I don't know whether Giacometti belongs with the surrealists: he is much more closely linked with Existentialism - he was very close friends with Jean Paul Sartre - and although he had a deal with Paul Loeb (the Surrealists' principle dealer) and his work became known between 1929 - 1932 as surrealist, the work of this period is much more concerned with eroticism and symbolism than surrealism itself. But this is just my 2 sous worth... sjc
Edited misleading material on Dada.
Daniel C. Boyer
Added qualification of Andre Breton's definition of surrealism.
Daniel C. Boyer
Expansion of Dada discussion: negative Dada & positive surrealism.
Daniel C. Boyer
Added material for further reading
Daniel C. Boyer
Added "parsemage".
Daniel C. Boyer
Added external link to the Surrealist Movement in the United States. --Daniel C. Boyer
Added external link to Paris Surrealist Group. --Daniel C. Boyer
It was a movement which transformed post-World War I visual art, writing, poetry and film -- this is highly misleading and incomplete! --Daniel C. Boyer
- Oops. I've just refactored that into the opening sentence. If it's "often misinterpreted as an artistic movement", then what IS it? (in 10 words or less ;) ). We need a clear opening that gives the context, before we launch into how Breton initiated it -- Tarquin 07:01 Jul 31, 2002 (PDT)
The bald statement that surrealism is not an art movement kind of flies against the common definition of art movement. It wasn't *simply* an art movement, but it certainly wasn't *not* an art movement.
- It is, not was, not an art movement. There have been many members who have not been artists, who have not ever done any painting, drawing, collage, etc. (except -- if this -- for participating in exquisite corpse); moreover, there have been participants in the movement who have been neither artists nor poets. The surrealist project is not to change art but to transform the world. (This is proved again and again in primary-source surrealist writings, Breton saying that though the preparations are, roughly speaking, "artistic in nature," the day would come when surrealism would not be in this stage of preparation any more. This has now come to be, to a greater or lesser extent, with the Madrid group currently not doing art any more; the group's contribution to a recent exhibition was burning currency.) I do not believe that this "bald statement... flies against the common definition of art movement" but in any case it is the truth. --Daniel C. Boyer 07:36 Aug 26, 2002 (PDT)
Statements that the Surrealist movement ended in the 1930s is not "false". In fact, it's the generally accepted position
- Generally accepted as the position may be, it is based on demonstrably, factually false information. There was absolutely nothing that happened in the 1930s that could be called the "end of the movement." This belief (and people who say surrealism is dead have a notably difficult time agreeing on the date of its demise) is based on nothing more than a desire to collapse "we wish surrealism were dead" into "surrealism is dead." --Daniel C. Boyer
that Surrealism refers to the specific Paris-based collective.
- Which continues today. See the link to GPMS. --Daniel C. Boyer
The concept of Surrealism being an ongoing movement is the minority position; might be useful to discern "Surrealism" from "surrealism".
- There is no distinction other than in the minds of persons determined to falsify what surrealism is. --Daniel C. Boyer 07:36 Aug 26, 2002 (PDT)
--The Cunctator
- Read this paragraph:
- Although it is often falsely stated that surrealism ended either during or shortly after the Second World War, or with the death of Breton in 1966, the 1960s in fact saw a dramatic expansion of international surrealism, including the founding of the Surrealist Movement in the United States? by Franklin? and Penelope Rosemont?. For instance, in 1986 the Surrealist Group in Stockholm? was founded.
- Explain to me why it is false and why the "generally-accepted position" can dispute these facts. --Daniel C. Boyer 07:49 Aug 26, 2002 (PDT)
- You have totally failed to respond to my challenge. --Daniel C. Boyer 10:12 Aug 26, 2002 (PDT)
The assertion "it is falsely stated that surrealism ended..." depends on a certain definition of "surrealism". If I define "nationalism" as a 19th-century construct, then I can assert that claims that nationalism existed before the 19th century are false claims.
- But this is circular reasoning. You essentially imply that because you define surrealism as an art movement between the wars my saying that that is false is only because you are defining surrealism as existing between the wars and therefore I am using a different definition of surrealism. This is nothing more than tautology. --Daniel C. Boyer 10:12 Aug 26, 2002 (PDT)
Those people who say that surrealism ended around WWII have a certain definition for surrealism.
- But that definition of surrealism is not the one that surrealism has chosen for itself. "Those people" -- who are not surrealists -- would impose upon surrealism a definition other than the one Breton laid out in the Manifestoes. You see why I am asserting the "conspiracy theory" that the people who say surrealism ended are doing so out of a wish to see surrealism dead? Read the Manifestoes! Read What is Surrealism: Selected Writings of Andre Breton! Go to http://www.surrealism-usa.org! Make the slightest attempt to find out what surrealism really is! --Daniel C. Boyer 10:12 Aug 26, 2002 (PDT)
Under that definition, their statement is not false. For example, the Encyclopedia Britannica is a pretty reasonable source--it may have debatable claims, but very rarely false information (that is, information that is objectively refutable).
- But this is one of those "very rare" instances. --Daniel C. Boyer 10:12 Aug 26, 2002 (PDT)
EB defines surrealism as "a movement in visual art and literature, flourishing in Europe between World Wars I and II." Believing their definition derives from a wish to see surrealism dead smells like a conspiracy theory.
Nearly all art movements are philosophical in nature; they have a grander purpose than creating works of art. They all want to change the world. You wrote: "The surrealist project is not to change art but to transform the world." But the purpose of art is to transform the world.
- But surrealism does not and has never aimed to do this primarily by means of art and indeed at the earliest period of surrealism it was well-known that "there is no such thing as surrealist painting" (this was developed later). How do you explain the many surrealist documents, statements, tracts and books in which art is never mentioned; the many surrealist interventions that have nothing to do with art; the essential nature of surrealism as superseding aesthetics; the many surrealists who have never had anything to do with art; the statements by surrealist theorist after surrealist theorist about superseding art (the Madrid Group, Miro's "murder of painting" period, &c.)? --Daniel C. Boyer 10:12 Aug 26, 2002 (PDT)
By changing art one transforms the world.
- This was never what surrealism intended to do and if you had ever read anything about surrealism you would know it.