How did the Dada Artists Challenge the Contemporary Art?

How did the dad Artists Ch both(prenominal)enge the Contemporary Art?This essay result dive into the cosmos of public address system by firstly exploring the movement with an in-depth spirit into the brief history of daddy and the foundations of which it was built around, how it changed impostureDada was non just an contrivance movement but as much of an heathenish movement, this revolutionary movement originated in Zurich, Switzerland in the early months of 1916 it was whiz of the shortest lived graphics movements and solitary(prenominal) survived less than 10years until 1924Dadaism did non start off as an art movement it was born of more as a tasteful kick that grew as a response to not only the slaughterhouse that was world war one but withal to the destruction of auberge that was crumbling around them, as the war spiralled across Europe the mass of the work whiles who founded dada had witnessed the relentless slaughter of innocent men, women and children as un deniable proof that the jingoistic authorities had failed alliance and was undeniably corrupt. With most of the Dadaists being directly impact by WW1 and fleeing from across Europe themselves to suck upk refuge in Switzerland as many an opposite(prenominal) mess did with Switzerland being neutral within the wall it became a safe depleten for a huge number of plenty including many artists and intellects who found sanctuary in Zurich, which was the birthplace of dada included in the refuges that escaped the destruction of the war where a young agree from Munich, Germany named Hugo egg who was a former theatre director and his girlfriend Emily Hennings a professional dancer who withal wrote her possess poems and books not long after arriving they became the parents of dada when they persuade the protester of a nearby caf to let them rent a elbow room from him to begin a cabaret club. They named their club Cabaret Voltaire (fig .1) after one of Frances greatest entitlemen t writers Francois- Marie Arount and commonly known as Voltaire he was a noteworthy writer, historian, poet and philosopher but was most famous for his wit and his attacks on the roman Catholic church with his advocacy of independence of religion and speech you displace see how the young couple related to his values and beliefs and used him as an instigate and inspiration in the laying of the foundations of dada.Cabaret Voltaire opened its doors February 5th 1916 with Hugo puffiness sent out a press release that translated Cabaret Voltaire infra this name a group of young artists and writers has formed with the objective of decent a mettle of delicious entertainment in principle, guest artist will come and give musical performances and readings at the daily meetings. issue artists of Zurich whatever their tendencies, are invited to come along with suggestions and contributions of all kinds and with this release the dada family was formed with a bunch of like-minded misfits who included marcel Janco, Tristian Tarzara, Richard Huelsenbeck, Hans (jean) Arp, Sophie Taeuber, Kurt Schwitters, Marcel Duchamp and Joan Miro ( fig.2) all coming through the doors within the first couple nights of the club opening and they quickly bonded over not just participation but art and they woes of the world surrounding them and how many in conjunction did not know or care with the world surrounding them, this atrophied group of concourse connected over art and the discretion of the world around it and became close friends spending most days and nights together discussing and practising their own politics, depends and art. With the Cabaret Voltaire being bunk by this close group of friends it became a cross between a night club and arts centre while here artist could showcase their work in a whole smart experimental environment, often playing around with music, dance, theatre, poetry, readings, picture taking and all photography and often experimenting with visu al arts. while showcasing their art to the art ball club of Zurich they could discuss the world around them and the founders became coupled in their views and their protest the war, beau monde and the establishment.Performances in the beginning were relatively conventional being honest to a variety show but as WW1 grew so did the artists evoke and wanting for change and realisation, part of the movement was a full-on strike on the art world which they saw as part of the system it was considered likewise accountable and at that placefore had to be overthrown. Dada questioned the value of all art and whether its existence was simply an indulgence of the middle and upper- cast they confronted traditional artistic values with nonsensical and irrational attitudes and with these provoked conservative complacencies with outrageous extractments and actions as within a couple of weeks the artists at Cabaret Voltaire were experimenting with shock tactics becoming increasingly unort hodox and rebellious with its art and as in brief as the founders became aware that the crowds were raddled to this oddball of art and valued it they began to run with it they began to showcase their own politics and views and rebelled more and more against art, monastic order and the war. Although the Dadaists were united in their standards they had no unifying style, an between the short lived period of Dada group it attracted many protestent type of artists who were not willing to accommodate to societies standards of art which meant the artists could allow the movement to have so many various(a) styles which allowed them to play with their art and fuck off with new styles and submit to heart new art. The Cabaret Voltaire and its members pushed the boundaries that surrounded them in a very short lived snip together at the Cabaret Voltaire as it was laboured to closed their doors only six months after it opened due to the nightly antics of the huge crowds that were dr awn to the club and the relaxed nature of the lease owners not paying rent.Marx and loafs Theories of independence A ComparisonMarx and hoagies Theories of Freedom A ComparisonSANDRINE UWIMANAMARX AND milling machineryS VIEWS ON FREEDOM.This essay compares and contrasts Karl Marx and J.S. footle on their understandings of liberty and their analyses of the impediments to its realization. twain Marx and plodding agree that charitable beings are capable of making establish and that the concept of license is an end in itself. therefrom, they saw independence as a core to realise singleist potential and self-determination. However, both differ on the concept of granting immunity realisation and the impediments to exemption. Mill indicates that the impediment to license is the masculine society while Marx begs that the impediment to license is the mercenaryie. Furthermore, the essay discusses the interpellation by state/society into emancipation. Mill assert that the society can interfere into someones freedom when there is malign shuffling to others. For Mill freedom should be cipherd as long as there is no harm done to others while Marx supports the freedom to overthrow the bourgeoisie . On the other hand, Marx views hold that the government/ society should intervene in individual freedom to avoid individuality that leads to secret lieu and consequently creating pathes.Both Marx and Mill see freedom as an end in itself. According to Marxs definition of freedom, was viewed as an end in itself. only in participation has each individual the means of cultivating his gifts in all directions only in the community, therefore, is personal freedom possible. In the previous substitutes for the community, in the State, etc. personal freedom has existed only for the individuals who developed within the relationships of the view screen out, and only insofar as they were individuals of this descriptor, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. For Mill, freedom of speech, opinion and the skillful to participator with others, were important for the come of manhood. Freedom of select is and do what is desirable as long as no harm is done to others is an end in itself. As Mill thus say that , though the tailoreds be both good as customs yet to conform to custom does not develop tender facultiesexercised only in making a choice. (Mill 60). It is evident that freedom of choice is important to the development of individuality and work up of the society as a whole. Thus, freedom is an end in itself, because utilizing human lead to make choices is beneficial for personal development. Hence, the view that sees freedom as an end in itself can be attributed to both Marx and Mill.On the other hand, there are considerable differences between Mill and Marx perspectives on views regarding freedom. For Mill, freedom is important for the purpose of searching for truth and for reasons to live and for progress ( Mill 29). Mill asserts t hat a man must be free to copy his bliss and pleasure. Furthermore, Mill in On impropriety asserts that individual freedom is the paramount chief for the progress of society. The opinion of the individual has to be nurtured and allowed to grow so that he can use his as amazes and talents to benefit the society at large ( Mill 63). Thus, Mill, can be summa springd in On Liberty The only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to denudate others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. An individual has the capability and the precedent to be creative in a society that recognises that ability. As well, Mill argues for the freedom of speech for everyone and that each individual opinion should be respected disregarding of its content. Mill also argues that freedom/liberty is important for the pursuit of happiness (Mill 29). However , Marx asserts that people should not be individualistic and should not absorb their own interests but should conform to the societys norms. For example in On The Jewish Question Zur Judenfrage, Marx criticizes the liberal concept of freedom and argues that it assumes that a human being is an isolated monad ( Max 364) who tags his own private happiness and also tries to avoid conflict with others ( Marx 370). He argue that an individual cannot be treated separately from society. The individual is part and parcel of society and there is nowhere he/she is going to operate in closing off without affecting the society as a whole. Hence, Marx argues that the communist system would make it possible for everyone including children and women to be free as they would not be forced to work for the anyone (Marx 72). For Marx, this is freedom. As well, Marx explains how my free activity transforms itself into the alienated and inhumane power with the fetishism of the commodity. (Marx, 554).Furthermore, Mill and Marx offer a different perspective on the intervent ion by state/society into freedom. Mill argues that there is no justification for interfering in other peoples opinions and thinking. non even the government has the right to interfere in someones freedom. It could be argued that this is the foundation of modern individual freedom. You are free and entitle to your own opinions as long as you dont harm another ( Mill 4). The reason for not interfering, unless for the sake of others, with a persons spontaneous acts, is consideration for his liberty. His voluntary choice is evidence that what he so chooses is desirable, or at least endurable, to him, and his good is on the whole best provided for him by allowing him to take his own means of pursuing it, Mill (14). In contrast, Marx argues that there is a need for the state to interfere with private property so that property ownership might be abolished. The government should have the right and the means to control the people who have private property, thereby forming an exalted comm unist society. It has to be noted that Marx s arguments were based on the view that capitalism was evil and because needed to be replaced by communism. As well, Karl Marx, in On the Jewish Question says that None of the supposed rights of man go beyond the egoistic man, man as he is a member of civil society that is, an individual dislocated from the community, withdrawn into himself, exclusively preoccupied with his private interests and acting in accordance with his private caprice. Hence, a person has to conform to the societys norms. Thus, Marx views counter-argue the view by Mill that the society should respect the individual freedom. On the other hand, Mill warns against the tranny of the majority because sometimes the majoritys opinion is not always right. Thus the protection of the individual is more important and have to be protected.In addition, Mills and Marx views differ on the exercise of freedom. According to Mill, freedom and liberty is having free will and self- determination without being subjected to invariable equity ( Mill 32). Mill adds that innovation and creativity can be achieved in a free environment . Thus, he advocates for a free environment which allows for development and growth of new ideas. Genius can only utter freely in anatmosphereof freedom. Persons of genius are moreindividual than any other people ( Mill, 65). Thus, freedom of the individual will allow new ideas and result in the progress of the society as a whole. As well, he argues that the society or the state should not force people to conform to the particular norms of the society and nor intervene in the activities of the individual which contribute to the development of the community as a whole. However, Mill acknowledges that the only time when the government or the society has to interfere is when it steps in to prevent your harming other people (Mill 68). Thus, Mill asserts that freedom should be exercised as long as there is no harm done to others. Mill, a mans freedom has to be protected and allowed to be explored without infringing on other peoples freedom. Nevertheless, the exercising of freedom should be checked.In addition, Marx argues that the majority of the works club should fight for their freedom and overcome the tyranny of the bourgeoisie (Marx 73). This seems like the views of Mill who argues that the citizens are to have freedom and the state, which is in piffling minority, should not exercise tyranny over them. Mill, on the other hand, argues that the freedom to unite has to be done in such a way that there is not harm to others . Mill would see the argument of Marx advocating the overthrow and taking the property of the bourgeoisie as harm done to others. In the Manifesto, Marx calls for the freedom of the working(a) secern to unite and in the end to revolt against the ware owners also known as Bourgeoisie (Marx Engels, 34). The working class will rise up for their freedom. Marx asserts that freedom can be achiev ed through ideology. If the working class would learn and know the ideology of the bourgeoisie, they would be able to develop a counter ideology and hence the trade union movement would become self-conscious and self-aware and thus be able to manage and control the means of labor (Marx 173.) Thus, Marx argues that the working class would be freed from alienated labour if they knew the ideology of the bourgeoisie. This is how the proletariat would be able to overcome the exploitation of the bourgeoisie. For Marx, the working class should be united and fight for their individual freedom .As well, according to Marx, freedom could be achieved if the working class owned the means of production. It can also be viewed that capitalist system dies freedom to the working class in the modern era. For example, even if you desire to have a certain type of work, you are not free to choose your boss. On the same shoot down the people who controls the means of production have the freedom to cho ose among the copiousness supply of labour. I would agree that communism in which the means of production is owned by many could have been a good society for mankind. Capitalism denies the freedom of choices to many people curiously the poor. It lead to a few of individual controlling all the wealth. As well, I would argue that in the modern era, due to capitalism, most working class people do not have freedom. In the world of today, the owner of the means of production decides which work you are supposed to do but the working class person is not free to choose his work and set his own allowance. This could be regarded as a lack of freedom as the working class do not have a choice but rather to work under the conditions set by the master. For Marx, the ideal society was communism that gave everyone a chance to own something and freedom to majority. As well, Marx argues that there is a need for society to interfere to help the individual realise his potential/ self-cultivation. Th is is so because Marx believes that the society should be classless. Marx asserts that classless society is the foundation of freedom for all because the working class will have power in the production of goods and commodities and hence hold the interest of everyone. When the bourgeois owns the means of production the majority of the people who are the working class are left out.Furthermore, Marx asserts that the impediment to freedom is the bourgeoisie. For instance, Marx argues that the bourgeoisie controls the means of production, robbing freedom from the working class by exploiting their labour. The different classes results in the working class being oppressed . The class of the bourgeoisie infringes upon the freedom of the working class in what he calls the class struggle to refer to a daub where one group has an advantage over the other group. This is so because the class that has an advantage will try and maintain its status quo and in so doing will establish norms that ma intain that class. The working class person has no freedom in the capitalist world since he relies on the wages of his master. As well, since the laborer has no profits to be gained from the production that he doing, he is alienated him from the process of the profit making, which is a violation of his freedom. Furthermore, Marx argues that the majority of the working class should fight for their freedom and overcome the tyranny of the bourgeoisie (Marx 73). This seems like the views of Mill who argues that the citizens are to have freedom and the state, which is in small minority, should not exercise tyranny over them. Nevertheless, for Mill, the impediment to freedom is the masculine state, (Mill, 219). For example, Mill argues that men control the affairs in public life and hence the women are forced to perform the duties of the private life. This implies that the half of mankind who are women are not free.In conclusion, this essay argues that Marx and Mill both share similar u nderstandings of freedom such as the possibility of progress in society, the views that hold that freedom is an end in itself, and the idea that human nature for self-determination must be valued. However, both Marx and Mill pursue a different road in their conclusion of the concept of freedom. As described above, Mills argument argues that masculine is the impediment to freedom. This is so because most of the domestic work is done by women. Marx on the other hand views that the impediment to freedom is the bourgeoisie. Marx believes that capitalism is the problem for freedom and hence advocated for communism. As well, Mill advocated for freedom without the intervention from anyone or from the state as long as their action done does not affect others. Mill also argues against the norms of society that require the individual to conform. As well, he argues that the state should not interfere in the individuals affairs as this is a violation freedom. On the other hand, Marx suggests th at the individual cannot be separated from the society. Thus the state can intervene in order to bring the society together and prevent other people from acquiring all the wealth. Ultimately Marxs spate of communism is valuable because it is a vision that allows for the critique of contemporary society. As well, I would in conclusion, I would argue that capitalist system denies the majority freedom. For example, Even if you desire to have a certain type of work, you are not free to choose your boss. On the same point the people who controls the means of production have the freedom to choose among the abundance supply of labour. I would agree that communism in which the means of production is owned by many could have been a good society for mankind. Capitalism denies the freedom of choices to many people especially the poor. It lead to a few of individual controlling all the wealth.NB The word freedom has been used interchangeably with the word Liberty.Work cited tin Stuart Mill, On Liberty Broadview Press.Mill, J.S. 1869 The Subjection of Women.Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx. Robert C. Tucker. Ed. The Marx-Engels Reader.W W Norton Co Inc (Np) second Revised edition March 17, 1978.1