Dada Historiography; or, How to End One’s Work?

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.