The term Dada has now been thrown around quite a bit here, so I should probably explain.
In simple terms, dada is considered to be an art movement from the 1910s and 20s, originating in Zurich. The artists that gathered there, seeking distance in neutral-Switzerrland from WWI, expressed their confusion and dissatisfaction with the world through collage-work, music, poetry, and more in a largely performative way while hanging out at Cabaret Voltaire.
The artists banded together to produce bizarre performances, nonsense poetry, strange print work, and more artistry in the 8 volumes of work that they published. However, the kicker was that, while they were producing what was clearly art in its creative nature, it was art unlike anything the art world had seen before. And the dada artists wanted to keep it that way.
At its core, while it was an art movement, dada was "anti-art." They wanted to be separate from the art world and even viewed their work as being destructive to art.
What these artists produced together usually worked with paradoxical material and visual confusion through collage work, such as this piece on the left by Tristan Tzara and on the right by Hannah Holke-- both central artists in the community. Both images present a certain level of unity in content matter-- words, or faces-- but the each final product is its own version of bizarre strangeness.
The poetry in the magazine had the same nonsense tone as the print art. On the right is one such poem (in french) by Pierre Albert-Birot, called "Rasoir mecanique," or "Safety Razor," which used odd orthography with random interjections from nonsense letters, long phrases without spaces, and capitalized phrases. Some of his other work is even more clearly nonsense, such as the poem above, called "Pour Dada," or "For Dada." The content itself is also rather nonsensical, including unprovoked laughter mid-text and confusingly jumbled subject matter as he skips around between a forest and things that fly and eternity and calling for someone to come see something, and more. |
According to the artists, their art didn't mean anything and could not be interpreted. It relied on randomness and attempted to challenge what art was. In their eyes, these pieces were the definition of nonsense-- they meant nothing. They held no value. There was no worthwhile meaning to be derived from these random hodgepodge visuals.
Ultimately, while none of it should have made any sense (and it wasn't meant to), in purposefully not making sense, it made sense to the other artists. The very concept of nonsense was a shared value that made sense to these artists. In this way, while the artists aimed to exclude meaning in the art that they were producing, they did produce something with more clear cut value: a community.
Outside of that community though, when it comes to the art, it seems that dada was just a big bag of nonsense that came out of a war-torn continent.
Ultimately, while none of it should have made any sense (and it wasn't meant to), in purposefully not making sense, it made sense to the other artists. The very concept of nonsense was a shared value that made sense to these artists. In this way, while the artists aimed to exclude meaning in the art that they were producing, they did produce something with more clear cut value: a community.
Outside of that community though, when it comes to the art, it seems that dada was just a big bag of nonsense that came out of a war-torn continent.
However!
It wasn't at all a bag of nonsense!
As one art history page puts it, "The great paradox of Dada is that they claimed to be anti-art, yet here we are discussing their artworks."
Dada artists centered their work around being separate from the mainstream art world-- a contained art movement. It wasn't going to be intelligible, it wasn't here to make meaning, and it wasn't going to contribute to art outside of itself, as that would defeat the purpose of being anti-art.
AND YET. Look at this:
As one art history page puts it, "The great paradox of Dada is that they claimed to be anti-art, yet here we are discussing their artworks."
Dada artists centered their work around being separate from the mainstream art world-- a contained art movement. It wasn't going to be intelligible, it wasn't here to make meaning, and it wasn't going to contribute to art outside of itself, as that would defeat the purpose of being anti-art.
AND YET. Look at this:
This famous piece by Duchamp, The Fountain (a urinal that was submitted (and rejected) from an art show in 1917), and this rendition of John Cage's piece, 4'33" (which has no specific score but instead has the musician instead stays on stage for 4 minutes and 33 seconds and the negative soundscape that is produced becomes the song) are dada-like in nature-- they're absurd, they're nonsensical at first glance, and they were even produced around the same time that the dada movement was active-- but they're not dada.
The difference here is that these pieces were, in fact, intended to be part of the art world rather than a separation or a destruction of art.
The influence that dada had is clear enough with the similarities in style, but they were something entirely new-- something that built on what dada started-- something that dada had (futilely) fought against.
The difference here is that these pieces were, in fact, intended to be part of the art world rather than a separation or a destruction of art.
The influence that dada had is clear enough with the similarities in style, but they were something entirely new-- something that built on what dada started-- something that dada had (futilely) fought against.
(Recognize that one with the pipe?)
Surrealism, as an example, was in direct conversation with the work produced in the dada movement. The dada pieces that were supposedly impossible to conceptualize nor build upon were both understood and used as a foundation for future growth in the art world that the dada artists had fought against (which sucks for them a bit).
Between putting a mustache on Mona Lisa or questioning why we accept a visual representation of something as being the object itself, surrealism challenged what art and reality are, but they did so within the existing art community rather than within an anti-art schism, a key split from dada's principles.
Surrealism, as an example, was in direct conversation with the work produced in the dada movement. The dada pieces that were supposedly impossible to conceptualize nor build upon were both understood and used as a foundation for future growth in the art world that the dada artists had fought against (which sucks for them a bit).
Between putting a mustache on Mona Lisa or questioning why we accept a visual representation of something as being the object itself, surrealism challenged what art and reality are, but they did so within the existing art community rather than within an anti-art schism, a key split from dada's principles.
After surrealism, that same dada art along with what had just been produced in new movements was again used as a foundation for further growth in the art world through modern art, postmodern art, contemporary art, and more.
Not only did these artists work with some of the same styles as dada, such as the recognizable collage work, but it also attempted to challenge what art was, the way that dada inadvertently did.
If dada hadn't existed, surrealism wouldn't have existed. If surrealism hadn't existed, other post-modern art and subcultures like punk might not have existed. Without modern takes on those art movements and the questions they raised the styles they played with, we wouldn't have Tumblr.
Ergo, without dada, we wouldn't have Tumblr.
And we wouldn't have gems like these.