Re: [-empyre-] questions

[Alan Sondheim <sondheim@panix.com>]

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
> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre

( URLs/DVDs/CDroms/books/etc. see http://www.asondheim.org/advert.txt )