ARTroversy
ARTroversy
Episode 3 - The Fountain
Marcel Duchamp is our topic today as we dive into his "intentionally disruptive" piece "The Fountain" and how it completely changed the post-modernist art world. We'll also open up into the discussion of "what is art?" and who gets to decide that answer?
This is a big one, so strap in and get ready!
Leave Feedback or Topic Ideas on my socials: BrieIY on Youtube or Twitter!
Music Information:
Ambiment - The Ambient by Kevin MacLeod is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Source: http://incompetech.com/music/royalty-free/index.html?isrc=USUAN1100630
Artist: http://incompetech.com/
Sources:
Wikipedia
PhilaMuseum.org
Artland Magazine
Tate.org
Medium.com
Let’s set the stage. You’re at a huge event, hosted by none other than the Metropolitan museum of art. Everyone’s all dressed up, you’re wearing your finest, and walking through exhibits just drinking in the absolute beauty and history of all the art around you. Guests stop and stare at renaissance oil paintings and ancient pottery, nodding their approval and expressing their admiration to one another. You pass a group of uppity looking older folks, and you can’t help but overhear them gushing about the absolutely stunning piece available for display in the Men’s bathroom. They can’t fathom why the museum would hide away such a brilliant piece!
Finally, you decide, you have to go and see for yourself. You make your way to the bathroom, push open the door and see a crowd has already formed! Is it an original? A portrait? A sculpture? You have to knock elbows with several exceptionally fancy looking men to get inside and finally get a peek of it, and it’s a…. Urinal? Crowds of people are forming a small audience just oohing and aahing… at a urinal! Whispers from the crowd call it brave… striking… even beautiful? It doesn’t make any sense. Surely this urinal can’t be considered “Art”, right? Well…. Wrong.
[Intro sequence]
II. Hello everyone, and welcome to Episode THREE of ARTroversy! When I uploaded my first episode at the beginning of November, I said I would be making at least three episodes to see how the project went. From here, I’m really not sure where the show will go, or I guess… IF it will go, but I really wanted to sort of explore the full range of what this show could be in these three episodes. Episode 1 I discussed the Dark History behind the work of famous artist Artemisia Gentileschi; Episode 2 focused more on the controversy surrounding the topic of tracing in the art world… specifically pulling on an example from Butch Hartman this past year, and now we’re going to see those ideas blend. Today we’re going to get a little art history AND a little modern controversy. We’re discussing Marcel Duchamp and his infamous artwork, The Fountain. Don’t forget to keep leaving any feedback or topic suggestions in the comments or send them to me on twitter, BrieIY-- like DIY but b r i E. Like the french cheese.
III. Speaking of the french, our focal artist, Marcel Duchamp, was in fact a French artist who worked in multiple styles and multiple mediums, including chess. How intellectual. Duchamp was born in France in the last 1800s, 1887 to be exact, on July 28th, which is, incidentally my fiance’s birthday. This of course makes him a Leo. Makes a whole lot of sense to me; this whole story screams Leo energy to me.
Oftentimes, we imagine artists as highly creative and right-brained, but Duchamp challenged this stereotype by being an outstanding academic, specifically in math. In spite of his success in academics, he dedicated much of his time to painting. He was even said to skip classes to play billiards instead. His early works fell predominantly in the post-impressionist movement, focusing greatly on symbolism and less on realistic qualities. The style is particular abstract which certainly aligns with many of his works.
His paintings often depict movement through repetition of shapes almost like a motion blur in animation. Truly, the best way I can describe his work is illusion paintings where you have to stand back pretty far and maybe cross your eyes a little bit to see the picture. I actually set up my laptop across the room and backed all the way up to interpret a lot of his works, and I’m still not 100% on what I’m seeing a lot of the time since it is so abstract. Keep in mind though, I’m an English teacher, not a proper art critic, so I don’t really know what I’m doing, but I think there is a lot to be said about how interpretation various from person to person and how experience dictates how we interact with art, but that could easily be a whole other topic.
Duchamp did spend some involuntary time in the military in 1905, and by 1908, he was exhibited in the annual Salon d’Automne (pardon my french, I’m really trying here) beside some really well-known artists (although some did call his work particularly ugly). From this, he made excellent connections, and started building his own reputation. He described his own work as “stretched out, as if elastic”, which I think is a really neat way to describe it. Though he initially seemed to resist the cubist movement which was emerging, maybe his works began to take on a cubist quality, which is described as showing multiple different views of the same subject in the same picture, which gives it a sort of broken appearance.
However, he was politely asked to withdraw a painting after submitting the piece to a cubist exhibit. The work was entitled “Nude Descending a Staircase, No. 2” which depicted what could be considered a cubist interpretation of a nude in the sort of motion-blurred style he hand moving doing a staircase, of course. The reason behind his being asked to withdraw was not a question of its quality, but if it was really considered a cubist work.
Duchamp himself described the event as a turning point in his life which turned him away from artist groups. By 1913, he was done altogether, and became a librarian. Through the readings he did in this time period ,he began to understand that criticism of ones art is not necessarily truth, and he really took this to heart. He began experimenting with art-science, blending his two talents together. Here is where we really begin to see the rearing of his controversy.
Duchamp was known to create works entitled “readymades”. The concept of the readymade is simple-- you take original objects, modify them or position them in a certain way, and boom. It’s art! Duchamp considered “art” as more than a visual medium -- art can impact the mind. One of his first readymades was a bicycle wheel mounted upside down on top of a stool. Simple, yet effective. While Duchamp said he originally created it to, quote, build atmosphere, he later stated he really enjoyed watching it rotate around and would spin it on occasion, solely to experience it.
Growing tired of France, and having experienced success born out of the small controversy with Nude Descending a Staircase No. 2, he emigrated to the US in 1915.
IV. For context, historically speaking, we’re within the time frame of World War I. This was of course a tense time in history. The horror and deep-seated negativity the war caused prompted many extreme reactions. One of these was a new art style focused on complete nonsense and irrationality. This was called Dadaism, or simply Dada. The artists involved really wanted to promote their anti-war politics by disregarding the standards in art all together, and in a way, operating against art itself as a construct.
Duchamp was a prominent member of the art world in the US, helping to found a new group entitled the American Society of Independent Artists in New York. The purpose, of course, was simply to create someplace where artists could share their work; it was as simple as that. There was no judgement, and no one was rewarded for being “better” than anyone else. In essence, it’s a great idea! It’s just like an open mic night. It cost $6 at the time to submit a work to the gallery, which would be close to $130 today. That was the only criteria.
Works were hung alphabetically by last name which kept things relatively fair and equal. Duchamp was sick and tired of being judged and having to be deemed “good enough” to make it into an exhibition. The idea of sharing art without first it being deemed valuable by the masses was really desirable after these types of experiences in Europe.
V. So finally, the first exhibition is approaching, and Duchamp submits his piece anonymously, satirically entitled “The Fountain”-- a readymade. But not just any readymade… it was a urinal. A store-bought urinal, laid on its side, and signed with the pseudonym, R. Mutt. And much to his surprise… the board of directors for this society said NO.
Their reasoning? The urinal was indecent and certainly wasn’t a piece of art. In truth, because the entrance fee was paid, it wasn’t exactly possible to reject the work-- but they certainly did try to hide it! Duchamp noted it was “placed behind a partition”, and although he was a part of the board of directors, even HE didn’t know where the piece was during the showing. Once it was located, Duchamp made a point ot ensuring it was photographed. It’s a good thing it was, as well, because not long after the piece had mysteriously gone missing. Some note that images taken in Duchamp’s studio featured a urinal hanging in the doorway. Some speculate this was The Fountain, recognizing there was little reason for Duchamp to have more than one urinal. I, however, firmly believe this man would have more than one urinal on hand.
With the rise of Dada… there was a notable amount of disagreement on the decision to censor the piece. The fact that it was hidden during the showing made it through the grapevine in the artist community. A Dadaist magazine shared the news of the refusal, comparing the form of the urinal to other well-known pieces, and even going so far as to call out those who said the piece was not art by claiming “The Fountain was not made by a plumber, but by the force of an imagination.” Because of Dadaism’s adherence to the idea that traditional art isn’t the only art, they lamented that it was the IDEA behind the piece that mattered, just like an ugly macaroni necklaces kids bring home to their parents after church champ. The magazine further asserted that a urinal can’t be considered indecent or immoral because they’re an everyday fixture and whether or not the urinal was handcrafted was irrelevant because it was CHOSEN by the artist, and for that, it had significance. It was interpreted as a claim that a useful object had, just by changing the orientation and the name, become useless.
At this time, Duchamp was still not publicly known as the artist. He was able to effectively test how open the society would be to unique art forms and truly be a safe space for artists to share their work and what they’re passionate about. R. Mutt was being scrutinized but also praised.
Duchamp’s motivation behind the use of the name R. Mutt differs between sources. Some note the name was actually a pun on the German word Armut meaning “poverty”. Others say it’s the name of a cartoon character, or even a play on the company Mott Works which manufactures sanitary equipment, much like urinal. Regardless of the reason, Duchamp chose to sign under a pseudonym to avoid any favor from his colleagues. Though, he had suspicions that the society may have discovered the true identity of R. Mutt, and he then left this society of artists after the dishonesty and clear disregard for the mission of the organization. One anonymous author even commented that the idea of the urinal being considered immoral is “absurd”. They questioned how such an everyday object could be considered immoral.
By the time the 1920s had begun, many believed Duchamp had abandoned art completely to focus on his competitive chess career. He reappeared in 1934 in which he produced a portable museum with miniatures of some of his favorite works. He entitled this “Box in a Valise” which is probably the cutest thing I have ever seen.
He began creating replicas of the Fountain in an attempt to show his works to a wider audience. Some then questioned the authenticity of the “art of the readymade” if it is a recreation and not any intentional choice in one particular moment. This of course opens up a whole other idea of which urinals can be considered art and which is based on dadaism. It seems so ironic given that it is basically the art equivalent of saying “the rules are there are no rules.”
Duchamp’s piece was considered “intentionally disruptive”. It made huge ripple effects in the art community. It challenged the idea of what art was supposed to be or look like. Though even after this huge bookmark in art history, the idea to the public of what art is seems to remain the same. Post-modern art rests in the ideal of complexity and contradiction. There is no single point of view in art. The world is always changing, and what is considered art now might not be considered art later, and what might not have been considered art at the time of the Fountain has now become a well-known staple in art history as the catalyst for post-modern art to thrive.
So, now for me to impart my two-cents upon the topic. What qualifies as art?
As I write these scripts and consider all of the possible topics, I’m constantly reminded of my art history class I took in college. It was hands down my favorite class I’ve probably ever taken with one of my favorite professors → shout out to you, Margaret! But it’s also ridiculously hard because of those same ideas surrounding change. Art has grown and evolved over the course of history and even just looking at the difference between works from cartoonists, animators, realistic portraitists, and even live-paintings for weddings– these wildly opposing styles are still valued as art because we as a society place value on them!
In this class, we had to do projects at two different points. Both of which involved creating art in the style and/or form of a particular time period. I will never forget the girl who did dadaism for her project. It was a brilliant performance art piece. She stood in front of the classroom which a large white canvas as if she were about to paint. Instead, she pulled a babydoll out of her bag and began straight-up dismembering it. Both legs, both arms, POP, no more head.. And piece by piece she look long pins and stabbed through appendages into the canvas so they hung off it like a creepy, flay, plastic babydoll mobile.
It was alarming, unexpected, and also unforgettable. I wonder constantly if everyone in my class thinks about it as much as I do. Her movements were so direct and powerful, but obviously unrehearsed. She had a plan, but the execution was what felt right in the moment, and she did well on our art project because simplly put… she said it was art, so it was.
This also makes me think about a scene from the first season of Daredevil on Netflix. The big mob-boss is talking with a museum curator, looking at what appears to be a white on white canvas. Vast and empty. She made a joke about the painting being a “rabbit in a snowstorm”, (classic, I know), but more importantly, she comments that art isn’t really about what you see, it’s about how it makes you feel, and I think that’s really well put.
Now, I attempted a quick google search on that to see if it was actually some fancy well-known quote from Henry David Thoreau or someone, but I couldn’t find it. Truthfully, I’m not certain that’s even the exact quote, but I think it really does encapsulate art as a concept.
I am by no means qualified to decide here and now what art is and isn’t, or provide a definitive definition because I truly think that’s an impossible task, but I do think the feelings are what makes art meaningful to us as individuals, and as artists.
I don’t remember where that baby doll’s head was in relation to it’s left arm, but I remember the shock and awe I felt watching it come to be. I remember crying to the song “For Good” from Wicked when I saw it live. I remember every frustrating line and groan as I attempt to create the vision I have in my head when I draw because the vision in my head means something to me. I remember publishing my first book on poetry and absolutely panicking over how my words might be misinterpreted, or mean something completely different than I intended to a complete stranger. And then I realized, there is a beauty in that.
Art is interactive… it’s transactional. We experience art, not just see it. It’s more than just paint on a canvas, and once I accepted that, it became a lot more fun to create. I actually wrote a short-form piece about that same idea. I called in “interpretations”. It reads
“What if the
Pencil markings
Blend into colors
I didn't intend?
That is just a risk
I will have to take.”
My experience writing something may be different than someone else reading, but isn’t that what makes art so freaking incredible? It might mean one thing to me, and something different to you, but the crazy thing is that it makes meaning. Plato once said something like “The offspring of painting stand there as if alive, but if you ask them a question, they maintain an aloof silence.” That’s true, but that also means the answer can be anything I imagine it to be. I’m not bound by the authorship, I’m free to feel, respond, and make meaning for myself, and creators are free to do the same. The expression can be just as powerful and meaningful as the reception.It’s not always about the end product.
In a way, I wonder if our ideas about what is and isn’t art are rooted in a sort of selfish idea that our feelings or ideas are true and correct. Society believed that the Fountain was obscene, but obviously not everyone did. Of course, I also wonder, would the Fountain have been as highly praised if it hadn’t been as controversial or brave? Was the artistry in it that it was, in and of itself challenging, or was it is the feelings of outrage over censorship. Was it art because it made the society uncomfortable and facilitated change? Who’s to say it’s not all of these things together?
Even now as I look to Duchamp’s fountain, I see a statement. It is certainly intentionally disruptive. It makes me stop. It made me think, and certainly that’s a part of what makes it so great.
Perhaps the experience of creating the work itself, and the performance of Duchamp as he flipped the urinal and signed his name gave him a certain feeling. Perhaps it meant much more to him than we will ever know, only being able to look at a picture of the finished product.
Realistically, this episode has probably asked more questions than it answered. It's like a big pile of maybes and could bes with a dash of history, but damn, isn’t it interesting?
Anyway, I wanted to thank you so much for tuning into this episode. Feel free to leave a comment on the YouTube channel video, that’s BrieIY, B-R-I-E-I-Y, or shoot me a tweet or DM on twitter under the same name. Let me know what you think about the episode and also, how does The Fountain make you feel? I’m interested to know!
Stay excellent my artsy friends, and I’ll be seeing you in the next one!
