned them in a book. Or else every other non-entity should be inlcuded in the article.64.131.246.173 13:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

What consensus? there is no consensus on this and the mention of CSG is historically contextualised. I fu want to add other entities then make your case and historical position. Otherwise it is just your own POV 62.25.106.209 14:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I have put the reference to the Radcliffe/Rosemont book in as a refrence as this is much tidier and could probably be used elsewhere in the article. The situationist Charles Radcliffe was involved with the CSG and Rebel Worker before getting involved with the Situationist International, so I have libnked him in there. No doubt when Classicjupiter2 realises this, they will stop trying to continually remove these important references.Harrypotter 17:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Harry Potter, I like the book & movie character of HP and I take umbrage in someone who supports frauds like CSG using his name. But, there is nothing I can do about it. Whoever was involved with CSG likely would denounce the CSG (Rosemont) now as a fraud. In any case what CSG needs is someone of stature willing to put forth arguments as to why CSG is important (see below). It will not happen.64.131.246.173 22:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Unfornunate 62.25.106.209 and Harry Potter (the same person): You know that you are making this article unimportant by adding frauds as significant persons. Do you want to agree that anybody anywhere who is mentioned in any book or magazine as a surrealst should be included in the article? If so, OK. I will start adding them. Or if you do not agree, I will revert your reference tomorrow. If you agree and then proceed to remove my "significant" persons and organizations by whatever fraudulent argumentation against them you mount, I will also remove your reference to Chicago again.

I am a logician and philosopher. I would like to point out to you that in saying that "CSG" is a significant entity because it was mentioned in "So& So" by "such and such," then you have stated an "ad hominem" fallacy. The fallacy is also called "the argument from authority." The only true measure of "importance" or "genius" is in how much a person or entity has influenced the world...of art, society or what have you, and you cannot argue that point! CSG has not contributed anything significant!!!! That's fact and that's final!.64.131.246.173 21:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Rosemont and Guy Debord

Where did they meet? I am very interested in this information. I actively study Surrealism on a daily basis and I would even being willing to PAY$$$$$ for any information on this, "meeting" between Rosemont and Debord. I know that Herbert Marcause knew Rosemont.Classicjupiter2 23:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Classicjupiter2 - check the referenced book "Dancin in the Streets" (although i notice u have deleted the reference!!!) - if u are in London we can meet up and have a look at the copy i have at my house. As for Ms. 64.131.246.173 you maybe a philosopher but u are also a liar. I am not HP! And I will agree to your additions on a case by case basis - bring them on!! I would be glad to see wot u got! 195.92.40.49 13:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I know all about the Rosemont book, "Dancin in the Streets....", just because Rosemont says he met someone doesn't mean it is true. Scan the pages and show us any pictures of Rosemont and Debord. I say you are full of shit. Even The London Surrealist Group is full of shit and so is SLAG and so is Jill Fenton, she is full of shit and so is Stuart Inman, he is full of a lot of shit.Classicjupiter2 23:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

ROSEMONT'S HOAX OF THE WHITE RACE: This is a look at the introduction provide by the Chicago Surrealist Group concerning “the hoax of the white race.”

Rosemont, I assume is the author of that piece of trash.

Rosemont says, “As a historically constructed social formation, the notion of a "white race" appears as ideology, mirage, hoax, con-game, racket, swindle: an altogether malevolent piece of duplicity and horror. But for those who buy it and sell it, whiteness is what Richard Wright once called a powerful "psychological reality," a commodity fetishized into a pattern of belief, custom, law'n'order. Millions of those who are deceived into thinking they are white are unhappy about it, but don't quite know how to divest themselves of this debilitating delusion. How to quit being white—how to release the latent but repressed yearning to abandon the absurdity of whiteness and to become truly human at last—is one of the burning questions of the age. “

Sorry, Franklin, I do "not want to be human" by your standards! I do not have that "burning yearning." Frankly I do not know where he gets the idea that “millions do not want to be white!” No documentaion of course, and no way to show hidden wants..."only Franklin knows for sure!!" I suspect that a number of "interested parties" like Rosemont are trying to prove this, however, with false "surveys."

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

Rosemont says “In poetry as in life, surrealism embodies the utmost fraternization and solidarity across the color-line as well as relentless struggle against the very existence of the color-line, and against all those who enforce it or tolerate it.”

Perhaps this is a nice idea in the realms of liberal democratic socialism, but this is not a directly an issue that the revolution of surrealism deals with. Rosemont should join the Republican or Democratic Party and run for office.

Rosemont says “Whiteness corrupts and derails every impulse toward freedom, so that no solution can be found to any social problem without solving the problem of whiteness. Everyone knows that white supremacy is the single biggest obstacle to working class emancipation. It is also the major stumbling-block in the way of women's equality, for white supremacy is inherently androcentric.”

Well, I guess men are the problem. Fortunately Rosemont is not a man in any real sense, i.e., one who takes his responsibilities to the society seriously.

Rosemont says “Similarly, it is no accident that the people most responsible for devastating the Earth's wild places, poisoning the air and water, driving uncountable species of animals and plants to extinction and otherwise wrecking the planet, are those who think of themselves as white.”

Of course the Indians who are burning down the rain forests of South America in their subsistence farming are not white…or are they white because they are destroying their ecology, and because by Rosemont’s definition “to be ‘white’ means ‘to destroy’?” I must ask this of Rosemont. Also, the Black African farmers who are destroying their ecology in similar ways are probably white because they are destroying their means of sustenance. Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) was the “breadbasket of Africa” under apartheid but since the blacks took over they are now a “basket case” in need of importing food and borrowing to buy it. I suppose Mugabe is a white man because he is causing the destruction of his country and people. Blacks, having devastated their countries after becoming free of colonial rule are now fleeing the continent in droves in leaky boats to Europe to be cared for by the evil white man. I guess plantation life is better. I think we should send Rosemont and his followers to Zimbabwe to live the “non-white” poets life!

Rosemont says,” As surrealists, we are especially interested in how the "white problem" turns up in language, images, myth, symbols, popular culture, everyday life, the whole field of human expression. However, our goal at all times is to attack and abolish whiteness and its institutions—to attack and abolish the whole social/political/economic/cultural system that has made whiteness the hideous emblem of the worst oppression the world has ever had to endure.”

Rosemont, to my mind you are not a surrealist or a race scientist. You are buffoon! I suppose that you expected that when you made your statements that suddenly all “non-white” people would rise up under your banner and tear down the government so you could assume command and lead. Didn’t happen did it?

None of us are free people. We are slaves to the mortgage. But we are better off as slaves to the mortgage and working for the common good through a benevolent “democratic dictatorship” than by following fools like Rosemont down the path to starvation and destruction. I have a “Back to Africa” movement in mind for Rosemont. “ It’s rallying cry is “Back to Africa with Rosemont and his followers!” I wonder how long it would be before we find him in one of those leaky boats trying to get to the Canary Islands?

Please move that silly inclusion of the Chicago Surrealist Group from the article! It is an insult to all true surrealists.Brunhilda 20:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I myself am seriously reconsidering The Chicago Surrealist Group's inclusion as its already repeated twice. Mr.Franklin Rosemont has a long history of being a big mouth and overall pain in the ass, like with NY Times Art Critic Roger Shattuck who called Rosemont and his, "group" on their bluff. In regards to this issue of, "whiteness", I find it very hard to believe any collective statement on, "abolishing whiteness" especially coming from someone who is white and elitist no less. Rosemont's documented history of the Labor Movements in the USA is admireable, however, his attempts to bring together Marxism, and any Socialist Political Agenda with Surrealism is way off base. He just cannot provide the Data to us which will make his case more solid, he is like a really bad attorney for the Surrealist Cause, plus he is not Andre Breton.Classicjupiter2 00:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, there still exists very weak information and research material regarding the Chicago Surrealist Group.

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

The best place to go is their own website, however, that too is weak. Rosemont's own words betray him and he doesn't even know it. He admits to groups being disbanded, yet he insists that his version of the movement is very active and strong! Also, for someone who has allegedly provided such a HUGE Amount of Surrealist Production over the years, there is very little visual material to go on, WHY????????? That just stuns me. Franklin Rosemont is alive today and supposedly the MAIN MAN of the Surrealist Movement, yet its extremely difficult to research and study his work, especially considering the fact that you cannot find any pictures of him and his wife through the years.Classicjupiter2 00:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

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

I am willing to pay money for any picture of Franklin Rosemont with Andre Breton from their alleged meeting. Its a fraud, if it were not, then we all would have something more solid to go on. I cannot understand why it is so hard to gain material on this Rosemont, except from where he says it.Classicjupiter2 00:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I've been away a few days, but looking over what's happened I'm just going to have to excuse myself from this conversation. If ClassicJupiter2 thinks asserting that someone is a "pain in the ass" counts as valid argumentation, this isn't a matter of reasonable discussion. This seems more like matter of individual animosities, psychological insecurities and personal demons. Good night and good luck. User: Robert8525 28 August 2006

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

I agree with Classicjupiter2 and SurrealOne. This Rosemont isn't credible at all. Who is this above user Robert8525 going on about Classicjupiter2? What the hell does he care what someone thinks about someone else? This userRobert8525 is a jerk.12.196.6.162 16:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not think Robert is a jerk. He argued sincerely and cogently. It is simply not possible to argue for someone whose thinking is poor and whose facts cannot be vindicated like Rosemont. . I understand why Robert does not want to deal with the warfare. ClassicJupiter represents the true surrealism, even though he is bit direct at times about the frauds. Eventually the Rosemont gangsters have to be dealt with in real-time. It is on our agenda, but the time is not ripe.Surreal-one 16:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Daniel C.Boyer, welcome back Daniel! A Question?

Daniel, if Surrealism is not an Art Movement, then can you please explain why you and your friends are promoting Surrealism as an Art Movement?

By the way, I am being totally honest with you, when I say, that your pieces were the best in your show. The others were terrible, especially Xtian's and Torch's, Oh, and Hannah's too. Real Bad! Richard Burke needs to take more Photoshop lessons. Pablo Weisz Carrington (a great artist and son of Leonora) needs to pick it up a notch. Zazie appears to be selling her art for $300 dollars a print. That is too much for that trash. What Derek Scefonas was doing in your show was beyond me, and I really do not see any, "Revolutionary" or "Marxist-Hegelian" Surrealist and Dialectical elements in any of Bruce Brodie's work, though he seems to be a nice guy. As for Bernard, he and James Sebor, are the best artists in your show, but they are also Total Sheep: Willing to follow along with anything Xtian and Torch and Zazie fill their minds with, which is not much. Hannah and Craig Blair's, "Collaboration" was awful, totally lacking any Revolutionary elements in the work. Hannah is a sheep too, total sheep, doing anything her boyfriend wants her too, real lame.

I couldn't help but notice that there was no OTHER artworks or poetry added to your show, by your real, "Revolutionary" Comrades, like Brandon Freels, or MK Shibek or Jill Fenton, or my favorite tool, Eric W.Bragg??? Was the frozen white milk chocolates too radical for the country bumpkins attending the show? Also, I did see pictures of the exhibit, which was layed out Terribly! The Gallery you exhibited in has this sickly death-like coffee look to it, like something from Sears or K-Mart. Brown does not make a good gallery backdrop Daniel! However, I give Daniel C.Boyer an A for his art, it is Surrealism, the others are total phonies. Daniel, why you choose to exhibit with them is beyond me! I saw your contribution to the International Festival of Surrealism, that was good too.Classicjupiter2 23:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I added SLAG to the article, they are an offshoot of The London Surrealist Group.Classicjupiter2 00:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Picture of Franklin Rosemont with Andre Breton and Guy Debord (delete as applicable)

Love it!

To Mr. Boyer: It is not the function of a surrealist "to be a pain in the ass." It is the function to be absolutely on line to break through accepted ways of looking at things to arrive at a higher consciousness and new perception of the world around us, including society. It is the only way to advance the human cause. Unfortunately, Rosemont & followers like you only want to create the impression of "revolution." You are publicity seekers. You are children playing "cowboy," or like Rosemont playing "Dick-tater." That's ok! You are good foils to our intelligence and the true surrealists, us.

I am always glad to see artists showing their work. I am sure that you can all do better than the Iowa production. You may have been limited by the restrictions of the space and the gallery director. However, if you want to show how good you are, you have to be adamant about how you are presented. You must be as perfect as you can be every time. Or else your reputation becomes that history of sloppy work in a sloppy exhibit. You are measured by the intelligence of your thinking in your essays, your poetry and prose and art. Next time give us your best and we will measure you by it. And please, for your own reputation: distance yourself from Rosemont. He will not be remembered as anything but a fraud and not a very clever one at that. Good luck!Surreal-one 16:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well done.Classicjupiter2 02:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

LEADERSHIP IN SURREALISM AS OF TODAY

Just to talk about leadership. Leadership requires:

1) A thorough knowledge of the current players in surrealism

2) A thorough knowledge of the history of surrealism, especially the two camps

3) It requires a position on the issues

4) It requires a openness to new ideas about the subject

5) It requires an ability to argue and defend positions

6) It requires a supportive and open attitude to those interested in surrealism, especially artists poets, writers and the public in general

7) It requires a concerted effort to find means of promoting the artists and their work

8) It requires professionals willing to support and follow the leadership

I am not the one. Currently there is only one person with all of these qualifications: Keith Wigdor. And he has highly renowned supporters.

The “Other” camp: 1) Drives people away 2) Has a narrow and “old” view of surrealism 3) Is unwilling to change or even listen to new ideas or even argue their position 4) Exists to promote only a few and only for the purpose pf self promotion

However, if both camps came to an understanding of mutual self-interest, they could work together as binary suns, using the full resources of both camps. This seems unlikely, however.

Also, the person you follow F.R. is indeed a fraud and he must be cut loose for the sharks of history. It will only get worse for him.Surreal-one!

Oh yes, surreal-one, I agree! When you explained yourself that way, now I do understand that Keith Wigdor is the centre of the surrealist movement. He definitely has a lot more going for him that the people of the "other" camp. Viva le Wigdor!

Since you are a writer, of sorts, I take it that you know the literary reference to "The Other?" Just curious. I can see by the "style" of your comment that you are "true disbeliever" in KW. Time will tell. And "tempus fugit." Just do not become a "blazing sun" in the shape of things to come. Good Luck!Surreal-one 15:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: When you say that YOU "agree," may we quote you as "Eric W. Bragg denounces Franklin Rosemont and the Chicago Surrealist Group?" This would go a long way toward your recuperation. It would be "Revolutionary" - a revolt against stupidity, that pimple on the ass of true surrealism. Surreal-one 16:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Surreal-One, you are a prophet and a literary guru too? Will wonders never cease?!? You and KW would make a great team, working together to bring these "other" phony surreallists to artistic justice once and for all. I am not a disbeliever of KW, in fact I believe in his total goodness, honesty and integrity as the next surrealist leader to preside over the english-speaking world. Please Surreal-one, teach us the new path of surrealism according to KW. Have a nice day, and Viva le Wigdor, the magistrate of the NEW SURREALISM!

Thank you, we intend to bring them to justice. We have followers in the Muslim Middle East, The Muslim Philipines, the Far East, Russia, all over Europe, some militant, some not. Many write for newspapers in different languages. Thank you for your salute to Wigdor. It is noted.Surreal-one 17:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I am not "Eric W. Bragg", so you'll have to quote me instead as "The Brady Bunch". Sorry, it seems like you've mistaken me for somebody else. --The Brady Bunch 16:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry! It is so hard to guess. So I threw that out to see. After all, it is thought that many of the "cute" names like Burt & Ernie, etc. are the pseudonyms of Bragg. Bragg has a long way to go to revive from his Jihad that disabled him.

Meanwhile, I, Surreal-one, stand humbled and corrected. Meanwhile, will The Brady Bunch denounce FR???Surreal-one 17:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Surreal-one, I thought you already knew KW is the only surrealist who truly matters. Viva le Wigdor!--The Brady Bunch 17:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

No, my friend, you matter too. KW is only "First Citizen." We are all important as long as we keep the movement true to it's mission. Some can do more for us all, working for us all...and KW is the one, until another proves worthy. Work hard for us and someday you might be "first among equals." Rememember, "All surrealists are equal, but some are more equal than others!" And remember also, FR is NOT a surrealist, he has been excommunicated, by consensus of the True Surrealists because of his fraud and misrepresentation! May I have your denunciation of FR and CSG, or are you their puppet socko?Surreal-one 17:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Surreal-one, I am not familiar with this FR and CSG that you mention, but I do support First Citizen Kieth Wigdor. Are you KW's spokesperson? Who are these "True Surrealists"? BTW, my favorite classical surrealist painter is Salvador Dali.

That's OK. You support Dali and you support KW, therefore, by logical necessity, you denounce Franklin Rosemont and the Chicago Surrealist Group. We can now quote you as a saying "The Brady Bunch denounces Franklin Rosmont and the Chicago Surrealist Group as traitors to Surrealism!" OK? Thank you for your support. We love bringing sheep to the fold, even one at a time, especially someone who has stood apart from True Surrealism for so long. Please now sing "Shall we gather at the river...etc." And one day soon we will Baptise you in the blood of the lamb!Surreal-one 18:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This is all quite a vibrant discussion here, with a lot of broad, sweeping claims. If Wigdor is the next leader of surrealism in the USA, then shouldn't he be included in this surrealism article, as THE main part of Post-Breton surrealism? Where can we read about all of his publications and accomplishments? Can anyone show me the URLs of pictures of Wigdor shaking hands with Breton or any of the other big-name surrealists, passing the surrealist torch, or photos of KW holding the royal scepter of surrealism? Peace, --Zepppelin 21:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I know you are eager to have KW apotheosized! We are not asking for that now. On the talk page I am merely telling you what the facts are. It is not up for debate. We, the True Surrealists, follow Wigdor and Wigdor has a growing following. Check out www.surrealismnow.com. His place in history will follow in a few years. Just wait patiently. When WE are ready, we will add him to this site. Anything else is vandalism of Wikipedia. KW is young, influencial and credible. He has not published yet, and not a lot is written about him. But he is, nonetheless, the International Leader of Surrealism today! Give him time. We are in no hurry. Why push so hard? Let's see the picture of the long established fraud Rosemont with Breton. Kindest RegardsSurreal-one 22:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)!

Surreal-one, you are right about the importance of not pushing Keith Wigdor so hard; I guess I was just being impatient in my previous message. Now I can see the wisdom in not plucking an unripe fruit from the vine prematurely.--Zepppelin 03:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Eric W.Bragg's Contemporary Surrealism: SIDEWALK STAINS

In my lifetime, I have seen some of the most stupidest crap that my eyes have unfortunately come upon! However, this tops them all, Eric W.Bragg presents, SIDEWALK STAINS! (I am not making this up):

http://www.surrealcoconut.com/surrealism_gallery/Found_Objects/stain.html

In my opinion, some of these found objects are indifferent, some are truly amazing, but all of this begs the question, What does this have to do with the development of the surrealism article? The stains aren't mentioned in the article and I don't think anyone is proposing that they be. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

In the meantime, call Sanitation Enforcement to clean these disgusting sidewalks and then call the police to have Bragg locked up! Classicjupiter2 01:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Classic: As much as I support your thinking on surrealism, let's not engage in this bashing of Mr. Bragg on this site at least, as long as he is polite, cute and quiet. I think we have to give him time to recuperate. He may eventually develop into something good. You are in the catbird seat, so time to put away your toys and become what your great destiny indicates. Be magnanimous! Some men have a rough and troubled past, like Bragg, but rise up to become better than they were, and some of these bad boys end up contributing to the human cause. And remember as it applys to FR: "We are all as God made us....and many of us much worse!"Surreal-one!

PS: I liked the sidewalk stains. I thought it was very perceptive. Leonardo Davinci often studied stains on the wall to observe patterns for inspiration. The Rorschach inkblot is an example of how the method is used, so Bragg's idea is not new. But still, he shot some nice images. Give the poor guy some credit.Surreal-one 09:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Surreal-one - the photo of breton etc has been presented above - you do not believe your eyes? your ears? your mind? File:The Commissar Vanishes 1.jpg You and Classicjupiter2 are just bretonian white supremacist capitalist cops and nothing to do with Surrealism, which is itself nothing but a stain on the sidewalk of history... 195.92.40.49 12:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

YES! This is the Rorschach test on another dimension! Your reaction tells us more about you than it does the redoubtable Classic and myself. Your animadversion is like a primal scream. Keep it up! I do in fact like myself and I am White. I love my culture, which sent men to the moon. The 20th century was a White century of achievement. In fact it has been 3000 years of achievement from the Sumerians on down. Probably the next century will be Chinese because every empire reaches a zenith and becomes tired...the Romans, The Ottoman Empire, etc. Too much pride perhaps. Maybe it will be a Muslim Empire. THe oppressed always seem to find a way, don't they?

Whites are resilient, however. The Germans (the Angles, Saxons and Jutes) during the time of the Romans, were reduced to a population of about 100,000. The Jutes died out. The German tribes came back to be, in my opinion, a jewel in the crown of Western civilization. The White man has invented the airplane, the automobile, the steam engine, the light bulb, the radio, television, the transistor, the jet airplane, the modern rocket, the atom bomb (bless them, the ultimate surrealist expression), the Cobalt bomb which singly can destroy the entire planet, the neutron bomb (the ultimate capitalist tool -destroys people, not property), the artificial heart, cures for many diseases. God bless the White man! Now if we can only rid ourselves of Rosemont! As Prussian Blue croons,”After the purging, our people will be free!” (smiley face here).

I wrote the Williamburg Chronicles. Here is the part about “The Necessary Extermination of the Troublesome White Race!” http://www.11211magazine.com/b-low/ch12b.html

Again, bless you for your concern for the welfare of my immortal soul, Daniel! From the top cop, SincerelySurreal-one 15:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)