Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I have a few versions of this K. Unfortunately, I was unable to reach an agreement with GenericName, however, any of you others who might want it...feel free to hit me up. Sorry again GenericName.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a few versions of this K. Unfortunately, I was unable to reach an agreement with GenericName, however, any of you others who might want it...feel free to hit me up. Sorry again GenericName.

 

What an douchebag you are

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the DADA K and what do you want to trade it for?

dada is very dada.

 

this is one of the few arguments that can be explained easily by wikipedia, but basically, it's challenging hegemonic ideas of logic and reason by being a dumbshit in rounds. It started as an art movement in the early 1900's which surrealism spawned out of.

 

what do you have?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dada is very dada.

this is one of the few arguments that can be explained easily by wikipedia, but basically, it's challenging hegemonic ideas of logic and reason by being a dumbshit in rounds. It started as an art movement in the early 1900's which surrealism spawned out of.

 

what do you have?

 

I disagree with this. The only way to attempt to gain any kind of understanding of Dada is to read the literature and look at the art. To me, dada is not so much an argument as it is an experience, and reading the wikipedia page for dada is hardly an experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
reading the wikipedia page for dada is hardly an experience.

False. Wikipedia is responsible for some of the best moments of my life.

 

More seriously, the idea that certain things do and do not qualify as experiences seems to contradict your claim that we must look at art in order to understand things. If you're going to be subjective about things, you should do so in a consistent manner. Much of dada itself is taking the mundane (such as wikipedia) and viewing it as art.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

False. Wikipedia is responsible for some of the best moments of my life.

 

More seriously, the idea that certain things do and do not qualify as experiences seems to contradict your claim that we must look at art in order to understand things. If you're going to be subjective about things, you should do so in a consistent manner. Much of dada itself is taking the mundane (such as wikipedia) and viewing it as art.

 

Sorry, my lazy typing led to me sounding like an idiot. I meant to say that reading wikipedia is not AS MUCH of an experience as reading and looking at actual dada. While reading the page is an experience, it is not a good one. The thing about art is that it is interpreted differently by every person who looks at it. Dada is an argument that is centered around art. To be spoon fed the information about dada is prolly wrong. A lot of this arg is also criticizing the organized norm, logically structured things such as wikipedia were laughed at by dada thinkers such as Tzara.

 

Look, I shouldn't even have to argue within a dada-ist mindset in order to prove that reading a wikipedia page does not give you everything that this argument has to offer. Also, any dada poems, books, or art is just fun to check out, making it a double win, since you gain an understanding of the argument as well as seeing and reading cool shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, my lazy typing led to me sounding like an idiot. I meant to say that reading wikipedia is not AS MUCH of an experience as reading and looking at actual dada. While reading the page is an experience, it is not a good one. The thing about art is that it is interpreted differently by every person who looks at it. Dada is an argument that is centered around art. To be spoon fed the information about dada is prolly wrong. A lot of this arg is also criticizing the organized norm, logically structured things such as wikipedia were laughed at by dada thinkers such as Tzara.

 

Look, I shouldn't even have to argue within a dada-ist mindset in order to prove that reading a wikipedia page does not give you everything that this argument has to offer. Also, any dada poems, books, or art is just fun to check out, making it a double win, since you gain an understanding of the argument as well as seeing and reading cool shit.

The question is 'what allows us to best understand dada?', and since dada itself is nonsense, it seems like using dada to understand dada is dada, meaning it's nonsense, meaning it shouldn't be done.

 

There is no reason that reading nonsense helps you to better understand what nonsense is. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is totally awesome.

 

[the hyperbole is just 4 fun]

 

I do agree that dada is fun to look at.

 

HOWL

HOWL

HOWL

HOWL

 

Marcel-Duchamp-Sitting-Behind-Example-of-Dada-Art.jpg

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...