dadaiste

youtube

This took exactly three months longer than expected. Any sane person would have reconsidered before dumping a quarter of a year into making a parody short about a minor character in a stage play. .

If you’ve read the hilarious wild ride that was Harry Potter and the Cursed Child, I’m sure you too were caught off guard by the ridiculousness that is the trolley lady sequence. Under her kindly facade, she is in fact some sort of ageless homunculus that threatens school children with her arm spikes. Yikes.

You might also notice that the animation on Albus and Scorpius vastly outpaces the crap I usually churn out. That’s because Styxtwig kindly offered her animated talents in the pursuit of this madness. 

It’s been a surreal, almost dadaist expenditure of effort. Hopefully, you’ll get a chuckle out of it! 

so i was thinking (as i sometimes like to do) about the way humour has evolved over the past few years, and how radically different our generation’s humour is to pretty much anything that’s gone before it. so i decided to make a list of trends that i’ve noticed, because i have too much free time, and here it is

  1. The Rise Of The Shitpost. in the past few years, there’s been a huge uptick in “nonsensical” humour - and it’s not the same as the “lol random!!!1! xD tacos” style of humour that populated the internet around the early 2000s. it’s almost dadaist in its utter refusal to make sense. show a baby boomer a blurred picture of a bird in sunglasses on fire with the caption “KISAAAMA” and watch them stare at you blankly. go on. do it. and yet that exact post has over 100k notes on tumblr and has been reposted multiple times on facebook, twitter and instagram. go figure. 
  2. Distortion Of Language. just look at the “doggo” meme (”father pls stop yuo are doing me a frighten”), the “good shit” emoji meme, the mixing up of words in common phrases (”never gift a horse in the mouth”), those posts that use ridiculously complex and ill-fitting words to say mundane things (i.e. that one about coffee that’s like “BEAN ROYALTY! i must have looked like such a rube. such a fool”). it kind of ties into the “nonsensical” thing, except in this case the humour comes about specifically from turning something comprehensible into something incomprehensible.
  3. Fatalistic Humour. y’all know this one. pics of bleach bottles with a straw sticking out the top. jokes about throwing yourself in a ditch and slowly sinking into the mud, or paying somebody to murder you. casual references to therapy, suicide, self-destruction and coping mechanisms. that kinda thing.
  4. “Pure” Humour. this is kind of the opposite of the previous one, weirdly enough. in the past couple of years, there’s been a rise in humour that’s just genuinely sweet and nice. people like bob’s burgers because it’s harmless and cute and centres around a family where everyone genuinely cares about each other and gets along. people like lazytown and steven universe for similar reasons. there are hundreds of facebook pages dedicated to memes about supporting/loving your significant other, or pictures of cute animals cuddling up together
  5. Backlash Against Self-Conscious Humour. on the whole, people no longer like jokes that are obviously jokes. if a joke comes in like “hey! look at me! i’m a joke! aren’t i hilarious?”, people aren’t going to like it. that’s why sitcoms with canned laughter are going out of style, and why movies that make fun of themselves are more popular than movies that try, unironically, to be funny. that’s also why the “lol random” humour died a slow death. at its core, it’s the same as shitposting, but the difference is that shitposting just exists, whereas “random” humour is a deliberate attempt not only to be funny, but to make the op seem unique and special in their “randomness”. there’s a great post about it here

this being said, here are my theories for why this might be:

  1. fatalistic humour most likely stems from the fact that our generation is so fucked (economically, politically, socially, and any other kind of -ally you care to imagine) that we turn to black humour to make ourselves feel better. our current situation has also led to a documented rise in mental illness, which - coupled with growing social awareness of said mental illness - makes jokes like “heres a fun life hack: pay attention to me so i dont feel empty inside” relatable to pretty much everyone
  2. this might also explain the rise of absurdist memes - basically, nothing makes sense any more, and so nor do we. it might also be a form of backlash against the stereotypical view baby boomers have of millennials. developing a style of humour that is incomprehensible to anyone who isn’t a part of the online community functions almost as a way of shutting out people from older generations. of saying, “you think you understand us? you think we’re just empty-headed egomaniacs who like smartphones and emojis? well you’re WRONG”
  3. this is also why people laugh at “moms on facebook” - because they’re in the right place, but not using the correct lingo. essentially, young people on the internet have developed their own language and way of communication that is nigh-impossible to imitate if you’re not part of the online community yourself
  4. and i think that’s actually kinda awesome

The Year Is

A bot based on a tweet.

Bots like this are a very dadaist form of protest against the absurdity of the world.

The original Dada movement was reacting to the carnage of the first World War, by rejecting the systems that lead to it. While they were deeply skeptical about technological progress, the Dada artists also innovated by using odd materials and randomness to make anti-art.

The processes of the bot reemphasize the original message, highlighting the absurd truth by contrasting it with similar examples. Made by Jacob Garbe and running on CheapBotsDoneQuick, it’s not quite Dada, but then again Dada isn’t Dada.

sometimes I see posts and it’s like are you trying to be super high bro dadaist where it’s funny because you’re just making no sense or are you just being completely unintelligible and sometimes assuming the former gets me into trouble

3

November JOJO loot!!! This is what $228.15 looks like! *cry a little inside* Look at all the money I spent on Jojo trash! Like I said many times in my previous Jojo DJ loot posts, I have no self-control. Yet I have 0 regret in getting them. I think I nearly finish the collection of some of my favorite Jojo Doujinka works (Amaranth, Nikomi, Peel…etc) Good news and bad news is that I am done buying Jojo DJ for the year. With Part 4 out… who knows. Please, don’t draw my OTP Josuhan… my wallet can’t take it.

(Note: I have to show you guys that really cute ram tape! Oh Japan, I love you.)

If you guys want to have a peek of the Doujinshi, Ask/PM me. I can take a few photos of the content (but I won’t distribute all the pages. Sorry!). 

Robert Rauschenberg was a Neo-Dadaist/Pop Artist. Rauschenberg was interested in exploring the definition of what art was, and what the role of the artist in their creation. Rauschenberg worked with photography, painting, printmaking, performance, found object sculpture, mixed media, and designing sets and costumes for experimental dance performances. Rauschenberg attended the Black Mountain College in the late ‘40s which influenced his later work in manipulating and studying the lines, textures and colors of found and material objects. Rauschenberg was active from the late 1940s, until his death in 2008. Sleep for Yvonne Rainer, 1965 (pictured above) was created by Rauschenberg for his friend and collaborator, dancer and choreographer Yvonne Rainer, as a tribute to their friendship.

foreignmanlives  asked:

Hey Brontë, I was wondering, do you agree with Oscar Wilde that art is essentially pointless and for aestheticism? That trying to find meaning is pointless? I think I can only find that true depending on the author or artist. With Chekhov we start to see the idea of slice of life literature that really is just about a story or a mood. But then there's art like Allen Ginsberg's that can be about something, like his Plutonian Ode that denounces the arms race and nuclear warfare. I think I fall

somewhere in the middle. Like with Tristan Tzara’s Dadaist manifesto that claims that all of art is subjective, none good and none bad, and in that way I think meaning arises out of the personal experience with it. So I guess the art is in a way meaningless, because any meaning arises from the individual’s experience with it, wile there can be a specific meaning given to it by the artist. I don’t know, this is a mess. Thoughts?

Personally, I don’t think that Wilde meant what he said about the uselessness of art (not quite the same as pointless - the point is to delight, it just can’t serve any other function in order to be art, according to him), the reason being that his statement on the subject first appeared in the preface to the 1891 Ward, Lock & Co. reprint of The Picture of Dorian Gray, when it first appeared as a full text. This was, of course, the censored version - passages from the original had been edited and removed, such as changing Basil’s confession that ‘It is quite true I have worshipped you with far more romance of feeling than a man should ever give to a friend. Somehow I have never loved a woman’ to ‘From the moment I met you, your personality had the most extraordinary influence over me’. TPODG attracted unwanted attention from people who labelled it as deviant propaganda from the moment it first appeared in Lippincott’s. I say unwanted because Wilde didn’t mind causing a stir - his mother was, after all, a famous Irish revolutionary, and he actually started wearing green carnations as a symbol of his Irishness, something which would’ve been highly frowned upon in England at the time - but being seen as so much as supporting homosexuality was dangerous, as turned out to be the case for Wilde when TPODG was used against him during his trial. This suggests, to me, that when Wilde wrote that ‘Those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt without being charming. This is a fault. Those who find beautiful meanings in beautiful things are the cultivated. For these there is hope. They are the elect to whom beautiful things mean only Beauty’, what he was saying is that ‘if you think this is about being gay, you don’t understand art - it’s only here to entertain’ - something I very much doubt he actually meant, but which he was saying to protect himself.

I agree with you in some respects regarding Tzara’s manifesto (and I think Wilde probably secretly would too) - art can be morally repugnant or technically poor, but I still think it’s valuable as art if it means something to someone. For example, I know that Morrissey’s List of the Lost isn’t anywhere near as technically accomplished as, I don’t know, War and Peace, but to me personally it’s a much better piece of art because it speaks to me about the experience of being queer in a heteronormative world, whereas the subject of War and Peace doesn’t interest me at all, so while I can appreciate Tolstoy’s talent, the book means nothing to me and is therefore a “worse” piece of art - to me. List of the Lost also definitely doesn’t subscribe to Wilde’s doctrine on the uselessness of art, because it aims not just to entertain, but also (I would even say primarily) to make a point about the negative experiences of queer people, and I think that stands whether or not the reader picks up on it or relates to it. Leading on from that, I’m really not a big fan of death of the author or the idea of total subjectivity - it’s one thing to relate to a text on a personal level, but another entirely to completely refuse to acknowledge what the author clearly meant because it doesn’t appeal to you. Morrissey said it himself - ‘It wasn’t written for you. You cannot try to work out what you think the author should have written instead of what he actually wrote’ - and James Creech once responded to a review of Herman Melville’s Billy Budd in which the critic argued that homosexuality is not obvious or significant in the text to say that an implicit claim that we are unable to know that homosexuality is central to Billy Budd too easily legitimises those who for quite other reasons remain unwilling to know it’ and that it ‘effectively removes the possibility of our ever owning this important piece of homosexual meaning in American literature.’ I do think that authorial intent should count for something - after all, ‘life imitates art far more than art imitates life.’

I’m sorry, this got really long - great question!!