At 10:35 am +0200 31/3/00, Heiko Recktenwald wrote:
>> Is it possible not to have a context? I don't see how it could be.
>> "Contextualization" would only be making the context explicit. In this case,
>> analyzing and stating motives.
>
>Well, that is what "contextualisation" meens. But I think, we must be
>grown up enough, to take things for themselves. Like the pissoir in the
>museum. Did Duchamps, well, I am in another league ;-), make
>context "explicit" ?
>
>Please wake up.
well...
"You see, I don't want to be pinned down to any position. My position is
the lack of a position, but, of course, you can't even talk about it, the
minute you talk about it, the minute you talk you spoil the whole game. I
also meant that words are absolutely a pest as far as getting anywhere. You
cannot express anything through words."
"How can express yourself then?"
Duchamp answered:
"You don't have to express yourself. Loves does not express itself through
words. Its just love. The feelings have no equivalents in words; we think
they have, but that is not so."
Then going on to discuss art, "The content or the value of a painting
cannot be evaluated in words. You cannot find any language to speak about
painting. Painting is a language of its own. You cannot interpret one form
of expression wich another form of expression. To say the least, you will
distort completely the original message, whatever you say about it."
...,
"All in all, the creative act is not performed by the artist alone; the
spectator brings the work in contact with the external world by deciphering
and interpreting its inner qualifications and thus adds his contribution to
the creative act*"
*"Duchamp has emphasized several times the role of the viewer, which he
epitomized in the formula 'the viewers are those who make the painting.'
the complete works of marcel duchamp
schwarz/abrams
ps 194-196
