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...

__________________
Ezekiel 33:33 Rev 13:16 Lev 11:7
Forums
Last FM
ن٥ﻻ ﻉ√٥ﺎ ٱ

ahhh ok now i remember.

i think the aim of dada was pretty much to break down the idea that art should only be visually aesthetic and insread be fairly conceptual. if you think about it art is a great medium to express veiws and social criticisms. dada evolved into pop art and check out what that did for the world. i think dad is worth appreciation, and i think you just have to keep in mind the fact that it is not so much to do with the art but rather with the point of it.

i cant comment if it is dead or not, because i dont really know, but i'm doubting it.

hell yeah for postmodernist and conceptual art movements.

yeah?>
i got my handy radio. it goes with me everywhere and is stuck on my favourite station. best thing i own i'd say

I think radio is sooo retro and sexy. If you were a girl and I saw you coming down the beach in knee high white socks hot pants and radio with your blonde hair flowing like a carpenter I'd hit the shit.

__________________
Ezekiel 33:33 Rev 13:16 Lev 11:7
Forums
Last FM
ن٥ﻻ ﻉ√٥ﺎ ٱ

i dont know what to think about it, really.

my first instinct is to say that it's not art- it doesn't really fit into my personal definition of art. but i do sort of see the ORIGINAL intention behind it, and although i think it was smart and innovative, i still dont think it's quite "art". i respect it for what it was, independently, but it doesnt appeal to me. in my mind, stuff like that should have it's own sub, or even seperate, category when it comes to the general term of ART.

when artists try to redo it, or expand on it, or what have you.. i think that's stretching a bit. back then it was innovative, new thought, a way to get people to think about or see things differently...now i think it's an excuse to really do absolutely anything and title it art. or to push the envelope as far as possible to "shock" (what really shocks us these days anyway? testing that does/doesnt isnt really art to me, personally)..


MAYBE the actual ACT of making it could be 'art" to the artist or whoever witnesses, possibly..... but the end product? i dunno...

like a carpenter hey?

man ray isn't a dadaist, he's a surrealist.
dada is a european WWI thing primarily. and man ray is from philadelphia, i think.

and i thought this was about the band dada to which i thought -- someone ELSE knows about dada?

then i realized it was just me.

Its a Fountain you guys.

Hannah Hoch's work is decent, unless you go to the overly convoluted stuff, like the knife. That just looks stupid.

I agree completely.

I miss my DADA and my MAMA.

Orchestral you made me laugh, i've come into so weird threads thinking the same thing! lol gets alittle confusing doesnt' it?

I also realized HHC that my 1 class short of a minor in art history didn't stick with me at all, so thanks for restarting my interest. I'm going to go get a clue and come back to hopefully contribute something

yes, please do

well I see him labelled as a dadaist.

There is some dada in surrealism actually.

dada -then- surrealism

both reactions to war.


man ray is great. enjoy it, you don't have to know
everything to appreciate his work.