mahoushoujomatriarch:

animatedamerican:

dog-of-ulthar:

the question of whether modern internet humor is dadaist is fascinating because sure on a surface level, it absolutely resembles dadaist art of the 1920′s but my question is…………..is it art?

the original dada movement emerged specifically to interact with that question, of whether an incoherent collage, or a gold-plated toilet seat, or poetry pulled out of a hat should be considered art

but internet humor?  it exists solely for us to entertain one another.  it doesn’t give a shit about what art is or isn’t, and comments like “this belongs in a museum” or “where’s her oscar” always come after the fact, and, more importantly, are made specifically to add entertainment value

so my take for today is that internet humor isn’t neo-dada, or post-dada, or even “e-dada” or “#dada”; as a mass movement concerned more with community participation than performance to an audience and wholly unconcerned with questions about higher meaning…………….this is folk dada

FOLK DADA

DADA EXISTED AS A RESPONSE TO WWI MADE BY PEOPLE RICH ENOUGH TO GET OUT OF THE WAR ZONE. Dada was made by the rich for the rich to piss off the rich while the poor lost their lives.

DADA II OVER HERE?

It’s made, for the most part, by the poor and lower class as a direct fuck you to those who are generationally or financially above us because humor is all we have left.

It is abso-fucking-lutely folk dada.