From: "Eric" <ericandmary-AT-earthlink.net> Subject: RE: Duchamp stripped bare by Steve and Geof, even Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 23:37:46 -0600 Steve and Geof My copy must have been a knock-off. I don't have any 3D glasses, but I didn't pay the current market price either. (Personally I don't know why the glasses would be necessary. There weren't really that many illustrations.) I promise to get into Duchamp's TRANSformers, but first I'd like to 'delay' things a bit. I recognize that from a radical political perspective, there is a problem with avant-garde movements insofar as they limit their scope to the institutional art world. That is why I quoted T.J. Clark, which I think is a pretty devastating remark. Since Clark was involved with the situationists in some slight capacity, he certainly understands the issues that are at stake here. I also think art has a place though even when it isn't revolutionary, and think the Dadaists and surrealists had their own limitations. I also admire what they did, but don't think it really goes beyond what Duchamp accomplished. I had a chance yesterday to attend the local contemporary art museum in the city where I live. In some ways, it was a pretty sad experience. Each room had older guards who looked like they might have been retirees. They wore t-shirts that said 'fear no art', but their frail bodies seemed to belie this message. They slumped in their chairs and seemed merely bored and listless. There was certainly no sense of joy and spontaneity in their demeanor, no real sense they actually wanted to be here in this setting. The crowd of attendees appeared only slightly better. At least they had chosen to come here on a Saturday when they could have chosen something. Unlike the guards, it wasn't merely a job for them, but for the most part they seemed far too serious and dutiful about it all. The contemporary art museum occupies a vague indeterminate space somewhere between a bank and a cathedral and it seemed most of visitors weren't really sure which one of these was primary. I was still able to see a number of pieces that made an impact on me. One piece in particular impressed me. It was by a younger artist whose name I forgot to write down and now can't even remember. The work could certainly be described as a readymade, however. It featured two old wheelbarrows that had a worn patina like those old peasant shoes painted by Van Gogh, which were valued so greatly by Heidegger. One of these was filled with new, brightly colored round Christmas ornaments, all of the same type, plain, without any special ornamentation, but in several different colors - red, blue and green. The other wheelbarrow was simply filled with popcorn. The incongruity of these objects placed together certainly made for a surrealistic moment. It was also a joyous one. The playful quality of the piece reminded me of one of my very favorite pieces of art, a work 'created' by the now deceased artist Felix Gonzalez-Torres. This was a work incredibly simple in both its design and execution. In the corner of the room on the floor there was placed a pile of brightly colored wrapped hard candies, the kind you'd find in any drug store. They weren't there merely to be seen, however. Visitors were invited to take a piece of candy away from the pile since the candies were periodically replenished. In a rarified art world filled with security sensors that buzz if you get too close to the art work, this fact was simply amazing. It changed the entire nature of the usual aesthetic transaction. It was a strangely transgressive act just to be able to reach down, pick up a piece of candy, unwrap it, and place it in your mouth. It also seemed like an incredibly generous act, tender and intimate, a gesture that somehow engendered a sense of community and undercut all the modalities of the way art is usually approached. I don't know if Felix Gonzalez-Torres was directly influenced by Duchamp or not, but in a way it doesn't really matter since Duchamp created the context in which such radically different types of art such as this become possible. As Ed Ruscha once put it, "if Duchamp did not exist, it would have been necessary for someone like him to be invented." I recognize this bright pile is far from revolutionary, but sometimes the journey of the long march through the institutions begins with only one step or, even, just a piece of hard candy. Theory and discourse are important. So is politics. But I think there is still a place for art, despite all the institutional problems. The situtionists thought art could be transcended by more intense life and perhaps somewhere on another planet this is so. But for now on this earth, art creates a space that would otherwise not exist. Duchamp had a hand in morphing the topology of this space and for this reason I believe he remains important. Despite what Danto and Hegel have said, art is very far from being dead. eric --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.524 / Virus Database: 321 - Release Date: 10/6/2003
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005