Art History: Dadaism

A few days ago, Mrs Rose showed us a video about a type of art called 'Dada'. I was informed by the delightful hosts of the podcast that it got its name because of what it represented. Dada is a nonsense word, it doesn't really mean anything, kinda like the art it represents.

Dada was formed during, and was kind of based around, World War I. See, Dada was developed and began to rise in popularity; mainly in Europe, which, at the time, was in an understandably uncomfortable place. You know, seeing as there was an Austrian archduke missing a considerable chunk of his head and countries were starting to dust off those handy-dandy treaties and alliances that had been formed decades ago. 

The artists who eventually created the art movement known as Dada were all pacifists, who didn't believe in war and didn't want to see their countries ripped apart. So they protested in really the only way they knew how. 

They protested through their art. They created while the rest of the world revelled in destruction.

And they didn't just stop at simply creating, oh no. Their stance wasn't just War = Bad, they deconstructed the reasonings behind the war and what they thought caused it, and then actively rejected it and did the opposite. Unsurprisingly, as most hippie/peace-loving types do, they blamed capitalism.

(No sarcasm intended, I just don't believe that money is the root of all evil. That's a title that's reserved for those who use the word 'yolo' unironically and people who think it's okay to talk in the theatre.)

Dadaists (is that even a word?) essentially formulated the idea that the war was started because of a mix of capitalist ideals, nationalist and colonist self-interest, and conformity to widely held beliefs. They protested these things by creating a form of art that was the exact opposite of these values that they could not stand; they created something that was chaotic, that rejected logic and embraced irrationality. And more than anything else, they created a form of art that the rich, snobby, bourgeois that they thought had caused the war would hate. They threw away anything they knew about traditional art and aesthetics and instead tried to create art that would offend, to shock. They actively tried to elicit the response: 'this isn't art.'

And too many still, it isn't. They look at the work of Marcel Duchamp, at his "ready mades" and "anti-art" (just everyday objects, sometimes combined together) and scoff.

One of Duchamp's many ready mades.
 "Prelude to a Broken Arm"

However, defender of (almost) all forms of art that I am, I would argue that what Duchamp and so many others that participated in Dadaism did is art. Sure, it's a different kind of art, but its still art. And more than art, the whole movement almost feels like a challenge. It feels like a bunch of pent-up artists, tired of conformity, and tired of capitalism tired of a snobbish elite hogging art to themselves,  who stood up and said that art is for everyone. That art doesn't have to perfect and beautiful. That art can be chaotic, ugly, and not make a lot of sense and that that's okay.

 I have a special place in my heart for those who question and challenge the status quo, it's part of my activist nature. And despite whatever I might feel towards Dadaism, whether it was good or effective, I can't not appreciate that it looked at the art world at the time and said: 'this isn't for everyone. This is for the rich and the snobby. And we're gonna change that.'