A question you may get when comparing AI art to Dadaism: In what way are they related?
It's a fair question, and one that needs to be discussed. So let's talk about it. First and foremost, it's not an idle comparison.
Dadaism is anti-art. From the beginning it was designed, intentionally, to get a rise out of the art world. Dadaism stands diametrically opposed to the selective "morality" of the art world, and everything the art world holds dear.
This is not a coincidence or an accident.
Dadaism is also ancient, at least according to Tristan Tzara. It goes back to cave paintings. The moment there was an artist drawing scratchy images of glorious hunts, there was a Dadaist drawing the beautiful visage of pooping bison.
Richard Huelsenbeck, seemingly disagreed. At least superficially, saying that Dada is a response, the voice of our times. He then immediately went on to say that artists are myopic creatures, who are incapable of looking beyond their epoch.
So obviously, from the perspective of a modern day Dadaist, he was clearly talking about today, because we are artists, and incapable of going beyond the now. Such foresight.
Dadaism is the nature of art. The Ying and Yang of everything creative. It is the opposite of rules, guidelines, strict structures. It is the most extreme form of inclusion an artist can practice. As simply knowing these things is enough to make you a Dadaist, provided you have thoughts on art.
I'm sorry my friends, if you've read this far, it's already too late. You are infected. There's no known cure.
When offensive non-art becomes Dada
AI art became a member of the Dadaist family when it was declared by "the art community," to be offensive non-art.
Tzara's lecture on Dadaism makes this clear.
Dada expands like foam, into all spaces that are not yet considered art. If AI art is in fact offensive non-art, then it is definitionally, Dadaism. With all that entails.
And if that scares you... it should.