Abstract
No other early twentieth-century avant-garde project and aesthetic movement occupied itself with its history and legacy to such a large extent as Dada. This urge to write their history is one of Dada’s complexities. It attests to their critical engagement with the discourses forming and informing the artistic work in the early twentieth century. Dada’s revolt against the art establishment and bourgeoise society is found not only in their compositions and “artworks” but also in how they conceived of the idea of their legacy and history and, thus, of the canonical formation as a venue for their nonsense. Working within the parameters of historiography, the histories discussed in this article by Tristan Tzara, Richard Huelsenbeck, Hugo Ball, Hans Arp, and Raoul Hausmann transgress the set boundaries between historical fact and artistic expression by performatively undermining the conventions of writing and making history.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
