Talk:Proto-Surrealism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is not about Proto-Surrealism[edit]

According to art historians, Dada is proto-surrealist. Littérature magazine was proto-surrealist. The works of Bosch and others discussed in this article are no more proto-surrealist than the works of Albrecht Dürer and El Greco are proto-Cubist, i.e., not at all. Note: non of the sources in this article mention "proto-surrealism", and most do not even mention "surrealism". Coldcreation (talk) 19:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Coldcreation;
I agree fully; I came across this article this evening and decided to wikify it first, before anything else. I'll now make way to you, so that we don't cause each other any edit conflicts. Thank you for your help with this. With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 19:49, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Pdebee: I've never before tagged an article like this, so I might have to defer to you (or someone else) for follow-up. At first glance though, the case for potential WP:DEL#REASON appears to be 6. Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, 7. Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed, 8. Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (Wikipedia:Notability). Coldcreation (talk) 05:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, Coldcreation; it will have to wait, though, as I have other, higher priority projects on the go at the moment. On the other hand, if you wish to nominate this for deletion, then please go ahead; it might open a wider discussion, preferably involving editors interested in Art History. I am just wondering whether the term "proto-surrealism" might simply be a 21st century neologism to pigeon-hole those artists and writers admired by Breton and the other Surrealists themselves, even though they never referred to them that way. (I have certainly not come across the term before, even though I have been interested in Surrealism (mainly its writers) for over 50 years.) I ran a quick Goggle search for sources and came up with several, but most of them are blogs (etc.), as listed below:
  1. "No results for Proto-surrealism." at amazon.co.uk First of all, a quick search at amazon shows there are no printed books/works with "Proto-surrealism" in their title (which I find quite revealing in itself!);
  2. Proto-Surrealism at artandpopularculture.com; (this appears to be WP:MAF, and includes an entry for Pierre Belfond's book: Quatre siècles de Surréalisme.)
  3. In Focus | The Unconscious Untapped: A Brief History of Surrealism at discover.goldmarkart.com (this mentions the term "proto-surrealism" between single quotes, as if it were a neologism)
  4. The 15th Century Surrealist Who Depicted Our Worst Nightmares at culturacolectiva.com (this blog applies the term "proto-surrealist" to Bosch, adding "if we can call him that")
  5. Historical painting: Symbolism, Proto-Surrealism at pinterest.co.uk (is this even a source?)
  6. Proto-Surrealism and Fantasy in Early Advertising Art at siris.blogspot.com ("Smithsonian Collections Blog") (Another blog)
  7. Popular Proto Surrealism Books at goodreads.com
  8. ,,, and it goes on like that, for pages on end.
Thank you. With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 15:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://culturacolectiva.com/art/hieronymus-bosch-artist-garden-of-earthly-delights, https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-first-surrealists-hellish-world?ref=scroll, I think André Bretón referred to Bosch as precursor of Surrealism.Sourcerery (talk) 13:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sourcerery: In that link it states "When Andre Breton issued the Surrealist Manifesto in 1924... he first referred to Hieronymus Bosch as the predecessor of surrealism." However, in the full text of André Breton, Manifeste du surréalisme, 1924, Bosch is not mentioned at all. And even if Breton did mention that elsewhere, it would not be sufficient for the launch of a new genre of art called proto-Surrealism. Blogs are not reliable sources, and that one historian appears to be mistaken (at least on the contents of the 1924 manifesto). Coldcreation (talk) 16:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, I just saw this topic and looked for sources a bit. I suggest searching with something like "medieval surrealism", "renaissance surrealism" or something like that, I didn't dig deep since I don't know much about the topic, just tried to help out.Sourcerery (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Surrealism did not exist until the 20th century. The key point is: "Proto-Surrealism" is not a generally accepted term which includes Hieronymus Bosch and others. The progenitors of the Surrealist movement include art (painting, literature and poetry) that directly preceded it (e.g., Dada and Metaphysical art). Coldcreation (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Movement, for sure. I think main reason people are making connection with Bosch and surrealist is - in the words of the art historian Walter Gibson, "a world of dreams [and] nightmares in which forms seem to flicker and change before our eyes" (from Bosch page), he is seen as a hugely individualistic painter with deep insight into humanity's desires and deepest fears (also Bosch page). You can see parallels in both surrealist, Freud inspired themes and aesthetic. From source on his page as well - https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/02/arts/design/work-at-a-kansas-city-museum-may-be-by-hieronymus-bosch-researchers-say.html " surreal images of heaven and hell and the earthly moral purgatory in between." Is there enough sources to label his work proto-surrealist? I don't know, but I understand why people would make the connection.Sourcerery (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You probably noticed there is no mention of Surrealism (or proto-Surrealism) in the Bosch article (and probably likewise for the other artists mentioned here). There is a reason for that, despite distant similarities between the 20th century movement. It is because the origin of Surrealism lays elsewhere and its development was independent from the Old Masters to a large extent. Coldcreation (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well now you made me look it up - Giuseppe Arcimboldo, With the advent of surrealism its theorists paid attention to the formal work of Arcimboldo, and in the first half of the 20th century many articles were devoted to his heritage. Gustav Hocke [de] drew parallels between Arcimboldo, Salvador Dalí, and Max Ernst's works. A volume monograph of B. Geyger and the book by F. Legrand and F. Xu were published in 1954.

Since 1978 T. DaCosta Kaufmann was engaged in Arcimboldo's heritage, and wrote of the artist defended his dissertation "Variations on an imperial subject". His volume work, published in 2009, summed up the attitude of modern art critics towards Arcimboldo. An article published in 1980 by Roland Barthes was devoted to Arcimboldo's works.[8] Archimboldo's relation with surrealism was emphasized at landmark exhibitions in New York ("Fantastic art, dada, surrealism", 1937) and in Venice ("Arcimboldo's Effect: Evolution of the person in painting from the XVI century", Palazzo Grassi, 1987) where Arcimboldo's allegories were presented.[9] There is some connection made with Dali, and he is quoted as his influence. You should probably look up deeper into this topic, especially since it seems you speak french, you linked me manifesto in french, spanish would be helpful as well for this topic. This article states - Salvador Dalí, a world renowned surrealist painter, decided to honor Arcimboldo with the title of "father of Surrealism."I will see if there is source for that.Sourcerery (talk) 22:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • At this point I think it's established that topic is notable, supporting removal of the tag and expansion of the article.Sourcerery (talk) 23:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sourcerery: I think you miss the point. The term "Proto-Surrealism" is not appropriate to define the work of Arcimboldo or any other artist discussed. The article that does almost apply is Fantastic art. If anything this article should be merged with that one, and all mention of "Proto-Surrealism" removed unless properly and reliably sourced. Or better yet: Early Netherlandish painting, the actual historically recognized denomination for several of the group. Coldcreation (talk) 04:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - there doesn't seem to a good WP:RS using the term for this stuff, although I wouldn't be amazed if lower case adjectival uses could be found. Needless to say, we have a student assignment here - "This user is a student editor in Concordia_College/ART_365_Renaissance_and_Baroque_Art_(Spring)". Fantastic art is pretty short and poor (& will get much better views), so I'd suggest a careful merge there - I could do this, though not immediately. Where should "Proto-Surrealism" be redirected to? Johnbod (talk) 13:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IMO a merge with Fantastic art makes sense with see also links to Early Netherlandish painting, and Surrealism where and if they apply. Regarding Arcimboldo's work I always think of Pavel Tchelitchew...Modernist (talk) 13:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If merged hopefully the gallery can be kept, seems infoormative to have large galleries of interesting works. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: It would be very helpful if you could merge this article with Fantastic art whenever you get the chance. I'm not sure where "Proto-Surrealism" should be redirected to. Coldcreation (talk) 11:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, if nothing's happened in say 10 days, plse remind me. I hope he'll have got his grade by then. Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, looking at the article, I think some of it would be better turned into a short section near the bottom of Surrealism, maybe called "Alleged precursors in historical art" or something - there's enough loose talk by art historians & Dali to justify this I think. This is as well as the main merge. Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable. Coldcreation (talk) 06:11, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I forgot about this (& no-one reminded me). I'll get on it. Johnbod (talk) 02:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done the Surrealism bit here. Maybe the rest tomorrow. Johnbod (talk) 03:33, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion this article should be deleted and the term "Proto-Surrealism" should redirect to the newly created section (by Johnbod) called Alleged precursors in older art. Bus stop (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, or to Fantastic art, where I intend to add a slightly longer section than at Surrealism. Johnbod (talk) 15:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That would be even better. Bus stop (talk) 15:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Proto-Surrealism&oldid=1204939635"