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