Dada Manifesto by Hugo Ball was published in 1916 and, from my understanding, is an interpretation of what Dada means to him, backed with a rational and thorough reasoning. "Dada is a new tendency in art." He explains, "One can tell this from the fact that until now nobody knew anything about it." Ball opens his manifesto by explaining what the literal translation is in French, German, and Romanian and further explains that it's an international term. That no matter where you go, someone has a definition for Dada. Further on into the readings, Ball starts to "rant" and become nonsensical, in a very Dada fashion. Finishing up with making the statement that Dada, as a word is the utmost concern of the public.
The "Dada Manifesto 1918" by Tristan Tzara is a much longer manifesto when compared to Hugo Ball's version. This being because Tzara goes into greater depth and further exploration of what Dada means, or in his case, doesn't mean. "Dada means nothing" he further explains that Dada was born out of distrust and independence. But one should not waste their time if they believe that it is time wasted on something with no meaning.
Comparatively, both Manifestos arrive at the same conclusion if one is to look deep enough. In my understanding, Ball explains that Dada means everything, and to Tzara, Dada means nothing. When looking at the two viewpoints objectively, it is easy to conclude that they are both trying to say the same thing, that when at the end of both extremes, the word can both mean everything or nothing in every context. Meaning, the word really has no "real" meaning. I believe that this idea of Dada gave both artists the ability to create art with commentary on the social and political environment of the time without fully emerging themselves in the proverbial hot water.
No comments:
Post a Comment