This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
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)
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)