So, considering that dada didn't succeed at being self-contained (since surrealism and subsequent art movements built on it), and it wasn't entirely nonsense (since we can interpret and discuss the art), is it possible to be a stand-alone movement? And is it possible to be nonsense?
Let's see what Tumblr can tell us about this.
So, we know that Tumblr is a weird place, but it's possible to decipher it. We know that dada aimed to avoid being meaningful, but there was meaning in their content and in their existence at all. We know that dada aimed to be a self-contained movement, separate from the art world, but we know it didn't succeed, based on the existence of subsequent art movements that are firmly seated within the art world that built on dada principles of absurdity.
But, okay, so how do we make sense of these things? What are the parallels? Where do they depart from one another?
Let's see what Tumblr can tell us about this.
So, we know that Tumblr is a weird place, but it's possible to decipher it. We know that dada aimed to avoid being meaningful, but there was meaning in their content and in their existence at all. We know that dada aimed to be a self-contained movement, separate from the art world, but we know it didn't succeed, based on the existence of subsequent art movements that are firmly seated within the art world that built on dada principles of absurdity.
But, okay, so how do we make sense of these things? What are the parallels? Where do they depart from one another?
1) Absurdity
(I honestly hate that image from Tumblr of Donald Trump and I'm sorry you had to see that.)
Starting at the most basic, we have some level of absurdity. Tumblr users love silly nonsense, and dada artists made some fun garbage, too. There is an element of nonreality that the two styles share. Neither are quite mirroring the world as it is, but they're also not necessarily trying to.
Starting at the most basic, we have some level of absurdity. Tumblr users love silly nonsense, and dada artists made some fun garbage, too. There is an element of nonreality that the two styles share. Neither are quite mirroring the world as it is, but they're also not necessarily trying to.
2) Community
As I mentioned in my definition of Tumblr, Tumblr is, at the end of the day, a community. And dada was very much the same.
The users on Tumblr tend to fall into very similar demographics-- largely female, largely millenial-- but it's not necessarily because of shared lived experiences that Tumblr users ban together. Similar interests might be the foundation for the niche communities on the site, but the shared language that comes from the users own stylistic choices might be a better reason why the community exists.
As I mentioned in my introduction , my experience of Tumblr is unique to me, just as all Tumblr users ends up with a highly specific experience of their own. The niche areas of Tumblr are rather siloed from other areas: if you are on Tumblr for a particular fandom, you might only be following and seeing content from blogs in the same fandom. And yet, somehow, there still is a shared experience.
In the same way, while dada artists did not necessarily walk the same path nor create the same content as one another, there was still camaraderie in sharing in the movement together.
The users on Tumblr tend to fall into very similar demographics-- largely female, largely millenial-- but it's not necessarily because of shared lived experiences that Tumblr users ban together. Similar interests might be the foundation for the niche communities on the site, but the shared language that comes from the users own stylistic choices might be a better reason why the community exists.
As I mentioned in my introduction , my experience of Tumblr is unique to me, just as all Tumblr users ends up with a highly specific experience of their own. The niche areas of Tumblr are rather siloed from other areas: if you are on Tumblr for a particular fandom, you might only be following and seeing content from blogs in the same fandom. And yet, somehow, there still is a shared experience.
In the same way, while dada artists did not necessarily walk the same path nor create the same content as one another, there was still camaraderie in sharing in the movement together.
3) Performance for those in the community
This post seems to be a direct reference to the performative feeling of Tumblr. Despite the site being a relatively solitary experience (see: me, sitting alone at home in bed, curled up on my side with some cheetos and my laptop open to Tumblr), there is still this sense that all the users are connected and sharing this space online, performing for one another and seeking approval through likes and reblogs from followers who are doing the same thing.
Tumblr content can be found all over the internet-- on Facebook , Twitter, and, maybe most notably, Buzzfeed compilations-- but it's not necessarily designed to be consumed by non-tumblr users. Tumblr users are creating posts and content with both the style and content tailored for a Tumblr audience.
In this way, Tumblr, like dada, is performative.
The content is not made for Buzzfeed (even if it ends up there)-- it's made for Tumblr users, by Tumblr users, who are sharing in the oddity because they speak the same language and have come together to partake in the same content.
It's really not a stretch to make the connection here to the Cabaret Voltaire with the dada artists in 1919, when they sat around and shared their work and performed for one another-- for the ones in the know, who spoke the same language, so to speak. While the work wasn't meant to infiltrate a larger audience (the Buzzfeed of their time), it did anyway, eventually giving rise to surrealism and everything that followed.
Tumblr content can be found all over the internet-- on Facebook , Twitter, and, maybe most notably, Buzzfeed compilations-- but it's not necessarily designed to be consumed by non-tumblr users. Tumblr users are creating posts and content with both the style and content tailored for a Tumblr audience.
In this way, Tumblr, like dada, is performative.
The content is not made for Buzzfeed (even if it ends up there)-- it's made for Tumblr users, by Tumblr users, who are sharing in the oddity because they speak the same language and have come together to partake in the same content.
It's really not a stretch to make the connection here to the Cabaret Voltaire with the dada artists in 1919, when they sat around and shared their work and performed for one another-- for the ones in the know, who spoke the same language, so to speak. While the work wasn't meant to infiltrate a larger audience (the Buzzfeed of their time), it did anyway, eventually giving rise to surrealism and everything that followed.
Key Differences
While there are some fairly obvious differences-- dada artists didn't have the opportunity to make gifs, for example-- in terms of media, content, and tone, the truly key difference between those 20th century artists and these Tumblr users seems to center on intention.
While dada tried to shun the art world, claiming to stand for destruction, nonsense, separation, Tumblr doesn't pretend not to be part of something larger and more connected. This does set the two movements apart quite a bit, despite other similarities. In my eyes it's the intention rather than the style or method that defines an art movement.
While dada tried to shun the art world, claiming to stand for destruction, nonsense, separation, Tumblr doesn't pretend not to be part of something larger and more connected. This does set the two movements apart quite a bit, despite other similarities. In my eyes it's the intention rather than the style or method that defines an art movement.
Implications
Okay, there's a lot to work through here.
First off, it seems that we've built to a conclusion that, through understanding history, we can derive deeper meaning from current rhetoric, even if the modern aesthetic is different and means something new. I feel more able to "read" Tumblr now, knowing the styles and practices that have built to this current model.
Second, the lack of success that dada had in being the self-contained art community that the artists envisioned raises a big question: is it possible to exist as a singular movement without touching the future? In my eyes, so long as there is value in the work and it has some attention from the world, then it will inevitably be built upon and remixed. The real mistake that the dada community made was either letting the world see their work or in producing art that was valuable in the first place. Honestly, they were doomed from the start.
Finally, because we know that art movements span new art movements and modern aesthetics play off of the old, is it possible to be original? And is it possible NOT to make meaning?
I'm going to say... it depends. Originality is a subjective label. Is something original in terms of being never before thought of, or done, or expressed? Probably not. Ideas don't come from a vacuum. We are all products of culture and history. However, can something be novel? Certainly. The amount of ideas we can produce and construct and reconstruct is infinite. Even if the creation plays off of something that already exists, does it detract from the inherent value of creation?
First off, it seems that we've built to a conclusion that, through understanding history, we can derive deeper meaning from current rhetoric, even if the modern aesthetic is different and means something new. I feel more able to "read" Tumblr now, knowing the styles and practices that have built to this current model.
Second, the lack of success that dada had in being the self-contained art community that the artists envisioned raises a big question: is it possible to exist as a singular movement without touching the future? In my eyes, so long as there is value in the work and it has some attention from the world, then it will inevitably be built upon and remixed. The real mistake that the dada community made was either letting the world see their work or in producing art that was valuable in the first place. Honestly, they were doomed from the start.
Finally, because we know that art movements span new art movements and modern aesthetics play off of the old, is it possible to be original? And is it possible NOT to make meaning?
I'm going to say... it depends. Originality is a subjective label. Is something original in terms of being never before thought of, or done, or expressed? Probably not. Ideas don't come from a vacuum. We are all products of culture and history. However, can something be novel? Certainly. The amount of ideas we can produce and construct and reconstruct is infinite. Even if the creation plays off of something that already exists, does it detract from the inherent value of creation?