The problem with Dada is that dadaists attempted to quantify and destroy art by creating it. But only dadaists know Dada isn't actually art. The thinking, in an extended sense, is that dadaist work could never be in a museum, it could never be admired, it could never been collected. Because since it's not art- society doesn't need to value it. But this anti-art thinking lies only within the dadaist thought. To anyone else (perhaps at the fault of 'true' and 'perceived' cultural value situation in the modern art world), dada is art. But today, we can see dadaism failed- it's just a movement in art- it never transcended anything. Because today, even the slightly cultured expect 'weird' to automatically be art. It can't be anything else. The point is further secured when the author demonstrates disgust when science becomes speculative. It stops being science. Dadaist thought naturally says art without purpose stops being art. Looking at the greater philosophy of dadaism, one could say that dadaism became (or always was) an exclusive club of artists that just hated their art being called art for the sake of being art. But right here, now, I'm proving dadaist's most fundemental point- the absurdity of it all.
I loved how this was written - long winded explanations cut short with petty and uninformed personal interjections. "...I do not explain because I hate common sense."
What did you think? Could you see where a dadaist is coming from in terms of thinking about the world? - Ben Schmidt
I personally think I could see where Dadaist are coming from because most of things we do as people usually have a purpose to it. Their way of thinking is obviously different from ours. it's confusing but it is understandable in some ways. You may have done something that you are not proud of, yet many people love what you did.
ReplyDeleteI thought that this piece was very well written but I at some points I got a little confused. I thought that it was confusing how the author was referencing things in the past but then also giving his incite into it. I did like how the author gave specific examples of how Dadaists think. For example, when he mentioned about someone drawing a cup 20 centimeters below eye level. Different people can look at it different ways. I thought that that was kind of interesting. Did anyone else think that this manifesto was a little hard to keep up with at some points?
ReplyDeleteI think he has a large hatred for the word dada. I found it to be like a rant about how the word is nothing and how people give it a meaning anyway, like how different cultures use the word dada. I think he means dada has no definite meaning meanwhile other words have a definite meaning and use and evoke some kind of feeling when used.
ReplyDeleteI thought that Tzara used very blunt and direct writing to make his opinions clear. An example of this is when he states how he hates common sense and science. I felt that Tzara uses this type of writing to show that he is passionate about his support for dada and doesn't want to make his opinions seem censored or fake in any way. He doesn't agree with the traditional way to do and see things.
ReplyDeleteI found this piece to be strange. The ideas presented seem to be so far off of anything that I have ever heard of. I do not think I understand how people can come up with this point of view and find it to be viable. The whole idea of dada really just confused me because it seems so unrealistic to me.
ReplyDeleteDada Manifesto by tzara to me was a pretty strange piece. I agree with Steve because i feel like I didn't really understand his language and the way he used his words. Reading this piece i feel as if he has suppressed . hatred in his tone and the way many of his paragraphs are written. I loved how this was written - long winded explanations cut short with petty and uninformed personal interjections. "...I do not explain because I hate common sense." Reading this part of the story I got totally lost.
ReplyDelete"Dada Manifesto" by Tristan Tzara was very confusing to me. I found the reading to be hard to understand and I did have trouble keeping up with it at some points. However, surprisingly I did still enjoy reading it. After reading the story, it just made me want to understand the history behind Dada even more. What I did understand from the reading was that the author wanted his readers to be more conscious of the Dada cultural movement and when understanding what "Dada" is, have a completely different point of view and way of thinking. I liked that the author didn't give any certain meaning for the word Dada. It's simply based on the reader to determine their own meaning.
ReplyDeleteI heard about Dada several years ago. Firstly, I could not understand how it works in arts because all its spirit is anti-art. By the way, another kind of staff which is opposite to regular arts. Like Tzara said, Dada is nothing, but also everything. To be individual or special, dadaists tried various ways to prove the value of death. The writing skill of this piece, is properly the definition. Tzara used lots of definitions to illustrate different types of Dada art. Which makes me, or most people confused, I think it is the language art of this piece. Tzara has defined such specific concepts which might me senseless for us to understand.
ReplyDeleteThis piece was very well-written and it’s apparent that the author, Tristan Tzara, is far beyond most on the intellectual spectrum. As I was reading this piece, I felt as if he where engaging me(the reader) on a higher level of debate. Which was certainly established by the interjections throughout the piece, and his philosophical approach to the writing. In my opinion, Tzara did not intend for this piece to be about just Dadaism, it’s about so much more than that. In my interpretation of the piece, Tzara is trying to send the world a message. Not just about how we look at the arts, or science, but about using our own logic, and not allowing others to dictate how we interpret the world around us. “ I oblige no one to follow me and everyone practices his art in his own way.” And more importantly that the true artists appreciate not having their works be accepted by the masses or to be “insulted”, it shows their “immutability .” Which to me proves to go without saying. And I find this to be so very true, even in my own life. Overall point of this piece for me, was that we are able bodied humans, with the ability to use our own logic. It may not be something that is easy, but as anything worthwhile it takes persistence. And with that persistence will come all that we want out of this life, but more importantly freedom of every kind.
ReplyDeleteThis reading was very strange and confusing to make out due to the language that Tzara chose to use, but it was well written if you could make sense of it. One thing that Tzara hates is the word Dada although it doesn't have one specific meaning it's for the reader to decide which it means. When he went on rant's about this word I find it weird because he stated the word has no meaning, why would anyone get mad over something with no meaning. His logic is wrong
ReplyDeleteIn reading Tzara's piece, I was at first, presented with a lot of complicated ideas and language that was a bit overwhelming. In fact, a lot of the ideas aren't simplistic to begin with and it doesn't help that the language didn't make it any easier, but in a sense, I think that was part of the point. The language in itself alludes to the ideas talked about when it comes to issues of "the mind" and our abilities to actually think holistically and deeply. I think this reading was clearly meant to be addressed on an deeply intellectual level due to the fact that it confronts many of those issues on the whole. One of the main things I think was addressed was the idea of the collective's ability to think in general. I think this was brought up in the whole idea of "Dada" itself. The idea here being kind of an "anti" sentiment to set standards of art, which the author brings to larger picture when talking about people thinking, the people's minds, and logic itself. These are all contained in "systems," which the author clearly detests. They are so limited in their own systems that they become "imprisoned" and are no longer available to the individual; thus the importance and necessity of the individual and individualism is completely lost.
ReplyDeleteTzara's piece honestly went right over my head and was very hard to understand. The language and ideas used in this piece where very abstract and made the reader think. His rant on the word "dada" to me was strange in his description of the word itself. It seemed he almost did not even know what it meant. Overall seemed well written but a bit hard to follow for me at least mostly due to the language.
ReplyDeleteThis story just seemed to be an endless and confusing rant, this writer pretty much lays it all on the table and lets the reader try to interpret what is going on because to me it seemed like he just wanted to get things off of his mind and writing about it helped him out the most. He wanted us to interpret his reading in our own way, I think that is my best interpretation of his manifesto.
ReplyDeleteThis piece was quite confusing to be honest. It was difficult to understand and extremely abstract. His choice of diction and language made it even more challenging to comprehend. But overall it was well written even though his logic was in my opinion wrong.
ReplyDeleteVery hard to grasp because the whole time i was thinking to myself who actually thinks like this? It felt like i was reading forever. The language made it ever more unbearable. The examples helped a bit but not much.
ReplyDelete