Dadaism

Because WWI was edgy, unlikable, juvenile shit.

Admittedly, I could've been a tad more concise.

This guy gets it.

Check out the long expose below for the jewish origins of dada:

>Dada, through the influence of Tzara and other prominent Jewish Dadaists, was to a great extent, a manifestation of Jewish ethno-politics in Western art and culture with far-reaching and catastrophic political and social consequences. The splinters from the bombshell of Dada altered the face of Western art and intellectual life forever — revolutionizing both art forms and people’s expectations of art, and undermining trust in the notion of objective truth which has been a defining trait of Western civilization since the Ancient Greeks.

theoccidentalobserver.net/2011/11/15/tristan-tzara-and-the-jewish-roots-of-dada-part-1/

Jews are actually...good

I thought the point of Dada was that the world didn't deserve art so they made shit on purpose

>the notion of objective truth which has been a defining trait of Western civilization since the Ancient Greeks.
Jesus Christ can't you shut the fuck up with these memes? Italian futurists (fascists) were equally radical in their approach to art years before dada. (Actually, they were probably even more radical, because I don't remember dadaists proposing destruction of museums in their manifestos.) Did some invisible magical jews make them do that shit as well?

Art shouldnt be just about pretty, it should make u like, think n stuff. so like, lol, idunno, stop buying stuff and use ur brain more u dumm dumm.

Dada was a reaction to the pointlessness of WW1. Human life was pointless and survival was random, so they made art that was pointless and random. All great art reflects its time and the human condition.
This is not hard to understand. No conspiracy is needed. The given, surface-level explanations describe the movement completely.

Jew-- squeal on redd*t, not here. Italians are Europeans who can do whatever the fuck they want in their country. Jews are hostile semites who have no business on the European continent whatsoever. Be less of an idiot in the future, please.

Are you retarded or something? Art does not just float out of some mystic realm of consciousness, it's produced and promoted by people for cultural effect. Read the article before you comment, it's very detailed about how this unfolded.

wtf it all makes sense nao

>The Occidental Observer is an American far-right online publication that covers politics and society from a white nationalist and antisemitic perspective.

>it's very detailed about how this unfolded.

Like this line you ripped off the jewish defamation league website means anything, Moshe. TOO is one of the best sites on the web.

try to actually contribute to the discussion in the future, instead of reeing about jews for no reason at all

It's not too late to delete this thread and start again OP.

/pol/ showed up

Bunp

>muh "Dada was the joos"

Dada was one manifestation of a general artistic reaction against traditional forms. You had Vorticism in England, Futurism in Italy, later Suprematism in Russia...each of these movements had socialist and fascists aficionados, nationalists and Jews too. Tzara chose his nomme d'artiste because "țară" means "country" in Romanian. The poetic tradition with which he is identified in Romanian was not communist.

Finally, someone talking sense

So on the topic, any authors of the period to seek out?

When did this board become so irredeemably bourgeois

...

for you

I am more into Futurism, that was pretty good stuff.

kys armchair, go jump in front of a bus. you’re parasites, completely unnecessary for the species. that you’re obssessef with a beetle’s existence as a literati is evidence you should be expunged from our domain. Make haste to you doom faggot

>our domain
lol

>beauty for the sake of beauty is bad
>everything must be turned into a boring essay to be analyzed at length
dadaists were basically annoying anti-art incels mad at chad's effortless composition of aesthetically sublime masterpieces

if i could go back in time i would literally beat marcel duchamp to death

He’d cuck you quickly

Which futurists should I check out breh

Because they knew you'd be touching yourself to the latest non-news about someone more preening than Mussolini tonight, and you were just their kind of audience. That'll be 5,000 Zimbabwean dollars, preferrably endorsed by Mugabe in July 2006.

he'd prolly kick your ass lol

>watching user get beat up by marcel, possibly as the dresswearing rrose
how do we get elon to fund this? is he into art?

>consisted of artists who rejected logic, reason
>instead expressing nonsense, irrationality
I can see that.

Tbh I don’t like Dadaism for the most part but I really like fountain

Why do you think those things are mutually exclusive?

I'm quoting the Wikipedia article. The art movement is something in which the child could produce better results.

Of course start with The Futurist Cookbook by Marinetti and go from there. I really like Giovanni Papini, although admittedly not his Futurist-inspired works. But that whole gang of Italian fascist writers and artists were exceptional.

Always odd to see incredibly independent, non-conformists eventually embrace fascism, but it seems to be a common theme.

>I'm quoting the Wikipedia article
t. pseud who is an expert in something he just learned about.

>Always odd to see incredibly independent, non-conformists eventually embrace fascism, but it seems to be a common theme.
how does one know the first thing about futurism and not immediately understand their attraction to fascism?

>could do better
But didn't.
Hard to be credible in art communities with that phrase.

I wasn't talking about Futurism, but the general trend for fiercely individualistic writers to gravitate towards fascism, an inherently oppressive system that dictates conformity.

The links between Futurism and Italian Fascism are so overt there is nothing to be gained in dissecting them.

Oh, I forgot you can't read Wikipedia on anything you already know about. Dear me.

Moron, fascism was a nationalist response to bolshevism and hasn't been relevant in many decades.

>cites Wikipedia
>states "hurrr a child could do that" about an artist/movement

The pseud trifecta is almost complete...

How is the response in anyway relevant to my post?

Since it's sort of related: Someone here once posted a video critiquing modern art. It was an American guy with gray hair in front of a blue backdrop, and his central claim was that as high art degenerates, in the first generation or two interesting things come out (Impressionism, Jazz) but then it eventually devolves completely (atonal music).
Anyone remember that and know the video?

I guess you wouldn't understand how if you don't know why it came about and the bolshevik force that made it necessary as a counter force.

I never even brought up the origins of fascism. What does this have to do with writers like Papini, Marinetti, and Hamsun gravitating towards fascist ideologies?

Are you trying to shoehorn high school history factoids into a discussion that has nothing to do with this?

>cites Wikipedia
Right, because I'm trying to write out a scholarly argument.

>states a child could do that
Right, because children aren't known for being irrational or nonsensical in their production of art.

You're really right about everything.

Childlike and nonsensical are not synonyms

WHOA. You just blew my freaking mind! Damn, you're really smart. Wow. I concede to you.

you're probably referring to that PragerU video which paul joseph watson plagiarized (and is constantly regurgitated in /pol/ threads on art)

you sound a tad salty there, friend

You're really dense. You claimed fascism, a brief political movement was "an inherently oppressive system that dictates conformity," yet aren't aware that it was literally a response to jewish bolshevisk coups and slaughters taking place across Europe. Fascism was like a national immune system response.

Wow you're SO right. OMG I'm SOOO salty. I'm a hypersaline Saltasaurus Rex just begging for more of those crystals. Yeah, you got me there buddy. Sure pegged me. I concede defeat, you won.

Fuck off. FUCK YOU. You don't know jack shit about me or what I've gone through this past year let alone my whole goddamn incel fucked life. Do you know what it's like to have divorced parents and your dad's "new family" consists of the unlikely combination of a popular jock-nerd stepson and a hot stepdaughter? And you are part of the "other family" with your mom and two brothers, with at least half a dozen diagnoses mental illnesses between the four of you? Being part of the forgotten embarrassment family, where your dad stops by your apartment he helps out with and drops off a few cartons of smokes, some groceries, and tries to prolong the time before he freaks out at you and leaves in a huff, only to repeat the next time he comes?

You have NO FUCKING CLUE WHAT ITS LIKE TO BE ME. So you know what fuck you, fuck this thread, fuck lit and fuck my goddamn life and my half-crazy mom my dad and his perfect little family and fuck Christmas time

You do realize the affect fascist ideologies have on the arts, right? And that fascism exists beyond Russian fascism?

It's like arguing with a child. I am talking about the impact of water activity on xylem function in Arabidopsis and you stroll by telling everyone "water is actually a chemical, dihydrogen monoxide, and it kills thousands every year".

KYS pseud, and stick to /pol/.

>Right, because I'm trying to write out a scholarly argument.
Well, you're trying to discredit a large and influential art movement. Some rigor wouldn't be out of place.

>in the first generation or two interesting things come out (Impressionism, Jazz) but then it eventually devolves completely (atonal music)
Please tell me you remembered this incorrectly. Don't tell me someone can be this retarded.

fucking kek

>Russian fascism
LOL you literally have no idea what you're talking about. But that's what I was pointing out to begin with. Stop talking about shit you don't understand.

Read Tom Wolfe's book The Painted Word. It's very short and funny.

Basically, what happened is that theory substituted aesthetic experience in the world of modern art. So what begun to count was not the beauty or the horror or the sadness or the grief that was generated in you by a picture, which used to be the explicit goal of art since the times of Aristotle's Poetics and the implict one since many centuries before that, but rather the theory that was behind it.

Duchamp's urinol, for instance, is nothing but *an illustration of the theory* that anything can be art. He could have used a pencil, a sink or a table and nothing would have changed.

Same goes for the vast majority of modern art. Pollock's paintings are nothing but *an illustration of the theory* that random droppings of paint can also be art, something that by the way is already implicit in Duchamp. He could have done it in a different way and still it would have worked.

None of that is good art in the traditional sense of the word, because in the traditional sense of good art you can't change the object. If you take one single character out of Macbeth - even the doorman - then the whole play will become something else, probably worse. If at the last minute Duchamp had decided to use a completely different urinol from a different bathroom, the result would have been the same, because only the idea mattered.

Funny thing is: the ideas are always completely shallow. Not a single conceptual artist has ever given contributions to history, philosophy or science.

>you're trying to discredit a large and influential art movement
I'm not, because that reply was supposed to be a joke. Dadaism is actually my favorite art movement. I love Duchamp and the whole story with the urinal. But I do genuinely think children are among the greatest Dadaists.

>child-like but not as an insult
I like your style, user

Miley Cirus is also a large and influential movement.

It's up to you to prove the value of dadaism, not otherwise.

>Funny thing is: the ideas are always completely shallow. Not a single conceptual artist has ever given contributions to history, philosophy or science.
Lewis Carroll gave us snarks and James Joyce gave us quarks. So, no u STEMtard.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFPLgGWMndc

you don't understand Duchamp, Pollock, or conceptual art for that matter

>It's up to you to prove the value of dadaism, not otherwise.
>value of dadaism
I'd say about treefiddy

Miley Cyrus is a person, though. When I said that dada was "large" I meant to say that it had many members, while Miley Cyrus is only one person (or possibly, if we look at it that way, the small group of people working on her songs). And her influence is certainly much smaller than that of dada.

You seem deeply confused. Children's art is not nonsensical or irrational, it's really meaningful if you think about it. And as you are well aware, nonsense is an adult's game, dada-kin.

The only likeable dadaists were Tzara and Duchamp.

Aspiring drawfags with no talent realized they could still buffalo insecure richfags out of money.

No, that's the american abstract expressionists.

Instead of talking in vague circles, explain why talking about Russian fascism is wrong. Tell me what exactly you think fascism is and is not, because you clearly have a narrow personal definition that you are not sharing.

Retarded anti-modern-art-screeds are all the rage these days:

youtube.com/watch?v=lNI07egoefc

youtube.com/watch?v=KAExa9P7hME

youtube.com/watch?v=PRWJcrRO0GM

especially frustrating they keep saying "Modern Art" when they mean contemporary

Yes, that's always the standard criticism.

I don't have to understand Rembrandt in order to comprehend that he was a great artist. When it comes to a stupid urinol, however, it's oh so deep and how could a shallow stupid person like me ever even hope to understand it? I've understood calculus, Portuguese, English, Spanish, French, Italian, Provençal, some Latin, some physics, some biology, a lot of Constitutional Law, Camões, Dante and Tasso, but how - HOW ON EARTH - could I ever hope to understand the great, great, great and unsurpasable genius of Duchamp? Woe on me for even daring to mention his sacred name and for flaunting myself online which is going to make you write a reply calling myself butthurt and saying I'm doing damage control!

>I don't have to understand Rembrandt in order to comprehend that he was a great artist.
Well, if you don't understand it, you're literally being told he was good and you're going on faith essentially. If you don't understand the art then that's fine. It's not really a measure of intelligence, just a different thought process. Maybe it's just not your bag, ya dig?

Article about Evola's take on Dada:

aristocratsofthesoul.com/the-paintings-of-julius-evola/

You do know that is not true.

I can see Rembrandt, compare him to other painters, and conclude that he was better based on his treatment of light and his great talent for psychological analysis. At the very least, I can try to paint like him and miserably fail, thus concluding that he is much superior to me, and it would take many, many years just to be able to make a copy of his work. I don't need to read a book about him in order to appreciate him, neither does anyone else.

When it comes to Dada, however, no one will get it until you 'explain' it to them and even after that they will still usually think it's pretty bad, or else smile and say 'Oh, I see it.' while they try to walk away as silently as possible so as not to hurt your feelings.

It's very funny. I have read serious writings about Pollock but whenever I criticise the ass I **ALWAYS** receive the same 'Oh, that's cause you don't really understand him'. Same thing post-modernists say to a scientist who laughs at them, and usually through the internet - a scientific invention.

I feel like people who complain about le modern art on the internet don't really like art except as signifier for Old Shit With Cool Bearded Guys

atonalism was virtually contemporaneous with musical impressionism and the early development of jazz. the only degeneration is of the mental capacity of people that are ignorant of the historical dialectic of art who yet proceed to comment on it

>pollock make drip paintings to prove that random drips could be art

yeah, you're wrong.
it's laughable because even a pseud who skimmed the wikipedia article on pollock would be more correct than you

get your head out of your own ass and accept that you misunderstand and/or are confused about what you're talking about

And why are you looking at Rembrandt? Because someone who knew what they were talking about thought he was good. History is incredibly kind to old masters not because they were the greatest but because they were popular. And of course no one thinks of those who experimented and failed at the time because it was new and/or scary and/or shitty and/or weird. So they were forgotten.

Nowadays, you can get all sorts of visibility on all sorts of weird shit. And why not? Why not just do things for their own sake? Why not a urinal? Why not try something no else has done because no one else has done it?

It's not about "getting it", it's about getting over yourself to see something you haven't before, in a way you hadn't before. It's not like you have to like it, or like those who do.

Everybody has seen it already, idiot. Conceputal art is the new academicism. And guess what: it's a lot worse than the last one.

You are basically attacking a strawman. I never ssaid people shouldn't do any of that. I only said that it doesn't tend to elicit the same type of experience Rembrandt does. In fact, most people hate it, with the exception of art students who expect to make easy money out of it someday.

>yeah, you're wrong.

nah, you're wrong.

Big brain comment right here

thanks I know

Also, we are looking at Rembrand for a lot of reasons. His fame is only one of them. If he weren't famous, there still would be people interested, although obviously in a smaller number. I live in the third world, and in my native ctiy of 20000 inhabitants there is a sculpture of Adam and Eve. The sculptor has no fame whatsoever (I don't know his name) and his work has probably never been commented upon by any critic, but people still like it and respect it, because it's done in the classical style and shows fidelity to nature and mastery of the craft, which are things that people are naturally attracted to, because it takes time and hard work to be learned and tends to create results that elicit an emotional reaction in us.

Not in the case of Duchamp. In fact, it's in the case of Duichamp that we find nothing but the critics. Without his critics, Rembrandt would be a very interesting painter that people (that is, the people who somehow had access to his paitings, perhaps from seeing it in antiquities stores or something) would look upon as a master of his craft from an old Dutch age, a dedicated painter whose paitings deserve to be preserved. Without his critics, Duchamp wouldn't be anything, and his urinol would be thrown into the trash like all others eventually are.

You're completely wrong. For one thing, I like Morandi.

I also like Carrà, Chagall, some Mattisse etc. And I prefer them to, say, Bouguereau. However, there is no denying that conceptual art is abolutely valueless as far as aesthetic experiences go, because it can only create commentary upon commentary, but no feelings whatsoever, unless those are feelings that come to you through the idea, in which case art is unecessary and the word suffice.

Because it's a reactionary movement. All reactionary movements tend to be.

*would suffice

Sorry, I'm writing very fast.

I'm not saying modern art is immune to criticism, there's lots of garbage out there (possibly in even greater numbers than from other eras) just that the demographic of people who are actively against it on the internet is generally depressing

just go to a /pol/ thread on the subject and you'll see what I mean

True. There were a bunch of academic painters quietly working in their studios producing beautiful things, when, suddenly, a bunch of frustrated bohemians decide to create theories upon theories explaining how much better they are than those lazy academians and then make friendships with powerful billionaires who control the critics, so that a state of things can be established in which mere anarchy is loosed upon the world of art and one cannot anymore distinguish bad from good, letting this job to the critics, who are paid by the billionaires.

I am not saying this conspiracy happened, but that this was the overall result of the circunstances nonetheless.