In a few comments, Rick questioned me as to what Dada and Neo-Dada is, and I told him that I would blog about it…so, here goes. Dadaism was an art movement that started in Europe (until Abstract Expressionism, most art movements originated in Europe) just before 1920. As most modern art movements, it was not simply a change in painting or sculpture, but an entire revolution in ideas and the portrayal of those ideas. Dadaism effected thought, action, poetry, and yes, visual art.
To me, the most notable proponent of Dadaism was Marcel Duchamp. Dadaism focused on the absurd. However, they weren’t just trying to be absurd, no they were trying to point out the absurdities that were already prominent in life. I, personally, find this a fairly light-hearted and very humorous movement in a very serious time in history.
Duchamp became well-known for his “readymades.” Readymades were sculptures that were, as the name suggests, already made. The one that sticks out in my mind is one he titled the Fountain (link).
Yes, that is simply a porcelain urenal, laid on its flat side, signed (with a fake name), and dated. And it really draws into question why we think certain things are beautiful and other things rather disgusting. There is really nothing gross about this shape or porcelain, but what causes many to think it is gross is how it is used. Can the association with something change if we change the use? Can a urenal become beautiful?
Along with questioning why certain things could not be art, he also questioned why certain things were considered art. Most notably his slight change of the famous Leonardo piece.
A reproduction print of the Mona Lisa with a bit of added pencil drawing by Duchamp (link).
Neo-Dada, as the name would imply is a kind of rebirth of the Dada movement. The same questions of beauty and function were being asked in somewhat different ways by different people around the 1960’s. To me the most notable of Neo-Dada is Robert Rauschenberg. He is known for his creation of combines (not the harvesting machines, but his combining of painting and sculpture.)
Again the question comes: why does our society think a stuffed goat and crow cannot be art? Who controls the standards of beauty?
Another proponent of Neo-Dada is Jasper Johns, who questions the functionality of things.
Is this a flag, the symbol of a nation, or a painting? Is it both? Is it a painting of a flag? Is it a painted flag?
Is this a target or art?
6 responses so far ↓
1 Rick Beckman // Aug 12, 2005 at 9:19 pm
I know what I like, and this, I don’t like…
2 Alicia Beckman // Aug 13, 2005 at 1:46 am
I like Jasper Johns, and I find the things by Duchamp to be rather hilarious, but I agree, Rauchenberg is definitely not one of my faves.
3 Rick Beckman // Aug 13, 2005 at 8:17 am
Yes, Johns is okay, though I’m not a big fan of the flag (seriously, the design is boring… or maybe I’m just too used to it). The target thign is neat looking; I do enjoy the color scheme.
But still, not a big fan…
4 Mandy // Oct 13, 2006 at 4:23 am
I am currently enrolled in an art appreciation class and i need help and was wondering if you could…i read your blog but i didnt find a specific answer to the question at hand. I did think it to be awesome that your blog had everything to do with the question at hand…so the question at hand is this :
Look at the work of Jasper Johns, and Robert Rauschenberg, they are considered Neo-Dadaists. How can you see this inluence and what were they trying to do as artists?
So youre probably thinking, “um, i just covered all that.” i know but when i read about the dada movement, i read that it was considered in all aspects “anti-art” and that because it was so anti-this and anti-that and wanted to be the complete opposite of everything (meaning that whatever emotion a work was “supposed” to convey, it wanted to convey the opposite) that it wasnt even a movement at all, even thought it was. My point is that i have never head that dada “trying to point out the absurdities that were already prominent in life”.
Ok, wait. As i was writing the above, i started to understand more and answered the question at hand on my own. THANKS!! Great blog btw
5 Alicia Beckman // Oct 13, 2006 at 8:23 am
thanks very much for the comment.
I actually glad someone is reading for my art history content.
Many people have different ways of phrasing the Dada movement. It is anti-art, and is about the absurd. They are producing things that really have no purpose (the title Dada is really just gibberish even) in order to question the accepted norms of the art society; in a since they are being anti-art, by questioning in the way they are, rather than supporting it wholeheartedly.
Art used to be about answers, or concrete ideas: this is a nude Venus, and she is beautiful. Dada/neoDada questions those concrete ideas either by posing more questions: Is this a flag, or a painting? Or by making concrete statements that seem absurd…or against the typical norms of art: This is a fountain, and it’s beautiful (even though in reality it’s a urinal).
6 nicole // Nov 26, 2007 at 2:19 pm
hello i am nicole umm i love you art tremebdously, and i love every thing about it, it is so surreal. however i have a small question. what is neo dada? i see it but i do not understand it. well get back at me as soon as possible… THANK YOU 4 YOUR TIME:)
)
~nicole~ ( a fellow art lover teeheehee