On Nov 26, 2008, at 10:28 AM, William Conger wrote:
But I do agree that in its broad context junk is the stuff that is no longer valued for its supposed primary uses.
You make good points, William. On this, however, my default "serviceable notion" of the meaning evoked by "junk" is not stuff that is no longer valued, but stuff that is not longer fit for use but still intact. Old cars, baby buggies (we used to make push-carts with), etc. Rauschenberg used discarded materials for his combines; he didn't buy new or "gently used" items at a second-hand store.
Furthermore, talking of re-using junk in artworks is a physical analogy to shifting meanings of words, taking old words--ore even relatively new ones--and using them in such a way to produce new meanings. Remember that Duchamp bought a new urinal, but Picasso used an old bicycle seat, and Rauschenberg used discarded newspapers on the base of the angora goat (and Johns used newspapers for the substrate of his encaustic Flags) and alcohol transfers of pictures for other combinations.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Michael Brady [EMAIL PROTECTED]
