Richter and Tzara: Dadaism_Bianco

In Hans Richter’s DADA: Art and Anti-Art he discusses Dadaism through structuralization. For instance in one of the sections he discusses abstract poetry, particularly the phonetic poem ‘O Gadji Beri Bimba’ by Hugo Ball. When discussing this poem, Richter discusses the performance and acknowledgement by society of Dadaism and its initial reaction to the poem itself. Richter tries to demonstrate the importance of Dadaism through his experiences of the creation of art within this movement. For instance, he quotes Ball, who states, “[Dadaism] The next step is for poetry to discard language as painting has discarded the object, and for similar reasons. Nothing like this has existed before”(Richer, 41). In this quote, Richter quotes his colleague Ball who discusses the movement’s aim at nonsensical aspects, away from the structuralization and into ‘fragmentary forms’. Richter’s structuralized manner of defining Dadaism is contradictory to the symbolic chaotic structure of Tzara’s Dada Manifestos. Richter uses Hugo Ball’s phonetic poem to demonstrate Dadaism through the language of nonsense and the question of free will.

Richter uses the phonetic poem ‘O Gadji Beri Bimba’ as an example of Dadaism and societal response to the movement itself.  This is done through the usage of paradoxes. Tzara uses the entirety of the Manifestos as an example of itself. Tzara makes defining Dadaism a form of Dadaism, yet Richter uses examples and quotes to clearly define the movement. The poem ‘O Gadji Beri Bimba’ is an example of Tzara’s definition of Dadaism. The poem itself is supposed to be recited slowly and majestically, yet contradictory to the phonetic sounds of the poem itself. Because of this contradiction the poem becomes nonsensical in that it uses gibberish to defy the limitations of language. Tzara notates such limitations on language in the manifestos. This is done through the contradiction of stating the manifestos of Dadaism yet creating the manifesto in the form of Dadaist art.

The usage of gibberish by Ball demonstrates the question of free will. Richter tells us that in trying to recite the poem Ball is laughed at, this then poses the question that are we truly free to express individuality through the outlet of Dadaism? Tzara poses a similar question in trying to define Dadaism. Tzara tries to blur the lines between art and life through the demonstration of the nonsense that dada imposes. The strict structuralization between life and art don’t allow for free will, as both are strictly defined in specific parameters that we as a society often set.  Yet art itself is a projection of life, Dadaism in particular demonstrates the nonsensical aspects of life that we often overlook. Such definition of Dadaism demonstrates the inconsistencies and incoherencies of life itself. Therefore, demonstrating that free will cannot be obtained until we blur the lines between life and art and have the ability to freely speak nonsense.

Richter uses a more structuralized approach in the defining Dadaism. It is through the experience of Hugo Ball and the phonetic poem that he poses the question of free will and the usage of nonsense language.