Re: [-empyre-] questions

Also, we should remember that the Readymades did not become significant until the 1950s --up until that time they were thought of in an anecdotal manner, he was demonstrating how conventions functioned as framing devices -- therefore they were viewed as merely didactic gestures -- we also have to remember that Duchamp went on to make a lot of other things

On Jun 24, 2005, at 12:33 PM, Alan Sondheim wrote:

Well, more than this. A lot of people can 'say so' and the context doesn't work the same way. It has to do with Duchamp's context as well. And the context per se takes into account certain notions of progressivity and opposition - as well as the continuous transformation of the notion of art itself, which by then had lost all in the popular imagination but its trappings as ornament. Duchamp was a painter and that also played into his statement. - Alan

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005, Kathryn Hargreaves wrote:

'after "duchamp's dunny" (according to artpup) I could do a (dogpoo) in
the corner and call it art. But would it be good art?'

It has nothing to do with "good" or "bad" art, but rather context.
Duchamp put everyday (signed) objects in an art context, which made the
objects "art," just because he said so.

empyre forum

( URLs/DVDs/CDroms/books/etc. see ) _______________________________________________ empyre forum

Saul Ostrow
Visual Arts and Technologies Environment
Chair of Painting
The Cleveland Institute of Art

This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and MHonArc 2.6.8.