You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
-Short Attention Span Theater-
Urinal Named As Most Influencial Modern Art
2004-12-01
A porcelain urinal is the most influential work of modern art, according to a survey released Wednesday.
I think this pretty much sums up the state of the Arts, don't you?
The poll of 500 arts figures ranked French surrealist Marcel Duchamp's 1917 piece "Fountain" an ordinary white, porcelain urinal more influential than Pablo Picasso's "Les Demoiselles d'Avignon," Andy Warhol's screen prints of Marilyn Monroe and "Guernica," Picasso's searing depiction of the devastation of war. Duchamp pioneered the use of everyday objects as art, an aesthetic that questioned the nature of art itself.
The phrase "piece of crap" comes to mind.
Art expert Simon Wilson said the choice of Duchamp's urinal "comes as a bit of a shock." "But it reflects the dynamic nature of art today and the idea that the creative process that goes into a work of art is the most important thing the work itself can be made of anything and can take any form," he said.
Fits right into the "Good Intentions" mean more than any real actions mode of liberal thinking.
The survey was conducted by Gordon's Gin, which sponsor's Britain's leading art prize, the Turner Prize.
Methinks they were sampling the sponsors products.
The winner of this year's Turner Prize is due to be announced next Tuesday.
I can hardly wait.
Posted by:Steve

#9  I was reading somewhere recently that Duchamp's intent was, as LH says, to question what Art really is. According to this (now forgotten) article, Duchamp's own position was that the urinal was not Art, and he was fairly disgusted that the art world of his day did not get the joke, so to speak.

The article went on to say that a lot of early modern art strove to discover what Art was by determining what it wasn't. "OK, here's a certain aspect of Art. If we take it away, is the piece still Art?" This puts Martin Creed's Turner-winning "Lights Going On and Off" in a new perspective: here he's eliminated the picture, the frame, even the wall to hang it on, leaving only the light (intermittently).

This, no doubt, would be considered an extremely witty reductio ad absurdum of Duchamp's "Urinal", except in this case no one -- not even the "artist" -- is in on the joke.
Posted by: Angie Schultz   2004-12-01 7:10:55 PM  

#8  This is the kind of story that can really piss one off!
Posted by: BigEd   2004-12-01 6:20:32 PM  

#7  "Let them eat urinal cakes"
Posted by: Frank G   2004-12-01 5:54:19 PM  

#6  I was thinking about a Kohler on my new John Deere, but I decided to get the Tecumseh.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis   2004-12-01 5:29:31 PM  

#5  Beats the hell out of the 2-holer we had in Michigan as a kid. Hey, "form follows function" as is said. The urinal is certainly one of "man's" more useful devices. Duct tape ranks fairly high also in my mind. I've worshipped the porcelain goddess a few times but not the porcelain urinal--although I hold it in high regard.
Posted by: John Q. Citizen   2004-12-01 5:14:31 PM  

#4  It's hard to make fun of Modern Art when you can't spell influential !!!
Posted by: Emir Abu Ben-Ali Al-Yahood   2004-12-01 4:49:54 PM  

#3  Ah, for the days when an artist actually had to have a skill. Piss on 'em.
Posted by: Spot   2004-12-01 4:23:59 PM  

#2  I don't know about a Duchamp, but we're thinking of getting a Kohler.
Posted by: Curt Simon   2004-12-01 4:23:53 PM  

#1  Duchamp's stuff was not designed for its appearance so much as "concept" pieces, to question what art is. As such they worked, and were influential. Though I would certainly rather have a Mondrian, or a Barnett Newman, or heaven help us, a Picasso, in my living room than a Duchamp.
Posted by: Liberalhawk   2004-12-01 3:20:17 PM  

00:00