The two Dada manifestos that would be compared were written by Hugo
Ball and Tristan Tzara. In Ball’s manifestos, the Dada spirit was emphasized in
language. Ball used a unique, or to be more clear, a very individual writing
style. He tried to take his manifestos as an example of how Dada worked in our
society. On the other hand, Tzara had defined Dada further and has more related
it into art.
According to Tzara’s manifestos, Dada is nothing. Dada rejects the
meaning of every thing and expresses the concept of pointless. When speaking
about “Art”, Dada is also known as an anti-art movement, denying the general idea
which applied in most art works – aesthetic. It was been mentioned by Tzara in
his manifestos, “a work of art should not be beauty in itself, for beauty is
dead”. As the first paragraph has introduced, the difference of the two Dada
manifestos is Ball involved Dada in literature. However, talking in the similar
way about how Tzara opposed aesthetic, Ball brought out a question that how
word itself has replaced by its meaning and why can’t we create
our own words. In conclusion, two manifestos explained about Dada by discussing
aesthetic should not represent artwork itself, and the definition should not replace
word as well.
In
my opinion of the two manifestos, I agree the aesthetic should not always
connect to artwork, or even become the work itself. As the sense of beauty varies from person
to person, a piece of artwork can receive any kind of critique such as if it is
“beautiful” or it is considered as art. However, I disagree what Ball said about
word and its meaning. Words were created to express any specific meaning. They
are the agent of meanings. That is, words are not replaced by meanings because without
meaning itself, word just exists as a meaningless symbol.
No comments:
Post a Comment