Traditional art was considered to be creative because the works were created out of nothing but still were appealing to art enthusiasts. This paper advances the view that Dadaism is partly a precursor of today’s art. Looking at Picasso’s Les Demoiselles D’Avignon, one sees the originality. Originality was the cornerstone of traditional art. Picasso’s work is a painting done from scratch. It is original and makes a lot of sense. These are aspects of art that were ignored purposefully by Dadaism. They were deviants and haters of norm and traditions. Use of found objects had never been a part of traditional art. It was traditionally not considered artful. Dadaism came and changed it.
Michael Duchamp, a Dadaist champion, used found object to make a fountain. Traditional artists hold the view that taking found objects and just modifying them a little bit as Dadaism advocated was itself not artistic. There are instances where anti art can take the form of art, and there are other cases where it is a total deviation from art. Using silence a music, for instance, is nonsensical and irrational, but Dadaism appreciates it because it serves a purpose. In traditional art, people expect to get entertained, but Dadaism would deliberately go against entertainment. Where a person felt bored by a Dadaist art, Dadaism meant it to bore.
Hugo Ball’s Karawane poem does not make any sense; that’s just what it was intended to be. The artistic sense of Dadaism and some associated works of art was that objects that were traditionally not considered as art were made to serve aesthetic purposes. There’s nothing that could be more artistic that making something out of nothing, or rather deriving art where none ever existed. This is basically what Dadaism was all about. Several movements that came after Dadaism, such as surrealism, were, to a great extent, inspired by the ideals of Dadaism. They have led to a lot of today’s creative art. Pop art, performance