Interesting Duchamp

[oddist]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/gallery/0,8542,1364554,00.html

[anne (bxl)]

to complete oddist information, from bbc online news:

Duchamp's idea that art could take any form shocked the art world

A white gentlemen's urinal has been named the most influential modern art work of all time.

Marcel Duchamp's Fountain came top of a poll of 500 art experts in the run-up to this year's Turner Prize which takes place on Monday.

Picasso's Les Demoiselles d'Avignon (1907) was second, with Andy Warhol's Marilyn Diptych from 1962 coming third.

Duchamp shocked the art establishment when he took the urinal, signed it and put it on display in 1917.

"The choice of Duchamp's Fountain as the most influential work of modern art ahead of works by Picasso and Matisse comes as a bit of a shock," said art expert Simon Wilson.

Ahead of time

"But it reflects the dynamic nature of art today and the idea that the creative process that goes into a work of art is the most important thing - the work itself can be made of anything and can take any form."

Picasso's Spanish Civil War painting, Guernica, came fourth, while Matisse's The Red Studio was fifth.

Duchamp has influenced many contemporary artists, including Tracey Emin - her unmade bed was inspired by the French artist.

[oddist]

Anne,

Merci. Sometimes I am too short with words. I had hoped people would be curious enough to open the link and get to the original article.

To show the influence of both Picasso and Duchamp on me I submit the following photos of some early work.

All are made primarily of bicycle parts in tribute to Picasso's "Bicycle-seat Bull" and Duchamp's ready made "Bicycle Wheel".

Names in order of display:


Taking Picasso and Duchamp for a Ride
The Minimalist
Performing Art
Hanging Art (next post)
Art Critic (next post)

[oddist]

Continued from previous post:

[fritchie]

Very interesting pieces, Oddist. I'm guessing the scale is about 2 feet in each case?

And, I hope this is not embarrassing, but what are the rust or brownish spots on some of the pieces? At first inspection, they look accidental. Is this creeping rust, or is it deliberate? I’m sure it would be easy to correct, if it is accidental. (Don’t want to pre-judge though, maybe a more detailed inspection would clarify the reason.)

[oddist]

All these pieces are human scale...Colors are those of original bicycle parts...Dark areas are where welding has burned paint away...Rust is on found material....Pieces were originally sealed with clear coat...These are all about 8 years old, have been hanging around guarding my back yard, and now are a bit weather beaten...There are a few more I have to get photos of...I'll do that and post them...

oddist (www.torchandpaltte.com)

[anne (bxl)]

To show the influence of both Picasso and Duchamp on me I submit the following photos of some early work.

All are made primarily of bicycle parts in tribute to Picasso's "Bicycle-seat Bull" and Duchamp's ready made "Bicycle Wheel".


I know it is no usual to "provoke" on this forum, but I really wonder where is the relation between your creations and Duchamp's ready made... The concept of both seems to me so much opposite!

[oddist]

Bonjour Anne,

Here is some of the history behind my bicycle pieces:

As stated here (http://www.theartschannel.co.nz/index.php?site_tree_id=43&programme_id=1677723083&backurl=%26genre_id%3D9), in the first pragraph:

"In 1913, Duchamp shocked the cultural establishment when he turned everyday objects into works of art...."

Then there was his Mona Lisa with the letters "L. H. O. O. Q."...sounds like elle a chaud ay cul ("she has a hot ass").

So, there began the usage of everday objects and playing with letters (or words) in a witty manner to express oneself in art, and to "shock".

Picasso, always one to be willing to experiment, also used "found objects" in some of his work; the piece I referenced being a bulls head made from a bicycle seat as the head and handle-bar for horns.

My first piece, "Taking Picasso and Duchamp for a Ride" was titled to be a witticism in reference to "using" the inventiveness of these two great contributors to the art world to "advance" myself; with full knowledge of my actions. (Although the use of the bicycle parts to create the human figure is creative in itself.)

The piece turned out so well that I continued to "play with words" by naming a series of figurative pieces using bicycle parts as the components for construction. For example, gears for the top of the head, handle bars for the ribs, front fork for forearms, main frames for upper arms, legs and fingers, and pedal cranks for toes.

So, for example, there is "the Minimalist" riding small wheels, and "Sir Wheelist" (surrealist) standing on two small wheels while carrying a large wheel. It appeard to me that the human scale of the bicycle parts and their shapes were a perfect fit for these constructions.

There is also a peice not pictured called "Artistically Inclined" which is a recumbent figure on three wheels and one called "Art Exposé" which is a male figure, by the name of Arthur, hands on hips, head thrown back, with a "full erection". (this one shocks here in America)

----------

As for "Ready-mades" like Duchamps "urinal"...I thought about standing a scythe (www.scythesupply.com) against a wall and naming it "Waiting for Death"; in reference to the Grim Reaper. So, big deal...I could play with objects and words...who was going to be "shocked" or made curious enough to ask questions about the work. This is not where I wanted to go with my art.

----

Does this answer some of the relation and my intent?

oddist (www.torchandpalette.com)

-------

[anne (bxl)]

As for "Ready-mades" like Duchamps "urinal"...I thought about standing a scythe against a wall and naming it "Waiting for Death"; in reference to the Grim Reaper. So, big deal...I could play with objects and words...who was going to be "shocked" or made curious enough to ask questions about the work. This is not where I wanted to go with my art.


Merci Oddist pour ces explications. The idee was not to critizise your work but to find the connection with Duchamp and I find it mainly in your "Waiting for Death". As for Duchamp's Fountain (original title) or "L.H.O.O.Q." (=she is like a bitch!) in that concept you won't transform the material, but you would modify regards on that object by naming it the way you decide.

Picasso's method is very different. He used found objects as components to re-create new (mostly) figurative objects. His work is quite far from surrealism and conceptualism attitude of Duchamp.

[oddist]

Anne,

Il n’y a pas de quoi. I did not see your question as criticism but rather inquisitiveness.

I do not believe anyone can truly understand the original intent of an artist. Everyone has different experiences, physical, emotional, and intellectual, that will influence how they react to what they see or think they understand from literary interpretation. People can argue forever about what art is or what is good or bad art. For instance, look at “The Critics” and “Cartoons” here (http://www.tate.org.uk/britain/turnerprize/history/) , about the Turner Prize.

I agree; my idea for “Waiting for Death” is closer to Duchamps intent than my bicycle pieces. Picasso, yes, he used found material to re-create figurative objects – so my pieces would be closer to him in choice of medium. The fact that Duchamp used a bicycle wheel is the only tie between his work and my bicycle people.

I believe artists like Picasso, Duchamp, González, Giacommetti, and Braque, to name just a few, broke ground, close to 100 years ago, in introducing new materials, styles, and thought processes into the art world. They gave later artist “permission” to either use these new tools as is or to experiment with. And now, almost a century later, there are even more materials, processes, and techniques to choose from. Artists have been emboldened by their predecessors. Artists will create and entice the senses. The intellectualization of it all is for academicians.

Artists of 100 years ago were influence by a rapidly changing world which included mechanization and, unfortunately, war. How these things influenced the artists of that time can only be guessed at.

We are contemporary artists. Where, when, why, and how we choose to express ourselves is a great freedom of our time. How it is viewed and interpreted is not up to us.

Take a look at my artists statement (http://www.torchandpalette.com/topics/index.cfm?fact=detail&topic_id=75&custom=N) .

Oddist (www.torchandpalette.com)

[fused]

I find the literal translations of the figures to be closer to the sculptor Gargallo's work than Picasso and Duchamp. I don't make the mental jump to Picasso using discarded "trash" to construct figures --which are transformed when cast in bronze-- or Duchamp altering the perception of objects with his readymades. Juxtaposing bicycle parts into a figurative form doesn't make the conceptual connection of intentions for me.

Picasso's "Bull" --a bicycle seat with handlebar horns-- is closer to the formal abstraction of African 'primitive' art which he collected, than the bicycle wheel attached to a stool by Duchamp. I've never considered the use of 'bike parts' by either of these artists as even remotely related beyond the inventive nature of looking at one object and visualizing it almost intact as something else.

Duchamp's "Fountain" --the urinal signed R.Mutt-- definitely changes all perception of what art might be, but I think his intentions were more ambitious conceptually than just shocking the viewer. Those intentions may be way overintellectualized by art scholars --history has been very kind to this 'artwork'-- did he really perceive all the attributes allocated to this manufactured ceramic form? It's interesting that 500 "art experts" would name the urinal as "the most influential work of modern art" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/4059997.stm) without naming who they are or offering many views (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4061491.stm) as to how this selection came about.

The perception of the 'snow shovel leaning against the gallery wall' is altered when you read the words "In advance of a broken arm" written on it's handle, making the mind part of the process. I suppose what I am trying to say is that --even though oddist's sculptures are nice work-- I would not have made the Duchamp/Picasso connection in my mind without his words to this effect, because --as art-- that is not the place that they take me.

[oddist]

Fused,

I had chosen to exclude Gargallo from my list of contributors to modern art for fear of association.

In fact, it was not until long after I had done these bicycle pieces that I became aware of his work, such as "The Prophet" which my work seems to resemble in style. While working on the bicycle pieces I also did a ballarina using the curved metal pieces of automobile leaf springs to create the "skin" of the form. There are many opennings in this piece to see through.

I had also not included the shovel against the wall because I just couldn't remeber what was written on it. I believe my idea for the scythe falls into this arena.

[JAZ]

Duchamp's breakthroughs with his "fountain" are:

1. He converted a found object into something else without altering its shape, color or form.
2. He altered its meaning by simply giving it a title.
3. He personalized it by giving it a signature at the same time that he distanced himself from sentimentality by using an invented name rather than his own.
4. He altered its significance and the way people viewed it by changing its context.

None of the other works mentioned in this thread are directly analogous to the full list above. The most obvious difference between Oddist's work/Picasso's bull and Duchamp is that Duchamp made no attempt to manipulate an object or form to make it look like a literal representation of another object or form.

Oddist's work stands on its own without reference to Duchamp.

That's my two cents.

Now it's back to drawing a commissioned coffee table. (Albert Paley's furniture is a pretty good inspiration in this regard: www.albertpaley.com)
JAZ

[rderr.com]

Have you ever kicked yourself for not always having a camera? Several months ago walking near a demolition site in downtown Houston there was the perfect monument to Duchamp’s Fountain. The crane had on the end of a very long boom a jackhammer and a nozzle spraying water to keep the dust down. The operator had just opened up The Men’s Room with about 20 urinals in a row and was busy “hosing” them down. I’m not sure what the fable here in is but maybe something about provocation; Duchamp’s provocation about reassessment of what is and what issssnot, and Picasso’s provocation of conceptualization and materials? In any case I love your bicycle parts, and the sense of harmony and fun in their existence.

Art is provocation all else decoration.
Robert

[oddist]

Rob, thanks...and that would have been a good photo.

Just came across Marcel D's own words here (http://iaaa.nl/cursusAA&AI/duchamp.html)

oddist (www.torchandpalette.com)