“With his Fountain (1917), Duchamp made the quintessential statement about the history and future of art. Duchamp of course knew the history of art and, given recent trends, where art was going. He knew what had been achieved — how over the centuries art had been a powerful vehicle that called upon the highest development of the human creative vision and demanded exacting technical skill; and he knew that art had an awesome power to exalt the senses, the minds, and the passions of those who experience it. With his urinal, Duchamp offered presciently a summary statement. The artist is not a great creator — Duchamp went shopping at a plumbing store. The artwork is not a special object — it was mass-produced in a factory. The experience of art is not exciting and ennobling — it is puzzling and leaves one with a sense of distaste. But over and above that, Duchamp did not select just any ready-made object to display. He could have selected a sink or a door-knob. In selecting the urinal, his message was clear: Art is something you piss on.”
Source: Excerpted from Why Art became Ugly (2004). Below: Professor Hicks in Buenos Aires, at ESEADE University.
Well, modern-abstract “art” is good for little else? Kindling? Rarely even decorative. So, this exhibit is an apt commentary on such. But not relevant to actual, psychologically useful art.
Stephen,
What do you make of the claims over the years that this was one of a long series of hoaxes perpetrated by Duchamp?
Terry
I think the claims are true, Terry. Duchamp later said about his gesture: “I threw the urinal in their faces as a challenge, and now they come and admire it for its beauty.” That indicates that he’s using it as a statement about art and the art world, along the lines I indicate above, but without believing himself that it is a work of art.
If you have read much of Rollo May, especially his “The Courage to Create,” how does this viewpoint compare.
Rollo May conjectured that the artist “foresees” the future; well, maybe more than conjectured, but he did comment on the Picasso-Duchamp era.
Thank you Stephen, I found the article enjoyable and enlightening. I see Duchamp, the Dadaist, whose goal was to poke fun and to humiliate the art world and its foundations. The “urinal” was a joke that was taken seriously. Today we live in what can be described as an age of “Serious Dadaism”.
Duchamp is a product of academia. Academia which in essence is nihilist, cannot sit with a concept such as “Art is beauty”. It is vulgar and separates us from the beast. Academia does not worship Da Vinci because of his painting skills, but for his science. Today much of what we see in our museums are science and social studies presentations masquerading as art.
But in the end it all sounds like artists pissed off at the system, more interested in tenure and internal art politics than grand historical gestures.