Dada is one of the most famous and influential literary and
artistic movements that began to appear and spread as a reaction to World War
I. Dadaists, who believed such cruel war and miserable carnages were initiated by
the bourgeois class, authoritarianistic government, and nationalistic mind, began
to oppose these powers by rejecting logic and irrationality, and performing a new
form of avant-grade art. Throughout his literary work, seven manifestoes, Tzara utilizes contradiction and paradoxes in
order to deliver his views about what Dadaism should be and fills his pieces
with nonsense.
The very first paradox I found was the title itself. The
title is “Seven” Dada manifestoes; however, there are only five different kinds
of manifestoes throughout the piece. By entitling his five manifestoes as seven
manifestoes, he is going against the logical world, where people should follow the
patterns and certain orders, such as numbering from the smallest number and
putting documents or charts in alphabetical orders. Another sentence that I
thought was paradoxical was in the beginning of Dada Manifesto 1918. In this
section, Tzara tells readers that he “write[s] a manifesto and [he] want[s]
nothing” (pg. 76). However, before Tzara says he does not want anything from
his manifesto, he argues that in order for people “to put out a manifesto you
must want: ABC/ to fulminate against 1,2,3” (pg. 76). In this sentence Tzara symbolically
represents society’s traditional systems and rules as 1,2, and 3, and he refers
to Dadaistic new way of looking at the world as A, B, and C. His referring to Dadaist’s
unique way of pursing life as A, B, and C is paradoxical and certainly
contradicts what he has claimed, since he follows the alphabetical rule to
describe Dadaistic life. Tzara could have referred to Dadaistic avant-grade way
of looking at their world using other languages or signs that are not following
alphabetical order and logic, or he could have “want[ed] nothing.”
Tzara also contradicts himself about notion of logic through
the second manifesto, Dada Manifesto 1918, and the last manifesto, manifesto on
feeble love and bitter love. In the second manifesto, Tzara remarks that
“[l]ogic is a complication. Logic is always wrong” (pg. 80). However, in the last manifesto, he points
out that a manifesto is “a communication addressed to the whole world […] It
can be gentle, good-natured, it is always right, it is strong, vigorous and
logical (pg. 86). If a logical manifesto is always right, strong and vigorous,
then why is the logic itself in complication and always wrong? Tzara makes
contradiction about logic using manifesto as a tool here.
Throughout his work, he reveals his principle or opinion and
contradicts them. For example, Tzara “write[s] a manifesto” but he contradicts
what he pointed out by telling the readers that he is against the manifestoes
(pg. 76). Tzara’s Seven dada manifestoes is very complicating, and it is hard
to find the main theme and his purpose of writing these manifestoes. Although
it seems as though manifestoes are connected to each other, they are actually
not. However, his usage of
contradiction and paradoxes makes his work very avant-grade and nonsensical.
No comments:
Post a Comment