Talk:Surrealist techniques

Comments

More work needs to be done to distinguish between the spiritualistic automatism of Yeates (excerpted, so how automatic it is is very debatable) and surrealist automatism. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:28 Oct 9, 2002 (UTC)

Mbecker has done a very fine job of modifying this article and pointing out an important wrinkle detracting from the "automatic" nature of coulage. Good show! --Daniel C. Boyer 00:46, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Why thank you ;) MB 01:05, Jul 30, 2003 (UTC)

The ceromancy mention is good. I'd not heard of this before. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:26, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

What on earth does it mean, in the discussion here of the "echo poem", "Within the surrealist style"? There is no "surrealist style"! --Daniel C. Boyer 18:50, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

In addition to other problems with this statement: " Some surrealists consider automatism and surrealist games to be sources of inspiration only. Others consider them as starting points for finished works. Some consider the items created through automatism to be finished works themselves, needing no further refinement," certainly the "indecipherable writing" methods are always, or at least almost always, regarded by their practicioners as "finished works," but this description in and of itself is problematic, as in Dialectique de Dialectique Luca and Trost talked about generating visual works purely "scientifically", and ending production of visual works by pictorial means; the whole point was to get outside of the category of "artwork" in which an artist, through inspiration, makes a work. Surautomatism is supposed to go even beyond automatic drawing in that these "indecipherable writing" works would limit as far as possible the conscious or even subconscious or unconscious role of the artist. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:03, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I still have not received an adequate explanation for why all of these articles have been redirected and merged here. But let's leave that aside for the moment. I want to know how including the French Wikipedia article on the movement of liquid down a vertical surface should be dealt with if these are going to be merged here. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:05, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Wik may well have been right in removing surrealist games; while deserving of its own article, this only overlaps surrealist techniques and so perhaps should not be linked from here. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:14, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This article is in need of some serious references for a lot of the techniques so that dates, names, etc can be checked. For example, of the 4,520 Google hits I got for Marcel Mariën, only 3 showed up for Etrécissements. Two of these were on Wikipedia and the other was a genovese site. So effectively, no verification was available. Bmills 14:52, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'd like some clarification on why you say this re the Genovese site. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:43, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

On decretages and depliages

The "decretage" entry was listed on votes for deletion and deleted on December 6, 2003 on the grounds that it was made up or idiosyncratic. Then January 30, 2004 an entry entitled "depliage" was created by the same user who had created "decretage". This entry was the same as the deleted "decretage" entry except the word "depliage" was substituted in place of "decretage". The "deplage" entry was deleted on February 3, 2004 since recreation of a page that had been deleted after going through votes for deletion (even under a new title) is grounds for instant deletion. Inserting the information here to subvert the normal deletion process will be treated no differently. Maximus Re x 17:36, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

But I would question this. Don't we regard articles with different titles as different articles? I don't think there is any precedent for this whatsoever, or any discussion about this, but if I'm wrong, please point it out. Furthermore, it is even more questionable to think that deleting information in another article is necessitated by the deletion of the article itself, as it would by no means clear that it is the information per se that is offending; perhaps the subject-matter is too trivial for its own article and should be subsumed into another article. In my view none of these points has been adequately dealt with. Any thoughts from anyone? --Daniel C. Boyer 15:24, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Given that the depliages material was added to this article on Feb 4, it's as clear-cut a case of trying to circumvent a VfD vote as I've seen. Bmills 15:54, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This doesn't even remotely address my questions. --Daniel C. Boyer 13:11, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Haifa method

The reversion to remove the material on the Haifa method is another example of what, to me, is the lack of clarity about the policy, or about what should be done, about this sort of thing. The fact that the content of a deleted article, or a paraphrase, summary, or the same factual material as, the content, or indeed any information about the subject of the deleted article, is later included in another article, I don't believe to be per se determinative that that information should be deleted if it is included in another article, particularly insofar as the deletion may well not have been due to the content. Does anyone have any thoughts on this or could anyone point out any policy or supportive material on this point? --Daniel C. Boyer 19:06, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I restored a bunch of text inexplicable removed... -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 19:36, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The person claiming to be Richard Genovese is trying to delete anything remotely related to him. RickK 03:00, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

When this page is unprotected, information on photographic decalcomanias should be added to it, perhaps as a subheading under decalcomanias. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:00, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Article seems to have been vandalised; recent edits inaccessible

Hello, the article appears to have been vandalised today (unless "gaygaygayg" is supposed to be an example of surrealist techniques, ha ha.) For some reason the more recent edits seem to have disappeared from the database, and so I can't restore them. Could someone wiser in the Ways of the MediaWiki please look into this?)

Examples (Outgraph)

How's about those of us with the wherewithall to do so, make some examples expressesly for this page? Not copyrighted, not bylined. I've been trying to figure out a way to do bulletism with the resources I have. >>sparkit|TALK<< 00:44, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Outagraph image

I've put back the outagraph image which User:Classicjupiter2 has repeatedly removed. Whether Mr. Boyer engages in "self promotion" or not, he has been good enough to upload an original image under GFDL which illustrates the point, and Wikipedia seems to have no other (much less any better) outagraph image. Noting that differences with another editor are not a legitimate reason for removing a free use image which illustrates a point in the article, I fail to see the basis for removing the image from the article. Classicjupiter: offer a good explanation of why the article is bettter without the image or stop removing it. -- Infrogmation 14:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Daniel can keep his outagraph in the article. I also think he should be entitled to mention his essays as well. I did get to finally read the entire Ron Sakolsky book, "Surrealist Subversions" and Daniel's essays in the book were real good. I also liked Nancy Joyce Peter's essays on Surrealism and late night horror movies too.Classicjupiter2 01:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you about my essays (articles), but I don't think they have any bearing on surrealist techniques or are significant/relevant enough to another article for an allusion to them therein (correct me if I'm overlooking something). --Daniel C. Boyer 23:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, I know that. I just mentioned that I read your essays in Ron's book. The Seattle one especially was really good, very intense.Classicjupiter2 00:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again; I just wondered if there is any significance as regards the surrealist techniques article. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, User:Daniel C. Boyer is a community-banned long-term spammer who should simply be reverted on sight. E Eng 03:14, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grattage

The articles Max Ernst and Surrealist techniques both describe grattage as scraping (usually dry) paint off the canvas. However, the Tate Gallery [1] and the website articons.co.uk [2] both describe it as a variation of frottage using paint instead of a pencil. All of the sites I have found that back up the Wikipedia description have been mirrors of the Wikipedia article Max Ernst. Can anyone determine which description is accurate? Justin Foote 21:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Creativist"

Should explain in article what this means or link to a new article on Creativism. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Entoptic graphomania

What does it mean to say that "dots are made at the sites of impurities in a blank sheet of paper, and lines are then made between the dots"? Specifically, what are "site of impurities"? Does this simply mean putting a dot on any flaw in the paper surface? Z Wylld 20:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much (I've made quite a few). --Daniel C. Boyer 21:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted the "(sometimes erroneously referred to as 'entopic graphomania')" phrase, since the topic heading is the same as the "erroneous reference". Either correct the original phrase or have the "correction" differ from the original. Kept the references.

Surrealist games

I decided to be bold and merge the Surrealist games article back into this article. It was a stub, with very little content, and after an edit, it is only a paragraph. I also intend to merge the Time Travellers Potlatch into this article, in the games subsection, because its article is puny and unreferenced. Any thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive titles

In my opinion, the title/text ratio is completely wrong. If others agree, I would like to restructure the page something like

Aerography is a technique in which a 3-dimensional object is used as a stencil with spraypainting.

Automatisms are used in multiple fields:

Automatic drawing
Automatic painting
Automatic writing
Automatic poetry is poetry written using the automatic method. It has probably been the chief surrealist method from the founding of surrealism to the present day. One of the oddest uses of automatic writing by a great writer was that of W. B. Yeats. His wife, a spiritualist, practised it, and Yeats put large chunks of it into his prose work, A Vision and much of his later poetry. Yeats, however, was not a surrealist.

Automatic poetry generators exist online, but they do not actually generate automatic poetry in this sense.

The Czech writer Bohumil Hrabal used the method of automatic text in his famous book I served a British king. One chapter in the book is written as a single sentence, and at the end of the book Hrabal endorses the use of automatic writing.

Bulletism is shooting ink at a blank piece of paper. The artist can then develop images based on what is seen.

etc etc. I tend to think this would be far easier to read and to be honest less ugly typographically. Any thoughts? Pietrow ☏ 15:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Surrealist techniques. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.surrealismcentre.ac.uk/documents/Involuntary%20Sculpture.doc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent IP edits

I've just done a range block for block evasion by an editor blocked, for among other reasons, repeatedly inserting his name into articles. Doug Weller talk 11:59, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]