Dada and Surrealism Art - Essay Example

DADA & SURREALISM – A COMPARISON The Dada era began as a cultural movement in Switzerland which expressed its disgust for the First World War which was in action during the time the movement began to take shape. The Dada movement was not actually a movement per se – its followers prided themselves on being anti-stereotypical, an aspect of society which was considered extremely restrictive and suffocating. Indeed, it was the first form of ‘anti-art’; a method of creating visual pieces which need not follow any rules or fall within any specific style to be ‘beautiful’; indeed aesthetic-based art was not the intention at all here. The intention was to step out of the box, to refuse to follow the bourgeois modern cultural and intellectual conformity of the time. Dadaists believed this modern world to be the cause of the war, and thus defied the practice of conformity through its anti-art. Where a canvas and paints were the usual media employed, scissors and scraps of paper were now being glued onto wood and everyday objects took on a new leash of life as the central subject of works. People were forced to look at everyday objects of simple use in a way that would transform the very basis of their existence. Art for the first time became informal, illogical and embraced the chaotic irrationality which was to become its trademark description. Fundamentally, it represented protest ‘against this world of mutual destruction’ (Grosz 1979, p.62), and left a permanent mark on the world of art. Everywhere, boundaries were stretched beyond their limits and inevitably broken until recognition of the term ‘art’ as it once stood would never be thought of in the same way again. The Dada movement paved the way for the later developing Surrealist movement; a lovechild, if you will, of the former and a way of ensuring that the boundaries could not be brought back into check by the modern traditional nationalists – however bleak this possibility might have seemed at the time. The Surrealist movement was based on the freeing of the imagination and the promotion of the ability to express and explore the self, as suggested by Freud’s subconscious mind. Just as Dada sought to free mankind from the suffocating normalities forced upon him by the standards of culture, Surrealism sought to free the mind of man, to accept as possible the irrational self, the deeper mind beyond that of the conscious mind. It continued the social revolution brought by Dadaism, but took it deeper and made it more psychological based. Perfect examples of this are the ‘automatic’ drawings of Andre Masson – the practice of holding the pen and simply allowing the mind to take over without planning the image beforehand. This represents perfectly the aim of the Surrealists – to form a type of direct link between the subconscious and the hand, without the conscious planning that was so characteristic of the society at the time. To free the mind, to draw without actively thinking was the ultimate access to the inner self. The issue was not to revolt against society in the positive, more defiant Anarchistic manner characteristic of the Dada movement– it was rather to indirectly free man through allowing him to accept and thus explore his own mind, and his own subconscious. While both movements represented revolutionary change and a new way of seeing and creating art, their specific methods of enacting this new leash of life in art differed. However, it is questionable as to whether Surrealism would have been as successful a movement as it was if Dadaism had not been its predecessor. It is as though the Dada movement laid the foundations for the Surrealist movement to build upon and elaborate in a more refined manner. This is evident through the works created under each movement, and will be explored further below. Suffice it to state that while the fundamental principles of both movements were somewhat similar in that they reflected – and indeed brought – change to the concept of what is art, their more specific approaches were fundamentally different. Dadaism rejected any formalities whatsoever within its approach to the world of art. It stood for irregularity, anarchistic uncontrollability: everything and anything became a form of art. Surrealism was a little more precise and elegant in its approach to art; it encouraged the possibility that the mind is much deeper than the conscious thoughts we have on a day to day basis – anything is possible. It was a more romantic movement in that it created pieces of work that allowed one to delve into the most personal parts of the artist’s mind rather than simply view his hatred towards society, as was so evident in Dada pieces. At a first glance, it is not difficult to see the new way devised of expressing oneself in pieces created during both movements. There is a stark contrast between both Dadaist and Surrealist works and works of prior movements – this is especially so with works created under the Dada movement. However, one can again see that, although the basic composure of works from both movements is somewhat similar, their more specific elements differ. Dadaist works are more forceful on the eye; they evoke emotions of anger and are bawdy and bold in nature. On the other hand, Surrealist works tend to be much more elegant; they evoke almost dreamlike emotions and are often easier visually than Dada works. Two perfect examples to convey this point are those of Dali’s ‘Lugubrious Game’ and Hausmann’s ‘A-B-C-D’. Husmann’s piece is somewhat disorganized, patchy and indeed consists of pieces of paper ‘thrown’ together – no doubt done to emphasize the meaning behind the Dada movement. The colours are uncoordinated and the central image of the face is brash and immediately challenges the viewer. The piece as a whole is confrontational; it evokes an air of confidence, of discontent and of defiance. Dali’s piece is much softer on the eye – the colours and tones used are gentle and ease one into the image gently. The shapes flow beautifully as they appear to float in the air, despite the slightly disjointed presence of the steps in the bottom left corner of the piece. Moreover, the piece is much more personal than Hausmann’s – one feels as though one is being let into Dali’s mind on a profound level. There is much more use of imagery here – each piece of the image evokes a meaning, and one feels one is delving into a dreamland of double meanings, metaphors and deep secrecy being revealed. The characteristics recognised in each piece are typical characteristics of works from each movement, and highlight the differences between the two movements, at least on a visual level. It is also worth noting the interesting shift in individual artist works as Dada progressed into Surrealism. It accentuates the difference in approaches behind the two movements, especially in relation to how the movements inspired certain artists in different ways. This is especially evident in two of Ernst’s works – ‘Little Machine Constructed by Minimax Dadamax in Person’ and ‘The Kiss’. The first piece portrays the lack of any raw emotion so characteristic of pieces created during the Dada movement – this is especially so when contrasted against the second piece, which is highly sexual and conveys personal aspects of the artist in a direct manner. It is important to note the stark contrast in Ernst’s use of line in both pieces – the former consists mainly of straight lines and disjointed bold blocks of wood placed against each other yet disassociated from one another. In contrast, ‘The Kiss’ contains curved, flowing lines which interconnect with one another – a much deeper connotation of integration is evident in this piece and it brings it together as a whole more than the first piece. These two images are a very apt portrayal of the differences between both movements – while Dadaism was more forceful yet less emotional in a sensitive manner, Surrealist pieces show clear emotive imagery and art – images that flow and intertwine and depict some form of personal emotion. This strongly suggests that Dadaism was more a movement of point than imagery – through the medium of ‘art’, it pushed forward political ideals, a new way of thinking about how we live our lives – a non conformist revolutionary step forward. On the other hand, while Surrealism stood for change, it was less violent in nature, and maintained a form of imagery which served to aid its philosophical standpoint. Where Dadaism pieces were used to convey its point, Surrealism used its philosophy to convey its images. Dadaism stated that conformity was too restrictive, and conveyed this in its work – Surrealism showed that by freeing the mind, such pieces as were created are possible. However, both used and manipulated ordinary everyday objects, or images of ordinary everyday objects in order to cause the viewer to see it in a different way. Just as Duchamp signed an upside down urinal (‘Fountain’), Dali draped clocks as if they were cloth (‘Persistence of Time’). Both movements saw objects in a different way and portrayed them as such, and questioned the way we as an audience view objects. Although each movement employed this practice in a different manner, the outcome – as a basic different way of seeing everyday objects, and thus life – was more or less the same. Thus, by viewing Duchamp’s urinal one is inclined to view it in an odd way, but not in an emotive manner as one would view Dali’s clocks. The way in which one is likely to view the everyday objects from each movement also provokes strong suggestions as to what each movement actually stood for. Once again one’s attention is drawn to the psychological basis of the Surrealist movement and how it invokes one to take a mental journey into the image, and also into oneself – there is no single way to view a Surrealist piece. Many have spent hours perusing over Dali’s works, seeing something different each time they look closer. The detail characteristic of most Surrealist pieces is often lacking in Dada works, and this serves to perhaps point out that the latter aimed to state an issue and put it forward whereas the former was based on a much deeper philosophy. If a person, Dada would scream that we reject conformity, break free from the moulds and resist the everyday normalities and stereotypes that are expected of us. Yet it would not explain how to do this, as the whole basis of the movement was to let us free to express ourselves as we wish – an artistic form of Anarchism. Surrealism would speak softly, it would coax one into exploring the deeper depths of the mind; to not be afraid to acknowledge and reach what is beyond our conscious mind. It would be more reason-based, and have a more specific goal in mind. Both of these movements as characteristics in a person show just how different they appear to be. A more visual example of this is portrayed by the comparison of Magritte’s ‘Euclidean Promenade’ and Picabia’s ‘Feathers’. Here we have two landscape pieces of art, yet they are inherently different. Magritte’s promenade is well-composed, it has depth and perspective; the colours are soft yet realistic – the image is easy on the eye and causes one to search every house in the background, as if delving into the mind of another. Picabia’s landscape is flat and simple – rather like a Picasso piece. The colours are plain and have little depth; there is no real fore or background. The colours are in blocks, with no shading or eased formations as in Magritte’s piece. It is interesting to see how two movements seemingly based on the same form of principles can produce such dramatically different images. The point of Picabia’s piece seems to state that feathers can even be leaves for a tree – who says they should not? It is a statement that just because we normally see leaves on a tree does not mean that we should accept this as the only possibility. It says that because something is considered ‘normal’ in society or in a traditional culture, does not mean – like the leaves on the tree – that it cannot be anything else. The message is clear and the image does not need to be visually complicated to make its point. Magritte’s landscape does not make any specific or simple statement – it seems to coax the onlooker into taking a deeper look, yet does not demand it. It does not thrust anything upon the viewer, as Picabia’s piece does; it is there and it causes one – possibly unawares – to explore; it is subtle, suggesting. One must not forget that, even though the differences between the two movements are more evident in the pieces created during the time of the movements, it is not to state that they are irreconcilably different. It is also worthy to point out that Dada, as the first initiator of radical, revolutionary change in the world of art, maybe had to be a little more vulgar and loud in its protests, for it was making the first path towards change. It cannot be said that Dadaism had the easiest task, and so it perhaps met this difficult task with force. Surrealism didn’t really need to be as such; its path had already been laid, as if Dadaism smashed through with force and fierceness, while in its wake Surrealism softly trod upon the path already laid. It would be interesting to see how Surrealism as a movement would have coped if Dadaism had not come about first. Indeed, the philosophies of the movements are somewhat different; yet both promoted and called for change, for upheaval, for revolution. If anything, the different ways in which they created change are an inspirational vision. Whether one prefers the simple, harshness of Dadaism, or whether one favours the soft, gentle cooing of Surrealism – the reality is that they both brought change. BIBLIOGRAPHY Ades, D. & Gale, M. 2001. The Oxford Companion to Western Art. Ed. Hugh Brigstocke. UK: Oxford University Press. Alexandrian, S. 1970. Surrealist Art. London: Thames & Hudson. Breton, A. 1993. Conversations: The Autobiography of Surrealism. England: Paragon House. Caws, M. 2001. Surrealist Painters and Poets: An Anthology. London: MIT Press. Kleiner, F.S. 2006. Gardners Art Through the Ages. 12th ed. UK: Wadsworth Publishing. Locher, D. 1999. Unacknowledged Roots and Blatant Imitation: Postmodernism and the Dada Movement. Electronic Journal of Sociology 4 (1). Melzer, A. 1976. Dada and Surrealist Performance. London: The Johns Hopkins UP. Richter, H. 1965. Dada: Art and Anti-Art. London: Thames and Hudson. Schneede, U. M. 1979. George Grosz, His life and work. New York: Universe Books. Read More