 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mark Divo edit
I removed the following from the article because it is not relevant to this topic.
- In recent times the term neo-Dadaists has been applied to an international group of artists known as the Kroesos foundation led by Mark Divo. In the winter of 2002 they took over the Cabaret Voltaire in Zurich until they were evicted on March 2, 2002.
There is no connection between this group and the artists, or movement, described in this article. I am not even sure it is notable. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 15:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Neo-dada is not a "movement" edit
Dada was an early twentieth-century art movement, but "neo-Dada" does not represent anything so coherent or motivated. Rather, the term has been apply by critics and scholars to developments in the 1960s that they saw as reviving or referencing those earlier developments. It was a descriptive label, handy, but by no means as explicit or solid as this article suggests. Recommend putting greater emphasis on the use of the term and its history, rather than the artists/movements to which it was applied. Aolivex (talk) 01:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- You say that you "Recommend putting greater emphasis on the use of the term and its history...", but I think the greatest emphasis should be placed on the artworks considered to be examples of Neo-dada. I would think that reliably sourced descriptions of such artworks would be one of the most important ingredients in an article such as this. Bus stop (talk) 02:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- The exchange of opinion above is, interestingly, between an art historian and a practising artist. Whatever the status of Neo-Dada, it came in the train of a rediscovery of Dada and represents the extension of Dada techniques into new fields. My inclination in the rewriting I have just undertaken is to be more sympathetic to User:Bus Stop's argument that most emphasis should be put on the works of art (and literary texts), rather than on the question of terminological definition. 'Neo-dada' was certainly a term used at an early stage by some of the participants in this tendency who subsequently gave allegiance to differently named movements. But without parented works to start the ball rolling (and often a historical argument for their validity), there can be no movement. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 14:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
millennial edit
Benjamin (talk) 05:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 | Parts of this article (those related to documentation) need to be updated. Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. (January 2019) |
This tag was removed, and I don't think it should be.
[1] [2] [3] ... and many more where that came from. @Sweetpool50:
Benjamin (talk) 09:15, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- Most of the articles cited above mention that there had already been a much earlier Neo-Dada 'movement' and that what they are reporting on is something that has developed decades later. The preferred label for the tendency seems to be 'absurdist', and this is then linked to earlier examples of absurdism in Dada/Neo-Dada. One could make as valid a claim that it is Post-Modern parody. Journalistic think-pieces are not enough. What is required is scholarly recognition that there is a conscious continuity supported by statements from the artists themselves, as there was in the case of Neo-Dada and the occasional protests from surviving Dada artists that the new work was merely derivative. Simply dumping a tab at the head of the article is an expression of opinionating without such evidence. Sweetpool50 (talk) 08:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)