Now, my further delving into Dada would never be smooth. That would take the fun out of things. My aim, when researching new artists, not to regurgitate what I've seen, but to pick out what I like, question what I don't, and ultimately to react while inevitably rejecting something. This first question came from the heart of what Dada is, to be honest. Dada aimed to use nonsense to challenge the status quo, to do things without meaning. For example, the quite alarming 'abstract poetry' , like Hugo Ball performed, where he used phonetics and 'nonsense' language to create his poetry. This idea of nonsense and obscure meaning was slightly unappealing at first for my own art. I love filling my work with imagery, metaphor, symbols and stories in many different forms. But as I continued reading into Dada, I began to understand more about the aims and purpose of this nonsense. Hans Richter, a Dadaist summed it up as: "We were looking for a way to make art a meaningful instrument of life." So although Dada aimed to have no meaning, unlike previous art movements, in doing that it took on other meanings. The meaning is not lost, or nonexistent. The anger and angst and chaos and rebellion and confusion is there despite not being communicatedin the way that previous artists had done. The way it was hidden or at least not immediately apparent gives even more meaning and depth, at last in my eyes. And the meaning was also personal for the artists, even if others didn't fully appreciate it or receive the full meassage. But does this matter? I often find myself thinking about how others will see my art. It can be both an encouragement and a boundary. What matters more to me, the internal or the external meaning? My personal meanings, or the reactions of others? But thinking about it, there is very little external reaction that an artist can control. Maybe it is sad that the meaning poured into my art could be lost, but maybe other reactions could give dozens of personal meanings and interpretations , each unique for the viewer. And that's even more important, in a way. Kurt Schwitters, another Dada artist, had a column which was his 'beloved 'Schwitters-Saeule''. This was a literally a column, an untransportable sculpture in his house, constantly being added to. It was filled with layers and holes, each of which was for a particular person in his life, to which he added hair, pencils, shoelaces.... all sorts of things. Sadly this was destroyed by WW2 bombs, but even if we were able to witness its magnificence, noone would be able to full understand the meaning and depth of it. But it can still be reacted to. I've had ideas from it that are personal to me, and others will do the same, each reaction being unique. Yes, noone will fully appreciate Schwitters' full meaning behind it, but even more will come from 'inaccurate' intepreatation. So specifically in reaction to Dada and meaning, I don't want to take the idea of no meaning. I want to take the freedom of not worrying about reactions, and instead fill my art with meaning, some completely hidden to all but me, some subtle, some as open as possible. No-one will react to your art in the way you do and that you want maybe, but that's important, and more will come from it as a result. (source: "Dada art and anti-art" by Hans Richter)
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Claire-M BathI'm a mostly self-taught artist, currently studying A-Level art at college. Archives
March 2018
Categories |