Tzara--Amy Bower

     Tzara creates nonsense simply in the act of writing a manifesto on Dada. Tzara claims that "in principle I am against manifestoes, as I am also against principles." Tzara contradicts himself here in that he says that he is against manifestoes "in principle," yet he is also "against principles," thus his assertion that he is "against principles" is contradictory. Furthermore, that he is "against manifestoes" yet is still writing a manifesto renders the entire manifesto a contradiction in and of itself. Tzara goes on to say, "I write this manifesto to show that people can perform contrary actions together." Dada is a movement that is so contradictory and scattered that it is hard to pinpoint a concise, textbook definition that fully captures the essence of Dada. Because Dada art is inherently contradictory and in flux, it makes sense that the best way to describe Dada would be through a paradoxical manifesto. Tzara also says, "I am against action; for continuous contradiction, for affirmation too, I am neither for nor against and I do not explain because I hate common sense." Tzara contradicts his assertions that he is "against" certain things ("continuous contradiction," "affirmation," "action"). As mentioned before, Tzara says he wrote the manifesto "to show that people can perform contrary actions together," thus characterizes the writing of the manifesto as an "act." But Tzara then says he is against "action," making it contradictory that he would take the action to explain his opinions. This continual contradiction (emphasized by his claim that he is "against" "affirmation") in his writing affirms his earlier assertion that he is writing to "perform contrary actions." Through this almost circular argumentation, Tzara proves his point (that Dada is contradictory and impossible to explain clearly) by not proving anything at all. The rules of logic and argumentation are undermined by Tzara's contradictions.

     Duchamp's ready-made sculptures echo many of the themes in Tzara's manifestos. That one can take an object, such as a urinal, and display it as art raises many questions about the meaning of art. What is art? What standards does something have to meet to qualify as art? Who decides what qualifies as art? Tzara forces his readers to ask similar questions when reading his manifestos. By presenting a paradoxical manifesto, Tzara wants his readers to consider the limitations of argumentation and common sense. Duchamp's "Fountain" is considered "art" because it is signed by the artist and presented as art, however, a regular urinal in a bathroom is not considered art because that action of an artist claiming it as "art" did not take place. Such a definition of "art" is somewhat limiting. Similarly, manifestos are limiting in that they present a cut and dry definition. When one reads a manifesto, one feels that she has a clear understanding of whatever topic the manifesto covers. For instance, if one reads a manifesto on socialism, one would assume that she has a detailed and complete understanding of socialism. However, by writing a contradictory, convoluted manifesto on Dada, Tzara reveals that the manifesto form is too limiting to explain an artistic movement as dynamic and complex as Dada. Writing a logical, typical manifesto would, in Tzara's eyes, simplify Dada. Rather, Tzara presents Dada in all of its complexities, and by denouncing manifestos in the first few paragraphs of the manifesto, he implies that Dada is something that needs to be experienced, because words alone cannot do it justice.