...and I don't mind if others have a differing opinion.
I have made a living as an "artist" (and musician) since 1976.
But I do not think that a lot of what I've done as that "job description" is actually art, in the sense of, art gallery/museum level art.
However, I would consider a lot of what I've done since 1976 "pop art," if nothing else - in the sense that it has been seen and "consumed" by, literally, millions of people, most of whom have no idea who I am or that I did whatever I did when they see the work in whatever context it's in, whether it be in a movie, on tv, or a garment they are wearing on their body.
I do occasionally show work in galleries (though not lately), but I'm not talking about gallery art here, it's more "commercial" art, for underground comix in the 70s, record/cd covers, tee shirts/denim and other garments, tv/movie costume graphics, backdrops for museum installations or stage shows, etc.
I also collect art, and sometimes sell it, and I have three requirements for purchasing art:
1) I can afford it
2) I like it, a lot
3) It has a reasonable chance of appreciating in value, or at least maintaining its value
And, to the question concerning dadaism, yes, I consider dada to be art, anti-art was just the way it was "sold."
If any of us were to come upon an original work of "dada art," by say, Duchamp, or Hans Arp, or Kurt Schwitters, to name a few, and it was possible to authenticate, it would be worth a considerable amount of money.
What any given individual on the outside of the "art world" thinks about a particular piece of art, or any given "art movement," is irrelevant to the "art world" and its proponents, sellers/collectors, museums, scholars and historians.
And, for the record, I saw one of the "Piss Christ" photographic prints in a gallery in Santa Monica, CA, about twenty years ago. It was magnificent!
Amazingly, there was nobody anywhere around trying to destroy the piece, or burn down the gallery, or even complaining about it.
= new reply since forum marked as read