Thank you very much for posting this interview. I studied art when I was in High school (a bit more than 20 years ago) but only partly understood the purpose of a ready-made. Now, thanks to this interview, I finally get it. 👍
duchamp, I hope you are alive. I would like to talk to you. I identified with your ideas. I was talking to a friend who also identifies himself and I was fascinated. he also introduced me to this interview. see you later!
Duchamp appropriated the urinal without crediting the original “creator”, his friend Elsa vov Freytag-Loringhoven , except for one letter to his sister. The incriminating evidence was later published by Duchamp’s biographer, Francis Naumann: “April II [1917] My dear Suzanne- impossible d’écrire. (in the Parisian French of 1917, this meant ‘nothing much to write about’, re Dr. Glynn Thompson.) - I heard from Crotti that you were working hard. Tell me what you are making and if it’s not too difficult to send. Perhaps, I could have a show of your work in the month of October or November-next-here. But tell me what you are making- Tell this detail to the family: The Independents have opened here with immense success. One of my female friends under a masculine pseudonym, Richard Mutt, sent in a porcelain urinal as a sculpture it was not at all indecent-no reason for refusing it. The committee has decided to refuse to show this thing. I have handed in my resignation and it will be a bit of gossip of some value in New York- I would like to have a special exhibition of the people who were refused at the Independents-but that would be a redundancy! And the urinal would have been lonely- See you soon, Affect. Marcel." read more-->legrady.com/writing/history.html
Sleepy 12ft Panda You have answered your question, which is Marcel`s point. Art is an arbitrary value assignment from opinions of people who want to increase the object's value. When his objects were accepted as art ( Duchamp used his art to lampoon the notion of the precious object) then he too became a victim of the system. Duchamp stopped making objects and played chess in later life. He was brilliant critic!
The irony is not in the object but in the words, hence when showing the object the irony is left out, barely outlined if the object is put out of context, which would be the ironic act, very much in quotation marks, and that Duchamp actually proposes only with words, his objects do not contain that irony and are as singular as when they were designed and manufactured for their use. Duchamp's entire oeuvre is sustained by his own words. What in has never been clarified as such, the distinctive semiological phenomena is verbal. The problem is not of art, which is experience and nothing else, the issue here is verbal, and the non-clarification of this issue is the worst thing that has happened to art and to humanity, not attending to the verbal phenomenon as a real phenomenon.
Thank you very much for posting this interview. I studied art when I was in High school (a bit more than 20 years ago) but only partly understood the purpose of a ready-made. Now, thanks to this interview, I finally get it. 👍
He's such a funny guy, I love him
wonderful
MARCEL DU CHAMP ,pioneer of photography :)))
Oh but he is.
#AESTHETIC
super 1
I think he was just trolling the scene.
@Michael Bolton oh poet
duchamp, I hope you are alive. I would like to talk to you. I identified with your ideas. I was talking to a friend who also identifies himself and I was fascinated. he also introduced me to this interview. see you later!
A master of irony
Duchamp appropriated the urinal without crediting the original “creator”, his friend Elsa vov Freytag-Loringhoven , except for one letter to his sister. The incriminating evidence was later published by Duchamp’s biographer, Francis Naumann:
“April II [1917] My dear Suzanne- impossible d’écrire. (in the Parisian French of 1917, this meant ‘nothing much to write about’, re Dr. Glynn Thompson.) - I heard from Crotti that you were working hard. Tell me what you are making and if it’s not too difficult to send. Perhaps, I could have a show of your work in the month of October or November-next-here. But tell me what you are making- Tell this detail to the family: The Independents have opened here with immense success. One of my female friends under a masculine pseudonym, Richard Mutt, sent in a porcelain urinal as a sculpture it was not at all indecent-no reason for refusing it. The committee has decided to refuse to show this thing. I have handed in my resignation and it will be a bit of gossip of some value in New York- I would like to have a special exhibition of the people who were refused at the Independents-but that would be a redundancy! And the urinal would have been lonely- See you soon, Affect. Marcel."
read more-->legrady.com/writing/history.html
I don't get it. If something can become an art piece just by looking at it, then what's the point in creating art in the first place?
You do not have to get it! But you started to ask question, any way!
Alaattin Kirazci mmm hm. word.
The point is to provoke, dadaism was pretty efficient at that which is why it didn't last for so long
Sleepy 12ft Panda You have answered your question, which is Marcel`s point. Art is an arbitrary value assignment from opinions of people who want to increase the object's value. When his objects were accepted as art ( Duchamp used his art to lampoon the notion of the precious object) then he too became a victim of the system. Duchamp stopped making objects and played chess in later life. He was brilliant critic!
yah it is total jerk off
One of the worst things that happened to art.
No, not really. Art is subjective!
that's what westerner would say. you yourself are not subjective
If you are really interested in a serious discussion, we can continue otherwise not. Please take this as an offer.
The irony is not in the object but in the words, hence when showing the object the irony is left out, barely outlined if the object is put out of context, which would be the ironic act, very much in quotation marks, and that Duchamp actually proposes only with words, his objects do not contain that irony and are as singular as when they were designed and manufactured for their use.
Duchamp's entire oeuvre is sustained by his own words. What in has never been clarified as such, the distinctive semiological phenomena is verbal.
The problem is not of art, which is experience and nothing else, the issue here is verbal, and the non-clarification of this issue is the worst thing that has happened to art and to humanity, not attending to the verbal phenomenon as a real phenomenon.
@@matiasmov1 would you say he used his "art" as a platform? which were also very fortuitously resting on the then strengthening tenets postmodernism?