Talk:Collage

From Academic Kids

I removed the following lines:

Surrealism has made extensive use of the collage, and certain kinds of, and methods for making, collages, have been significant in surrealism. Among these have been torn paper collage, inimage, and the methods invented by Penelope Rosemont, the prehensilhouette and the landscapade.

Many art forms use collage. To only mention surrealism is silly. Also, there is no mention anywhere in literature or websites that I could find of inimage, prehensilouette or landscapade, except those attributed to Daniel Boyer himself. If more reliable sources can be provided, then I could change my mind on this note. SpeakerFTD 17:17, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Firstly, surrealism is not an "art form". Secondly, I think that collages significant in other fields than surrealism should most definitely be mentioned in this article (for instance, decoupage); we should have a substantial article here. For an external source on some of this see Surrealist Games/Includes Books and Games by Alastair Brotchie (Compiler), Mel Gooding (Editor) or Penelope Rosemont's Surrealist Experiences. I am much surprised that you are unable to find information on the World Wide Web "except [that] attributed to Daniel Boyer himself" about inimage (you can see this at [1] (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=inimage+-Boyer+collage)), the prehensilhouette [2] (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=prehensilhouette+-Boyer&btnG=Google+Search), and the landscapade [3] (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=landscapade+-Boyer&btnG=Google+Search). --Daniel C. Boyer 19:52, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

I see what Wik has done in his edit. What is the proper way to deal with types of surrealist and non-surrealist collage in this article? Is there going to be no mention of any surrealist collage technique, or should there be no such mention? How is this best to be dealt with? --Daniel C. Boyer 20:27, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

You can mention common techniques of surrealist collage, if there are any, but prehensilhouette or landscapade seem to be just Penelope Rosemont's personal techniques (or her personal fancy terms for not particularly profound ideas) which have not spread much further. Your own Google links above prove it. --Wik 20:50, Aug 5, 2003 (UTC)

I like Wik's edit. I also have no problem with the addition of statements about other collage techniques, both surrealist and non-surrealist, as long as evidence of the factuality of the statements can be sourced from multiple, independent sources. None of the sources evidenced above qualify as independent.SpeakerFTD 21:08, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? In what sense are they not "independent?" --Daniel C. Boyer 22:27, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I find it tedious that we need to get to this level of granularity in the debate, but I suppose that is a necessity when the reliability of sources is being considered.

You list three techniques.

I will concede that the first technique, "inimage", seems to have two sources [4] (http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Gallery/7993/surrgame.html)[5] (http://staging.ala.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Products_and_Publications/Periodicals/Booklist/Special_Lists_and_Features7/Special_Lists_and_Features3/Reference_on_the_Web/Painters_and_Prices_.htm) independent of the statement's author. These potentially could be viewed as evidence of independence. Although I am personally still dubious of the reliability of those two sources, without evidence to contradict their independence, the sources must be assumed to be independent and the statement should stand.

But the other two techniques seem to have no independent sources.

Prehensilhouette - Only two sources, one of which is wikipedia. The other source [6] (http://www.surrealism-usa.org/) sells a book from Mr. Boyer. Not exactly independent.

This is really a moot point as one can get Penelope Rosemont's book from many other sources than this. To impose this level of standard for "independence" would cause Wikipedia to devolve into total unworkability; are we to say that anyone who had something for sale of Amazon.com would have no right to cite anything else sold thereby? We are reaching an apotheosis of ridiculousness. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:38, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. I am discussing sources, as in written sources, not retail outlets. The only other written source about prehensilhouette other than Ms. Rosemont's own book

Explain to me why her book is not a source. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:39, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

is a discussion on surrealism-usa.org, yet this entity has a financial interest in both Ms. Rosemont and Mr. Boyer. If an independent source can be found (again I mean written sources here, not retail sources), then I would be willing to accept that this is a legitimate technique.

SpeakerFTD 15:21, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Landscapade - Again the only two sources are the above site and a second site selling another book from the same publishing company. Neither source is independent.

If you can find me one source that independently describes prehensilhouette and landscapade, I'll relent. Independent means that the source is in no way related to or controlled by the author and the author does not have a fiduciary or similarly beneficial relationship with the source.

SpeakerFTD 23:59, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Cite: Review of Surrealist Experiences (http://www.artscope.net/VAREVIEWS/SurrealistExper0800.shtml). Relent. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:37, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

I know my mention of decoupage is not up to snuff; can anyone help me flesh this out? --Daniel C. Boyer 18:29, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

I am going to be placing Lacerated posters on the Requested articles page. How should this topic be fit into collage, since it really is a form of "decollage"? --Daniel C. Boyer 00:15, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC) Daniel, Speaker FTD has a very valid point. Penelope Rosemont is your friend and it appears that you have some kind of financial stake in your friend Ron's book. How much does, "SURREALIST SUBVERSIONS" sell for?You know, Dan, the book written by the expert on pirate radio, or is it the expert on Surrealism?