DADA?
Dec 14 2004 19:38
Has anyone ever explored Dada? It seems that their main aim was to ridicule and confuse, their acts seem as though there were pretty intense, often culminating in small scale rioting and brawls. Other than this i dont really understand their 'political' contributions, maybe thats not the point. Its fairly obvious that the surrealists and sits stole/elaborated a lot of their ideas but never got close to emulating their 'situations' or public events let alone their intensity or absurdity.
If anyone can make any sense out of them it would be welcomed!
Dec 22 2004 12:47
#2
I thought Dada was one bloke!?
Dec 22 2004 12:51
#3
Interesting post, satanimcp 
Dec 22 2004 13:53
#4
Yeah, please stick around, nice first post. Sure I've seen that username elsewhere
http://www.lib.uiowa.edu/dada/
Quote:
including recitations of phonetic poetry (in which sound becomes more important than rational meaning)
Closest I've seen to a performance of dada (it, like fluxus, doesn't lend well to either archive or repertory performance - since the whole point is it was processual and temporary) was sound poet Bob Cobbing, who died in 2002.
There's this site about him:
http://epc.buffalo.edu/authors/cobbing/
and more here: http://www.ubu.com/papers/cobbing.html
and video clips here:
http://homepage.mac.com/misha_david/MishMusic/iMovieTheater50.html
Dec 22 2004 14:25
#5
Quote:
Sure I've seen that username elsewhere
Yeah? And there was me thinking I was unique. I got in trouble winding up right wing Americans on another forum with this name, and eventually got banned - but other than that I've only used it when playing computer games on the net (woops, geeky admission).
And you're right - I should have mentioned Fluxus. Also of interest is the retrospective held at the Boston ICA, the London ICA and the Pompidou center in Paris, entitled On the Passage of a Few People Through a Rather Brief Moment in Time. This was an exhibition on the Situationist International, focussing on their artistic early years (and hopelessly missing the point). Bob Black wrote a rather funny account of this exhibition, pointing out the paradox in catalogueing and fossilising the desire for creativity and change in a museological context. I can't remember the title of the essay, but it shouldn't be hard to find. I think it might be called An Unfinished Adventure, but I might be getting it confused with another text.
Dec 22 2004 14:45
#6
Isnt it mentioned in the realisation and suppression of situationism by bob black?
Dec 22 2004 14:56
#7
rkn wrote:
Isnt it mentioned in the realisation and suppression of situationism by bob black?
Yeah, spot on - thats the one I was thinking of. An Unfinished Adventure is, if memory serves, written by Ken Knabb.
Dec 29 2004 16:52
#8
didnt they have 'situationist' titles and peices in glass boxes at the ica in london? Crystalised art. Dada would be rather indignant with you calling her an 'art movement'. *slaps satanismycopilot's wrists*
Dec 29 2004 19:45
#9
Has Dada ever achieved anything?
Dec 30 2004 01:14
#10
from my understanding and from a documentry on bbc two, i always though DADA was nihilist, it condemend everybody.
Jan 4 2005 11:38
#11
Vaneigemappreciationclub wrote:
didnt they have 'situationist' titles and peices in glass boxes at the ica in london? Crystalised art. Dada would be rather indignant with you calling her an 'art movement'. *slaps satanismycopilot's wrists*
Yeah, they did.
I went to an exhibition at the Aquarium gallery in London last year, to see a little show put on by a bunch of pro (or rather post) Situs. They'd done the show by posting lots of pages of theory, images and artwork to the walls of the gallery - and the show's happiest moment was the shrine to Debord, which was a pile of emptys in the corner of the room. Every time you finished your drink you'd chuck it on the Debord shrine.
But downstairs, where I hung around for a (rather disappointing) discussion, there were a few old copies of Internationale Situationiste behind glass.
To be fair to them, they're an interesting group - they're putting out a journal called Principia Dilatectica, which makes some interesting comments about the nature (and alleged redundnacy) of class struggle. Worth having a look at if you're interested in all things Situationisty.
Jan 4 2005 12:13
#12
Can you find it online anywhere?
Jan 4 2005 14:32
#13
dont suppose theyre posting these journals online? Might be worth a read.
Jan 4 2005 14:44
#14
Just had a quick look on google (type in Principia Dialectica as a serach subject) - looks as though they are building a site, but its not ready yet. I think I might have a spare copy if anyone is desperate and wants it mailed to them...not sure, need to hunt around at home for it.
Jan 4 2005 15:45
#15
You might also be interested in the discussion list at www.nothingness.org . They talk a lot of bollocks, but there's some worthwhile stuff there too.
Jan 4 2005 16:15
#16
haha, yeah an awful lot of bollocks, i was on it for a while but the bollocks tends to outweigh anything interesting
Jan 4 2005 16:21
#17
Vaneigemappreciationclub wrote:
haha, yeah an awful lot of bollocks, i was on it for a while but the bollocks tends to outweigh anything interesting
OK - you're obviously interested in Situationist stuff. I've done a lot of work on Debord's theory of the spectacle, and I'm planning on developing these ideas further. How familiar are you with the material? If you're up for it, I'd like to ask you a few questions on a few issues, and ask your oppinion on others.
Jan 6 2005 14:22
#18
Ok, I'm going to ask anyway.
What do you think to be the issues raised by 'speaking the spectacle's language'?
It seems to me that suggesting that the spectacle is external to the human subject is mistake.
A key aspect of Althusserian structuralism, and much postmodernism, is the positing of a human subject that is essentially mutable, and affected by its environment: in the instance of Althusser's work on ideology, any kind of 'humanism' was rejected in favour of a view of the individual as a subject under ideology, an individual that is essentially and empty form filled only with ideology. As, in his view, all ideology derives from class relations, the subject of history is not the acting human individual, but the class struggle.
Debord and others rejected this totally, in favour of a human subject that is essentially impermeable - that may be buffeted by the ideological storm that it is immersed in, but which is essentially un effected. As a result Vaneigem is able to cling to his notion of an a priori 'human essence', or 'core' (something I think to be a grave mistake), while Debord opts for a subject as a process - an experiencing process that creates a consciousness of spectatorship, and a 'real', 'authentic' level of unconsciousness beneath this. The Situationist project was to articulate this unconscious, to draw it into consciousness.
However, my contention is that Debord's theory renders this almost impossible. If the spectator experiences only spectacle, if the capacity to respond to these experiences is only the spectacle's 'language' (i.e. the perpetuation of spectacle, recuperation, Vaneigem's 'stolen mediation') then how might this unconsciosness ever become conscious? How might it ever be identified as distinct from spectacle? To all intents amd purposes, the spectacle is us. The suggestion that we might just step outside of ourselves, or declare ourselves suddenly distinct from our language, memory, morals, our entire undetrstanding of modes and symbols - well, its a little silly.
What then becomes important is the theorisation of the subject under the spectacle, and the formulation of modes and resistance to it that actually speak directly to the spectacle's ubiquity, rather than simply subscribing to its images whilst claiming to oppose them.
Did any of that make any sense at all? I'm at work, and don't have time to do this properly - if I'm talking gibberish let me know and I'll clarify what I mean.
Jan 6 2005 15:57
#19
good post satanismycopilot,
yeah that has always been my problem with the situationists, the idea of an essential essence and real unmediated "desires". Crimthinc take this shit to its logical conclusion and so end up being patronising lil middle class white kids telling everyone that thier real desires are dumpster diving, getting dreadlocks and squatting.
Now Althusserian structuralism is just the flip side of this, it removes the subject and replaces it with essentially a reflection of the structure, of course we are left with the very basic question of what the fuck creates the structure? Structuralism tends to see the overarching social structure as essentially coherent (just like bourgeois functionalist sociology) and unified. As such is essentially just a rehashing of the objectivism of the second international only in the trednier structuralsit rhetoric of semiotics. If the subject is nothing more than a one dimensional reflection of the status quo then what is the dynamic force in history, Althusser as a good party member knows exactly what it is, its the forces of production. This of course leads us to ask the question, "well did the fucking tools make themselves?", or where they not the product of a subjects socially produced desires!
Oh course Althusser is no Bernstein and realsies that such fatalism would make the party superflous to the development of communism, so Althusser he makes a niche role for "scientific knowledge". The workings of the social order as a whole can be only be known to theory; as far as the practical lives of individuals go, ideology is needed as a kind of imaginary map. These individuals may alos have access to a scientific knowledge of the social world; but they cannot practically exercise this knowledge in the dirt and heat of everyday life! Communism therefore ceases to be about the the practice of the working class but rather is a scientific theory devised by an intellectual elite, who unlike the workers are able to rise above the petty day to day realities of base interest of the workers, and so see's the interests of the class as a whole. This is essentially just a pretentious justification of Lenin's theory of "trade union conciousness" as set out in WHAT IS TO BE DONE?
The subject of course is a product of the social relations but those relations are fluid, fragmented and contradictary not a totalised, self contained and internally rationale structure. It is these contradictions that open up the potential for change, it is the distance between reality and our desires, between the what is and what we know can be that acts as the driving force within society. Rather than passing judgement on the present from some scientific summit, as Althusser would have it, or from from primordial ahistorical "essence" or "desires", as Debord suggests, a revolutionary critique installs itself (or rather is already part of the programme) within the present oredr to decipher those fault lines and contradacitions, were the ruling social logic presses up against its own structural limits, it seeks to occupy a system from within in order to expose those points of impasse or indeterminacy where the governing conventiond begin to unravel and decompose.
Jan 6 2005 17:32
#20
See RKN, i told you so...
Jan 6 2005 17:32
#21
told him what?
Jan 6 2005 20:00
#22
i studied the situationists at uni and unfortunately as a result all my knowledge of them is with reference to answering a dissertation question, hance rather limited.
I'd take 'speaking the spectacles language' to imply that we as spectators, passive observers of a regime we have no real influence upon, see our goals,values, desires etc from the perspective of the spectacle, the actors, the elite, we covet the products of our exploitation, we go through life partaking in a game in which the rules are written against us and hence curtail any possibility of liberation. We speak the language of those who rule over us. In general we see things from their perspective.
I will try and elaborate upon this at a later date, its been a long day.
Jan 6 2005 20:04
#23
Quote:
of course we are left with the very basic question of what the fuck creates the structure?
Well, according to Althusser, a combination of ideological and repressive state apparatuses. To be honest, I don't have much of a problem with that - if anything I'd suggest that the RSA's are actually a function and result of ISA's, and should fall squarely under the bracket of ideological ritual behaviour.
I actually quite like Althusser. He asks the right questions - he just comes up with the wrong answers (and ooh, he cannot write for shit!).
Quote:
If the subject is nothing more than a one dimensional reflection of the status quo then what is the dynamic force in history, Althusser as a good party member knows exactly what it is, its the forces of production. This of course leads us to ask the question, "well did the fucking tools make themselves?", or where they not the product of a subjects socially produced desires!
Well, according to Althusser we don't really have any desire - we are 'nodal points', articulating class interests in their various manifestations. So I'm not sure if its sustainable for you to oppose 'socially produced desires' to the forces of production - as the forces of production manifest themselves in our desires. From my reading, the individual is an empty vessel that is nothing without the ideology that articulates it.
I think there's actually quite a lot to be said for that idea, provided it is rescued from Althusser's theoretical celebration of elitism...
Quote:
The workings of the social order as a whole can be only be known to theory; as far as the practical lives of individuals go, ideology is needed as a kind of imaginary map. These individuals may alos have access to a scientific knowledge of the social world; but they cannot practically exercise this knowledge in the dirt and heat of everyday life! Communism therefore ceases to be about the the practice of the working class but rather is a scientific theory devised by an intellectual elite, who unlike the workers are able to rise above the petty day to day realities of base interest of the workers, and so see's the interests of the class as a whole.
Spot on. I totally agree - Althusser has essentially given us a justification for a bunch of ideological scientist/priests, equipped with their 'necessarily' esoteric knowledge, who will lead us cattle to glorious emancipation.
Quote:
The subject of course is a product of the social relations but those relations are fluid, fragmented and contradictary not a totalised, self contained and internally rationale structure. It is these contradictions that open up the potential for change, it is the distance between reality and our desires, between the what is and what we know can be that acts as the driving force within society. Rather than passing judgement on the present from some scientific summit, as Althusser would have it, or from from primordial ahistorical "essence" or "desires", as Debord suggests, a revolutionary critique installs itself (or rather is already part of the programme) within the present oredr to decipher those fault lines and contradacitions, were the ruling social logic presses up against its own structural limits, it seeks to occupy a system from within in order to expose those points of impasse or indeterminacy where the governing conventiond begin to unravel and decompose.
Interesting, and I'd like to hear more - how do you relate these suggestions to 'traditional' notions of class struggle and revolt? I don't mean trade unionism - I'm referring to things like Genoa and Seattle, to mass demostrations of disaffection. Are they self defeating, and what should replace them?
I'd like to write more, but I'm being called away - I'll get back to you tomorrow.
Take care matey
Jan 6 2005 20:09
#24
Indeed the spectacle is supposed to be ubiquitos, and our lives revolve around it whether we like it or not, we cannot escape its images, rules and requirements, everyone has a tv, everyone reads a paper, everyone walks through the streets.
I think whether you believe the spectacle can be superceded or gone beyond depends on how deeply you believe the spectacle dictates our ideas and consciousness, sure there is a human element to the spectacle we, produce it, in work, in leisure, we largely adhere to it. This is not to say that it is perpetual or is a natural part of human essence or an everlasting element of social history. Perhaps you cant entirely shake its logic, its hard to dispel something that youve been brought up with, but that doesnt mean you cant interrogate and understand its logic, its means or aims and to that extent you can in one way detatch yourself from it to an extent. Obviously to competetly detatch yourself from its logic the system that it protects and that it grew from would have to end.
Jan 6 2005 20:15
#25
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:of course we are left with the very basic question of what the fuck creates the structure?
Well, according to Althusser, a combination of ideological and repressive state apparatuses. To be honest, I don't have much of a problem with that - if anything I'd suggest that the RSA's are actually a function and result of ISA's, and should fall squarely under the bracket of ideological ritual behaviour.
yes but we are left with the ontological question of what subjects created these structures, i mean if the subjects are only a reflection of the structure then what created the structures? were they always they there? surely the existance of idelogical structures such as the church, school etc are the products of interested subjects?
as u said,
Quote:
Well, according to Althusser we don't really have any desire - we are 'nodal points', articulating class interests in their various manifestations. So I'm not sure if its sustainable for you to oppose 'socially produced desires' to the forces of production - as the forces of production manifest themselves in our desires. From my reading, the individual is an empty vessel that is nothing without the ideology that articulates it.
i mean essentially if we are empty vessels waiting to be filled by the structure then what the fuck made the structure? its a simple argument and one that Leninists have historically resolved by givng an ontological status to the forces of production. According to this it is the forces of production that define the relations of a society. this is of course based on a crude reading of some of marx's statements in the German Ideology.
Jan 8 2005 14:18
#26
Quote:
I think whether you believe the spectacle can be superceded or gone beyond depends on how deeply you believe the spectacle dictates our ideas and consciousness,
Absolutely. But - I think the spectacle constitutes us entirely, and I think it possible to generate anti-spectacular consciousness from within it. In the past I've used some of Althusser's claims as to the emergence of science from ideology to support this (very wobbly, needs lots more work) - inserting this new material into the spectacle's language renders it a debate rather than a monologue.
Quote:
Obviously to competetly detatch yourself from its logic the system that it protects and that it grew from would have to end.
Yeah - what is required is subversion from within, detournement applied across the entirety of the spectacle's fragments. But the question that this poses is as to the nature of struggle - should the traditional narratives of revolution be done away with? Not sure what the answer is - justifying change within the system is a very dangerous road to start wandering down...
Jan 8 2005 14:28
#27
Quote:
yes but we are left with the ontological question of what subjects created these structures, i mean if the subjects are only a reflection of the structure then what created the structures? were they always they there? surely the existance of idelogical structures such as the church, school etc are the products of interested subjects?
Interesting question - ideological subjects articulate the structure, therefore who created the structure?
Althusser's response is based on the idea that ideology is an eternal - there has been ideology as long as there have been human beings living in communities, and when you have human beings living in a community and trying to survive, you have an economic situation. So as far as Althusser is concerned, Neanderthals were ideological subjects, acting out the determinations of their economic environment, and creating ISA's (cave painting, religion, hierachy, family...).
Whether this is a satisfcatory answer or not is up to you. Personally, I think the idea of ideology as an eternal condition is an essential component of any critique of society - but I think reducing everything to structural determination to be very silly. Structuralism was essentially proved wrong by May 68.
Jan 8 2005 20:17
#28
Brighton Bomber wrote:
See RKN, i told you so... :)
Lol 
Revol - Dont worry he wasnt talking about you! Btw did you try and mvoe this talk to http://www.enrager.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3596 ?
Jan 17 2005 18:51
#29
On the subject of detourenment, what exactly do you see as its role (bad choice of word) in the subversion of the existing order. The sits talked of detourning everything from books, art works to architecture, now all of these are fairly impractical, time consuming and spurious in terms of revolutionary content, in the current situation surely detournment constitutes only a means of catalyst as opposed to an end of sorts. The obvious forms of detournement in relation to an assault on the existing order are acts such as detourning billboards, corporate publications, graffiti, can detournment be anything other than a form of propaganda and what forms do you think it should take?
Jan 18 2005 15:51
#30
Vaneigemappreciationclub wrote:
On the subject of detourenment, what exactly do you see as its role (bad choice of word) in the subversion of the existing order. The sits talked of detourning everything from books, art works to architecture, now all of these are fairly impractical, time consuming and spurious in terms of revolutionary content, in the current situation surely detournment constitutes only a means of catalyst as opposed to an end of sorts. The obvious forms of detournement in relation to an assault on the existing order are acts such as detourning billboards, corporate publications, graffiti, can detournment be anything other than a form of propaganda and what forms do you think it should take?
It should take the form of EVERYTHING! Detournement is, I think, the key. I'm arrogant and lazy, so I'm going to cut and paste a chunk from something I wrote recently. Not sure if it makes much sense taken out of context:
Detournement of Self and World
“We are partisans of a certain future of culture and of life. Situationist activity is a particular craft that we are not yet practicing. Thus the signature of the situationist movement, the sign of its presence and contestation in contemporary cultural reality (since we cannot represent any common style whatsoever), is first of all the use of détournement.”(from 'detournenment as negation and prelude')
The claim being made in this quotation is that the true marker of the SI's presence was the practice of detournement – the emergence of new forms from the old. Detournement, according to the Situationists, had a 'historical significance'. Detournement, the creation of new forms from pre-existing material, operates often as parody and provocation: it is a practice that “clash[es] head-on against all social and legal conventions." But within the spectacle, all social expression and articulation is a parody and a representation of an absent original. Therefore detournement is on the one hand the practice of a historically aware avant garde, accurately dealing with its time, and on the other the rejection of the false in favour of the new. It is the generation of a new meaning from a meaningless original.
"...the accumulation of detourned elements, far from aiming to arouse indignation or laughter by alluding to some original work, will express our indifference toward a meaningless and forgotten original, and concern itself with rendering a certain sublimity."
So, detournement can be seen as genuine expression developing from its base in spectacular representation. The false does not obscure or deny the real – it enables its generation. The subversion and re-working of existing social elements into “ ...other ensembles express[es] the search for a vaster construction, a new genre of creation at a higher level.” If we look at this in the context of the claims already made as to the generation of authentic consciousness within the spectator...,"
[Thats not going to make any sense. This is taken from a long essay I wrote on the possibilities of generating anti-spectacular consciousness from the spectacular consciousness and capabilities of the spectator. basically, I used bits of Althusser's ideas about the emergence of science from ideology and inserted them into Debord's idea of the subject as a generative process(the human subject as a process that creates both itself and its world through the creation and experience of situations). I doubt that makes any sense either...basically, the individual looking at his/her subjective experience and considering their disaffection and boredom throughout the different spheres of their experience. Doing this allows the insertion of nerw material into the spectacle's language]
"...of the generation of science from ideological theoretical practice, we can note that the generation of authentic, anti-spectacular consciousness is itself a process of detournement. It is the subversion of spectacular identity, and the insertion of an epistemological spanner into the mechanics of the spectacle's language. By generating new material, new and contradictory elements are added to the spectacle. This is the interpolation of interpellation. Debord tells us that the spectacle is “...the source of the only discourse...that society allows itself to hear,” and that it is an “..endless monologue of self-praise.” By inserting new material into this monologue this discourse becomes a discussion.
The spectacle's language might be usefully thought of as a limited, fixed system of discourse. The meaning of every single element within it is fixed and limited, derived solely from its differential relation to the other elements. Conseqently, the structure of the language – the structure of the spectacle – determines what can and cannot be 'said'. But through inserting new meanings into the spectacle, through contesting these significations, the strict determinations on action are lifted. The monologue becomes a discussion, but rather than being a dicussion between two opposing voices (which would be the perpetuation of spectacle, unity and division of appearance), we have on the one hand the spectacle's incessant drone, and on the other the shifting, evolving, playing interaction of the spectacle's opposition. Meaning is no longer fixed, and it is through the detournement and play of fixed meanings that we might speak the spectacle's language without fear of recuperation.
Comprehension of the situation acquires a qualitative difference, and this allows the creation of a qualitatively different self – meaning the possible construction of a qualitatively different world. As a result, the human subject is able to step outside of the spectacle's closed circle. If modern capitalism's most heinous crime is the construction of a subject that loves it, and if the theory of the spectacle's most important contribution is the theorisation of a subject that has become indistinguishable from it, I hope that we have here hinted at a possible means of theorising its possible supersession. By taking the spectacle's images as questions rather than as answers, the subject – now able to operate from the basis of generated, rather than recieved knowledges – is able to question, analyse and theorise the spectacle.
So, from this basis we might now look back to Vaneigem's calls for the interception of mediation. As we now have the original spark of consciousness that proved to be a problem earlier, we can return to the earlier presentation: that the location of a subject within a social structure both limits and enables the possible action of the subject. So whilst the detournement of the self enables the capacity of the subject to act autonomously, in contravention of spectacular dictates, the detournement of the spectacle is itself enabled by the very forces that deny it. The spectacle, therefore, holds within itself the seeds of its own dialectical negation.
Replying to the question about Dada -
Dada was an international art movement that originated in Zurich around the time of the first world war. Artists and writers, horrified that the 'bourgeois' norms and attitudes of modern life had resulted in what was essentially the systematic genocide of an entire generation, reacted by expressing a distaste for this 'rationality'. Consequently, dada was characterised by the importance of the new, the shocking, the subconscious, the provocative and the irrational.
As a result, much Dada stuff took the form of provocation. In Zurich they had a venue called the Cabaret Voltaire, at which they orgainised performances - including recitations of phonetic poetry (in which sound becomes more important than rational meaning), strange pieces of theatre and music, all of which was designed to antagonise and challenge the audience (even to the point of placing itching powder on the seats).
Prominent figures in or associated with the group included Tristan Tzara, Hugo Ball, Man Ray, an incredibly talented and enigmatic character called Marcel Duchamp (who went on to become perhaps the most significant artist of the century), a young Max Ernst...and many others. The group's principal theorist was Tzara, although admittedly I've read very little of his work.
From an art perspective, Dada evolved shortly after cubism, futurism, fauvism and primitivism, and so incorporated elements of (or reactions to to all of these movements. It should also be remembered that Freud was big news at this point, and this explains the significance of the subconscious. This aspect of Dada evolved into Surrealism, and both the Dadaists and the Surrealists employed automatic drawing and writing (like words assosiation in the form of drawing and writing - drawing spontaneously without thinking about one wants to draw).
However, considering the nature of this forum, you are probably primarily interested in the political aspect of the movement. Personally, I find the political aspect of the Zurich group more interesting, as it was a far more general philosophy of destroying and transcending bourgeois conceptions of 'norms' and 'common sense' - and this feeds into the Situationists later revolt against the spectacle.
But in terms of the more political aspects of the movement, the Berlin group are the most obvious. They also feature the most accessible artwork - the work of John Heartfield (born Johan Herzefelde, having changed his name in protest against the Nazis) still appears on record sleeves to this day, and these remain extremely powerful images. Also worth mention is George Grosz, whose paintings and drawings conveyed a real sense of disgust towards society. Hanah Hoch produced some very interesting collage work (ahead of its time, anticipating later male artists who would recieve greater praise for essentially the same stuff), and Otto Dix's portraits, whilst not especially Dadaist in theme or content, are worth looking at in their own right. A quick google search with these names should turn up plenty worth looking at and enjoying.
The Berlin group were all very much associated with the communist party, and were on occasion in trouble with the law - to the extent that they would carry gummed strips of paper, displaying slogans such as "long live Dada!" to be pasted in police cells. Either Grosz or Heartfiled (I forget which) made a self portrait or a tribute to the other (I forget which) of them cutting the head off the local police chief, celebrating the insurrectionary capacity of collage and subversion. They were also very much influenced by the October revolution, its suppression and the events in Germany immediately after the war, information on which can all be found through quick google searches.
Also worth noting is the importance of uniting art and life. This is derived very much from the Marxist tradition, in which the unity of theory and practice is of paramount importance (deriving from the nature of the Hegelian dialectic that Marxist historical materialism is based on). This is a theme that crops up throughout each significant avant garde, throughout the twentieth century. This was a theme that was picked up on by the Surrealists, in relation to their program of fusing the subconscious, dersire, the imaginative and the incredible fused with the mundanity of everyday life. Like the Zurich Dada group, this (almost) nihilistic rejection of modern life in favour of a purely utopian future-as-festival seems to me far more interesting and revolutionary than membership of the communist party. But this desire for 'change' should not be overstated (although it should not be ignored) - the surrealists were no revolutionary group, but were carreer artsists with challenging ideas.
But for truly challenging ideas, and their contemporary relevance, you should look at how the Situationists (my own particular area of interest) developed these themes into an explicitly revbolutionary stance, comprising action, culture and critical theory. But thats a subject in it own right.
I hope this has been useful - I've typed this all out as a spiel, without any structure or planning. If you would like me to clarify anything, or if you have more specific questions, please let me know.