Fountain

It's hard to communicate how important this artwork is in modern art history. Marcel Duchamp's Fountain is an upside down urinal and it redefined art. What is art? What makes art? Fountain doesn't give an answer, but it does throw the question at the audience's face.
Support us on Patreon: / thecanvas

[@michaelmarks5012]

Fascinating! On a side note, anyone notice there is smoke coming from the pipe at 4:09 ?

[@mahdi5796]

I love the way you explain things. Thank you

[@lal6996]

Love this and the notion of ‘retinal art’

[@MiamiMarkYT]

I can “understand” Fountain. Like, I get it. It was important in tearing down one of the final barriers of art to get to where we are today by challenging the very concept of art vs not art head on. But, at the same time, without failure, every time I see it presented amongst other great and important works, I feel a instinctual and a violent repulsion. It feels like a bridge too far. Like that there must be a line that separates what is and what isn’t art.
Ready mades in general elicit that reaction from me. I can’t articulate any further than that it irritates my very soul to see them. In the same way that if I were to see someone’s painting be used as a napkin or a placemat. I don’t know if I’ll ever be able to get past it. I can appreciate Fountain academically for what it set forth, but I cannot bring myself to revere it as great art.

[@ellerose9164]

I like it when art irritates me. With old pictures I often find them extremely beautiful and soothing. But with modern art it either bores me or excites me. And when this excitement happens - whether it be amazement or being appalled - this is the greatest for me.
Why is a beautifully crafted painting more beautiful than a perfectly created everyday item? There is no objective truth that makes the one better than the other. It is just what we are used to by definition of our cultures.

[@georgemohr7532]

I for one, would love for you to do a review of Duchamp's Etant Donnes. Excellent content in this video.

[@Mohammed-qr6gq]

Fascinating!

[@bowenjack]

Really love this channel! Will you be doing a Rothko one?

[@corybertelsen9577]

Keep it up!

[@Lenny4400]

Good 🐶 information!

[@FrilledMayfly_AmberlyFerrule]

I never cared much for art thats blocks of colors, squiggles, or a urinal, but I gotta say, this channel doesn't make me care a little more. I still may not like it, and if i saw it in a museum i'd be like "ah, I'm in the wrong wing" but this channel is great. In art college these kinds of artworks were revered. I had teachers try to get me interested in this kind art as if i were wrong for not seeing its genus or merit. The Canvas feels like this... like... its just exploring art and not trying to make you love a piece. Its through your channel I've gained more respect for this kinda art

[@Avi2Nyan]

Wish you had gone a liiittle deeper on whether Duchamp is the actual artist behind Fountain, since that's pretty controversial actually.
Other than that, good video!

[@francismoore3352]

I was thinking about this too. There's a great article about it here: www.scottishreviewofbooks.org/2014/11/how-duchamp-stole-the-urinal/

[@mayookhap848]

Please add subtitles

[@artvsmachine3703]

Igadz. First off, I have to rolls my eyes every time someone regurgitates the lines about "retinal art" without challenging them. "All art since Courbet is retinal" Uh, no, it's NOT. Do YOU think Van Gogh was merely retinal? How about Manet? Courbet? Duchamp also didn't like the old masters, and said the Abstract Expressionists were "retinal". So shallow and spiteful. There's a whole list of bad ideas that need to be challenged. There isn't a good one in there.

[@jorgev.b5992]

Hamparte

[@missnoneofyourbusiness]

¿Donde está el "me enrisa" en youtube?

[@Techfollowme]

In other words a great way to shit on artists who honed their craft for years and literally piss on them.

[@amb600cd0]

in other words you did not watch the video

[@amb600cd0]

or maybe you think labor gives things their value, like a godless red or something

[@Techfollowme]

@@amb600cd0 no its a trope in humanities generally in philosophy to put forward ideas that needlessly deconstruct ideas that have made a foundation in theory. Its spawns from the insecurities of the humanities academicians and theorists who feel that they are not pragmatic as scientific theorists so they have prove from time to time that there work is indulging the mind and not clearly based in rhetoric. Mostly modern philosophy is such that burrows a pit in solid grounds.

[@amb600cd0]

@@Techfollowme is the deconstruction needless? is the question about art at its core not important? the piece has been excellent in its job since it was first shown up until today. its still proving a point that many part of the art community are overly rigid in their view of art, and that regardless of their thoughts on it they have been affected by it in the way the artist intended.