I realized the other day that there is such a thing as inverse Dadaism. Using the principled cringe of Dadaism for evil rather than good. Question is, am I against that? Probably, yes. But it makes sense, if you rebox it all and go two levels up to think about the nature of art.
Art is a language. Anybody can speak it or learn to. It's neither good nor bad. It reflects the speaker. But it never occurred to me that Dadaism, could be the same way. And it isn't. You would have to call it something else, but any philosophy can be deconstructed, even Dadaism.
It's like an ouroboros. Deconstruct the deconstruction to get a new deconstruction, deconstruct that to get back one level up and so on.
I think Dadaism is unique because deconstructing it, you don't necessarily get back to the thing you deconstructed. That's because you're taking apart literal nothingness. When you take nothing apart, you don't necessarily get something. You just get a different kind of nothing.
It's like tristan tzara mentioned in the Lecture on Dadaism, "we hadn't quite considered the implications of nothing."