File spoon-archives/lyotard.archive/lyotard_2003/lyotard.0310, message 122


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
 


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005