What's so special about this?
Modern art just evades me...
I don't get it
-
Rocketdork
- A.B. Normal
- Posts: 1489
- Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2003 7:13 pm
- Location: The City of NOT Spokane
- Contact:
-
miftah
- le moth
- Posts: 2703
- Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 5:15 pm
- Location: Assland, OH
- Has thanked: 22 times
- Been thanked: 15 times
- Contact:
It *is* the most influential piece of modern art and the ones bitching about it are just upset the piece chosen wasn't one reflective of their own work.
Duchamp basically blew the whole game wide open with that piece, saying more than anything else that if an artist thinks a piece of art is valid then it is and there need be no more qualification than that.
It was submitted in an art show in in 1917 that was being staged for a New York group he co-founded and belonged to, the Society of Independent Artists. The show would feature anyone who paid a $6 fee, but the people in charge of the show refused to show it and Duchamp made his stand around that piece, saying that "It is a fixture that you see in plumbers' show windows,' and "The only works of art America has given [us] are her plumbing and her bridges."
What's interesting about it is that he signed in R MUTT. Duchamp was himself an established and well-known artist in his own right, but by setting up his pseudonym, he was able to defend it in the abstract rather than it be his crazy idea that be accepted or denied arbitrarily because it was his.
This also laid the foundation for manipulation to be the main media in conceptual art. The main thrust of art is that it provokes a response for its viewer. What Ducamp was getting at was something pretty profound and something that shook art to its foundations.
Is it the craft in the making of an object that is important, or is it the intent of the artist that makes it art? The delineation was immediate. Art dependent on its craft was deemed design and that dependent on its intent was deemed fine art.
Whether or not he worked hard on it is meaningless. The message of it is what's important, especially in fine art, and the message that was made with that piece still reverberates today.
Also that it continues to piss people off, in particular, is pretty rad.
Duchamp basically blew the whole game wide open with that piece, saying more than anything else that if an artist thinks a piece of art is valid then it is and there need be no more qualification than that.
It was submitted in an art show in in 1917 that was being staged for a New York group he co-founded and belonged to, the Society of Independent Artists. The show would feature anyone who paid a $6 fee, but the people in charge of the show refused to show it and Duchamp made his stand around that piece, saying that "It is a fixture that you see in plumbers' show windows,' and "The only works of art America has given [us] are her plumbing and her bridges."
What's interesting about it is that he signed in R MUTT. Duchamp was himself an established and well-known artist in his own right, but by setting up his pseudonym, he was able to defend it in the abstract rather than it be his crazy idea that be accepted or denied arbitrarily because it was his.
This also laid the foundation for manipulation to be the main media in conceptual art. The main thrust of art is that it provokes a response for its viewer. What Ducamp was getting at was something pretty profound and something that shook art to its foundations.
Is it the craft in the making of an object that is important, or is it the intent of the artist that makes it art? The delineation was immediate. Art dependent on its craft was deemed design and that dependent on its intent was deemed fine art.
Whether or not he worked hard on it is meaningless. The message of it is what's important, especially in fine art, and the message that was made with that piece still reverberates today.
Also that it continues to piss people off, in particular, is pretty rad.
Last edited by miftah on Thu Dec 02, 2004 9:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Fear of the bee means the honey is for me" - Jhonn Balance
-
bugfreezer
- Arthropoda Cryogenicist
- Posts: 1294
- Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 11:55 am
- Location: Pullman, WA
- Contact:
-
bugfreezer
- Arthropoda Cryogenicist
- Posts: 1294
- Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 11:55 am
- Location: Pullman, WA
- Contact:
Miftah,
That's why I was careful to say "form". With emphasis. As you especially well know, there are artists, and there are artists. All art is not universally good art anymore than all engineering, science, commerce, business, history is/are good forms of themselves.
I try real hard not to go ad hominem on anyone here, tho' I probably tubed it a time or two. I intended no stab at you - heck, I even perused your site - wish you'd post more lyrics - the title "Everyone wants to f**k" gave me lotsa insight into issues we have debated in the past - love to see those lyrics.
OK?
That's why I was careful to say "form". With emphasis. As you especially well know, there are artists, and there are artists. All art is not universally good art anymore than all engineering, science, commerce, business, history is/are good forms of themselves.
I try real hard not to go ad hominem on anyone here, tho' I probably tubed it a time or two. I intended no stab at you - heck, I even perused your site - wish you'd post more lyrics - the title "Everyone wants to f**k" gave me lotsa insight into issues we have debated in the past - love to see those lyrics.
OK?
Last edited by bugfreezer on Thu Dec 02, 2004 10:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.
- Sir Winston Churchill
- Sir Winston Churchill
-
Rocketdork
- A.B. Normal
- Posts: 1489
- Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2003 7:13 pm
- Location: The City of NOT Spokane
- Contact:
Ok, so my first reaction to the article (not being familiar with the story) was its a fucking toilet. How on earth can this be the most influential piece of art in the world...must be some mistake.
Now my reaction is, Duchamp was thumbing his nose at the 'establishment' and telling them they were a pretentious bunch of gits. The piece itself is meaningless to me. Without the story, the intent is lost and the significance of the piece is moot. 1000 years from now, this piece will be forgotten and the archeologists that dig it up with put it with the rest of the bathroom fixtures...
I look at the classic art from the Egyptians, the Romans, the Greeks, Monet, Renoir, Davinci, etc, and I get it. I look at this as a toilet with a story...nothing more, without the story, the toilet is just a toilet with graphiti on it.
Am I dismissive of the art? maybe, I just don't understand it. Nor does is evoke any emotion in me that makes me desire to understand it. I guess that is the origin of 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder'.
I still see a toilet.
Now my reaction is, Duchamp was thumbing his nose at the 'establishment' and telling them they were a pretentious bunch of gits. The piece itself is meaningless to me. Without the story, the intent is lost and the significance of the piece is moot. 1000 years from now, this piece will be forgotten and the archeologists that dig it up with put it with the rest of the bathroom fixtures...
I look at the classic art from the Egyptians, the Romans, the Greeks, Monet, Renoir, Davinci, etc, and I get it. I look at this as a toilet with a story...nothing more, without the story, the toilet is just a toilet with graphiti on it.
Am I dismissive of the art? maybe, I just don't understand it. Nor does is evoke any emotion in me that makes me desire to understand it. I guess that is the origin of 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder'.
I still see a toilet.
"A man without a woman is like a statue without pigeons"
-
bugfreezer
- Arthropoda Cryogenicist
- Posts: 1294
- Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 11:55 am
- Location: Pullman, WA
- Contact:
-
miftah
- le moth
- Posts: 2703
- Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 5:15 pm
- Location: Assland, OH
- Has thanked: 22 times
- Been thanked: 15 times
- Contact:
Think of it being on a plain with pure research in science. Need it be practical to be useful? To be groundbreaking? It is, in many cases, theoretical and therefore important for the advancement of science.
Whether or not the people of the future get it is irrelevent. The artist holds no responsibility to the future. The artist's responsibility is to now. In its setting, you didn't need the story, because the story was unfolding.
You understand the work of the masters because its religious in nature and you know the Biblical. You know Greek and Roman history so you appreciate the artifacts from the art. Or, you understand pretty pictures and well-rendered sculpture so you like those.
Well this art exists on another level. You don't have to like it, but admitting you don't understand it is the best thing you could say in response to it. What is the art world supposed to do to make you happy? Keep creating the same masterworks that have already been made by those in history? That's like saying that theoretical physics should have stopped with Einstein's theory of relativity. Einstein himself knew he didn't have it all. Fuck, most people don't even know why Einstein is regarded as being a genius.
Well, what I'm saying to you is that Duchamp is the art world's equivalent of Einstein. What he did wasn't understood by many, but it helped the advancement of those who did on a massive level.
And most artists would be pretty naive to actually care whether history regards them anyway. There's way too many of us to be making art for immortality. Art history will remember Duchamp, and that will be all that matters.
Whether or not the people of the future get it is irrelevent. The artist holds no responsibility to the future. The artist's responsibility is to now. In its setting, you didn't need the story, because the story was unfolding.
You understand the work of the masters because its religious in nature and you know the Biblical. You know Greek and Roman history so you appreciate the artifacts from the art. Or, you understand pretty pictures and well-rendered sculpture so you like those.
Well this art exists on another level. You don't have to like it, but admitting you don't understand it is the best thing you could say in response to it. What is the art world supposed to do to make you happy? Keep creating the same masterworks that have already been made by those in history? That's like saying that theoretical physics should have stopped with Einstein's theory of relativity. Einstein himself knew he didn't have it all. Fuck, most people don't even know why Einstein is regarded as being a genius.
Well, what I'm saying to you is that Duchamp is the art world's equivalent of Einstein. What he did wasn't understood by many, but it helped the advancement of those who did on a massive level.
And most artists would be pretty naive to actually care whether history regards them anyway. There's way too many of us to be making art for immortality. Art history will remember Duchamp, and that will be all that matters.
"Fear of the bee means the honey is for me" - Jhonn Balance
-
Rocketdork
- A.B. Normal
- Posts: 1489
- Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2003 7:13 pm
- Location: The City of NOT Spokane
- Contact:
All valid points Miftah.
For me art is about an emotional response. It could be repugnance, in the case of Maplethorpe, or awe, or happiness, sadness etc. I can appreciate most emotional responses that I get from art, sadly the one emotion that I detest from art is bafflement. Most of art of the nature of this piece, just baffles me. It doesn't inspire an emotion of WOW, I *want* to understand this.
One of the most memerable experiences in my life was touring the Louvré. I have done it on two seperate occasions for about 3/4 of a day each time...some of the artwork hanging on the walls was just awe inspiring, others, just ho-hum, and my favorite, the sculpture was unbelievable. I wish I could go back, there is so much to see, and you kind of get overwhelmed with the whole experience.
To me art is timeless, it should be just as emotional now, as it is in the future. The Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, I think, or at least project my emotions to them, understood this. Our society is disposable, we do and have things for the now, and I think our art in many cases shows this.
Ulimately I see two types of artists. Those that do art for the personal experience they have when they are performing their craft, and those that do art for the public. Both are valid, both can be beautiful, but the ones done for personal experience don't have to answer to the greater good, while the art done for the public does. The personal artist could care less about what the world thinks of his art, he may not even display it, but only take it out of the closet or attic to look at it once in a while. Of course, art done for public consumption must be displayed, and again I may be projecting, but I see much of the pleasure the artist derives actually comes from the public reaction to the art, rather than the execution of the craft.
I guess in the end it really is true, beauty IS in the eye of the beholder. For you Duchamp piece is significant, meaningful and in many ways, beautiful. To me its just a toilet. I may be lessened by not understanding, or desiring to understand, but I can live with that. There is enough in the world that I find beautiful to satisfy me, Art and otherwise.
For me art is about an emotional response. It could be repugnance, in the case of Maplethorpe, or awe, or happiness, sadness etc. I can appreciate most emotional responses that I get from art, sadly the one emotion that I detest from art is bafflement. Most of art of the nature of this piece, just baffles me. It doesn't inspire an emotion of WOW, I *want* to understand this.
One of the most memerable experiences in my life was touring the Louvré. I have done it on two seperate occasions for about 3/4 of a day each time...some of the artwork hanging on the walls was just awe inspiring, others, just ho-hum, and my favorite, the sculpture was unbelievable. I wish I could go back, there is so much to see, and you kind of get overwhelmed with the whole experience.
To me art is timeless, it should be just as emotional now, as it is in the future. The Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, I think, or at least project my emotions to them, understood this. Our society is disposable, we do and have things for the now, and I think our art in many cases shows this.
Ulimately I see two types of artists. Those that do art for the personal experience they have when they are performing their craft, and those that do art for the public. Both are valid, both can be beautiful, but the ones done for personal experience don't have to answer to the greater good, while the art done for the public does. The personal artist could care less about what the world thinks of his art, he may not even display it, but only take it out of the closet or attic to look at it once in a while. Of course, art done for public consumption must be displayed, and again I may be projecting, but I see much of the pleasure the artist derives actually comes from the public reaction to the art, rather than the execution of the craft.
I guess in the end it really is true, beauty IS in the eye of the beholder. For you Duchamp piece is significant, meaningful and in many ways, beautiful. To me its just a toilet. I may be lessened by not understanding, or desiring to understand, but I can live with that. There is enough in the world that I find beautiful to satisfy me, Art and otherwise.
"A man without a woman is like a statue without pigeons"
-
AsaJay
- pantera pilot
- Posts: 596
- Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 8:56 am
- Location: Greater Pacific Northwest
I'm not going deep here. . .
I read Miftah and said to myself "wow, so he's the bastard that started it all", no wait. . . I actually thought to myself that it was a pretty bold statement and that what Miftah said, actually enlightened me to what the pieces symbology really was. I think I can appreciate Miftah and the explanation he's given for the motivation, response and historical significance of the piece.
Now, when I go back to -look- at it, I still simply want to -piss- in it. Which to -me- still says, it's -not- art.
So, in the grand scheme of things, for me it's insiginificant, and I choose to not consider it as art. But for what the art world considers, I shall not intrude, and I shall not make argument against something I can "understand", but do not "see". (does that make sense?)
I read Miftah and said to myself "wow, so he's the bastard that started it all", no wait. . . I actually thought to myself that it was a pretty bold statement and that what Miftah said, actually enlightened me to what the pieces symbology really was. I think I can appreciate Miftah and the explanation he's given for the motivation, response and historical significance of the piece.
Now, when I go back to -look- at it, I still simply want to -piss- in it. Which to -me- still says, it's -not- art.
So, in the grand scheme of things, for me it's insiginificant, and I choose to not consider it as art. But for what the art world considers, I shall not intrude, and I shall not make argument against something I can "understand", but do not "see". (does that make sense?)
-
eddiecanuck
- resident canuck
- Posts: 2151
- Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 5:39 pm
- Location: Spokane, WA
- Has thanked: 5 times
- Been thanked: 7 times
