Article

2004-12-01 -Short Attention Span Theater-

Urinal Named As Most Influencial Modern Art

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve 2004-12-01 2:15:30 PM|| || Front Page|| [11129 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#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|| 2004-12-01 3:20:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2004-12-01 4:23:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2004-12-01 4:23:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2004-12-01 4:49:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2004-12-01 5:14:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2004-12-01 5:29:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 "Let them eat ~~urinal~~ cakes"

Posted by Frank G 2004-12-01 5:54:19 PM|| 2004-12-01 5:54:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 This is the kind of story that can really piss one off!

Posted by BigEd 2004-12-01 6:20:32 PM|| 2004-12-01 6:20:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#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|| [http://darkblogules.blogspot.com] 2004-12-01 7:10:55 PM|| Front Page Top

18:18 Zhang Fei
18:18 Zhang Fei
18:18 Zhang Fei
18:18 Zhang Fei
23:58 Conanista
23:52 JosephMendiola
23:30 Conanista
22:58 Frank G
22:55 Frank G
22:53 Frank G
22:53 AzCat
22:50 phil_b
22:45 Conanista
22:39 phil_b
22:33 Mike Sylwester
22:30 Justrand
22:27 Frank G
22:25 Frank G
22:23 Frank G
22:17 Dishman
22:17 Hillary Clinton
21:54 eLarson
21:53 Bomb-a-rama
21:52 Alaska Paul