Terrence writes;

I don't agree with this. Duchamp, in a purely objective practical way, was a
sort of a clever aragont lazy artist and he was not a professional painter. He
was more of a dabbler and and a chess player and mostly unemployed. He talked
more than he produced art. I don't feel he really became a professional artist
who could sustain his occupation. He said some interesting things and open the
minds of culture thinking of art in a different ways.

I think the spectator brings sustainablitity to the atists works by opening
their wallets. Something duchamp never realized nor probably could as he was
not able to, living up to his name beyond a few shocking works and words, a
kind of avoidence, a fear of eventual failure. He realized he could not
support himself. A sutuation many artists sadly find themselves in.

terrence kosick
artnatural






"narvis & ...pez" wrote:

>
> "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
> he creative act.* this becomes even more obvious when posterity gives its
> final veredict and sometimes rehabilites forgotten artists."
>
> m.duchamp
> april 1957
>
> * "duchamp has emphasisez several times the role of the viewer, which he
> epitomized in the formula 'the viewer are those who make the painting'
> (bibl. 245, p. 143.) as kris points out , 'psychoanalytic investigation of
> artistic creation has abundantly demonstrated the importance of the public
> for the process of creation: wherever artistic creation takes place, the
> idea of a public exists, though the artist may attribute this role to one
> real or imaginary person. the artist may express indifference , may
> elminate the consideration for an audience  from his consciousness
> altogether , or he may minimize its importance. but wherever the
> unconscious aspect of artistic creation is studied, a public of some kind
> emerges. this does not mean that striving for success, admiration , and
> recognition, need be the mayor goal  of all artistic creation . on the
> contrary, artist are more likely than others to renounce public recognition
> for the sake of their work. this quest need not be for approval of the many
> but for response by some. the acknowledgement  by response, however, is
> essential to confirm their own belief in their work and to restore the very
> balance which the creative process may have disturbed. response of others
> alleviates the artist's guilt." Bibl. 167, p. 60.
>
> as

Reply via email to