Dada¿

So for this weeks blog I have decided to discuss how Dada and Surrealism changed the form, content, and concept of art. Before I begin though I am going to bring some of my own opinions on the subject to the table.

Back in my freshman year of college I had to take an art class that discussed different forms of art, and revolved around the subject. “what is art?” In that class we discussed Marcel Duchamp's work, such as the Bottle Rack, the Fountain, and his L.H.O.O.Q. We also discussed other works by Mondrian, Dali, Picasso, and even Oppenheim's Object (Luncheon in Fur.) And for every single conversation a conclusion could never be made about, “what is art?” Even when it became the discussion of what is the difference between “art” and “craft” the conversation could never come full circle.

It wasn't until we talked about Oppenheim's Luncheon in Fur that we gained an idea of how craft and art are different. With Oppenheim's Object not having a utilitarian purpose. It make look like a cup, a bowl, and a spoon, but you cannot use them in the way that you would normally use a cup, bowl, and spoon, because his are made out of fur. It changes the context of the piece and it becomes art rather than craft.

However when it came to discussing Duchamp's Fountain it completely derailed the class and we were back at square zero for figuring out what is art. I know that for that class I was furious about the idea of “ready made art” and to be honest it still upsets me to this day. (I despise Jeff Koons...)

After listening to this weeks lecture though, I finally have a bit of a perspective on the idea of Dada and found art, because of how professor Bowen brought up Duchamp's quote, “...he took an ordinary article of life, placed it so that its useful significance disappeared under a new title and point of view – created a new thought for that object.”

Now that I've heard that quote, I have to say that I like the idea of ready made art. I like the idea of taking an object out of it's original context and placing it in a different one, changing its meaning. Though I don't necessarily like the idea of the object being a mass produced one. The thought that Duchamp could just go out and get another Fountain, practically identical to the original one and replace it in the gallery kind of bothers me.

So for Dada, I would have to say that it changed art so much that art could be anything. It doesn't have to be historic, or a study of light, or even a study of emotion. Through Dada there is no specific definition of what art isn't. At least that's the conclusion I've come to after a lot of years of listening to the subject.

As for Surrealism (or even cubism) I do consider it along the lines of Dada. Because of the unusual out of context objects that you can find in it. Like in Dali's Birth of Liquid Desires there is a white cabinet just floating up in the air with stuff running out of it. It changed art by allowing pieces to be irrational, disorderly, out of context, express sexual desires, and even analyze dreams. It even enabled art to tackled social or political issues in an uninhibited and strange new way, like with Guernica and Cubism.

And while we're on the subject, Guernica was completely ruined for me a long time ago.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOZTDP8Ff9w