Home  ›  Piece of Art Showing People Looking at the Water Early 1900s

Piece of Art Showing People Looking at the Water Early 1900s

Written By quinta-feira, 28 de abril de 2022 Add Comment Edit

1917 sculpture by Marcel Duchamp

Fountain is a readymade sculpture by Marcel Duchamp in 1917, consisting of a porcelain urinal signed "R. Mutt". In April 1917, an ordinary slice of plumbing chosen by Duchamp was submitted for an exhibition of the Social club of Independent Artists, the inaugural exhibition by the Society to exist staged at The Grand Central Palace in New York. When explaining the purpose of his Readymade sculpture, Duchamp stated they are "everyday objects raised to the dignity of a work of art by the creative person'southward human action of choice."[2] In Duchamp's presentation, the urinal's orientation was contradistinct from its usual positioning.[3] [4] [five] Fountain was not rejected by the committee, since Society rules stated that all works would be accepted from artists who paid the fee, but the piece of work was never placed in the bear witness area.[6] Following that removal, Fountain was photographed at Alfred Stieglitz's studio, and the photo published in the Dada periodical The Blind Human being. The original has been lost.

The work is regarded by fine art historians and theorists of the advanced as a major landmark in 20th-century art. Xvi replicas were commissioned from Duchamp in the 1950s and 1960s and made to his approval.[7] Some take suggested that the original piece of work was by the female artist Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven[8] [9] who had submitted it to Duchamp as a friend, but fine art historians maintain that Duchamp was solely responsible for Fountain's presentation.[3] [x]

Fountain is included in the Marcel Duchamp catalogue raisonné by Arturo Schwarz; The complete works of Marcel Duchamp (number 345).[11]

Origin [edit]

Eljer Co. Highest Quality Two-Fired Vitreous China Catalogue 1918 Bedfordshire No. 700

Marcel Duchamp arrived in the United States less than two years prior to the creation of Fountain and had go involved with Francis Picabia, Man Ray, and Beatrice Forest (amongst others) in the creation of an anti-rational, anti-art, proto-Dada cultural movement in New York City.[12] [13] [14]

In early 1917, rumors spread that Duchamp was working on a Cubist painting titled Tulip Hysteria Co-ordinating, in preparation for the largest exhibition of modern art e'er to take place in the United States.[15] When Tulip Hysteria Co-ordinating did not announced at the show, those who had expected to run across information technology were disappointed.[16] Merely the painting likely never existed.[half dozen] [17]

The urinal suspended in Marcel Duchamp's studio at 33 Due west 67th Street, New York, 1917-18. Two other readymades past Duchamp are visible in the photograph: In Accelerate of the Cleaved Arm (1915), and Lid rack (Porte-chapeau) (1917). This photograph is reproduced at the superlative right of one of the plates from Duchamp's La Boîte-en-valise.

Fountain reproduced in The Blind Homo, No. 2, New York, 1917

Jean Crotti, 1915, Portrait of Marcel Duchamp (Sculpture made to measure out), mixed media. Exhibited Montross Gallery four–22 April 1916, New York Urban center. Sculpture lost or destroyed[19]

Co-ordinate to one version, the creation of Fountain began when, accompanied by artist Joseph Stella and art collector Walter Arensberg, Duchamp purchased a standard Bedfordshire model urinal from the J. L. Mott Iron Works, 118 5th Avenue. The artist brought the urinal to his studio at 33 Westward 67th Street, reoriented information technology ninety degrees[3] [iv] from its originally intended position of use,[20] [5] [21] and wrote on it, "R. Mutt 1917".[22] [23] Duchamp elaborated:

Mutt comes from Mott Works, the proper name of a large sanitary equipment manufacturer. Simply Mott was also close and then I altered it to Mutt, afterward the daily cartoon strip "Mutt and Jeff" which appeared at the fourth dimension, and with which everyone was familiar. Thus, from the commencement, there was an interplay of Mutt: a fat picayune funny man, and Jeff: a alpine thin human being... I wanted any old proper name. And I added Richard [French slang for coin-numberless]. That'south not a bad proper noun for a pissotière. Get information technology? The contrary of poverty. But not even that much, only R. MUTT.[3] [10]

At the time Duchamp was a board member of the Society of Independent Artists. Afterward much debate by the board members (virtually of whom did not know Duchamp had submitted it, as he had submitted the work 'under a pseudonym') about whether the slice was or was not art, Fountain was hidden from view during the show.[24] [25]Duchamp resigned from the Board, and "withdrew" Tulip Hysteria Co-ordinating in protest.[vi] [26] [27] For this reason the piece of work was "suppressed" (Duchamp's expression).[5]

No, not rejected. A work can't be rejected past the Independents. It was simply suppressed. I was on the jury, just I wasn't consulted, considering the officials didn't know that information technology was I who had sent it in; I had written the name "Mutt" on it to avoid connection with the personal. The "Fountain" was only placed behind a partition and, for the duration of the exhibition, I didn't know where it was. I couldn't say that I had sent the thing, but I call up the organizers knew information technology through gossip. No i dared mention it. I had a falling out with them, and retired from the arrangement. Afterwards the exhibition, we institute the "Fountain" again, behind a partition, and I retrieved information technology! (Marcel Duchamp, 1971)[28]

The New York Dadaists stirred controversy about Fountain and its existence rejected in the second issue of The Bullheaded Man which included a photo of the piece and a letter by Alfred Stieglitz, and writings by Louise Norton, Beatrice Wood and Arensberg.[xviii] An editorial, possibly written by Wood, accompanying the photograph, entitled "The Richard Mutt Case",[29] fabricated a claim that would prove to exist important concerning certain works of art that would come after information technology:

Whether Mr Mutt with his own hands made the fountain or not has no importance. He CHOSE it. He took an ordinary article of life, placed it so that its useful significance disappeared under the new title and point of view – created a new thought for that object.[18]

In defense of the piece of work being fine art, the piece continues, "The only works of art America has given are her plumbing and her bridges."[18] Duchamp described his intent with the slice was to shift the focus of art from physical arts and crafts to intellectual interpretation.

In a letter dated 23 April 1917, Stieglitz wrote of the photograph he took of Fountain: "The "Urinal" photograph is actually quite a wonder—Everyone who has seen it thinks it beautiful—And information technology'south true—it is. It has an oriental expect about it—a cross betwixt a Buddha and a Veiled Woman."[3] [30]

In 1918, Mercure de French republic published an article attributed to Guillaume Apollinaire stating Fountain, originally titled "le Bouddha de la salle de bain" (Buddha of the bath), represented a sitting Buddha.[31] The motive invoked for its refusal at the Independents were that the entry was (1) immoral and vulgar, (2) it was plagiarism, a commercial slice of plumbing.[18] R. Mutt responded, according to Apollinaire, that the work was non immoral since similar pieces could be seen every twenty-four hours exposed in plumbing and bath supply stores.[xviii] [31] On the 2nd signal, R. Mutt pointed out that the fact Fountain was not made by the mitt of the creative person was unimportant. The importance was in the choice made past the artist.[31] The artist chose an object of every-day life, erased its usual significance by giving it a new title, and from this betoken of view, gave a new purely esthetic meaning to the object.[18] [31]

Menno Hubregtse argues that Duchamp may have chosen Fountain every bit a readymade because it parodied Robert J. Coady's exaltation of industrial machines as pure forms of American fine art.[32] Coady, who championed his call for American art in his publication The Soil, printed a scathing review of Jean Crotti'south Portrait of Marcel Duchamp (Sculpture Fabricated to Measure) in the December 1916 issue. Hubregtse notes that Duchamp's urinal may accept been a clever response to Coady'due south comparison of Crotti's sculpture with "the absolute expression of a—plumber."[33]

Some have contested that Duchamp created Fountain, but rather assisted in submitting the piece to the Order of Independent Artists for a female friend. In a letter dated xi April 1917 Duchamp wrote to his sister Suzanne: "Une de mes amies sous un pseudonyme masculin, Richard Mutt, avait envoyé une pissotière en porcelaine comme sculpture" ("One of my female friends under a masculine pseudonym, Richard Mutt, sent in a porcelain urinal as a sculpture.")[34] [35] [36] Duchamp never identified his female person friend, but three candidates accept been proposed: an early on advent of Duchamp's female alter ego Rrose Sélavy;[3] [x] the Dadaist Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven;[35] [37] or Louise Norton (a Dada poet and a close friend of Duchamp,[38] after married to the avant-garde French composer Edgard Varèse),[39] who contributed an essay to The Blind Man discussing Fountain,[xviii] and whose address is partially discernible on the paper entry ticket in the Stieglitz photograph.[40] On 1 manus, the fact that Duchamp wrote 'sent' not 'made', does non indicate that someone else created the work.[3] Furthermore, there is no documentary or testimonial bear witness that suggests von Freytag created Fountain.[iii]

Shortly after its initial exhibition, Fountain was lost. According to Duchamp biographer Calvin Tomkins, the best judge is that it was thrown out as rubbish by Stieglitz, a mutual fate of Duchamp's early readymades.[41] Nonetheless, the myth goes that the original Fountain was in fact not thrown out merely returned to Richard Mutt by Duchamp.[34] [35] [36]

The reaction engendered past Fountain connected for weeks following the exhibition submission. An article was published in Boston on 25 April 1917:

A Philadelphian, Richard Mutt, member of the lodge, and non related to our friend of the "Mutt and Jeff" cartoons, submitted a bathroom fixture as a "work of art." The official tape of the episode of its removal says: "Richard Mutt threatens to sue the directors because they removed the bath fixture, mounted on a pedestal, which he submitted as a 'piece of work of art.' Some of the directors wanted it to remain, in view of the society's ruling of 'no jury' to make up one's mind on the merits of the 2500 paintings and sculptures submitted. Other directors maintained that it was indecent at a coming together and the bulk voted it down. As a result of this Marcel Duchamp retired from the Board. Mr. Mutt now wants more than his ante returned. He wants damages."[42] [43]

Duchamp began making miniature reproductions of Fountain in 1935, first in papier-mâché and and so in porcelain,[44] for his multiple editions of a miniature museum 'retrospective' titled Boîte-en-valise or 'box in a suitcase', 1935–66.[45] [46] [47] Duchamp carried many of these miniature works within The Suitcase which were replicas of some of his most prominent work.[48] The first 1:ane reproduction of Fountain was authorized by Duchamp in 1950 for an exhibition in New York; two more private pieces followed in 1953 and 1963, and then an creative person'due south multiple was manufactured in an edition of 8 in 1964.[49] [50] [51] These editions ended up in a number of important public collections; Indiana University Art Museum, San Francisco Museum of Modernistic Art, the National Gallery of Canada, Centre Georges Pompidou and Tate Modernistic. The edition of eight was manufactured from glazed earthenware painted to resemble the original porcelain, with a signature, reproduced in blackness pigment.[3]

Interpretations [edit]

Of all the artworks in this serial of readymades, Fountain is possibly the all-time known because the symbolic meaning of the toilet takes the conceptual challenge posed past the readymades to their most visceral extreme.[52] Similarly, philosopher Stephen Hicks[53] argued that Duchamp, who was quite familiar with the history of European fine art, was obviously making a provocative argument with Fountain:

The artist is a not not bad creator—Duchamp went shopping at a plumbing store. The artwork is not a special object—information technology was mass-produced in a manufactory. The feel of art is non exciting and ennobling—at best it is puzzling and generally leaves i with a sense of distaste. Only over and higher up that, Duchamp did not select merely whatever ready-made object to brandish. In selecting the urinal, his bulletin was clear: Fine art is something you piss on.[53]

The impact of Duchamp's Fountain changed the way people view art due his focus upon "cerebral art" opposite to just "retinal art", equally this was a means to engage prospective audiences in a thought-provoking way every bit opposed to satisfying the aesthetic condition quo "turning from classicism to modernity".[54]

Since the photo taken by Stieglitz is the only image of the original sculpture, there are some interpretations of Fountain by looking not only at reproductions but this detail photograph. Tomkins notes:

"Arensberg had referred to a 'lovely form' and information technology does not take much stretching of the imagination to see in the upside-downwardly urinal's gently flowing curves the veiled head of a classic Renaissance Madonna or a seated Buddha or, peradventure more to the point, one of Brâncuși'south polished erotic forms."[1] [55]

Expanding upon the erotic estimation linked to Brancusi'due south piece of work, Tim Martin has argued there were potent sexual connotations with the Fountain, linked to information technology existence placed horizontally. He goes onto say:

"In placing the urinal horizontally it appears more than passive, and feminine, while remaining a receptacle designed for the functioning of the male penis."[56]

The meaning (if any) and intention of both the piece and the signature "R. Mutt", are hard to pin down precisely. It is not clear whether Duchamp had in mind the German "Armut" (meaning "poverty"), or maybe "Urmutter" (significant "not bad mother").[35] The name R. Mutt could as well be a play on its commercial origins or on the famous comic strip of the time, Mutt and Jeff (making the urinal perhaps the first work of art based on a comic).[57] Duchamp said the R stood for Richard, French slang for "moneybags", which makes Fountain a kind of scatological gold calf.[23]

Rhonda Roland Shearer in the online periodical Tout-Fait (2000) suspects that the Stieglitz photograph is a composite of unlike photos, while other scholars such as William Camfield take never been able to match the urinal shown in the photo to any urinals plant in the catalogues of the time period.[10]

In a 1964 interview with Otto Hahn, Duchamp suggested he purposefully selected a urinal because it was disagreeable. The choice of a urinal, according to Duchamp, "sprang from the thought of making an experiment concerned with gustatory modality: cull the object which has the least chance of being liked. A urinal—very few people think at that place is annihilation wonderful nearly a urinal."[21] [58]

Rudolf E. Kuenzli states, in Dada and Surrealist Film (1996), after describing how various readymades are presented or displayed: "This decontextualization of the object'south functional place draws attention to the cosmos of its creative significant by the option of the setting and positioning ascribed to the object." He goes on to explain the importance of naming the object (ascribing a title). At least 3 factors came into play: the choice of object, the title, and how it was modified, if at all, from its 'normal' position or location. By virtue of placing a urinal on a pedestal in an art exhibition, the illusion of an artwork was created.[59]

Duchamp drew an ink copy of the 1917 Stieglitz photo in 1964 for the cover of an exhibition catalogue, Marcel Duchamp: Gear up-mades, etc., 1913–1964. The illustration appeared as a photographic negative. Later, Duchamp made a positive version, titled Mirrorical Return (Renvoi miroirique; 1964). Dalia Judovitz writes:

Structured as an emblem, the visual and linguistic elements fix a punning coaction that helps us to explore further the mechanisms that Fountain actively stages. On the one mitt, there is the mirror-effect of the drawing and the etching, which although they are almost identical visually, involve an active switch from one artistic medium to the other. On the other hand, in that location is the internal mirrorical return of the image itself, since this urinal, like the ane in 1917, has been rotated ninety degrees. This internal rotation disqualifies the object from its mutual use equally a receptacle, and reactivates its poetic potential as a fountain; that is, every bit a machine for waterworks. The "splash" generated past Fountain is thus tied to its "mirrorical return," similar the faucet in the title.[5]

During the 1950s and 1960s, as Fountain and other readymades were rediscovered, Duchamp became a cultural icon in the world of art, exemplified past a "deluge of publications", as Camfield noted, "an unparalleled example of timing in which the burgeoning interest in Duchamp coincided with exhilarating developments in avant-garde art, virtually all of which exhibited links of some sort to Duchamp." His art was transformed from "a small, aberrant phenomenon in the history of mod art to the nearly dynamic force in gimmicky art."[x] [39]

Legacy [edit]

In December 2004, Duchamp's Fountain was voted the most influential artwork of the 20th century by 500 selected British art earth professionals. Second place was afforded to Picasso'southward Les Demoiselles d'Avignon (1907) and third to Andy Warhol's Marilyn Diptych (1962).[60] The Contained noted in a Feb 2008 article that with this single work, Duchamp invented conceptual fine art and "severed forever the traditional link betwixt the creative person'southward labour and the merit of the piece of work".[61]

Jerry Saltz wrote in The Hamlet Vox in 2006:

Duchamp adamantly asserted that he wanted to "de-deify" the artist. The readymades provide a way around inflexible either-or aesthetic propositions. They stand for a Copernican shift in art. Fountain is what's chosen an "acheropoietoi," [sic] an image not shaped by the easily of an artist. Fountain brings us into contact with an original that is still an original simply that also exists in an altered philosophical and metaphysical state. It is a manifestation of the Kantian sublime: A work of fine art that transcends a class but that is besides intelligible, an object that strikes down an idea while allowing it to spring upwards stronger.[23]

Others have questioned whether Duchamp'south Fountain really could found a work of art. Grayson Perry stated in Playing to The Gallery in 2014: "When he decided that anything could be art he got a urinal and brought it into an art gallery... I observe it quite arrogant, that idea of just pointing at something and saying 'That's art.'"[62]

Interventions [edit]

Several functioning artists have attempted to contribute to the slice by urinating in it. South African built-in artist Kendell Geers rose to international notoriety in 1993 when, at a evidence in Venice, he urinated into Fountain.[63] Creative person / musician Brian Eno declared he successfully urinated in Fountain while it was exhibited in the MoMA in 1993. He admitted that it was just a technical triumph because he needed to urinate in a tube in advance then he could convey the fluid through a gap between the protective glass.[64] Swedish artist Björn Kjelltoft urinated in Fountain at Moderna Museet in Stockholm in 1999.[65]

In spring 2000, Yuan Chai and Jian Jun Xi, 2 functioning artists, who in 1999 had jumped on Tracey Emin's installation-sculpture My Bed in the Turner Prize exhibition at Tate Britain, went to the newly opened Tate Modern and tried to urinate on the Fountain which was on display. However, they were prevented from soiling the sculpture directly by its Perspex example. The Tate, which denied that the duo had succeeded in urinating into the sculpture itself,[66] banned them from the bounds stating that they were threatening "works of fine art and our staff." When asked why they felt they had to add together to Duchamp'south work, Chai said, "The urinal is there – it'due south an invitation. As Duchamp said himself, information technology'south the creative person's choice. He chooses what is fine art. We just added to it."[61]

On January iv, 2006, while on display in the Dada show in the Pompidou Centre in Paris, Fountain was attacked past Pierre Pinoncelli, a 76-yr-old French performance creative person, most noted for damaging ii of the 8 copies of Fountain. The hammer he used during the assail on the artwork acquired a slight chip.[67] Pinoncelli, who was arrested, said the attack was a work of performance art that Marcel Duchamp himself would have appreciated.[68] In 1993 Pinoncelli urinated into the piece while it was on display in Nimes, in southern France. Both of Pinoncelli's performances derive from neo-Dadaists' and Viennese Actionists' intervention or manoeuvre.[69]

Reinterpretations [edit]

Appropriation artist Sherrie Levine created statuary copies in 1991 and 1996 titled Fountain (Madonna) and Fountain (Buddha) respectively. [70] [71] They are considered to be an "homage to Duchamp's renowned readymade. By doing then, Levine is re-evaluating 3D objects within the realm of appropriation, like the readymades, to mass-produced photographic art.[72] Calculation to Duchamp's audacious move, Levine turns his gesture back into an "art object" past elevating its materiality and end. Every bit a feminist artist, Levine remakes works specifically by male person artists who commandeered patriarchal authorisation in art history."[73]

John Baldessari created an edition of multicolored ceramic bed pans with the text: "The Artist is a Fountain", in 2002.[74]

In 2003 Saul Melman constructed a massively enlarged version, Johnny on the Spot, for Burning Human being and after burned it.[75]

In 2015 Mike Bidlo created a cracked "statuary redo" of Fountain titled Fractured Fountain (Not Duchamp Fountain 1917), which was exhibited at Francis M. Naumann Art in 2016.[76] "Bidlo's version is a lovingly handcrafted porcelain copy that he then smashed, reconstituted, and bandage in bronze."[77]

Exactly 100 years to the solar day of the opening of the First Exhibition of the Club of Independent Artists, Francis M. Naumann Fine Art opened "Marcel Duchamp Fountain: An Homage" on April x, 2017.[78] The evidence included Urinal Cake by Sophie Matisse, Russian constructivist urinals by Alexander Kosolapov, and a 2015 work by Ai Wei Wei.[79] [lxxx]

Afterword [edit]

From the 1950s, Duchamp's influence on American artists had grown exponentially. Life mag referred to him as "maybe the world's most eminent Dadaist", Dada's "spiritual leader", "Dada'south Daddy" in a lengthy article published 28 April 1952.[81] [82] By the mid-50s his readymades were present in permanent collections of American museums.[82]

In 1961, Duchamp wrote a letter to beau Dadaist Hans Richter in which he supposedly said:

This Neo-Dada, which they call New Realism, Pop Art, Assemblage, etc., is an piece of cake way out, and lives on what Dada did. When I discovered the prepare-mades I sought to discourage aesthetics. In Neo-Dada they take taken my readymades and found aesthetic beauty in them, I threw the bottle rack and the urinal into their faces as a challenge and now they admire them for their aesthetic beauty.[83] [84]

Richter, withal, years subsequently claimed those words were non by Duchamp. Richter had sent Duchamp this paragraph for comment, writing: "You threw the bottle rack and the urinal into their face…," etc. Duchamp but wrote: "Ok, ça va très bien" ("Ok, that works very well") in the margins.[82] [85]

Contrary to Richter's quote, Duchamp wrote favorably of Pop art in 1964, though indifferent to the humour or materials of Popular artists:

Pop Art is a render to "conceptual" painting, virtually abandoned, except by the Surrealists, since Courbet, in favor of retinal painting… If you lot take a Campbell soup can and repeat it 50 times, yous are not interested in the retinal image. What interests you lot is the concept that wants to put fifty Campbell soup cans on a canvas.[82] [86]

Art market place [edit]

The prices for replicas, editions, or works that have some ephemeral trace of Duchamp attained a tape with the purchase of ane of the viii 1964 replicas of Fountain.[87] On 17 November 1999, a version of Fountain (owned by Arturo Schwarz) was sold at Sotheby's, New York, for $one,762,500 to Dimitris Daskalopoulos, who alleged that Fountain represented 'the origin of gimmicky art'. The price set a globe record, at the time, for a work by Marcel Duchamp at public auction.[88] [89] The tape was surpassed in 2009 by his 1921 readymade Belle Haleine, Eau de Voilette, a perfume bottle in its box which sold for $11.4 million.[90]

Run across likewise [edit]

  • Found object
  • Fountain Archive
  • God (sculpture)
  • Art intervention
  • Transgressive fine art
  • Apolinère Enameled
  • Tulip Hysteria Co-ordinating
  • America, sculpture past Maurizio Cattelan

References [edit]

  1. ^ a b Tomkins, Duchamp: A Biography, p. 186.
  2. ^ Martin, Tim (1999). Essential Surrealists. Bath: Dempsey Parr. p. 42. ISBN1-84084-513-9.
  3. ^ a b c d e f yard h i "Fountain, Marcel Duchamp, 1917, replica, 1964". tate.org.uk. Tate. Retrieved 5 October 2018.
  4. ^ a b Gavin Parkinson, The Duchamp Book: Tate Essential Artists Series, Harry North. Abrams, 2008, p. 61, ISBN 1854377663
  5. ^ a b c d Dalia Judovitz, Unpacking Duchamp: Art in Transit, Academy of California Press, 1998, pp. 124, 133, ISBN 0520213769
  6. ^ a b c Cabanne, P., & Duchamp, M. (1971). Dialogues with Marcel Duchamp Archived fifteen November 2017 at the Wayback Machine
  7. ^ "An Overview of the Seventeen Known Versions of Fountain". 2007.
  8. ^ "Duchamp and the pissoir-taking sexual politics of the fine art world".
  9. ^ Hustvedt, Siri (2019-03-29). "When will the art globe recognise the real artist backside Duchamp's Fountain?". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2019-03-31 .
  10. ^ a b c d e Camfield, William A. (1989). Marcel Duchamp, Fountain. Houston, TX: Houston Fine Fine art Press. p. 183. ISBN0939594102. LCCN 87028248.
  11. ^ Arturo Schwarz, The consummate works of Marcel Duchamp, New York, Delano Greenidge, 2000
  12. ^ Gaffney, Peter D, "Demiurgic machines: The mechanics of New York Dada. A study of the machine art of Francis Picabia, Marcel Duchamp, and other members of New York Dada during the period, 1912–1922" (2006). Dissertations are bachelor from ProQuest. AAI3211072.
  13. ^ Hopkins, David, Marcel Duchamp and Max Ernst: The Bride Shared, Volume 21 of Clarendon studies in the history of art, Clarendon Press, 1998, p. 74, ISBN 0198175132
  14. ^ Biro, Matthew, The Dada Cyborg: Visions of the New Human in Weimar Berlin, G – Reference, Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series, Academy of Minnesota Press, 2009, p. 27, ISBN 0816636192
  15. ^ Catalogue of the Kickoff Annual Exhibition of the Order of Independent Artists
  16. ^ Sue Roe, In Montparnasse: The Emergence of Surrealism in Paris, from Duchamp to Dali, Penguin UK, Jun 21, 2018, ISBN 0241976596
  17. ^ Dagen, Philippe, "Duchamp piège l'avant-garde", Le Monde, 17 August 2006 (French)
  18. ^ a b c d e f g h The Blind Man, Vol. 2, 1917, p. 5.
  19. ^ Current opinion, Vol. LX, No. six, June 1916, p. 431, Literary assimilate. New York: Current Literature Pub. Co., 1913–1925
  20. ^ To achieve an orientation resembling the photograph, an additional rotation by 180° most a vertical axis is necessary. The effect of both may be achieved by a rotation of 180° well-nigh an inclined centrality.
  21. ^ a b Adcock, Craig. Duchamp's Eroticism: A Mathematical Analysis, Dada/Surrealism 16 (1987): 149–167, Iowa Research Online, ISSN 0084-9537
  22. ^ Tomkins, Duchamp: A Biography, p. 181.
  23. ^ a b c Saltz, Jerry (2006-02-21). "Idol Thoughts: The glory of Fountain, Marcel Duchamp'south ground-breaking 'moneybags piss pot'". The Hamlet Vox.
  24. ^ Cabanne, Dialogs with Marcel Duchamp, p. 55
  25. ^ Levine and Halle, Sherrie and Howard (1992). "Fountain (Subsequently Duchamp: one-half-dozen) La Fortune (After Duchamp: 1-six) La Fortune (Afterward Man Ray: one-vi)". M Street. 1 (42): 81–95. doi:ten.2307/25007559. JSTOR 25007559. Retrieved 26 Baronial 2021.
  26. ^ "Fountain", wrote the committee, "may be a very useful object in its identify, but its place is not an fine art exhibition, and information technology is by no definition, a work of fine art."
  27. ^ Unsigned review, "His Art Too Crude for Independents", The New York Herald, fourteen April 1917 (cited in Camfield, 1989, op.cit., 27)
  28. ^ Cabanne, Pierre, & Duchamp, Marcel, Dialogues With Marcel Duchamp, Hudson, 1971, translated from French by Ron Padgett, Da Capo Press, archive.org
  29. ^ Tomkins, Duchamp: A Biography, p. 185.
  30. ^ Naumann, Francis Chiliad., The Recurrent, Haunting Ghost: Essays on the Fine art, Life and Legacy of Marcel Duchamp, New York, 2012, pp. 70–81
  31. ^ a b c d Guillaume Apollinaire, Le Cas de Richard Mutt, Mercure de France, 16 June 1918, Gallica, Bibliothèque Nationale de France.
  32. ^ Hubregtse, Menno (2009). "Robert J. Coady's The Soil and Marcel Duchamp's Fountain: Taste, Nationalism, Capitalism, and New York Dada". Revue d'art canadienne/Canadian Fine art Review. 34 (2): 28–42. doi:10.7202/1069487ar. JSTOR 42630803.
  33. ^ Quoted in Hubregtse, "Robert J. Coady'southward The Soil and Marcel Duchamp's Fountain," 32
  34. ^ a b Marcel Duchamp to Suzanne, 11 April 1917. Jean Crotti papers, 1913–1973, majority 1913–1961. Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Establishment
  35. ^ a b c d Gammel, Irene (2002). Baroness Elsa: Gender, Dada, and Everyday Modernity. Cambridge: The MIT Press. pp. 222–227. ISBN0-262-07231-nine.
  36. ^ a b Marcel Duchamp, Affectionately, Marcel: The Selected Correspondence of Marcel Duchamp, ed. Francis G. Naumann and Hector Obalk (Ghent: Ludion Printing, 2000), p. 47
  37. ^ Robert Reiss, "My Baroness: Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven" in New York Dada, edited by Rudolf E. Kuenzli (New York: Willis Locker & Owens, 1986), pages 81–101.
  38. ^ Tate. "'Fountain', Marcel Duchamp, 1917, replica 1964". Tate . Retrieved 2020-07-26 .
  39. ^ a b David M. Lubin, Grand Illusions: American Art and the Starting time Globe State of war, Oxford University Printing, 2016, ISBN 0190218622
  40. ^ Francis Chiliad. Naumann, New York Dada, 1915–23 (New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1994), p. 239, notation 17.
  41. ^ Quoted in Gayford, Martin (xvi February 2008). "The practical joke that launched an artistic revolution". The Daily Telegraph. London. p. 10 at 11. Archived from the original on 2022-01-12.
  42. ^ Franklin Clarkin, "Two Miles of Funny Pictures," Boston Evening Transcript, 25 April 1917.
  43. ^ William A. Camfield, Marcel Duchamp's Fountain, Its History and Aesthetics in the Context of 1917 (Part 1), Dada/Surrealism sixteen (1987): pp. 64–94.
  44. ^ "A Museum That is Not". www.due east-flux.com . Retrieved 2020-08-14 .
  45. ^ Duchamp, Marcel. "Boîte-en-valise [The box in a valise]". Particular held past National Gallery of Australia . Retrieved 2020-08-14 .
  46. ^ "MoMA.org | Interactives | Exhibitions | 1999 | Museum as Muse | Duchamp". www.moma.org . Retrieved 2020-08-14 .
  47. ^ "From or by Marcel Duchamp or Rrose Sélavy". Cleveland Museum of Fine art. 31 October 2018.
  48. ^ Martin, Tim (1999). Essential Surrealists. Bath: Dempsey Parr. pp. 42–47. ISBNane-84084-513-9.
  49. ^ "An Overview of the Seventeen Known Versions of Fountain". www.cabinetmagazine.org. Autumn 2007. Retrieved 2022-01-02 .
  50. ^ Essay on Fountain Archived 2004-10-12 at the Wayback Machine
  51. ^ Funcke, Bettina (2013). Non Objects so much as Images (PDF). p. 279.
  52. ^ See Praeger, Dave (2007). Poop Civilisation: How America is Shaped by its Grossest National Product. Los Angeles, Calif.: Feral Business firm. ISBN978-1-932595-21-5.
  53. ^ a b Hicks, Stephen R. C. (2004). Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault. Tempe, AZ: Scholargy Press. p. 196. ISBN1-59247-646-5.
  54. ^ Rescher, Nicholas (2015). A Journey through Philosophy in 101 Anecdotes. University of Pittsburgh Press. p. 223. ISBN978-0-8229-8044-5.
  55. ^ Julia Dür, Glasswanderers, If that's fine art, I'thou a Hottentott, Tout-fait, Vol. 2, Outcome 5, April 2003, Succession Marcel Duchamp
  56. ^ Martin, Tim (1999). Essential Surrealists. Bath: Dempsey Parr. p. 42. ISBN1-84084-513-nine.
  57. ^ Francis M. Naumann, Beth Venn, Making mischief: Dada invades New York, Harry Due north. Abrams, Whitney Museum of American Fine art, 1997, p. twenty.
  58. ^ Hahn, Otto, Marcel Duchamp, L'Express, Paris, No. 684, 23 July 1964, p. 22. Quoted in Arturo Schwarz, The Consummate Works of Marcel Duchamp, New York, Abrams, 1970, p. 466
  59. ^ Rudolf Eastward. Kuenzli, Dada and Surrealist Movie, MIT Printing, 1996, p. 47, ISBN 026261121X
  60. ^ "Duchamp's urinal tops art survey". BBC News. 1 December 2004. Retrieved 5 October 2018.
  61. ^ a b Hensher, Philip (twenty February 2008). "The loo that shook the world: Duchamp, Man Ray, Picabia". The Independent. London. pp. two–5.
  62. ^ Perry, Grayson (2016). Playing to the Gallery. Penguin Books. p. 46. ISBN978-0-141-97961-8.
  63. ^ "Kendell Geers- Conceptual Artist". www.onepeople.com . Retrieved v October 2018.
  64. ^ Blacklock, Marker (26 June 2003). "Art attacks". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2022-01-12. Retrieved 9 May 2013.
  65. ^ Årets största konsthändelse Archived 17 May 2011 at the Wayback Machine
  66. ^ "Tate focus for creative debate". Printing Association (referred to on the website of the Humanities Advanced Technology & Data Constitute, University of Glasgow). 21 May 2000. Archived from the original on 21 December 2002. Retrieved 17 February 2008.
  67. ^ "Pierre Pinoncelli: This man is not an creative person" at infoshop.org Archived 4 December 2014 at the Wayback Car
  68. ^ "Homo held for hitting urinal work". BBC News. 6 January 2006. Retrieved 5 October 2018.
  69. ^ Revue Internationale du Droit d'Auteur, Bug 197–198, Association française cascade la diffusion du droit d'auteur national et international, 2003, p. 30.
  70. ^ "SHERRIE LEVINE: MAYHEM". whitney.org . Retrieved 2020-08-xiv .
  71. ^ "Fountain (Buddha)". Museo Jumex . Retrieved 2020-08-14 .
  72. ^ Levine and Halle, Sherrie and Howard (1992). "Fountain (After Duchamp: 1-half-dozen) La Fortune (After Homo Ray: i-6)". Grand Street. 42 (one): 81–95. doi:10.2307/25007559. JSTOR 25007559. Retrieved 28 August 2021.
  73. ^ "Fountain (Buddha) - Sherrie Levine | The Broad". world wide web.thebroad.org . Retrieved 2020-08-14 .
  74. ^ "John Baldessari - Repository (Orange/Bluish); and Repository (Cherry-red/Green), 2002". Phillips . Retrieved 2020-08-xiv .
  75. ^ Chun, Kimberly (2013-08-15). "Approach of Burning Man sparks an outbreak of fine art". SFGate . Retrieved 2020-08-fourteen .
  76. ^ Greenberger, Alex (2016-02-16). "Mike Bidlo at Francis M. Naumann Fine Art". ARTnews.com . Retrieved 2020-08-14 .
  77. ^ "Mike Bidlo: Non Duchamp Fountain and Bottle Rack | Francis M. Naumann Fine Fine art | Cocked". www.cocked.net . Retrieved 2020-08-14 .
  78. ^ "Marcel Duchamp, Fountain: An Homage « ARTEIDOLIA". Retrieved 2020-08-14 .
  79. ^ ""Fountain: An Homage" at Francis G. Naumann Fine art". artnet News. 2017-04-11. Retrieved 2020-08-fourteen .
  80. ^ "Marcel Duchamp FOUNTAIN An Homage | Francis Chiliad. Naumann Fine Art | Cocked". world wide web.artsy.net . Retrieved 2020-08-14 .
  81. ^ Winthrop Sargeant, Dada's Daddy, A new tribute is paid to Duchamp, pioneer on nonsense and nihilism, Life, 28 April 1952, pp. 100–111
  82. ^ a b c d Girst, Thomas (April 2003). "(Ab)Using Marcel Duchamp: The concept of the Readymade in mail service-War and contemporary American art". Tout-fait: The Marcel Duchamp Studies Online Periodical (5).
  83. ^ Alan Young, Dada and After: Extremist Modernism and English Literature, Manchester University Press, 1983, p. 202, ISBN 071900943X
  84. ^ Duchamp, in Hans Richter, Dada: Fine art and Anti-Fine art, New York, McGraw Hill, 1965: pp. 207–208.
  85. ^ Hans Richter, Begegnungen von Dada bis Heute, Köln, DuMont: pp. 155ff.
  86. ^ Rosalind Constable, New York'due south Avant-garde, and How Information technology Got In that location, cited in Jennifer Gough-Cooper and Jacques Caumont, Ephemerides on and nearly Marcel Duchamp and Rrose Sélavy, 1887–1968, in Pontus Hulten, ed., Marcel Duchamp, Cambridge, MIT Printing, 1993, entry for May 17, 1964.
  87. ^ Marquis, Marcel Duchamp: The Bachelor Stripped Bare A Biography, p. 5.
  88. ^ Francis M. Naumann, The Art Defying the Fine art Marketplace, Tout-fait: The Marcel Duchamp Studies Online Journal, vol. 2, 5, April 2003
  89. ^ Carter B. Horsley, Contemporary Art & fourteen Duchamp Readymades, The City Review, 2002
  90. ^ Laurie Hurwitz, Saint Laurent Collection Soars at Christie's Paris. Duchamp'southward Belle haleine–Eau de voilette, 1921, a readymade of a perfume bottle in its box, sold for a record $11.v million (€8.9 meg).

Notes [edit]

  • The Blind Man, Vol. 2, May 1917, New York Urban center.
  • Cabanne, Pierre (1979) [1969]. Dialogs with Marcel Duchamp (in French). [S.l.]: Da Capo Press. ISBN0-306-80303-viii.
  • Gammel, Irene. Baroness Elsa: Gender, Dada and Everyday Modernity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2002.
  • Hubregtse, Menno (2009). "Robert J. Coady'south The Soil and Marcel Duchamp's Fountain: Taste, Nationalism, Commercialism, and New York Dada". Revue d'art canadienne/Canadian Art Review. 34 (ii): 28–42. doi:10.7202/1069487ar. JSTOR 42630803.
  • Kleiner, Fred South. (2006). Gardner'southward Art Through the Ages: The Western Perspective. Belmont, Calif.: Thomson Wadsworth. ISBN0-534-63640-3.
  • Marquis, Alice Goldfarb (2002). Marcel Duchamp: The Bachelor Stripped Bare A Biography. Minneapolis: MFA Publications: MFA Publications. ISBN0-87846-644-4.
  • Tomkins, Calvin (1996). Duchamp: A Biography. New York, N.Y.: Henry Holt and Company. ISBN0-8050-5789-seven.

Further reading [edit]

  • Betacourt, Michael (2003). "The Richard Mutt case: Looking for Marcel Duchamp's Fountain". Fine art Science Research Laboratory. Archived from the original on i March 2006.
  • West, Patrick (thirteen December 2004). "He was just taking the piss: Observations on Duchamp and his urinal". New Statesman.
  • Schwarz, Arturo, The Complete Works of Marcel Duchamp, revised and expanded edition, New York 1997, no. 345, pp. 648–50
  • Kuenzli, Rudolf E., Naumann, Francis One thousand., Marcel Duchamp: Creative person of the Century, Issue sixteen of Dada surrealism, MIT Press, 1991, ISBN 0262610728
  • Adcock, Craig, Marcel Duchamp's Notes from the Large Drinking glass: An N-Dimensional Analysis, Ann Arbor, Michigan: UMI Research Printing, 1983, 29–39, ISBN 0835714543
  • Sidney Janis Gallery, Claiming and Defy: Farthermost Examples past Xx Century Artists, French and American, The New York 57th Street Journal, 25 September 1950

External links [edit]

  • Fountain, Tout-Fait: Marcel Duchamp Studies Online journal
  • Duchamp'southward Fountain, Smarthistory at Khan Academy
  • Duchamp and the Set-Mades, Smarthistory at Khan Academy
  • Duchamp and the Fountain, November, December, galley four/9/15

dillliell1947.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)

0 Response to "Piece of Art Showing People Looking at the Water Early 1900s"

Postar um comentário

Assinar: Postar comentários (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel