Template talk:Surrealism

This template was considered for deletion on 2017 July 19. The result of the discussion was "no consensus".

Visual arts Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Richard Oelze, Gisèle Prassinos, Brion Gysin, Giorgio Di Chirico, Jean Cocteau, and Frida Kahlo...Modernist (talk) 14:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, lots more - arduous but rewarding, no? I was using the contributors to the discussions on sex ... there is obviously a distinction to be made at some point between surrealists and those working in the style of surrealism... this list should be limited to actual 'paid up' members with a second category then added for quasi-surrealists? Artiquities (talk) 18:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've done a really good job...Modernist (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised to see Henry Moore on the list, and in scanning his page I'm not seeing anything about surrealism and this template isn't on the page. His work seems to be consistently called Abstract art. Does this template have many examples like that?, I haven't checked. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This template could be improved by listing key theorists of surrealism, and schools of thought influenced or dependent upon it, particularly given how highly conceptual the thing was/is. The inclusion of writers, theorists and scholars of the movement - Georges Bataille for example, or on the other hand Herbert Read - or those involved with and influenced along different paths, e.g. Jacques Lacan. We'd have to be selective, of course, but the simple list of artists is both categorically restrictive and, in practice, much less selective about their involvement in surrealism per se. Tosk Albanian (talk) 14:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tosk Albanian,

What an excellent idea! Bataille should definitely be included, and Julien Gracq. You definitely have my support; please just go ahead. I'll think of other non-artists (sounds strange, doesn't it? ) and add to the template in due course.

With kind regards;

Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 21:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Patrick - great! I'm still open to ideas about the name and scope of it - if it were a 'writers and thinkers' section I'd personally have Breton, Aragon and Soupault up front and in bold. I'll see what you think! Tosk Albanian (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tosk Albanian,

It's looking good; thanks for your excellent work. Beware of using boldface, though; have a look at MOS:BOLD, MOS:BOLD#OTHER and MOS:NOBOLD; you'll see that use of boldface is pretty restricted, and using it for emphasis should be avoided. Other than that, what you've done is a very useful improvement; thanks again.

With kind regards;

Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 17:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! As for the boldface I'd thought it was a legitimate occasion to use it, but will happily stand corrected! All best. Tosk Albanian (talk) 12:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tosk Albanian,

Thank you for your reply. I re-read those MOS pages again, just to make sure, and concluded that there are very few legitimate cases for using boldface; the most regular one, of course, is the first occurrence of the subject of an article in the lead of its own article. Thank you for returning those three names to normal face, at your convenience. Above all, thank you for taking this initiative; it will prove useful to our readers.

With kind regards;

Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 14:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Pdebee,

Thanks for the kind words, and for the rigorous edits you've made since. One objection I wish to register is that Dylan Thomas does in fact have everything to do with British surrealism.

Best, Tosk Albanian (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tosk Albanian,

Thank you for your comment and please accept my apologies for getting this wrong. I have now re-instated his entry in the template.

With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 18:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Pdebee,

Thank you for your hard work! And no problem, there were some wild cards in there that on balance were dubious or didn't have enough to do with capital-S Surrealism - but Dylan's involvement with the London International Surrealist Exhibition clinches it for me,

Very best! Tosk Albanian (talk) 12:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[Start of section copied from Pdebee's talk page:]

Hey Pdebee, I had to add Philipp Humm back to the list of Surrealist artists as his new works are clearly surrealistic. Here's a link where artist references his style to a one of surrealism. Furthermore, here's his website with latest surrealistic paintings directly based on Dali's work. I've ammended the infobox on his page to avoid confusion in the future. Zeeshka (talk) 11:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Zeeshka,

Thank you for making contact. We are going to have to agree to disagree, as many artists add "surreal elements" to their painting, as Humm states in the interview, where he clearly defines himself as "Post Expressionist", which is not the same, in my humble opinion. If he really were a surrealist, then why define his artwork as Post-expressionist? Have you considered creating a separate navbox for the latter group of artists instead? That might be quite an interesting project for you. Also: his own website is a primary source, of course.

In any case, I'll let it stand and see how other editors react. So, good luck to you and thank you for all your contributions to our encyclopedia.

With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 12:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Patrick, thanks for understanding! Creating different navbox for his other paintings does sound like a good idea. I'll do some research to see if I can find something more specific. Cheers 😉 Zeeshka (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zeeshka,

Thank you for your reply. When I suggested that you consider a navbox, it was for it to list all the other artists mentioned in post-expressionism, not just Humm’s works but his name and others’, such as Antonio Donghi, etc.

Coming back to the subject of surrealism, did you notice that our colleague Martinevans123 also queried, here, your inclusion of Humm in that group, when that element isn’t actually mentioned in the Philipp Humm article? I would still suggest you reconsider that inclusion, for reasons already explained above, mainly that the claim is tenuous; and I wouldn’t be surprised if another editor reverted your edit again. Please know that I am attempting to assist you with guidance of what my approach would be, not thwart your genuine effort to document an artist you admire; thank you for understanding me correctly.

With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 09:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[End of section copied from Pdebee’s talk page.]

Do we really need Monty Python (and The Goons) in this template? Strictly speaking, I think Surrealism is the art movement which flourished between the late 1910s– 1950s, and these comedy groups are not involved in the movement itself, although they are important successors. If we include people active after the 1950s or people not directly involved in the movement itself, the scope of the template will be too broad. Perhaps we should make a new template Surreal humour. --saebou (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Dear saebou, I agree with you fully, and your suggestion to create a new template is excellent, since the present Surrealism template makes even less sense at the bottom of Surreal humour.
  With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 17:34, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]