Re: [-empyre-] questions

[saul ostrow <sostrow@gate.cia.edu>]

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
> > empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> > http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>
> ( URLs/DVDs/CDroms/books/etc. see http://www.asondheim.org/advert.txt )
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
Saul Ostrow
Dean,
Visual Arts and Technologies Environment
Chair of Painting
The Cleveland Institute of Art