probably i just don't get this, but why would anyone buy the fountain gag? not only do people pretty commonly call it "art" (who cares) but think it means something important in art history. what??? how else could anyone possibly say "get real", if not hand them a toilet as a snub.
the urinal is everybody's fav. mine too. but because it's so clearly NOT art. never was. duchamp was pulling folks leg if he ever said otherwise. it's as astonishing as bush getting re-elected, that so many people (as this blurb suggests) were gullable enough to honestly buy such an absurdly huge farce.
it's the biggest joke to the pretentious art world ever, but that doesn't make it "art" itself. a snub on the arty types that take themselves so ridiculously serious, they would even hang a toilet in their gallery. the whole "ready-made" idea is such an obvious farce. it's like nobody noticed what the thing really was because of some label/buzz word. totally works on the phenomenon of intellectuals whose concepts representing life are obscuring real life. they won't even notice. duchamp was essentially saying "here's a toilet. not even a sculpture i made of one. but wanna take it seriously?" and people couched it in theoretical art speak.
anyone down-to-earth, in touch, not stuck in their philosophical dream world, would just say "are you kidding? i don't want your toilet. i'm not that stupid." it's just an insult. anyone who makes excuses for it as some kind of ART, is just sticking a "kick me" sign on their own butt and laughing. it's like the nerdy picked on kid, trying so hard to be liked, he actually forces a laugh, so he can laugh with the bullies picking on him. "huh huh huh. look guys. looky."
we could EITHER say "art" has no value/importance, folks stop collecting, investors and foundations close shop OR pretend chosen urinals have some enhanced value/importance. and since nobody wanted to close shop, they decided to pee on their glossy hard-wood floors and smile. it's too blatant to even be irony. the joke's over, and curators are still insisting "i know you are, but what am i?"
–
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PLASMA STUDII art non-profit stages * galleries * the web New York, USA
>> http://www.mteww.com/mtaaRR/news/twhid/ >> duchamp_s_fountain_most_influential.html > (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20041201/ > ap_on_fe_st/urinal_art) > > twhid (and rhizomers), what's your take? > > > probably i just don't get this, but why would anyone buy the fountain > gag? not only do people pretty commonly call it "art" (who cares) but > think it means something important in art history. what??? how else > could anyone possibly say "get real", if not hand them a toilet as a > snub. > > the urinal is everybody's fav. mine too. but because it's so clearly > NOT art. never was.
Duchamp definitely meant it as art. You really need to remember the context. Duchamp along with a few others was organizing a show of modern art in NYC. Probably the first. Their mission was to allow everything submitted into the show. Well, to be exceptional in a show where everything is accepted you need to be rejected and that's what he set out to do (and why it was submitted under the name R.Mutt).
> duchamp was pulling folks leg if he ever said otherwise. it's as > astonishing as bush getting re-elected, that so many people (as this > blurb suggests) were gullable enough to honestly buy such an absurdly > huge farce.
He was, but pulling a leg can be just as serious and relevant as anything else.
> it's the biggest joke to the pretentious art world ever, but that > doesn't make it "art" itself. a snub on the arty types that take > themselves so ridiculously serious, they would even hang a toilet in > their gallery. the whole "ready-made" idea is such an obvious farce. > it's like nobody noticed what the thing really was because of some > label/buzz word. totally works on the phenomenon of intellectuals > whose concepts representing life are obscuring real life. they won't > even notice. duchamp was essentially saying "here's a toilet. not > even a sculpture i made of one. but wanna take it seriously?" and > people couched it in theoretical art speak.
It took a long time for artists to understand Duchmamp and it seems that some still don't. It doesn't matter really what the physical manifestation behind the ideas of the Fountain is – it's the ideas that are important. The Fountain and Duchamp's other readymades destroyed form and laid the groundwork for conceptualism and it's many offspring. Duchamp is THE watershed artist of the 20th century, not Picasso, not Matisse.
Why? Picasso and Matisse, tho very ingenious at creating new ways to make pictures, didn't really abandon the old ideas of picture plane, composition, color: the formal elements of art (this thread in art was carried on from Miro thru to the Ab-Ex painters and 'dying' with minimalists). The great early and mid century painters and sculptures just took those ideas and created new ways to make pictures with them. Duchamp rethought the entire nature of art and with the readymade freed it from physical form.
No matter your opinion of conceptualism, you can't say it hasn't had the largest impact on art of any other art movement or theory in the last part of the century. It's hardly arguable that Duchamp and his readymades are the grandfathers of conceptualism. So it's not irrational to claim his most iconic work as the most influential art work in the 20th century.
> > anyone down-to-earth, in touch, not stuck in their philosophical dream > world, would just say "are you kidding?
that's what they said at first.
> i don't want your toilet.
absolutely, it was rejected from the exhibition.
> i'm not that stupid." it's just an insult.
The original organizers took it that way, that's why it was rejected. Why can't an insult be great art?
He was quoted as saying, 'I throw a urinal in their face and they call it art.'
> anyone who makes excuses for it as some kind of ART, is just sticking > a "kick me" sign on their own butt and laughing. it's like the nerdy > picked on kid, trying so hard to be liked, he actually forces a laugh, > so he can laugh with the bullies picking on him. "huh huh huh. look > guys. looky." > > we could EITHER say "art" has no value/importance, folks stop > collecting, investors and foundations close shop OR pretend chosen > urinals have some enhanced value/importance. and since nobody wanted > to close shop, they decided to pee on their glossy hard-wood floors > and smile.
That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. For folks to close up shop they would need to say 'art has no value,' so instead they choose to value the Fountain… why didn't they just reject the Fountain as bad art and go merrily along selling their Picassos?
Because it couldn't be rejected. It's ideas, it's criticism of the art establishment, and it's role in shaping how people view art couldn't be denied.
The simple fact that an artist could create a situation that almost 90 years later still causes argument after argument is a testament to it's genius IMO.
I agree with t.whid and the "500 arts figures". The Fountain is the MOST INFLUENTIAL work of the 20th century. It INFLUENCED and effected all art subsequently. It is not the best crafted, or best executed, not even the most clever, but indeed the MOST INFLUENTIAL!
cheers! AE04 atomicelroy.com
t.whid wrote:
> > On Dec 1, 2004, at 5:20 PM, Plasma Studii wrote: > > >> http://www.mteww.com/mtaaRR/news/twhid/ > >> duchamp_s_fountain_most_influential.html > > (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20041201/ > > ap_on_fe_st/urinal_art) > > > > twhid (and rhizomers), what's your take? > > > > > > probably i just don't get this, but why would anyone buy the > fountain > > gag? not only do people pretty commonly call it "art" (who cares) > but > > think it means something important in art history. what??? how > else > > could anyone possibly say "get real", if not hand them a toilet as a > > > snub. > > > > the urinal is everybody's fav. mine too. but because it's so > clearly > > NOT art. never was. > > Duchamp definitely meant it as art. You really need to remember the > context. Duchamp along with a few others was organizing a show of > modern art in NYC. Probably the first. Their mission was to allow > everything submitted into the show. Well, to be exceptional in a show > > where everything is accepted you need to be rejected and that's what > he > set out to do (and why it was submitted under the name R.Mutt). > > > > duchamp was pulling folks leg if he ever said otherwise. it's as > > astonishing as bush getting re-elected, that so many people (as this > > > blurb suggests) were gullable enough to honestly buy such an > absurdly > > huge farce. > > He was, but pulling a leg can be just as serious and relevant as > anything else. > > > it's the biggest joke to the pretentious art world ever, but that > > doesn't make it "art" itself. a snub on the arty types that take > > themselves so ridiculously serious, they would even hang a toilet in > > > their gallery. the whole "ready-made" idea is such an obvious > farce. > > it's like nobody noticed what the thing really was because of some > > label/buzz word. totally works on the phenomenon of intellectuals > > > whose concepts representing life are obscuring real life. they > won't > > even notice. duchamp was essentially saying "here's a toilet. not > > > even a sculpture i made of one. but wanna take it seriously?" and > > people couched it in theoretical art speak. > > It took a long time for artists to understand Duchmamp and it seems > that some still don't. It doesn't matter really what the physical > manifestation behind the ideas of the Fountain is – it's the ideas > that are important. The Fountain and Duchamp's other readymades > destroyed form and laid the groundwork for conceptualism and it's many > > offspring. Duchamp is THE watershed artist of the 20th century, not > Picasso, not Matisse. > > Why? Picasso and Matisse, tho very ingenious at creating new ways to > make pictures, didn't really abandon the old ideas of picture plane, > composition, color: the formal elements of art (this thread in art was > > carried on from Miro thru to the Ab-Ex painters and 'dying' with > minimalists). The great early and mid century painters and sculptures > > just took those ideas and created new ways to make pictures with them. > > Duchamp rethought the entire nature of art and with the readymade > freed > it from physical form. > > No matter your opinion of conceptualism, you can't say it hasn't had > the largest impact on art of any other art movement or theory in the > last part of the century. It's hardly arguable that Duchamp and his > readymades are the grandfathers of conceptualism. So it's not > irrational to claim his most iconic work as the most influential art > work in the 20th century. > > > > > anyone down-to-earth, in touch, not stuck in their philosophical > dream > > world, would just say "are you kidding? > > that's what they said at first. > > > i don't want your toilet. > > absolutely, it was rejected from the exhibition. > > > i'm not that stupid." it's just an insult. > > The original organizers took it that way, that's why it was rejected. > > Why can't an insult be great art? > > He was quoted as saying, 'I throw a urinal in their face and they call > > it art.' > > > anyone who makes excuses for it as some kind of ART, is just > sticking > > a "kick me" sign on their own butt and laughing. it's like the > nerdy > > picked on kid, trying so hard to be liked, he actually forces a > laugh, > > so he can laugh with the bullies picking on him. "huh huh huh. > look > > guys. looky." > > > > we could EITHER say "art" has no value/importance, folks stop > > collecting, investors and foundations close shop OR pretend chosen > > urinals have some enhanced value/importance. and since nobody > wanted > > to close shop, they decided to pee on their glossy hard-wood floors > > > and smile. > > That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. For folks to close up shop > > they would need to say 'art has no value,' so instead they choose to > value the Fountain… why didn't they just reject the Fountain as bad > > art and go merrily along selling their Picassos? > > Because it couldn't be rejected. It's ideas, it's criticism of the art > > establishment, and it's role in shaping how people view art couldn't > be > denied. > > The simple fact that an artist could create a situation that almost 90 > > years later still causes argument after argument is a testament to > it's > genius IMO. > > > === > <twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid> > === > >
> That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. For folks to close up shop > they would need to say 'art has no value,' so instead they choose to > value the Fountain… why didn't they just reject the Fountain as bad > art and go merrily along selling their Picassos? > > Because it couldn't be rejected. It's ideas, it's criticism of the art > establishment, and it's role in shaping how people view art couldn't > be denied.
The great thing is that there are replicas! somewhere a conservator is trying to preserve the ideas in porcelain… But i think they did go on merrily selling Picassos. They just added a new style of object to the auction. Duchamp's Rrose Selavy "performance" and quasi-critiques of vision and science are much more significant contributions imo.
probably should have written more, but had tickets, had to run. i had talked about an either/or thing, either no art or peeing in galleries. on a positive note, there is a nice third alternative that doesn't involve either giving up the institutions or integrity. what if the art market took an about face and started re-valuing things for their tangible qualities, rather than theoretical ones. taste being entirely subjective, at least most of us can appreciate why something would be appreciable, when it has some substantive quality about it.
too often, contemporary work (wether" good" or "bad") has mainly theoretical qualities, and pretty much ignores physical properties. in extreme cases, it may be clever, but wasn't intended to be pretty. so only a select sliver of the population could actually see why it would be displayed/have some price.
it's an anti-post-post-modern proposition, but screw post-post modernism, it's annoying. one can contend that some DJ is a great artist, but to say that they are a better musicians than coltrane is simply re-defining the term to suit one's point. same with making art objects. duchamp didn't make the urinal, no creativity in assembling the ingredients of an object was involved. so there is no excuse to call it art. it's just a clever joke.
>Duchamp definitely meant it as art. You really need to remember the >context. Duchamp along with a few others was organizing a show of >modern art in NYC. Probably the first. Their mission was to allow >everything submitted into the show. Well, to be exceptional in a >show where everything is accepted you need to be rejected and that's >what he set out to do (and why it was submitted under the name >R.Mutt).
which was kinda what i was talking about, but these are particulars, that are pretty beside the point. no matter what he gave em (and i still contend he was trying to give em something that they COULDN'T call art), they took it.
>>duchamp was pulling folks leg if he ever said otherwise. it's as >>astonishing as bush getting re-elected, that so many people (as >>this blurb suggests) were gullable enough to honestly buy such an >>absurdly huge farce. > >He was, but pulling a leg can be just as serious and relevant as >anything else.
you've seen scams in new york. the scammer looks sincere and seriously gives the sucker a big line. the sucker buys the line if it's relevant to them. they suspend their incredulous-ness, because the story resonates. but taking the duchamps word or even the folks he hustled, would be pointless. look at the work itself. it's a urinal.
>>it's the biggest joke to the pretentious art world ever, but that >>doesn't make it "art" itself. a snub on the arty types that take >>themselves so ridiculously serious, they would even hang a toilet >>in their gallery. the whole "ready-made" idea is such an obvious >>farce. it's like nobody noticed what the thing really was because >>of some label/buzz word. totally works on the phenomenon of >>intellectuals whose concepts representing life are obscuring real >>life. they won't even notice. duchamp was essentially saying >>"here's a toilet. not even a sculpture i made of one. but wanna >>take it seriously?" and people couched it in theoretical art speak. > >It took a long time for artists to understand Duchmamp and it seems >that some still don't. It doesn't matter really what the physical >manifestation behind the ideas of the Fountain is – it's the ideas >that are important. The Fountain and Duchamp's other readymades >destroyed form and laid the groundwork for conceptualism and it's >many offspring.
which seems exactly why not to take it seriously. it's a ludicrously way out of the way detour in art history. conceptually dominant work is just of dubious value at best. skill is not objective, but is far easier for anyone to assess the value. hence, no conned aficionados coveting toilets and nobody wondering if those aficionados should be locked up, rather than given millions to buy things like toilets. maybe they understood at first, but have now lost it?
>Why? Picasso and Matisse, tho very ingenious at creating new ways to >make pictures, didn't really abandon the old ideas of picture plane, >composition, color: the formal elements of art (this thread in art >was carried on from Miro thru to the Ab-Ex painters and 'dying' with >minimalists). The great early and mid century painters and >sculptures just took those ideas and created new ways to make >pictures with them. Duchamp rethought the entire nature of art and >with the readymade freed it from physical form.
agree.
>No matter your opinion of conceptualism, you can't say it hasn't had >the largest impact on art of any other art movement or theory in the >last part of the century. It's hardly arguable that Duchamp and his >readymades are the grandfathers of conceptualism. So it's not >irrational to claim his most iconic work as the most influential art >work in the 20th century.
definitely. but that's the part that has me the most frustrated. a large impact doesn't imply either for better or worse. and clearly, i agree, duchamp had a large impact. but why on earth did (and still do) anyone even take him seriously for a split second? why wasn't the whole thing dropped from history or an amusing footnote?
>The original organizers took it that way, that's why it was >rejected. Why can't an insult be great art?
because for art to be a mental exercise it can have it's own word. it wouldn't need funding or displaying. there could just be lists of people's clever ideas published. reading about them is usually far far more interesting than seeing them anyway. the "artist" can bring up all their conceptual points.
Maybe art was just usurped. maybe there was art that had skill and aesthetic qualities, that didn't require a thought. But conceptualists took over those institutions and the minds of the new generation of art students. eventually, we are born into a world where art no longer refers to art but actually this conceptualist thing. the conceptualist use the word "art" to both refer to pre-picasso and post-duchamp, switching between the two meanings without even noticing.
art was an expression of creativity that integrated a craft/skill with an aesthetic. but that is no longer the vogue. art is now something else entirely. what's odd is that few galleries can really afford to display toilets. they have to bring in the audience or lose funding/revenue. so they have a hybrid version that projects conceptualism onto rembrandts and show contempt for works' physical qualities. you've certainly written proposals for grants, etc. what would these essays have anything to do with whether rembrandt made worthwhile stuff?
>> anyone who makes excuses for it as some kind of ART, is just >>sticking a "kick me" sign on their own butt and laughing. it's >>like the nerdy picked on kid, trying so hard to be liked, he >>actually forces a laugh, so he can laugh with the bullies picking >>on him. "huh huh huh. look guys. looky." >> >>we could EITHER say "art" has no value/importance, folks stop >>collecting, investors and foundations close shop OR pretend chosen >>urinals have some enhanced value/importance. and since nobody >>wanted to close shop, they decided to pee on their glossy hard-wood >>floors and smile. > >That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. For folks to close up >shop they would need to say 'art has no value,' so instead they >choose to value the Fountain… why didn't they just reject the >Fountain as bad art and go merrily along selling their Picassos?
yeah, that's what i meant. see the top.
>Because it couldn't be rejected. It's ideas, it's criticism of the >art establishment, and it's role in shaping how people view art >couldn't be denied. > >The simple fact that an artist could create a situation that almost >90 years later still causes argument after argument is a testament >to it's genius IMO.
i don't think anyone is arguing this point though, rather arguing why would there be an argument about it?
> duchamp didn't make the urinal, no creativity in > assembling the ingredients of an object was involved. so there is no > excuse to call it art. it's just a clever joke.
i was thinking about this discussion in relation to discussion on another list, a poetry list from britain. of course britain has a long and distinguished history concerning poetry, which i admire greatly. but it is not without difficulties for contemporary british writers. the weight of that history and achievement has tended, for most of the twentieth century and in our time, to make the culture perhaps too resistant to radical change in poetry. the brits are lively and innovative in many arts, but their poetry is weighted down by the strength of their past achievements. even if the writers themselves get out from under it, the culture is resistant to radical change in poetry.
part of what the acceptance of duchamp's work is about is an acceptance of radical change in visual art. and that is admirable. healthy. progressive.
similarly radical changes in poetry are greeted with different measures of acceptance in different cultures. brazil and argentina, for instance, tend to be strongly innovative and embrace radical change in the literary arts. britain not so. the usa and canada, well, middle ground.
Infantile fascination vs."Fountain",and no-grounded(wrong)explication about same show how easy "people"accept whatever is written.There's no self initiative,no research,only school fact .If we want to understand anything about Duchamp it's good to see circumstances,ambient,and finally process which could lied us to understand phenomena like "Ready-made".Cubism put surface on first plan,specially synthetic cubism with collage elements(newspapers,wood,tappets…).It was meter of day who is going to understand main consequences of that process.Duchamp was painter in that time.He made some pictures in*cubo-futurist* manner,but he was first who understood implications of surface+speed.He just let thing drop from canvas/surface,in his words:"Without any aesthetic valuation."He was slightly confused when he made first "reedy-made",because he,actually made composition/sculpture putting two thing together(chair&wheel)inspired probably with two potential of those things;chair=sitting,no mowed,and wheel=mowing."Roue de bicyclette",1913.was proto-ready-made-added!Next year(1914)Duchamp formalized his intuition clear in "Egouttoir".This is only,and one reedy-made ever made.Of curse it is monotheistic idea,but all other *ready-mades*where,actually reedy -mades-added."Fountain"was one of them(because signature,contextualization in NY.Dada exhibition…etc.),and it's far from "most important"of his work.People like kind of humor,ironic sexuality,it's more psychoanalysis art-Rorschach test than most important art piece in XXcentury.Four year latter he paint "Tu m' ",and there you can see that he was concise about many-sided nature of surface.If you want to be closer to Duchamps ideology,we recommended Phyro(Greek philosopher,360-270 before Jesus,one of Duchamps favorite).Also it's not so bad to see next essays: Robert Lebel;"Marcel Duchamp", 1962, Michel Sanouiillet:"Marcel Duchamp and French Intelectual Tradition",1973 Werner Hofmann:"Grundlagen der modernrn Kunst",1978 Edward Ball&Robert Knafo:"The R.Mutt Dossier",1988 Hans Richter:"Kunst und Antikunst",1964 Willis Domingo"Meaning in the Art of Duchamp" Jorg Traeger:"Duchamp,Malewitsch und die Tradition des Bildes",1972 Dolf Oehler:"Himsehen,Himlagen:Fur eine Dynamisierung der Theorie der Avantgarde,Dargestellt Marcel Duchamp Fountain",1976 Etc. MANIK
—– Original Message —– From: "t.whid" <[email protected]> To: "rhizome" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 11:55 PM Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: MTAA-RR news/twhid/duchamp_s_fountain_most_influential.html ]
> > On Dec 1, 2004, at 5:20 PM, Plasma Studii wrote: > > >> http://www.mteww.com/mtaaRR/news/twhid/ > >> duchamp_s_fountain_most_influential.html > > (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20041201/ > > ap_on_fe_st/urinal_art) > > > > twhid (and rhizomers), what's your take? > > > > > > probably i just don't get this, but why would anyone buy the fountain > > gag? not only do people pretty commonly call it "art" (who cares) but > > think it means something important in art history. what??? how else > > could anyone possibly say "get real", if not hand them a toilet as a > > snub. > > > > the urinal is everybody's fav. mine too. but because it's so clearly > > NOT art. never was. > > Duchamp definitely meant it as art. You really need to remember the > context. Duchamp along with a few others was organizing a show of > modern art in NYC. Probably the first. Their mission was to allow > everything submitted into the show. Well, to be exceptional in a show > where everything is accepted you need to be rejected and that's what he > set out to do (and why it was submitted under the name R.Mutt). > > > > duchamp was pulling folks leg if he ever said otherwise. it's as > > astonishing as bush getting re-elected, that so many people (as this > > blurb suggests) were gullable enough to honestly buy such an absurdly > > huge farce. > > He was, but pulling a leg can be just as serious and relevant as > anything else. > > > it's the biggest joke to the pretentious art world ever, but that > > doesn't make it "art" itself. a snub on the arty types that take > > themselves so ridiculously serious, they would even hang a toilet in > > their gallery. the whole "ready-made" idea is such an obvious farce. > > it's like nobody noticed what the thing really was because of some > > label/buzz word. totally works on the phenomenon of intellectuals > > whose concepts representing life are obscuring real life. they won't > > even notice. duchamp was essentially saying "here's a toilet. not > > even a sculpture i made of one. but wanna take it seriously?" and > > people couched it in theoretical art speak. > > It took a long time for artists to understand Duchmamp and it seems > that some still don't. It doesn't matter really what the physical > manifestation behind the ideas of the Fountain is – it's the ideas > that are important. The Fountain and Duchamp's other readymades > destroyed form and laid the groundwork for conceptualism and it's many > offspring. Duchamp is THE watershed artist of the 20th century, not > Picasso, not Matisse. > > Why? Picasso and Matisse, tho very ingenious at creating new ways to > make pictures, didn't really abandon the old ideas of picture plane, > composition, color: the formal elements of art (this thread in art was > carried on from Miro thru to the Ab-Ex painters and 'dying' with > minimalists). The great early and mid century painters and sculptures > just took those ideas and created new ways to make pictures with them. > Duchamp rethought the entire nature of art and with the readymade freed > it from physical form. > > No matter your opinion of conceptualism, you can't say it hasn't had > the largest impact on art of any other art movement or theory in the > last part of the century. It's hardly arguable that Duchamp and his > readymades are the grandfathers of conceptualism. So it's not > irrational to claim his most iconic work as the most influential art > work in the 20th century. > > > > > anyone down-to-earth, in touch, not stuck in their philosophical dream > > world, would just say "are you kidding? > > that's what they said at first. > > > i don't want your toilet. > > absolutely, it was rejected from the exhibition. > > > i'm not that stupid." it's just an insult. > > The original organizers took it that way, that's why it was rejected. > Why can't an insult be great art? > > He was quoted as saying, 'I throw a urinal in their face and they call > it art.' > > > anyone who makes excuses for it as some kind of ART, is just sticking > > a "kick me" sign on their own butt and laughing. it's like the nerdy > > picked on kid, trying so hard to be liked, he actually forces a laugh, > > so he can laugh with the bullies picking on him. "huh huh huh. look > > guys. looky." > > > > we could EITHER say "art" has no value/importance, folks stop > > collecting, investors and foundations close shop OR pretend chosen > > urinals have some enhanced value/importance. and since nobody wanted > > to close shop, they decided to pee on their glossy hard-wood floors > > and smile. > > That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. For folks to close up shop > they would need to say 'art has no value,' so instead they choose to > value the Fountain… why didn't they just reject the Fountain as bad > art and go merrily along selling their Picassos? > > Because it couldn't be rejected. It's ideas, it's criticism of the art > establishment, and it's role in shaping how people view art couldn't be > denied. > > The simple fact that an artist could create a situation that almost 90 > years later still causes argument after argument is a testament to it's > genius IMO. > > > === > <twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid> > === > > > + > -> post: [email protected] > -> questions: [email protected] > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members > + > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php >
>> He was quoted as saying, 'I throw a urinal in their face and they call >> it art.'
Yes. There's not really any way around that one that doesn't involve ventriloquism.
Manik's point about assisted readymades vs. readymades is pertinent as well. I think Duchamp needs to ask for a paternity test to be performed on modern art, especially neoconceptualism.
I'm not sure what 2,3,4 and 5 are but I'd take out #10 and put in Cindy Sherman's Untitled Film Stills. (and then add jodi.org as #11)…but that's just my art taste. Make your own list of parents.
> I'd take out Henry Moore at #10 and put in "defenestration". > > Merriam-Webster's Words of the Year 2004 > > 1. blog > 2. incumbent > 3. electoral > 4. insurgent > 5. hurricane > 6. cicada > 7. peloton > 8. partisan > 9. sovereignty > 10. defenestration >
jim andrews: >part of what the acceptance of duchamp's work is about is an acceptance of >radical change in visual art. and that is admirable. healthy. progressive.
i agree, jim, but this seems subtly a different point. change is fine, even radical change, non-sense shifts and surprise directions. but this happened long before we were born. this has been the status quou for years now. though the US also has a rich history, like writing in Britain, as you said. but assuming you are under 50, for most of our art experience, we rarely actually see old-style art accept treated as a historical artifact.
if there was any reason to say "hey, why not x as art!" alone, that would be fine. i don't mean to harp on conceptualism here. it's the urinal thing that has me baffled..
it's one thing that the word "nigger" was an insult that has since been turned around. friends call their black friends nigger and everyone's fine with it. if you tried using the word as an insult today in ny, everyone would think you must be a nut case. same with "fag" and so many old derogatory words turned positive. and that's a cool shift.
but the question: are you so disconnected from planet earth that you'd think of a reason to covet a urinal? is not name calling. the event may have been a major milestone in the most radical change in hundreds of years, but hardly the first. painting on grecian vases, how they thought of it then versus how we do now, seems like a much more important shift, albeit more gradual and far less familiar. it may have been re-thought 100 times before history books arrived at a positive interpretation. but now it's an old standard. the original blurb posted attests to the fact that most agree on the urinals significance in art history.
we can laugh at it, then move on to more constructive tasks, rather than continue to wallow in what it (rather aptly) criticizes.
manik: >People like kind of humor,ironic >sexuality,it's more psychoanalysis art-Rorschach test than most important >art piece in XXcentury.
> i agree, jim, but this seems subtly a different point. change is > fine, even radical change, non-sense shifts and surprise directions. > but this happened long before we were born. this has been the status > quou for years now.
i like that. "the status quou".
> though the US also has a rich history, like > writing in Britain, as you said.
i didn't say that the US also has a rich history like writing in Britain, actually. English literature goes back at least to Chaucer in the fourteenth century (1300's). USAmerican literature goes back to Lawrence Sterne and his Tristam Shandy back in the eighteenth century (1700's). of course the two histories are intimately related (though separate), once USAmerican literature gets under way. and i admire both.
> but assuming you are under 50, for > most of our art experience, we rarely actually see old-style art > accept treated as a historical artifact.
Really? I think we even see stuff from the sixties or seventies or even eighties treated as historical artifact, never mind stuff from duchamp's time.
> if there was any reason to say "hey, why not x as art!" alone, that > would be fine. i don't mean to harp on conceptualism here. it's > the urinal thing that has me baffled.. > > > it's one thing that the word "nigger" was an insult that has since > been turned around. friends call their black friends nigger and > everyone's fine with it.
the word is still loaded regardless of who uses it, whether it's fired at someone or as a warning shot around the feet.
> if you tried using the word as an insult > today in ny, everyone would think you must be a nut case. same with > "fag" and so many old derogatory words turned positive. and that's a > cool shift.
reclaiming language does not result in the dissassembly of all the guns. it's more like the gun is used as a lamp, or something to spray cleaner fluid, or a swiffer handle etc., but some of them are still used as assault weapons. whether it fires bullets is a matter of what the intended victim sees in the gun: assault weapon or swiffer handle. but lots of people still try to use them as weapons, and lots of people still perceive them as weapons.
but what this has to do with marcel duchamp is beyond me.
> but the question: are you so disconnected from planet earth that > you'd think of a reason to covet a urinal? is not name calling. the > event may have been a major milestone in the most radical change in > hundreds of years,
i wouldn't go that far.
> but hardly the first. painting on grecian vases, > how they thought of it then versus how we do now, seems like a much > more important shift, albeit more gradual and far less familiar.
i have no idea.
> it > may have been re-thought 100 times before history books arrived at a > positive interpretation. but now it's an old standard. the original > blurb posted attests to the fact that most agree on the urinals > significance in art history. > > we can laugh at it, then move on to more constructive tasks, rather > than continue to wallow in what it (rather aptly) criticizes.
what it criticizes has not gone away, plasma. nor will it. art is dead and has been for a long time. now it's the unholy ghost. it's a ghost of what it was. it's the ghost in the machine. that we can't do without.
Comments
>http://www.mteww.com/mtaaRR/news/twhid/duchamp_s_fountain_most_influential.html
(http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20041201/ap_on_fe_st/urinal_art)
twhid (and rhizomers), what's your take?
probably i just don't get this, but why would anyone buy the fountain
gag? not only do people pretty commonly call it "art" (who cares)
but think it means something important in art history. what??? how
else could anyone possibly say "get real", if not hand them a toilet
as a snub.
the urinal is everybody's fav. mine too. but because it's so
clearly NOT art. never was. duchamp was pulling folks leg if he
ever said otherwise. it's as astonishing as bush getting re-elected,
that so many people (as this blurb suggests) were gullable enough to
honestly buy such an absurdly huge farce.
it's the biggest joke to the pretentious art world ever, but that
doesn't make it "art" itself. a snub on the arty types that take
themselves so ridiculously serious, they would even hang a toilet in
their gallery. the whole "ready-made" idea is such an obvious farce.
it's like nobody noticed what the thing really was because of some
label/buzz word. totally works on the phenomenon of intellectuals
whose concepts representing life are obscuring real life. they won't
even notice. duchamp was essentially saying "here's a toilet. not
even a sculpture i made of one. but wanna take it seriously?" and
people couched it in theoretical art speak.
anyone down-to-earth, in touch, not stuck in their philosophical
dream world, would just say "are you kidding? i don't want your
toilet. i'm not that stupid." it's just an insult. anyone who
makes excuses for it as some kind of ART, is just sticking a "kick
me" sign on their own butt and laughing. it's like the nerdy picked
on kid, trying so hard to be liked, he actually forces a laugh, so he
can laugh with the bullies picking on him. "huh huh huh. look
guys. looky."
we could EITHER say "art" has no value/importance, folks stop
collecting, investors and foundations close shop OR pretend chosen
urinals have some enhanced value/importance. and since nobody wanted
to close shop, they decided to pee on their glossy hard-wood floors
and smile. it's too blatant to even be irony. the joke's over, and
curators are still insisting "i know you are, but what am i?"
–
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PLASMA STUDII
art non-profit
stages * galleries * the web
New York, USA
(on-line press kit)
http://plasmastudii.org
On Dec 1, 2004, at 5:20 PM, Plasma Studii wrote:
>> http://www.mteww.com/mtaaRR/news/twhid/
>> duchamp_s_fountain_most_influential.html
> (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20041201/
> ap_on_fe_st/urinal_art)
>
> twhid (and rhizomers), what's your take?
>
>
> probably i just don't get this, but why would anyone buy the fountain
> gag? not only do people pretty commonly call it "art" (who cares) but
> think it means something important in art history. what??? how else
> could anyone possibly say "get real", if not hand them a toilet as a
> snub.
>
> the urinal is everybody's fav. mine too. but because it's so clearly
> NOT art. never was.
Duchamp definitely meant it as art. You really need to remember the
context. Duchamp along with a few others was organizing a show of
modern art in NYC. Probably the first. Their mission was to allow
everything submitted into the show. Well, to be exceptional in a show
where everything is accepted you need to be rejected and that's what he
set out to do (and why it was submitted under the name R.Mutt).
> duchamp was pulling folks leg if he ever said otherwise. it's as
> astonishing as bush getting re-elected, that so many people (as this
> blurb suggests) were gullable enough to honestly buy such an absurdly
> huge farce.
He was, but pulling a leg can be just as serious and relevant as
anything else.
> it's the biggest joke to the pretentious art world ever, but that
> doesn't make it "art" itself. a snub on the arty types that take
> themselves so ridiculously serious, they would even hang a toilet in
> their gallery. the whole "ready-made" idea is such an obvious farce.
> it's like nobody noticed what the thing really was because of some
> label/buzz word. totally works on the phenomenon of intellectuals
> whose concepts representing life are obscuring real life. they won't
> even notice. duchamp was essentially saying "here's a toilet. not
> even a sculpture i made of one. but wanna take it seriously?" and
> people couched it in theoretical art speak.
It took a long time for artists to understand Duchmamp and it seems
that some still don't. It doesn't matter really what the physical
manifestation behind the ideas of the Fountain is – it's the ideas
that are important. The Fountain and Duchamp's other readymades
destroyed form and laid the groundwork for conceptualism and it's many
offspring. Duchamp is THE watershed artist of the 20th century, not
Picasso, not Matisse.
Why? Picasso and Matisse, tho very ingenious at creating new ways to
make pictures, didn't really abandon the old ideas of picture plane,
composition, color: the formal elements of art (this thread in art was
carried on from Miro thru to the Ab-Ex painters and 'dying' with
minimalists). The great early and mid century painters and sculptures
just took those ideas and created new ways to make pictures with them.
Duchamp rethought the entire nature of art and with the readymade freed
it from physical form.
No matter your opinion of conceptualism, you can't say it hasn't had
the largest impact on art of any other art movement or theory in the
last part of the century. It's hardly arguable that Duchamp and his
readymades are the grandfathers of conceptualism. So it's not
irrational to claim his most iconic work as the most influential art
work in the 20th century.
>
> anyone down-to-earth, in touch, not stuck in their philosophical dream
> world, would just say "are you kidding?
that's what they said at first.
> i don't want your toilet.
absolutely, it was rejected from the exhibition.
> i'm not that stupid." it's just an insult.
The original organizers took it that way, that's why it was rejected.
Why can't an insult be great art?
He was quoted as saying, 'I throw a urinal in their face and they call
it art.'
> anyone who makes excuses for it as some kind of ART, is just sticking
> a "kick me" sign on their own butt and laughing. it's like the nerdy
> picked on kid, trying so hard to be liked, he actually forces a laugh,
> so he can laugh with the bullies picking on him. "huh huh huh. look
> guys. looky."
>
> we could EITHER say "art" has no value/importance, folks stop
> collecting, investors and foundations close shop OR pretend chosen
> urinals have some enhanced value/importance. and since nobody wanted
> to close shop, they decided to pee on their glossy hard-wood floors
> and smile.
That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. For folks to close up shop
they would need to say 'art has no value,' so instead they choose to
value the Fountain… why didn't they just reject the Fountain as bad
art and go merrily along selling their Picassos?
Because it couldn't be rejected. It's ideas, it's criticism of the art
establishment, and it's role in shaping how people view art couldn't be
denied.
The simple fact that an artist could create a situation that almost 90
years later still causes argument after argument is a testament to it's
genius IMO.
===
<twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
===
'nude descending a staircase (abe linkoln's 2004 mix)'
posted yesterday on screenfull.net:
http://www.screenfull.net/stadium/2004/12/nude-descending-staircase-abe-lin=
kolns.html
—– Original Message —–
From: t.whid
To: rhizome
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 12:31 PM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: MTAA-RR [ news/twhid/duchamp_s_fountain_most_influe=
ntial.html ]
http://www.mteww.com/mtaaRR/news/twhid/
duchamp_s_fountain_most_influential.html
===
<twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
===
+
-> post: [email protected]
-> questions: [email protected]
-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
-> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
+
Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
I agree with t.whid and the "500 arts figures". The Fountain is the MOST INFLUENTIAL work of the 20th century. It INFLUENCED and effected all art subsequently. It is not the best crafted, or best executed, not even the most clever, but indeed the MOST INFLUENTIAL!
cheers!
AE04
atomicelroy.com
t.whid wrote:
>
> On Dec 1, 2004, at 5:20 PM, Plasma Studii wrote:
>
> >> http://www.mteww.com/mtaaRR/news/twhid/
> >> duchamp_s_fountain_most_influential.html
> > (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20041201/
> > ap_on_fe_st/urinal_art)
> >
> > twhid (and rhizomers), what's your take?
> >
> >
> > probably i just don't get this, but why would anyone buy the
> fountain
> > gag? not only do people pretty commonly call it "art" (who cares)
> but
> > think it means something important in art history. what??? how
> else
> > could anyone possibly say "get real", if not hand them a toilet as a
>
> > snub.
> >
> > the urinal is everybody's fav. mine too. but because it's so
> clearly
> > NOT art. never was.
>
> Duchamp definitely meant it as art. You really need to remember the
> context. Duchamp along with a few others was organizing a show of
> modern art in NYC. Probably the first. Their mission was to allow
> everything submitted into the show. Well, to be exceptional in a show
>
> where everything is accepted you need to be rejected and that's what
> he
> set out to do (and why it was submitted under the name R.Mutt).
>
>
> > duchamp was pulling folks leg if he ever said otherwise. it's as
> > astonishing as bush getting re-elected, that so many people (as this
>
> > blurb suggests) were gullable enough to honestly buy such an
> absurdly
> > huge farce.
>
> He was, but pulling a leg can be just as serious and relevant as
> anything else.
>
> > it's the biggest joke to the pretentious art world ever, but that
> > doesn't make it "art" itself. a snub on the arty types that take
> > themselves so ridiculously serious, they would even hang a toilet in
>
> > their gallery. the whole "ready-made" idea is such an obvious
> farce.
> > it's like nobody noticed what the thing really was because of some
> > label/buzz word. totally works on the phenomenon of intellectuals
>
> > whose concepts representing life are obscuring real life. they
> won't
> > even notice. duchamp was essentially saying "here's a toilet. not
>
> > even a sculpture i made of one. but wanna take it seriously?" and
> > people couched it in theoretical art speak.
>
> It took a long time for artists to understand Duchmamp and it seems
> that some still don't. It doesn't matter really what the physical
> manifestation behind the ideas of the Fountain is – it's the ideas
> that are important. The Fountain and Duchamp's other readymades
> destroyed form and laid the groundwork for conceptualism and it's many
>
> offspring. Duchamp is THE watershed artist of the 20th century, not
> Picasso, not Matisse.
>
> Why? Picasso and Matisse, tho very ingenious at creating new ways to
> make pictures, didn't really abandon the old ideas of picture plane,
> composition, color: the formal elements of art (this thread in art was
>
> carried on from Miro thru to the Ab-Ex painters and 'dying' with
> minimalists). The great early and mid century painters and sculptures
>
> just took those ideas and created new ways to make pictures with them.
>
> Duchamp rethought the entire nature of art and with the readymade
> freed
> it from physical form.
>
> No matter your opinion of conceptualism, you can't say it hasn't had
> the largest impact on art of any other art movement or theory in the
> last part of the century. It's hardly arguable that Duchamp and his
> readymades are the grandfathers of conceptualism. So it's not
> irrational to claim his most iconic work as the most influential art
> work in the 20th century.
>
> >
> > anyone down-to-earth, in touch, not stuck in their philosophical
> dream
> > world, would just say "are you kidding?
>
> that's what they said at first.
>
> > i don't want your toilet.
>
> absolutely, it was rejected from the exhibition.
>
> > i'm not that stupid." it's just an insult.
>
> The original organizers took it that way, that's why it was rejected.
>
> Why can't an insult be great art?
>
> He was quoted as saying, 'I throw a urinal in their face and they call
>
> it art.'
>
> > anyone who makes excuses for it as some kind of ART, is just
> sticking
> > a "kick me" sign on their own butt and laughing. it's like the
> nerdy
> > picked on kid, trying so hard to be liked, he actually forces a
> laugh,
> > so he can laugh with the bullies picking on him. "huh huh huh.
> look
> > guys. looky."
> >
> > we could EITHER say "art" has no value/importance, folks stop
> > collecting, investors and foundations close shop OR pretend chosen
> > urinals have some enhanced value/importance. and since nobody
> wanted
> > to close shop, they decided to pee on their glossy hard-wood floors
>
> > and smile.
>
> That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. For folks to close up shop
>
> they would need to say 'art has no value,' so instead they choose to
> value the Fountain… why didn't they just reject the Fountain as bad
>
> art and go merrily along selling their Picassos?
>
> Because it couldn't be rejected. It's ideas, it's criticism of the art
>
> establishment, and it's role in shaping how people view art couldn't
> be
> denied.
>
> The simple fact that an artist could create a situation that almost 90
>
> years later still causes argument after argument is a testament to
> it's
> genius IMO.
>
>
> ===
> <twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
> ===
>
>
> That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. For folks to close up shop
> they would need to say 'art has no value,' so instead they choose to
> value the Fountain… why didn't they just reject the Fountain as bad
> art and go merrily along selling their Picassos?
>
> Because it couldn't be rejected. It's ideas, it's criticism of the art
> establishment, and it's role in shaping how people view art couldn't
> be denied.
The great thing is that there are replicas! somewhere a conservator is
trying to preserve the ideas in porcelain… But i think they did go on
merrily selling Picassos. They just added a new style of object to the
auction.
Duchamp's Rrose Selavy "performance" and quasi-critiques of vision and
science are much more significant contributions imo.
>>>http://www.mteww.com/mtaaRR/news/twhid/duchamp_s_fountain_most_influential.html
>>(http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20041201/ap_on_fe_st/urinal_art)
probably should have written more, but had tickets, had to run. i
had talked about an either/or thing, either no art or peeing in
galleries. on a positive note, there is a nice third alternative
that doesn't involve either giving up the institutions or integrity.
what if the art market took an about face and started re-valuing
things for their tangible qualities, rather than theoretical ones.
taste being entirely subjective, at least most of us can appreciate
why something would be appreciable, when it has some substantive
quality about it.
too often, contemporary work (wether" good" or "bad") has mainly
theoretical qualities, and pretty much ignores physical properties.
in extreme cases, it may be clever, but wasn't intended to be pretty.
so only a select sliver of the population could actually see why it
would be displayed/have some price.
it's an anti-post-post-modern proposition, but screw post-post
modernism, it's annoying. one can contend that some DJ is a great
artist, but to say that they are a better musicians than coltrane is
simply re-defining the term to suit one's point. same with making
art objects. duchamp didn't make the urinal, no creativity in
assembling the ingredients of an object was involved. so there is no
excuse to call it art. it's just a clever joke.
>Duchamp definitely meant it as art. You really need to remember the
>context. Duchamp along with a few others was organizing a show of
>modern art in NYC. Probably the first. Their mission was to allow
>everything submitted into the show. Well, to be exceptional in a
>show where everything is accepted you need to be rejected and that's
>what he set out to do (and why it was submitted under the name
>R.Mutt).
which was kinda what i was talking about, but these are particulars,
that are pretty beside the point. no matter what he gave em (and i
still contend he was trying to give em something that they COULDN'T
call art), they took it.
>>duchamp was pulling folks leg if he ever said otherwise. it's as
>>astonishing as bush getting re-elected, that so many people (as
>>this blurb suggests) were gullable enough to honestly buy such an
>>absurdly huge farce.
>
>He was, but pulling a leg can be just as serious and relevant as
>anything else.
you've seen scams in new york. the scammer looks sincere and
seriously gives the sucker a big line. the sucker buys the line if
it's relevant to them. they suspend their incredulous-ness, because
the story resonates. but taking the duchamps word or even the folks
he hustled, would be pointless. look at the work itself. it's a
urinal.
>>it's the biggest joke to the pretentious art world ever, but that
>>doesn't make it "art" itself. a snub on the arty types that take
>>themselves so ridiculously serious, they would even hang a toilet
>>in their gallery. the whole "ready-made" idea is such an obvious
>>farce. it's like nobody noticed what the thing really was because
>>of some label/buzz word. totally works on the phenomenon of
>>intellectuals whose concepts representing life are obscuring real
>>life. they won't even notice. duchamp was essentially saying
>>"here's a toilet. not even a sculpture i made of one. but wanna
>>take it seriously?" and people couched it in theoretical art speak.
>
>It took a long time for artists to understand Duchmamp and it seems
>that some still don't. It doesn't matter really what the physical
>manifestation behind the ideas of the Fountain is – it's the ideas
>that are important. The Fountain and Duchamp's other readymades
>destroyed form and laid the groundwork for conceptualism and it's
>many offspring.
which seems exactly why not to take it seriously. it's a ludicrously
way out of the way detour in art history. conceptually dominant work
is just of dubious value at best. skill is not objective, but is far
easier for anyone to assess the value. hence, no conned aficionados
coveting toilets and nobody wondering if those aficionados should be
locked up, rather than given millions to buy things like toilets.
maybe they understood at first, but have now lost it?
>Why? Picasso and Matisse, tho very ingenious at creating new ways to
>make pictures, didn't really abandon the old ideas of picture plane,
>composition, color: the formal elements of art (this thread in art
>was carried on from Miro thru to the Ab-Ex painters and 'dying' with
>minimalists). The great early and mid century painters and
>sculptures just took those ideas and created new ways to make
>pictures with them. Duchamp rethought the entire nature of art and
>with the readymade freed it from physical form.
agree.
>No matter your opinion of conceptualism, you can't say it hasn't had
>the largest impact on art of any other art movement or theory in the
>last part of the century. It's hardly arguable that Duchamp and his
>readymades are the grandfathers of conceptualism. So it's not
>irrational to claim his most iconic work as the most influential art
>work in the 20th century.
definitely. but that's the part that has me the most frustrated. a
large impact doesn't imply either for better or worse. and clearly,
i agree, duchamp had a large impact. but why on earth did (and still
do) anyone even take him seriously for a split second? why wasn't
the whole thing dropped from history or an amusing footnote?
>The original organizers took it that way, that's why it was
>rejected. Why can't an insult be great art?
because for art to be a mental exercise it can have it's own word.
it wouldn't need funding or displaying. there could just be lists of
people's clever ideas published. reading about them is usually far
far more interesting than seeing them anyway. the "artist" can bring
up all their conceptual points.
Maybe art was just usurped. maybe there was art that had skill and
aesthetic qualities, that didn't require a thought. But
conceptualists took over those institutions and the minds of the new
generation of art students. eventually, we are born into a world
where art no longer refers to art but actually this conceptualist
thing. the conceptualist use the word "art" to both refer to
pre-picasso and post-duchamp, switching between the two meanings
without even noticing.
art was an expression of creativity that integrated a craft/skill
with an aesthetic. but that is no longer the vogue. art is now
something else entirely. what's odd is that few galleries can really
afford to display toilets. they have to bring in the audience or
lose funding/revenue. so they have a hybrid version that projects
conceptualism onto rembrandts and show contempt for works' physical
qualities. you've certainly written proposals for grants, etc. what
would these essays have anything to do with whether rembrandt made
worthwhile stuff?
>> anyone who makes excuses for it as some kind of ART, is just
>>sticking a "kick me" sign on their own butt and laughing. it's
>>like the nerdy picked on kid, trying so hard to be liked, he
>>actually forces a laugh, so he can laugh with the bullies picking
>>on him. "huh huh huh. look guys. looky."
>>
>>we could EITHER say "art" has no value/importance, folks stop
>>collecting, investors and foundations close shop OR pretend chosen
>>urinals have some enhanced value/importance. and since nobody
>>wanted to close shop, they decided to pee on their glossy hard-wood
>>floors and smile.
>
>That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. For folks to close up
>shop they would need to say 'art has no value,' so instead they
>choose to value the Fountain… why didn't they just reject the
>Fountain as bad art and go merrily along selling their Picassos?
yeah, that's what i meant. see the top.
>Because it couldn't be rejected. It's ideas, it's criticism of the
>art establishment, and it's role in shaping how people view art
>couldn't be denied.
>
>The simple fact that an artist could create a situation that almost
>90 years later still causes argument after argument is a testament
>to it's genius IMO.
i don't think anyone is arguing this point though, rather arguing why
would there be an argument about it?
fountain (linkoln's 04 screenfull mix)
http://www.screenfull.net/stadium/2004/12/fountain-linkolns-04-screenfull-m=
ix.html
—– Original Message —–
From: t.whid
To: rhizome
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 12:31 PM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: MTAA-RR [ news/twhid/duchamp_s_fountain_most_influe=
ntial.html ]
http://www.mteww.com/mtaaRR/news/twhid/
duchamp_s_fountain_most_influential.html
===
<twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
===
+
-> post: [email protected]
-> questions: [email protected]
-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
-> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
+
Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> duchamp didn't make the urinal, no creativity in
> assembling the ingredients of an object was involved. so there is no
> excuse to call it art. it's just a clever joke.
i was thinking about this discussion in relation to discussion on another
list, a poetry list from britain. of course britain has a long and
distinguished history concerning poetry, which i admire greatly. but it is
not without difficulties for contemporary british writers. the weight of
that history and achievement has tended, for most of the twentieth century
and in our time, to make the culture perhaps too resistant to radical change
in poetry. the brits are lively and innovative in many arts, but their
poetry is weighted down by the strength of their past achievements. even if
the writers themselves get out from under it, the culture is resistant to
radical change in poetry.
part of what the acceptance of duchamp's work is about is an acceptance of
radical change in visual art. and that is admirable. healthy. progressive.
similarly radical changes in poetry are greeted with different measures of
acceptance in different cultures. brazil and argentina, for instance, tend
to be strongly innovative and embrace radical change in the literary arts.
britain not so. the usa and canada, well, middle ground.
ja
etant donnes (abe's P1010665 jpg remix)
http://www.screenfull.net/stadium/2004/12/etant-donnes-abes-p1010665-jpg-re=
mix.html
—– Original Message —–
From: t.whid
To: rhizome
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 12:31 PM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: MTAA-RR [ news/twhid/duchamp_s_fountain_most_influe=
ntial.html ]
http://www.mteww.com/mtaaRR/news/twhid/
duchamp_s_fountain_most_influential.html
===
<twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
===
+
-> post: [email protected]
-> questions: [email protected]
-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
-> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
+
Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
abe wrote:
> fountain (linkoln's 04 screenfull mix)
>
> http://www.screenfull.net/stadium/2004/12/fountain-linkolns-04-screenfull-m=
> ix.html
>
here is an oldie but a goodie
http://www.mteww.com/websiteunseen/collect25.html
http://www.jimpunk.com/Fountain.html
Infantile fascination vs."Fountain",and no-grounded(wrong)explication about
same show how easy "people"accept whatever is written.There's no self
initiative,no research,only school fact .If we want to understand anything
about Duchamp it's good to see circumstances,ambient,and finally process
which could lied us to understand phenomena like "Ready-made".Cubism put
surface on first plan,specially synthetic cubism with collage
elements(newspapers,wood,tappets…).It was meter of day who is going to
understand main consequences of that process.Duchamp was painter in that
time.He made some pictures in*cubo-futurist* manner,but he was first who
understood implications of surface+speed.He just let thing drop from
canvas/surface,in his words:"Without any aesthetic valuation."He was
slightly confused when he made first "reedy-made",because he,actually made
composition/sculpture putting two thing together(chair&wheel)inspired
probably with two potential of those things;chair=sitting,no mowed,and
wheel=mowing."Roue de bicyclette",1913.was proto-ready-made-added!Next
year(1914)Duchamp formalized his intuition clear in "Egouttoir".This is
only,and one reedy-made ever made.Of curse it is monotheistic idea,but all
other *ready-mades*where,actually reedy -mades-added."Fountain"was one of
them(because signature,contextualization in NY.Dada exhibition…etc.),and
it's far from "most important"of his work.People like kind of humor,ironic
sexuality,it's more psychoanalysis art-Rorschach test than most important
art piece in XXcentury.Four year latter he paint "Tu m' ",and there you can
see that he was concise about many-sided nature of surface.If you want to be
closer to Duchamps ideology,we recommended Phyro(Greek philosopher,360-270
before Jesus,one of Duchamps favorite).Also it's not so bad to see next
essays:
Robert Lebel;"Marcel Duchamp", 1962,
Michel Sanouiillet:"Marcel Duchamp and French Intelectual Tradition",1973
Werner Hofmann:"Grundlagen der modernrn Kunst",1978
Edward Ball&Robert Knafo:"The R.Mutt Dossier",1988
Hans Richter:"Kunst und Antikunst",1964
Willis Domingo"Meaning in the Art of Duchamp"
Jorg Traeger:"Duchamp,Malewitsch und die Tradition des Bildes",1972
Dolf Oehler:"Himsehen,Himlagen:Fur eine Dynamisierung der Theorie der
Avantgarde,Dargestellt Marcel Duchamp Fountain",1976
Etc.
MANIK
—– Original Message —–
From: "t.whid" <[email protected]>
To: "rhizome" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 11:55 PM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: MTAA-RR
news/twhid/duchamp_s_fountain_most_influential.html ]
>
> On Dec 1, 2004, at 5:20 PM, Plasma Studii wrote:
>
> >> http://www.mteww.com/mtaaRR/news/twhid/
> >> duchamp_s_fountain_most_influential.html
> > (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20041201/
> > ap_on_fe_st/urinal_art)
> >
> > twhid (and rhizomers), what's your take?
> >
> >
> > probably i just don't get this, but why would anyone buy the fountain
> > gag? not only do people pretty commonly call it "art" (who cares) but
> > think it means something important in art history. what??? how else
> > could anyone possibly say "get real", if not hand them a toilet as a
> > snub.
> >
> > the urinal is everybody's fav. mine too. but because it's so clearly
> > NOT art. never was.
>
> Duchamp definitely meant it as art. You really need to remember the
> context. Duchamp along with a few others was organizing a show of
> modern art in NYC. Probably the first. Their mission was to allow
> everything submitted into the show. Well, to be exceptional in a show
> where everything is accepted you need to be rejected and that's what he
> set out to do (and why it was submitted under the name R.Mutt).
>
>
> > duchamp was pulling folks leg if he ever said otherwise. it's as
> > astonishing as bush getting re-elected, that so many people (as this
> > blurb suggests) were gullable enough to honestly buy such an absurdly
> > huge farce.
>
> He was, but pulling a leg can be just as serious and relevant as
> anything else.
>
> > it's the biggest joke to the pretentious art world ever, but that
> > doesn't make it "art" itself. a snub on the arty types that take
> > themselves so ridiculously serious, they would even hang a toilet in
> > their gallery. the whole "ready-made" idea is such an obvious farce.
> > it's like nobody noticed what the thing really was because of some
> > label/buzz word. totally works on the phenomenon of intellectuals
> > whose concepts representing life are obscuring real life. they won't
> > even notice. duchamp was essentially saying "here's a toilet. not
> > even a sculpture i made of one. but wanna take it seriously?" and
> > people couched it in theoretical art speak.
>
> It took a long time for artists to understand Duchmamp and it seems
> that some still don't. It doesn't matter really what the physical
> manifestation behind the ideas of the Fountain is – it's the ideas
> that are important. The Fountain and Duchamp's other readymades
> destroyed form and laid the groundwork for conceptualism and it's many
> offspring. Duchamp is THE watershed artist of the 20th century, not
> Picasso, not Matisse.
>
> Why? Picasso and Matisse, tho very ingenious at creating new ways to
> make pictures, didn't really abandon the old ideas of picture plane,
> composition, color: the formal elements of art (this thread in art was
> carried on from Miro thru to the Ab-Ex painters and 'dying' with
> minimalists). The great early and mid century painters and sculptures
> just took those ideas and created new ways to make pictures with them.
> Duchamp rethought the entire nature of art and with the readymade freed
> it from physical form.
>
> No matter your opinion of conceptualism, you can't say it hasn't had
> the largest impact on art of any other art movement or theory in the
> last part of the century. It's hardly arguable that Duchamp and his
> readymades are the grandfathers of conceptualism. So it's not
> irrational to claim his most iconic work as the most influential art
> work in the 20th century.
>
> >
> > anyone down-to-earth, in touch, not stuck in their philosophical dream
> > world, would just say "are you kidding?
>
> that's what they said at first.
>
> > i don't want your toilet.
>
> absolutely, it was rejected from the exhibition.
>
> > i'm not that stupid." it's just an insult.
>
> The original organizers took it that way, that's why it was rejected.
> Why can't an insult be great art?
>
> He was quoted as saying, 'I throw a urinal in their face and they call
> it art.'
>
> > anyone who makes excuses for it as some kind of ART, is just sticking
> > a "kick me" sign on their own butt and laughing. it's like the nerdy
> > picked on kid, trying so hard to be liked, he actually forces a laugh,
> > so he can laugh with the bullies picking on him. "huh huh huh. look
> > guys. looky."
> >
> > we could EITHER say "art" has no value/importance, folks stop
> > collecting, investors and foundations close shop OR pretend chosen
> > urinals have some enhanced value/importance. and since nobody wanted
> > to close shop, they decided to pee on their glossy hard-wood floors
> > and smile.
>
> That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. For folks to close up shop
> they would need to say 'art has no value,' so instead they choose to
> value the Fountain… why didn't they just reject the Fountain as bad
> art and go merrily along selling their Picassos?
>
> Because it couldn't be rejected. It's ideas, it's criticism of the art
> establishment, and it's role in shaping how people view art couldn't be
> denied.
>
> The simple fact that an artist could create a situation that almost 90
> years later still causes argument after argument is a testament to it's
> genius IMO.
>
>
> ===
> <twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
> ===
>
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>> He was quoted as saying, 'I throw a urinal in their face and they call
>> it art.'
Yes. There's not really any way around that one that doesn't involve ventriloquism.
Manik's point about assisted readymades vs. readymades is pertinent as well. I think Duchamp needs to ask for a paternity test to be performed on modern art, especially neoconceptualism.
- Rob.
It may be important to point out that the most influential art world is
between one's own ears.
ja
more on this from salon.com
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The most influential piece of modern art
Something by Picasso or Matisse? No, just a humble urinal, according to
a poll of 500 experts.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Charlotte Higgins
Dec. 2, 2004
journalism from salon.com on a poll commissioned by the sponsor of the
Turner prize of art 'experts' on 'the most influential' artists.
inquiring minds want to know, obviously.
ja
http://vispo.com
> inquiring minds want to know, obviously.
I'm not sure what 2,3,4 and 5 are but I'd take out #10 and put in Cindy Sherman's Untitled Film Stills. (and then add jodi.org as #11)…but that's just my art taste. Make your own list of parents.
I'd take out Henry Moore at #10 and put in "defenestration".
Merriam-Webster's Words of the Year 2004
1. blog
2. incumbent
3. electoral
4. insurgent
5. hurricane
6. cicada
7. peloton
8. partisan
9. sovereignty
10. defenestration
M. River wrote:
> I'd take out #10 and put in Cindy Sherman's Untitled Film Stills….
James Allan wrote:
> I'd take out Henry Moore at #10 and put in "defenestration".
>
> Merriam-Webster's Words of the Year 2004
>
> 1. blog
> 2. incumbent
> 3. electoral
> 4. insurgent
> 5. hurricane
> 6. cicada
> 7. peloton
> 8. partisan
> 9. sovereignty
> 10. defenestration
>
ha. very good. defenestration.org
If it was good enough for Yves Klein it's good enough for me. Should've
shown Henry the window back in '28.
http://www.giant.net.au/users/rupert/museum09.jpg
M. River wrote:
> ha. very good. defenestration.org
"D'ailleurs, c'est ici qu'est l'air…" by jimpunk
http://www.screenfull.net/stadium/2004/12/dailleurs-cest-toujours-ici-quest=
-lair.html
"la boite en valise" by linkoln
http://www.screenfull.net/stadium/2004/12/la-boite-en-valise-linkoln-mix.ht=
ml
—– Original Message —–
From: t.whid
To: rhizome
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 12:31 PM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: MTAA-RR [ news/twhid/duchamp_s_fountain_most_influe=
ntial.html ]
http://www.mteww.com/mtaaRR/news/twhid/
duchamp_s_fountain_most_influential.html
===
<twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
===
+
-> post: [email protected]
-> questions: [email protected]
-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
-> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
+
Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
Da !
http://www.jimpunk.com/xxx/aiRdeParis.html
abe wrote:
> "D'ailleurs, c'est ici qu'est l'air…" by jimpunk
>
> http://www.screenfull.net/stadium/2004/12/dailleurs-cest-toujours-ici-quest=
> -lair.html
>
> "la boite en valise" by linkoln
>
> http://www.screenfull.net/stadium/2004/12/la-boite-en-valise-linkoln-mix.ht=
> ml
>
>
>
>
>
> —– Original Message —–
> From: t.whid
> To: rhizome
> Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 12:31 PM
> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: MTAA-RR [
> news/twhid/duchamp_s_fountain_most_influe=
> ntial.html ]
>
>
> http://www.mteww.com/mtaaRR/news/twhid/
> duchamp_s_fountain_most_influential.html
>
> ===
> <twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
> ===
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
http://www.screenfull.net/stadium/2004/12/la-boite-3n-v4lise-remix-version-=
1.html
http://www.jimpunk.com/LaBoite3nv4lise/Nudescendantunescalier/
abe selavy
http://www.screenfull.net/stadium/2004/12/abe-selavy.html
—– Original Message —–
From: t.whid
To: rhizome
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 12:31 PM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: MTAA-RR [ news/twhid/duchamp_s_fountain_most_influe=
ntial.html ]
http://www.mteww.com/mtaaRR/news/twhid/
duchamp_s_fountain_most_influential.html
===
<twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
===
+
-> post: [email protected]
-> questions: [email protected]
-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
-> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
+
Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
L.H.O.O.Q. (linkoln vs. banksy 04 mix)
http://www.screenfull.net/stadium/2004/12/lhooq-linkoln-vs-banksy-04-mix.ht=
ml
—– Original Message —–
From: t.whid
To: rhizome
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 12:31 PM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: MTAA-RR [ news/twhid/duchamp_s_fountain_most_influe=
ntial.html ]
http://www.mteww.com/mtaaRR/news/twhid/
duchamp_s_fountain_most_influential.html
===
<twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
===
+
-> post: [email protected]
-> questions: [email protected]
-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
-> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
+
Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
AnemiC:nema P4rt 1 - (popup de precis:on) rot0Relief N
linkoln and jimpunk quit remixing duchamp to go play yahoo chess
http://www.screenfull.net/stadium/2004/12/linkoln-and-jimpunk-quit-remixing=
.html
—– Original Message —–
From: t.whid
To: rhizome
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 12:31 PM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: MTAA-RR [ news/twhid/duchamp_s_fountain_most_influe=
ntial.html ]
http://www.mteww.com/mtaaRR/news/twhid/
duchamp_s_fountain_most_influential.html
===
<twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
===
+
-> post: [email protected]
-> questions: [email protected]
-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
-> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
+
Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
L.H.O.O.Q.(rasee): internet Ready-made rectifie
http://www.screenfull.net/stadium/2004/12/lhooqras.html
outa town, sorry if this is a late reply.
jim andrews:
>part of what the acceptance of duchamp's work is about is an acceptance of
>radical change in visual art. and that is admirable. healthy. progressive.
i agree, jim, but this seems subtly a different point. change is
fine, even radical change, non-sense shifts and surprise directions.
but this happened long before we were born. this has been the status
quou for years now. though the US also has a rich history, like
writing in Britain, as you said. but assuming you are under 50, for
most of our art experience, we rarely actually see old-style art
accept treated as a historical artifact.
if there was any reason to say "hey, why not x as art!" alone, that
would be fine. i don't mean to harp on conceptualism here. it's
the urinal thing that has me baffled..
it's one thing that the word "nigger" was an insult that has since
been turned around. friends call their black friends nigger and
everyone's fine with it. if you tried using the word as an insult
today in ny, everyone would think you must be a nut case. same with
"fag" and so many old derogatory words turned positive. and that's a
cool shift.
but the question: are you so disconnected from planet earth that
you'd think of a reason to covet a urinal? is not name calling. the
event may have been a major milestone in the most radical change in
hundreds of years, but hardly the first. painting on grecian vases,
how they thought of it then versus how we do now, seems like a much
more important shift, albeit more gradual and far less familiar. it
may have been re-thought 100 times before history books arrived at a
positive interpretation. but now it's an old standard. the original
blurb posted attests to the fact that most agree on the urinals
significance in art history.
we can laugh at it, then move on to more constructive tasks, rather
than continue to wallow in what it (rather aptly) criticizes.
manik:
>People like kind of humor,ironic
>sexuality,it's more psychoanalysis art-Rorschach test than most important
>art piece in XXcentury.
http://plasmastudii.org/rorschach/rorschach.php
–
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PLASMA STUDII
art non-profit
stages * galleries * the web
New York, USA
(on-line press kit)
http://plasmastudii.org
Just in case anyone want to get me a gift this year…
http://www.dumboartscenter.org/auction/duchamp.html
> i agree, jim, but this seems subtly a different point. change is
> fine, even radical change, non-sense shifts and surprise directions.
> but this happened long before we were born. this has been the status
> quou for years now.
i like that. "the status quou".
> though the US also has a rich history, like
> writing in Britain, as you said.
i didn't say that the US also has a rich history like writing in Britain,
actually. English literature goes back at least to Chaucer in the fourteenth
century (1300's). USAmerican literature goes back to Lawrence Sterne and his
Tristam Shandy back in the eighteenth century (1700's). of course the two
histories are intimately related (though separate), once USAmerican
literature gets under way. and i admire both.
> but assuming you are under 50, for
> most of our art experience, we rarely actually see old-style art
> accept treated as a historical artifact.
Really? I think we even see stuff from the sixties or seventies or even
eighties treated as historical artifact, never mind stuff from duchamp's
time.
> if there was any reason to say "hey, why not x as art!" alone, that
> would be fine. i don't mean to harp on conceptualism here. it's
> the urinal thing that has me baffled..
>
>
> it's one thing that the word "nigger" was an insult that has since
> been turned around. friends call their black friends nigger and
> everyone's fine with it.
the word is still loaded regardless of who uses it, whether it's fired at
someone or as a warning shot around the feet.
> if you tried using the word as an insult
> today in ny, everyone would think you must be a nut case. same with
> "fag" and so many old derogatory words turned positive. and that's a
> cool shift.
reclaiming language does not result in the dissassembly of all the guns.
it's more like the gun is used as a lamp, or something to spray cleaner
fluid, or a swiffer handle etc., but some of them are still used as assault
weapons. whether it fires bullets is a matter of what the intended victim
sees in the gun: assault weapon or swiffer handle. but lots of people still
try to use them as weapons, and lots of people still perceive them as
weapons.
but what this has to do with marcel duchamp is beyond me.
> but the question: are you so disconnected from planet earth that
> you'd think of a reason to covet a urinal? is not name calling. the
> event may have been a major milestone in the most radical change in
> hundreds of years,
i wouldn't go that far.
> but hardly the first. painting on grecian vases,
> how they thought of it then versus how we do now, seems like a much
> more important shift, albeit more gradual and far less familiar.
i have no idea.
> it
> may have been re-thought 100 times before history books arrived at a
> positive interpretation. but now it's an old standard. the original
> blurb posted attests to the fact that most agree on the urinals
> significance in art history.
>
> we can laugh at it, then move on to more constructive tasks, rather
> than continue to wallow in what it (rather aptly) criticizes.
what it criticizes has not gone away, plasma. nor will it. art is dead and
has been for a long time. now it's the unholy ghost. it's a ghost of what it
was. it's the ghost in the machine. that we can't do without.
ja
/error/
L.H.O.O.Q.(rasee): internet Ready-made rectifie rem:x
http://www.screenfull.net/stadium/2004/12/lhooqras-remx.html