According to Tristan Tzar, “Dada” doesn’t mean anything–that is, there are several things it could mean but none of them are the one true intended meaning. It is, then, left up to the reader of his 1918 Dada Manifesto to extrapolate their own meaning from the word. It is in this vein that Kurt Schwitters’ 1922-32 work Ursonate was written: part poem, part sonata, the piece is an arrangement of nonsense syllables that create auditory and visual patterns. However, the lack of words in the piece leaves the audience to create their own meaning behind the work. Like many instrumental compositions, many audience members may listen to (or read) the exact same performance, and draw completely different meanings from the piece. Unlike instrumental music, though, the piece is not transcribed in a way that establishes a set rhythm, tempo, or tonality, thus leaving even more room for individual interpretation, which is exactly what Schwitters intended. Regarding the lack of specification, he commented, “As with any printed music, many interpretations are possible. As with any other reading, correct reading requires the use of imagination.”
A main philosophy of Dadaist art is the idea that art only has value if it is given value by the audience–in other words, a painting that is meaningful to one viewer could just be pigment on some fabric to another, and both would be right. According to this perspective, then, as a work that can be read, heard, and experienced in so many different ways, Ursonate is the perfect example of a Dadaist piece.