Hello Steemians! Here is the the answer to the bottom question : "To art or not to art?".
Dadaism is not concidered art - it does not follow the typical "rules" of art- but anti- art. There is a dilemma surrounding Dadaism. Doesn't anti-art belong in the sphere of art, too? Isn't it like the other side of art, if we see it from a different perspective, Since it uses the same ways to express something -whether it's a canvas to draw on or clay to create a shape out of - even though it's thinking is different?
What is considered anti-art?
Anti-art is a rejection of the standard aesthetic and thinking, that were the base of popular art forms.
So what is Dadaism?
It is an anti-war movement that started in the early 20th century in order to express the disgust against the cruelty of of the bloodshed and the crimes happening in World War I .
The places in which this movement started to grow were mainly Zürich (Switzerland), Paris (France) and New York(United States). It later spread to the rest of Europe and to Japan.
The main concept of it was to reject to create anything, just for it to be beautiful, something that made sense or a meaning that was easy for the rest of the people to understand.
Famous icons of Dadaism are: Hugo Ball, Marcel Duchamp, Emmy Hennings, Hans Arp, Raoul Hausmann, Hannah Höch, Johannes Baader, Tristan Tzara, Francis Picabia, Huelsenbeck, George Grosz, John Heartfield, Man Ray, Beatrice Wood, Kurt Schwitters, Hans Richter, and Max Ernst.
So, what do you think? Is dadaism a form of art or not?
