Plasticities

In this passage, Tzara appears to be drawing a distinction between different types of art. Painting, he claims, is essentially boring. He describes paintings as "definite work without argument" and "useless," due to its "pictorial" and "plastic" nature. The "new artist," however, which seems to imply Dadaists/figures associated with Dada, "no longer paints [...] but creates" three-dimensional art pieces that are capable of movement and interaction with their environment.

The contradictions here are plentiful, but I think they all serve to illustrate the overall juxtaposition of the medium of Tzara's manifesto and the content of his claims about paintings. Tzara's claims that paintings are useless are contradicted by the many similarities between paintings (the type of art he is "bashing") and texts or pieces of writing (the type of art he is employing in order to "bash" painting). Tzara claims that paintings are "pictorial" and "plastic." What are words, though, but drawings on a page? We've all agreed that certain pen strokes create certain little pictures we call "letters," which can be put together to make "words." If I draw a "curve" or a "circle," who's to say that its not a "c" or an "O," and vice versa--if I "write" a "c" or an "O" who's to say its not a "curve" or a "circle?" What makes a page of writing any less "pictorial" than a painting? A painter's process, even as Tzara describes it, is actually very similar to that of a writer. Tzara claims that "the new painter creates a world, the elements of which are also its implements." Tzara is implying that a painter uses paintbrushes, paints, an easel, a canvas, etc. (all of which are "elements" of the world) to "implement" the "world" of his painting. Writers, however, do this same exact thing--they use laptops, or typewriters, or pens; printing presses and paper, all elements of the world, to create their art.

Tzara also fails to elucidate on the difference between the "stone, wood, iron, tin, [and] boulders" and the painter's canvas. Why is a painting any less "locomotive" than something constructed out of wood or iron? Here again, we have a contradiction, which exists more on the level of Tzara's language/diction. Firstly, we have this lack of definition/reasoning as to why a painting constructed out of real, concrete "elements of the world" is "useless" while something constructed out of stone/wood/iron/tin (also elements of the world) is not useless, but a creation that provokes thought. But we also have a contradiction between these mediums and how Tzara describes their value--the works constructed out of stone/wood/iron/tin/boulders are, according to Tzara, "locomotive" works, capable of movement and interaction with the world. This is hugely intriguing and releases a slew of contradictions--naturally, we know that amazing sculptors, woodworkers, etc.--all artists that use Tzara's "locomotive" mediums--prove their artistry and skill when they take something like a hunk of marble, something that is not traditionally associated with "fluidity," "movement," or "locomotion," and construct something beautiful out of it--Michelangelo's Unfinished Slaves come to mind, as they, too, are contradictions. But, we also have this contradiction where Tzara is now claiming that painting, which does not require giant blocks of stone and wood, but instead uses paints and paintbrushes (which, for the most part, allow for much more fluidity and are much more suited to movement than, say, a giant rock--you don't need a chisel to paint), are somehow not "locomotive," and are not "capable of being turned in all directions by the limpid wind of momentary sensation." I would think, that if a gust of wind whipped through an artist's studio, his stone statue would be left less altered than his watercolor painting, which could become smeared or start dripping or fall off the easel. This contradiction becomes more layered when Tzara identifies painting as a "plastic," and thus "useless," medium--of course, the word "plastic" has myriad meanings, and so part of the contradiction rests solely in this abundance of meaning implied by this one word. If paintings are "plastic" and "plastic" means a lot of things, shouldn't paintings also be able to mean a lot of things? And if we associate the word "plastic" with meaning "easily shaped or molded," then yes, perhaps paint is a "plastic" medium while rock-sculpting is not. But plastic, the substance, is something that is transformed from a malleable form to a rigid form--like a painting after it dries, or a sculptor's bust once it is finished--again blurring the distinction between the medium of paint and the medium of rock/iron/boulders etc. And one would think, further, that the Dada trend of reappropriating common objects, mixing things that already exist together, and calling it "art" would be an expression of the "plasticity" of the very concrete objects (stone, iron, etc.) that Tzara implies are anything but plastic.

So again, I think that these contradictions that arise when Tzara attempts to draw a distinction between painting and art made from rocks, boulders, iron, wood, etc. also blur the distinction between Tzara's medium, writing, and the medium of painting that he is criticizing. Words, after all, are plastic--they are fluid, locomotive, their meanings are plentiful. Words are not "sober" or "definite," they are not "without argument" (these are all terms Tzara uses to describe paintings). So, then, where is the line between pieces of writing/texts/works of literature and paintings? Where is the line between paintings and works constructed out of mediums like rock and iron and wood? Tzara contradicts himself when he praises and values art constructed out of the latter, but condemns the painting, because his own medium (writing) is so similar to painting as he describes it. Further, he conjures up more contradictions when he tries to define the differences and expose the comparative merits of paintings and works constructed from rock, wood, iron, etc.