4 ms·

Very much in line with what the Dadaists had to say about this topic. Remove the artist and their intentions from the equation and let the viewers experience ar

Very much in line with what the Dadaists had to say about this topic. Remove the artist and their intentions from the equation and let the viewers experience art in itself. A particular group of them, in Zurich I believe, went to the extant of signing each other's pieces or with pseudonyms to distance themselves from the art they created.

hemmert 4y ago
Thank you, will check it out!
- yantrams 4y ago
  You are welcome. https://ubu.com/papers/index.html https://ubu.com/papers/index.html is a treasure trove of ruminations on this and art in general. Here's a playful and provocative Dadaist manifesto by Tristan Tzara https://writing.upenn.edu/library/Tzara_Dada-Manifesto_1918.pdf https://writing.upenn.edu/library/Tzara_Dada-Manifesto_1918.... > What we need is works that are strong straight precise and forever beyond understanding. Logic is a complication. Logic is always wrong. It draws the threads of notions, words, in their formal exterior, toward illusory ends and centers. Its chains kill, it is an enormous centipede stifling independence. Married to logic, art would live in incest, swallowing, engulfing its own tail, still part of its own body, fornicating within itself, and passion would become a nightmare tarred with protestantism, a monument, a heap of ponderous gray entrails.
pwatsonwailes 4y ago
Interesting comparison. The Dadaists looked at a similar idea but at a social scale - what is art in society? Or what does society consider art, and how do we value it? There's a mockery of the social conceptions of art in their work, which this feels like a different take on. This feels like a personalisation of that - not "we should attack the idea that the socially constructed narrative of art is the correct one", but "the individually constructed narrative of this art is always a valid one".
- yantrams 4y ago
  I agree, this is more of a personal take on how art should be produced and perceived without calling for a societal upheaval or annihilation or art as we know.

hemmert 4y ago

Thank you, will check it out!

yantrams 4y ago
You are welcome. https://ubu.com/papers/index.html https://ubu.com/papers/index.html is a treasure trove of ruminations on this and art in general. Here's a playful and provocative Dadaist manifesto by Tristan Tzara https://writing.upenn.edu/library/Tzara_Dada-Manifesto_1918.pdf https://writing.upenn.edu/library/Tzara_Dada-Manifesto_1918.... > What we need is works that are strong straight precise and forever beyond understanding. Logic is a complication. Logic is always wrong. It draws the threads of notions, words, in their formal exterior, toward illusory ends and centers. Its chains kill, it is an enormous centipede stifling independence. Married to logic, art would live in incest, swallowing, engulfing its own tail, still part of its own body, fornicating within itself, and passion would become a nightmare tarred with protestantism, a monument, a heap of ponderous gray entrails.

pwatsonwailes 4y ago

Interesting comparison. The Dadaists looked at a similar idea but at a social scale - what is art in society? Or what does society consider art, and how do we value it? There's a mockery of the social conceptions of art in their work, which this feels like a different take on. This feels like a personalisation of that - not "we should attack the idea that the socially constructed narrative of art is the correct one", but "the individually constructed narrative of this art is always a valid one".

yantrams 4y ago
I agree, this is more of a personal take on how art should be produced and perceived without calling for a societal upheaval or annihilation or art as we know.