Reading through what's already there, I'm not convinced some of the contributors realize that dadaist work isn't just 'lol omg radnom' mish-mash. There's a lot more compositional aspects involved.
Put in a more succinct way, as soon as I saw the pineapple image, it became startlingly clear that the pineapple image was not selected in such a way as to showcase that the pineapple image was what someone who does not fully comprehend that the pineapple image is a perfect representation of what someone who does not understand that the pineapple image is not, in of itself, dadaist, would select, and therefor the selection of the pineapple image only succeeds at being dadaist in ways that the person who selected the pineapple image did not intend by specifically selecting the pineapple image.
I'm responsible for a large amount of the random mishmash (most of chapters 3 and 8, to be precise). I'm not sure if I'd agree with you that it doesn't fit - it seems to meet the general criteria, although perhaps that means I don't understand the general criteria. It's ultimately devoid of meaning, direction, or artistic value, and apparently it's offended your expectations by not even being what you call dada. That said, I'll concede that if it's anything, it certainly doesn't take skill to write, and isn't interesting to read, so I'll use it sparingly, and I really don't want to set a trend. It's like the difference between setting a urinal on its side and smashing it until it no longer resembles a urinal.
Most of my further contributions will probably be out-of-context, seemingly-meaningless and sometimes ungrammatical sections in an overdone academic style - something like the scrambled essay in chapter 3, if you're curious.
Also, your passage is terrific - have you contributed to the novel?
Author
Topic: Dadapedia (Read 1671 times)