I think Derek is right except that the Urinal and the Brillo Boxes are not artworks in the same sense as a painting by Picasso or Titian. They are instruments of anti-art. It's not what they are as art but what they do to the concept of art that matters. They remind us that the object is not the art but can absorb our projections of what art is. The Urinal and the Brillo Boxes reject our projections because they can't be distinguished from the "commonplace", unless of course we are trained to regard the degree of aforesaid rejection as the measure of art. The more a proposed art object rejects our projected regard of it as art, the more art it really is.
WC --- "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am in Paris at the moment and they are advertising > a > Duchamp exhibition at one of the art museums. > Predictably > they are using a large photo of Fountain on their > publicity posters in the metro etc. So every now > and > then you pass this large photo of an upturned urinal > signed > R Mutt 1917. > > More than ever I am struck by how feeble the thing > is. At > most, it seems to me, Fountain was really only > interesting as a kind of political statement about > the > futility of art etc. Today the force of that has > almost > completely dissipated (the idea seems very ho hum) > so the > work is forced to stand on its own two feet simply > as a work > of art. In those terms it is decidedly > uninteresting, and > seeing it everywhere in large photo reproductions > really > brings that home to you. If one sat it beside a > reproduction > of, say, a Picasso or a Miro, its weakness would > seem even > more obvious. > > All the above applies to Warhol things like Brillo > boxes > too, in my view. > > DA
