Talk:Surrealism in the United States

no history

This article doesn't even broach the subject of the Surrealist Movement in the United States. --Daniel C. Boyer 12:41, 7 July 2003 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. How surreal is that? ;-P --Ronnie McGrit

Shouldn't Bell's American Surrealist Institute get its own entry, rather than posing as the "Surrealist Movement in the United States" which it has nothing in common with? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.75.229.136 (talk • contribs).

I am putting this under Requested articles. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:19, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

In fact, Bell has nothing to do with the "surrealist movement" what so ever. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.75.229.136 (talk • contribs).

Shouldn't Rosemont's Chicago Surrealist Group get its own entry, rather than posing as the "Surrealist Movement in the United States"? Apparently there are two different views of surrealism. They should both be mentioned in a general article about the "surrealist movement in the United States". --Wik 16:47, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Why? I'm sure no one involved with the movement has ever even heard of Bell -- I never had until this entry. You'd be making the assumption that he's had some kind of effect on surrealism in the United States, when really he's just another art critics -- of which there are better. Bell's comments about automatism make it clear that he has no interest in surrealism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.75.229.136 (talk • contribs).

Charles H.Kerr

Why is the claim (of questionable meaning, as the "these people" reference is not clearly explained) that "Charles H.Kerr publishes these people" mean that [the article] is "self-serving"? Who is the "self" that it serves and how is it served? --Daniel C. Boyer 19:48, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I need to see proof, anything valid that proves that the Rosemont's met Breton or if Breton owned any of Penelope's or Franklin's artworks? Any proof of letters between Breton and the Rosemonts, or any proof of Breton even mentioning the Rosemonts in any documented form will suffice. Then I will support this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.168.92.117 (talk • contribs).

An end to the edit wars

Well, here I am, after conversing with User:63.169.104.2 here and with User:Daniel C. Boyer here. My question is about these reverts made by 63.169.104.2:

Please explain why you made these reverts in a way that an outsider to the conflict, such as me, can understand. Daniel can chime in at any time. I want to get to the bottom of this. --Ardonik.talk() 18:19, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

Dear Ardonik

Dear Ardonik, First, I am not a kook. Second, When I state a, "vested-self" interest, I am stating that with the fact that the good gentlemen Daniel C.Boyer has a vested-self interest as do both the Rosemonts in regards to monopolizing the Surrealist Movement here in the USA. First, Daniel is a contributor to the book, "Surrealist Subversions" that was written by a friend of Franklin Rosemont, Ron Sakolsky, who has an expertise in pirate radio. How he gains the status of an authority on Surrealism is beyond me, but it appears that he was appointed by the Rosemonts to write the book. Am I wrong Daniel? Anyway, Ardonik, if any of this information is new to you, then ask yourself, why does the book, "Surrealist Subversions" get promoted on Wikipedia and is falsely referenced in a bias dominated by Rosemont, and plus he sells the book through Charles H.Kerr, also on his site as well. That is old news. Does the academic community and does the international art community

How about the international horticultural community or the international kayaking community? --Daniel C. Boyer 14:41, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

or any historical reference people acknowledge Franklin Rosemont as the leader of Surrealism in the USA?

Well, Franklin Rosemont is not the "leader of Surrealism in the USA". But once again, the significance of his activity, and Chicago as a centre of surrealist activity in general, is mentioned in the Grove Dictionary of Art, among many, many other places. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:41, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ardonik, please go try and talk to Mary Ann Caws, who is a noted and very well respected authority on Surrealism and ask her why wasn't the Rosemonts surrealist art on exhibit in SURREALISM DESIRE UNBOUND or how about asking her if Jennifer Mundy recognizes Boyer or Rosemont as surrealists?

The many inaccuracies in the writings of Mary Ann Caws were documented in an article in Arsenal. As for Jennifer Mundy, what you're really arguing is that surrealism should be "monopolized," not by surrealists, but by self-appointed "experts" on surrealism who can't be bothered to read (or whose writings make it clear that even if they have read, they have utterly ignored, every primary source; even the most superficial examination of any primary source, for instance, would clear up this old chestnut about surrealism being an artistic movement) any primary source, and from whose writings it is clear that their primary motivation must be anti-surrealist. There is also a certain irony here, as you argue for the right of Wigdor and Lindall to be surrealists (even if they express contempt for everything about surrealism, or even assert that they are not surrealists at all), but Boyer and Rosemont must be approved by Jennifer Mundy. As for "Boyer," it's completely irrelevant, because Boyer himself hereby states once again that he is far from being significant enough in the history of surrealism to warrant mention in the articles Surrealist Movement in the United States or in surrealism. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:41, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

These people are noted and respected authorities on Breton and Surrealism. Ardonik, Please consider what I present here with my total sincerity. I am not a mean person or anyone committed to vandalizing the Wikipedia service. Please believe me! I have a feeling that you understand. Now, recall that the Rosemonts promote themselves as the leaders of the Chicago Surrealist Group and The Surrealist Movement in the USA, they base their reputations on making public statements that they met ANDRE BRETON who is the man responsible for giving Surrealism its international platform and history, plus the brilliant First Manifesto and Second. Anyway, I say that they, (The Rosemonts) never met Andre Breton and that is a falsehood. Ardonik, Please look at this from my perspective and yours with the necessity for CLARITY and FACTS. If I was going to promote my entire existence in Surrealism and base it on the premise that I went to Paris in 1965 to meet Andre Breton, then I would certainly DOCUMENT it in a simple photograph to prove that I met him, if he personally invited me to meet him and welcome me into Surrealism. There is still no picture of the Rosemonts with Breton. ALso, they do not monopolize Surrealism. Not everyone that is a surrealist or is into surrealism agrees with communism and marxism, though they possess tenets that are honorable to the principles of surrealism, they are just distinctions and dogma that should not monopolize surrealist exploration. Look at Jacques Lacan, he insisted on a revolution of human attitudes and with the strong support of the surrealists(his texts in Le Minotaure)and his brilliant analysis of Freudian Psychoanalyis and its transformations, should maintain a dominate base in surrealist exploration instead of political dogma. An approach to surrealism along the lines of Wittgenstein's change of will is worthy of surrealism's desire. Anyway, back to Daniel, it is a fact that he is a contributor to the book and he is friends with the Rosemonts and their group, they do not monpolize Surrealism and Daniel should not be given so many special priviledges in shutting out others who do not conform to his thought. Also, anyone who thinks it proper and to condone and approve of intimidation to get someone to make a statement against their will in order to protect their safety and the safety of others is appalling! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.169.104.2 (talk • contribs).

It is absolutely ridiculous to assert that this statement was issued for the purpose of getting Lindall to say he was not a surrealist. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:41, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Terrance Lindall and the Brave Destiny received, "Burn and Kill" threats and he only made that statement to the dangerous person who has harrassing him online. To say that is a credible statement that he is not a surrealist is totally invalid, since he publically admitted to QED that the statement was made in a private E-mail to the person harrassing him out of fear, so he can be left alone. Ardonik, please understand why I seek a consensus. I am not mean nor a vandal. I just want total fairness and the oppurtunity to provide accurate and sound information on Surrealism, in its history and today to this article. Please understand. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.169.104.2 (talk • contribs).

It will take me a while to wade through both this and a related conversation on Talk:Surrealism. In the future, please use empty lines to create paragraph breaks...

...like this. You may not think it matters much, but they will make your writing a thousand times less difficult to read, trust me! Reading now, will respond later. --Ardonik.talk() 22:36, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

A couple of other comments (I'm not formally replying yet): for someone who edits articles as frequently as you do, I would highly suggest that you log in and get a username. There are many benefits, not the least of which being that your name will be easier to remember and refer to, and that we won't have to wonder whether multiple IP addresses making similar edits are really the same person. Secondly, whether you choose to get a login or not, sign your posts with a timespamp signature by using four tildes: ~~~~. You have the power to make your dialogues much easier to follow! --Ardonik.talk() 22:57, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)