Talk:Surrealist Movement in the United States

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Surrealist Movement in the United States

Really, nobody can stake a claim to, "starting" the Surrealist Movement in the United States. There was recently a huge exhibition of Surrealism in the United States from the 40's, 50's and 60's and it exhibited many unknown surrealist artists that had nothing to do with the Chicago Surrealist Group. Franklin Rosemont did not start surrealism in the USA, that is a fact. AS for the, "organization" that calls itself, "The Surrealist Movement in the United States, that is a term that does not belong to the Chicago Surrealist Group, that is a term that belongs to every surrealist artist that has worked from the 1940's to today, and there are many. Not everyone is under the spell of Franklin Rosemont, you wonder why he was ignored by Prof. William Rubin back in 1968? He was wise to him too. I think that this article should be drastically changed and edited by someone else except Daniel C. Boyer who has a personal stake, along with promoting his friends on here.Classicjupiter2 00:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All this goes to show is that you haven't read the article, or perhaps you don't understand the use of capital letters. The Surrealist Movement in the United States is a particular organisation. The Surrealist movement in the United States includes every manifestation of surrealism in the United States from whenever the first one was until today. Read the article before you start with your non-arguments. And why the focus on "surrealist artists"? --Daniel C. Boyer 19:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Um, could it be discussed what exactly the "surrealist movement" actually is? This article isn't very helpful otherwise.

Self-labeled

This doesn't add anything. Pretty much any organisation is going to be self-labelled. If there are specific and citable criticisms of the organsiation, they certainly should be included in this article for NPOV. "Self-labelled" isn't meaningful, isn't fleshed out enough, &c. and thus I'm deleting it again. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]