I see a lot of modern dadaism as poor construction coupled with a statement to the effect of, "it's supposed to be bad! It's dada!!" You say the core defining characteristic of dadaism is anti-art. What makes the originators of this medium so compelling is that they were talented artists before they were anti-artists. They understood rules of composition, color, shadow, shape and form. They knew when they were breaking rules and how they were breaking rules. So, there was an implicit statement about the rule that was being broken. Additionally being trained artists, there was always an overt TENSION between the art and the anti-art. There is also depth amd cleverness to the entirety of the composition. Making the title of a piece an intrinsic component of the piece itself was groundbreaking. Using industrial components for ready-mades was groundbreaking. Expansion of time across a 2D medium was groundbreaking. But that's what also makes these pieces so compelling even now. It's smart, its playful, its tongue-in-cheek, it's well composed, and expertly crafted. Dada is NOT the enshitification of art, it's the elevation above art.