Dadaism, Bauhaus, and Futurism – Influences of Contemporary Art

So I feel I must preface this entry by stating that Dadaism is one of my great loves of Art, Marcel Duchamp ranks amongst my greatest influences in art and oddly life, and romanticize of being a man as influential, passionate, and brilliant as André Breton. Pretty much, love dadaism – something which I may have concluded on my own or I may have been taught, none the less, it is a driving force of much of the art of the 20th century and into today. As for the Bauhaus, their influence on contemporary theories of art and community they created is of great inspiration. The Futurists, brought about many great impacts in art as well, actually the ruling is honestly out on the Futurists… I feel that they advanced some incredible theories in art, movement through painting being one, but Marinetti’s work never really shocked or amazed me – maybe it’s just fast violent culture we live in, sue me. With that out of the way:

–

As I was reading on Dadaism, Bauhaus, and the Futurists it is hard to not acknowledge their almost direct influence on our current state of art and it theory. This said, I started to wonder, if we admired the Dadaist so much why are we still trying to produce work like them – how not Dadaist, André Breton would certainly think we’re pathetic. I mean we’re all sitting around talking about how difficult it is to create an entirerly original work of art, so we look at the Dadaist, which is a good idea because they were incredibly original, political, and had an ability to recreate their societal influences in a way that even the street art of today is really just following under. As for art theory, we have philosophized and deconstructed and turned things upside down and inside out in our efforts to understand art, but really Post-Modernism isn’t all that advanced when we realize much of its theory is built often upon Dadaism and Futurism. And really what advances have been made in color theory that don’t make Josef Albers and the Bauhaus not look quite so brilliant? It is not much of a leap to link nearly all modern design work to the thoughts begun in the Bauhaus, either. If I was ambitious, I’d tell you architecture to but I don’t know enough in that area to touch on it, but I would not be surprised if it was just as highly influenced by these movements as well.

Now, I do not mean to say that this is a bad thing to take great inspiration from three of the great conceptual powerhouses of 20th century art and theory. Rather, it is a good thing, if we were still adapting our understanding of art just through Michelangelo or David then the variances of art would be incredibly depressing. I just feel that in our admiration for these great movements, we may depend on using their styles a little heavily and should strive to progress them rather than further popularize them. It is curious to note here that Duchamp did state at one point that he was never really creating art for people of his time but rather for those 100 years later, he felt his work would then really be understood. Maybe it was his hindsight-bias or maybe he really understood this to be true – He was not wrong though, and it hasn’t even been 100 years since Nude Descending a Stair Case, No. 2. Ultimately, we need to progress on their ideas because these three movements also died and burned our rather quickly… no timeless history paintings here. Not to mention the progression of Dadaist thought which became destructive and imploded upon itself through it’s distaste of everything. Breton was smart to leave when he did, “the 1918 Dada Manifesto seemed to open wide the doors, but we discovered that they opened onto a corridor which was leading nowhere.” Not long after in 1920 for the thirteenth issue of Littérature, the Dadaist poet Louis Aragon wrote:

No more painters, no more writers, no more musicians, no more sculptors, no more religions, no more royalists, no more republicans, nomore imperialists, no more anarchists, no more socialists, no more Bolsheviks, no more politicians, no more proletarians, no more democrats, no more armies, no more police, no more nations, no more of these idiocies, no more, NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING.

That said, it is hard to create more art when everything is nothing.

–

I do have more positive thoughts for this subject that I want to get across, but I think I’ll have to save it for a second installation and let this one sink in.

The Age Of Mechanical Reproduction + Marcel Duchamp

It is interesting that Benjamin talks about Karl Marx and how he was making a preediction about Capitalism with little to go on other than its theory, when Benjamin himself is making a rather grand prediction during what was only the beginning of a series of significant advances in the arts. He spoke and theorized of these advancements in such a way that it predicted the current dilemma we face in understanding art over half a century earlier. His incredible foresight aside, he realizes that there is are inherent issues presented to the idea of art through reproduction – namely the origin and aura of the piece. This was a serious concern at his time because prior to this reproduction was extremely difficult, today though it may be done almost instantly with little if any ways to discern a difference with out the presence of the original. Further into our ever increasingly digital age an exact copy may be produced without any visible way to tell a difference. This adds an especially curious twist, something may be created digitally and shared, meaning the exact replica is shared across possibly thousands of computers. For Benjamin, the piece is no longer of cult value and has rather entered into the political realm, it is in the possession of the masses rather than one particular owner – if you want it, you can have it but so can everyone else. Oddly it all reflects slightly back towards Benjamin’s initial introduction of Marx and Capitalism eventually creating the conditions to undermine itself, I’m thinking particularly of the RIAA scrambling to save the major music labels whose business structure simply can not adjust to a world were almost anything may be acquired for free.

Getting into the more political side of Benjamin’s essay was not my intention here, but more so to look how the idea of art is changing when the promise of money is not guaranteed as a result of reproduction. Benjamin seems to feel that although the aura of a piece may become diluted the ability to express is multiplied, speaking of a more digital world that is. Although now maybe an overused pop icon of the underground street art movements, it is interesting to consider the artist(s) Banksy, whose fame has exploded over the past 4 or 5 years. Many people are aware of a variety of his street pieces, large and daring, in your face, often critical of society, and all available over the internet for us to view. I personal know maybe 3 people who have seen his work, but everyone knows him and knows what he’s done because of the internet. Although his work exists in the real world somewhere, the true power of his work is that the same image may appear on ones computer screen across the world. He receives no money from us as we view them, but the value of his original work soars (what is more ironic of the banksy character is when he began he spoke against selling art, while now even celebrities clamor for his work to help their image). Either way, the act of reproducing his work has only helped increase his power. I cannot help but remember Dalí reproducing many of his pieces to increase his profits, and now many do not command nearly the value they had initially. It will be interesting to watch what happens in the digital age, does Banksy hold his value and make it into the realm of some sort of avant-garde or crash as the next trend of the internet generation casts him in the shadows.

The words of Marcel Duchamp are probably the most haunting for the brave new world art has begun traveling through. Having removed himself from the art world and taken a job in order to support his art and not have to depend on the sales of his work, he speaks of creating art in an effort that seems to attempt to remove all outside pressures. Art for arts sake maybe, but truly art for the people rather than the cult, he was not concerned of whether his wealthy patrons would purchase the bicycle wheel and more so of the perception and theory it presented. The art though is not art without the viewer, Duchamp was more than aware of this fact, and as Benjamin noted, he and the Dadaists wanted to outrage the public and make them question the entire notion of art – that was part of the art, the act brought forth from the viewer. Duchamp also had a curious interest and brilliance in the act of reproduction, this culminated in the Readymade works – mass produced objects elevated to the status of art – he even went so far and to create reproductions of the Readymade, essentially a reproduction of a reproduction. The brilliance in this was that the act of the reproduction was part of the art and was added on to the art of the viewers reaction.

Being in this new digital age, the capabilities of art have expanded exponentially and great controversy is still in our midst. The question of reproduction and the dilution of the aura of a work of art is only more relevant than ever before. As the act of re-appropriation and remix art becomes ever more prevalent, our understanding is only further thrown under the bus. It is without question though that reproduction, duplication, and the cut/copy method are very much a part of the artists tools; ethically though where is the line? That may already be know, for it was Marcel Duchamp who used a postcard of the Mona Lisa with added facial hair as a work of art.