Is it alive? is it dead?

what do you feel about the Dada movement??

I love Man Ray for example, wich is undeniably dada, but I cannot renounce to the beauty and the composition wich are trully the basis of real art.

I think some of it is not art at all. But that's my opinion.

you don't know anything about art lol

why is it that this comes off so damn pretentious.

dada is using readymades etc isn't it? early postmodernist/conceptual stuff?
how quickly i forget what i learnt in art.

does it sound pretentious? I'm sorry.

well it's basically modern art. Getting gold fish into blenders so that you can kill them.

I found this:


Dada was not art — it was "anti-art". Dada sought to fight art with art. For everything that art stood for, Dada was to represent the opposite. Where art was concerned with aesthetics, Dada ignored aesthetics. If art were to have at least an implicit or latent message, Dada strove to have no meaning — interpretation of Dada is dependent entirely on the viewer. If art is to appeal to sensibilities, Dada is to offend. It is perhaps then ironic that Dada became an influential movement in modern art. Dada became a commentary on order and the carnage they believed it wreaked. Through this rejection of traditional culture and aesthetics they hoped to destroy traditional culture and aesthetics.

According to Tristan Tzara, "God and my toothbrush are Dada, and New Yorkers can be Dada too, if they are not already." A reviewer from the American Art News stated that "The Dada philosophy is the sickest, most paralyzing and most destructive thing that has ever originated from the brain of man." Art historians have described Dada as being, in large part, "in reaction to what many of these artists saw as nothing more than an insane spectacle of collective homicide."[1] Years later, Dada artists described the movement as "a phenomenon bursting forth in the midst of the postwar economic and moral crisis, a savior, a monster, which would lay waste to everything in its path. [It was] a systematic work of destruction and demoralization...In the end it became nothing but an act of sacrilege."[1] Reason and logic had led people into the horrors of war; the only route to salvation was to reject logic and embrace anarchy and the irrational. However, this could also be thought of as the logical side of anarchy and rejection of values and order. It is not irrational to embrace the systematic destruction of values, if one thinks them to be flawed.

I think it's a pretentious movement. Destroy culture and aesthetics? give me a break.

I think iPods are pretentious if you own a PC...