2:54 . Love the concluding statement from the Dadaist Journal, "The Blind Man," that asserts that the act of choosing, of stripping something of utility, and of inserting "a new thought for that object" is what qualifies something as an art object.
That's the beauty of it though, whether or not you consider the "Fountain" art, it has deeply impacted modern art today, becoming the most inspirational piece in fact. The point is, we still talk about it today, we still argue about it today, some still gain inspiration off of it today, and whether or not that was Duchamp's original plan for the "Fountain", it's definitely true. Actually, funny story, the "Fountain" . . . was a practical joke XD
No. She said it had a Feminine form and elements of traditionally feminine symbols. She basically polity said that thing has great curves, a beautiful shape, triangular details with internal plumbing.
Duchamp extended the parameters of art itself. There would be no Andy Warhol or Donald Judd or Andy Goldsworthy or (most importantly) Felix Gonzalez-Torres if there hadn't been Duchamp. What he did was let [as in "allow" but also as in "unleash"] every-/any- thing into white cube's "worship" space.
Until the 1964 edition Fountain was almost completely unknown despite Duchamps reputation. Books on Dada and Surrealism pre 1964 do not even mention Fountain although they show works such as Bride Stripped Bare...and Nude Decending Staircase.
The way he displayed it had a big part in changing it from industrial mass produced to art. The message is pretty strong about what he things of art critics.
He may have been commenting on the fiat art game. Fiat money is when you just print money that has no value except that people use it as if it does. When you own the art press, the publishing business, the newspapers, and the art galleries, you can put a toilet in there an prounounce that it is worth a million dollars, the scribbles of Pollock, the fingerpaint of Miro. It is about the people who own the business creating fake value. And I think most people laugh at it and hate it but there are some who shout "A Pollock!" Guggenheim is someone like this. Gertrude Stein accomplished this with the smears of Picasso.
This is not "art!" That is not the point! Dada was a reaction against art: a way to say that art was the cause for the war of 1914-1918 because art influences nationality through beauty and identity. Dada is stupid and it's genius because of this because in many ways art is stupid: why can't a urinal be considered art yet a sculpture made by a revered artist is? Both are made of the same material basically yet one is considered suitable to be displayed. It should be interesting to think about the person who actually made the fountain (I presume an assembly line at this time) because we have to keep in mind that everyday objects serve a function to help us and guide us. The everyday man and everyday object therefore (as considered by Dada) is art. Life is art.
not exacly, art is the representation of mastery of a certain skill representing real life or feelings, what happened with this fountain has nothing to do with a mastery of a skill, this is plain lazy way of attempting to defile the meaning of art, art is reality represented through a skill that has been advanced or mastered and therefore represented through that specific skill, art must contain spirit, must contain the intention with the perfected form of mastery. by this definition, to do art, one must reach the top of a skill and demonstrate something with this skill this modern art, is a demonstration of ideas through unskilled people that put no spirit into their work, no intention is seen through these works, to make your own work to have it's intention seen plus mastery of a skill is what true art strives for, not this shame.
Just a guy saying f**k if you want art here’s this urinal. And now this urinal is not even useful anymore but people pit it on a shrine. I’ll call it ironic.
From my perspective this is a middle finger to those people who didn’t even know a thing about art but pretend to admire it. So Duchamp threw a urinal in their face to shut them up, instead, people were thrilled.
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
Give me a frigging break. The man takes a urinal and claims it as his own original piece or art. This as bad as that over-celebrated jerk Andy Warhol who painted Campbell's soup cans. And they call these people innovators or whatever.
E.PLUMBUS UNUM but he doesn't claim it to be Art and that's the point. The so called "ready-made" does not want to express anything. Duchamp wants to change the basic definition of Art or at least add a new point of view. Duchamp doesn't see Art as the concept of making and creating an asthetic object. For him Art means to give every possible object a new meaning, a new way of seeing it. therefore the object is not connected anymore with the use it was made for. By putting it in museums, signing it, adding another object or setting it in another concept it becomes important what the question is. how can the artist see it. how can we see it. how does it shock, what story does it tell? why this object. this concept makes Art an process of transformation, projection, not visuelle reality and different realities. he means to free Art from the chains of conventions. (I am not a big fan of Duchamp either but I see his point)
Marcel Duchamp: the world's first troll.
Wasn't that the Greeks behind the Trojan Horse?
He probably didn't think people would actually go this far with this joke..
2:54 . Love the concluding statement from the Dadaist Journal, "The Blind Man," that asserts that the act of choosing, of stripping something of utility, and of inserting "a new thought for that object" is what qualifies something as an art object.
That's the beauty of it though, whether or not you consider the "Fountain" art, it has deeply impacted modern art today, becoming the most inspirational piece in fact.
The point is, we still talk about it today, we still argue about it today, some still gain inspiration off of it today, and whether or not that was Duchamp's original plan for the "Fountain", it's definitely true.
Actually, funny story, the "Fountain" . . . was a practical joke XD
The ultimate send up. Seminal Concept piece though. Love to see how it incites people still (below) 100 years on!
Did that lady just assume the gender of that urinal?
CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE FEMALE BRO
No. She said it had a Feminine form and elements of traditionally feminine symbols.
She basically polity said that thing has great curves, a beautiful shape, triangular details with internal plumbing.
Great video. Thank you so much!
Duchamp extended the parameters of art itself. There would be no Andy Warhol or Donald Judd or Andy Goldsworthy or (most importantly) Felix Gonzalez-Torres if there hadn't been Duchamp. What he did was let [as in "allow" but also as in "unleash"] every-/any- thing into white cube's "worship" space.
s-sorry did she just say “ur - eye - nulls”
Until the 1964 edition Fountain was almost completely unknown despite Duchamps reputation. Books on Dada and Surrealism pre 1964 do not even mention Fountain although they show works such as Bride Stripped Bare...and Nude Decending Staircase.
did that girl just- i- WHAT IS LIFE ANYMORE
The Grand Dada of Alternativism art not I.
he is the God in universal art
Did he just buy an urinal and called it art or did he just signed it.
The way he displayed it had a big part in changing it from industrial mass produced to art.
The message is pretty strong about what he things of art critics.
yes. and he don't even signed with his own name.
Winged Victory=art, Fountain=unused urinal.
The whole point of his art is to make you wonder why it's art. Your very disbelief over the artwork is exactly why it is artwork.
He may have been commenting on the fiat art game. Fiat money is when you just print money that has no value except that people use it as if it does. When you own the art press, the publishing business, the newspapers, and the art galleries, you can put a toilet in there an prounounce that it is worth a million dollars, the scribbles of Pollock, the fingerpaint of Miro. It is about the people who own the business creating fake value. And I think most people laugh at it and hate it but there are some who shout "A Pollock!" Guggenheim is someone like this. Gertrude Stein accomplished this with the smears of Picasso.
This is good.
But I think this is art!
Not saying I am crazy 😂
This is not "art!" That is not the point! Dada was a reaction against art: a way to say that art was the cause for the war of 1914-1918 because art influences nationality through beauty and identity. Dada is stupid and it's genius because of this because in many ways art is stupid: why can't a urinal be considered art yet a sculpture made by a revered artist is? Both are made of the same material basically yet one is considered suitable to be displayed. It should be interesting to think about the person who actually made the fountain (I presume an assembly line at this time) because we have to keep in mind that everyday objects serve a function to help us and guide us. The everyday man and everyday object therefore (as considered by Dada) is art. Life is art.
not exacly, art is the representation of mastery of a certain skill representing real life or feelings, what happened with this fountain has nothing to do with a mastery of a skill, this is plain lazy way of attempting to defile the meaning of art, art is reality represented through a skill that has been advanced or mastered and therefore represented through that specific skill, art must contain spirit, must contain the intention with the perfected form of mastery.
by this definition, to do art, one must reach the top of a skill and demonstrate something with this skill
this modern art, is a demonstration of ideas through unskilled people that put no spirit into their work, no intention is seen through these works, to make your own work to have it's intention seen plus mastery of a skill is what true art strives for, not this shame.
@@ProtoIndoEuropean88 its sounds like your jealous of Mr Duchamp.
Just a guy saying f**k if you want art here’s this urinal. And now this urinal is not even useful anymore but people pit it on a shrine. I’ll call it ironic.
From my perspective this is a middle finger to those people who didn’t even know a thing about art but pretend to admire it. So Duchamp threw a urinal in their face to shut them up, instead, people were thrilled.
where my school kids at?
right here
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
duchamp was a genius he turned the urinal upside down because he was saying he was pissing on the art academy's ideas of what art should be ?
Maybe, but he liked how it resembles the outline of 'Mother Mary' too.
It is art, but really bad art
That's the point of Dada.
Homo deus bring me here
Crazy people. Talking about urinal as if it is a masterpiece.
They be talking about the idea of putting a urinal into a gallery, to prove it is censoring which pretty creative tbh
👏
super art
Omg. Brits pronounce it your eye nalls
No . Usually ur inal.
Taking the piss at art - isn't that beautiful?
Indeed. This man is an inspiration to us all.
When she called it a ur- I -nal.....!!! She's off her rocker yo!!!
What is it?
lmao ur-eye-nols
Give me a frigging break. The man takes a urinal and claims it as his own original piece or art. This as bad as that over-celebrated jerk Andy Warhol who painted Campbell's soup cans. And they call these people innovators or whatever.
E.PLUMBUS UNUM but he doesn't claim it to be Art and that's the point. The so called "ready-made" does not want to express anything. Duchamp wants to change the basic definition of Art or at least add a new point of view. Duchamp doesn't see Art as the concept of making and creating an asthetic object. For him Art means to give every possible object a new meaning, a new way of seeing it. therefore the object is not connected anymore with the use it was made for. By putting it in museums, signing it, adding another object or setting it in another concept it becomes important what the question is. how can the artist see it. how can we see it. how does it shock, what story does it tell? why this object. this concept makes Art an process of transformation, projection, not visuelle reality and different realities. he means to free Art from the chains of conventions. (I am not a big fan of Duchamp either but I see his point)
Bad Art contest : Picasso, Munch, Duchamp participated???
LMAO
GISHWHES
the beggining of degeneracy
tf i-
he destroyed art