Talk:Fountain (Duchamp)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start Class: This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.

"but he did state that the initial "R" stood for "Richard", which is slang in French for "moneybags"." --> I'm french and I can tell you I've never even thought Richard was slang for anything... let's not get carried away and try to find meaning where there wasn't any, shall we? --69.157.151.232 17:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Armut comment

"One theory suggests R.Mutt may be a play on the German word Armut, meaning poverty."

70.107.131.206 19:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)this should be removed. It's true that it's "one theory", but there are many other theories that are much more relevant to the message of this art. This is not a piece about poverty, this is a piece about art itself. That's the whole point of readymades. To give this theory so much credibility is to besmirch what Fountain is all about!


  • Yes, I am curious as to the source of this as well.


One theory suggests R.Mutt may be a play on the German word Armut, meaning poverty.

The above removed from main article until a source is provided for it. Tyrenius 13:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've found a source! (also used for other information in the article): [1] Tyrenius 13:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major Edit Proposal

I am proposing a major edit to this page. I wrote an 18 page paper on Duchamp's readymades, especially "Fountain," and the monumental influence it had on the art that followed. For such a monumentally important piece of art, I think it deserves a better entry. This is a fairly abbreviated entry, but I just want to see what people think before changing everything:


This is one of Marcel Duchamp's most influential works and its creation stems largely from of his dadaist (specifically New York Dada) notions. The Dada goal was to destroy art by bring it out of the hands of the bourgeoisie to the banality of the real world. This piece is an example of a readymade (now known as found art) which was simply a found object taken from the real world context and pronounced art.

This particular "readymade" was purchased in a hardware store, signed with the psuedonym "R. Mutt," and named "The Fountain." The New York Dadaists were fond of linguistic word games and inside jokes and these trends are apparent in this piece. The signature is a joke name, perhaps referring to his own lack of reverence for art by calling himself "mutt." Another theory suggests R.Mutt may be a play on the German word Armut, meaning poverty. The title itself reflects Duchamps philosophy on art; the name of something beautiful but otherwise purposeless is given to something utterly banal in much the same way Duchamp believes art is pretty but useless construct of the upperclass and should be returned to the everyday real world. The clever thing in it all is how he attempted to destroy art through a simple pun.

Duchamp submitted the piece to the "unjuried" 1917 Society of Independent Artists (of which he was a board member) exhibition and even though there was no screening process, it was rejected as "not being art." He resigned from the board shortly after the incident.

In December 2004, Duchamp's Fountain was voted the most influential artwork of the 20th century by 500 of the most powerful people in the British art world. This is testimony to the influence of Duchamp's work, and the mark he has left on the art world. [2] The effect of this revolutionary creation was almost the opposite of Duchamp's original intentions. Even though he was trying to destroy art, he managed to revitalize it with the notion that the simple act of deeming something as "art" can create art, opening the door to artists to follow such as Jasper Johns and Robert Rauschenberg, the Pop artists and later the conceptual artists. Ideas as art became a highly embraced philosophy in the art world. Fifty years after creating "The Fountain," Duchamp reflects on the misinterpretations of his intentions in saying, "I threw the urinal in their faces and now they admire it for its aesthetic beauty."

The original "Fountain" has long been reported "lost" or "missing" and so the only versions available today are reproductions.

  • If your edit is legitimate, please have at it. I, for one, found this article too brief. Possibly, the Fountain's status as art has nothing to do with the physical work. Would any toilet be okay? What about just asking people to imagine a toilet? Average people find this kind of art offensive: why is my toilet worth 25 dollars and this guy's toilet is worth millions of dollars? What makes irreverence art? Why go through the motions of offending people if you already know the outcome? These are other questions need answering. Otherwise, readers will think art critics are merely capricious snobs.
    • Wikipedia encourages bold edits. However, there can also be bold edits to bold edits - or even complete reversions (rv) of edits. You should go ahead with your ideas, but bear in mind Wiki policies.
      • 1) NOR - no original research - means information has to come from already published sources, not personal pet theories and not personal research. If you want to include these, get them published somewhere else first (and then you can reference them).
      • 2) NPOV - neutral point of view - a balanced presentation of the facts and differing viewpoints in an ideal article.
      • 3) Cite references and sources.
    • Tyrenius 10:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Eno?

This 2006 performance was a continuation of the performance artist's work from a performance he conducted in 1993 when he urinated into the piece while it was on display in Nimes, in southern France.

I'm aware that the same man who attacked the piece recently did so once before in 1993, but wasn't it Brian Eno who urinated in the piece, and in a totally seperate incident, both elsewhere (in New York) as well as two years later, in 1995?

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=916964

At this link, in quotation, is text of what is allegedly Eno's account straight from his own diary, but every net search (although not very exhaustive searches, I'll admit) I've done related to Eno's involvement only give me sites linking to that page.

Or am I wrong, and perhaps both Eno and the repeat attacker have urinated in it? It would make sense considering only [3] one of the articles I've read (so far) of the recent attack describes exactly how the piece was attacked in 1993.

Clarification, anyone?

--Monsquaz 16:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Appealing" is not a point of view

I am trying to point out the aesthetic qualities of an object. I am not going to say that they are unappealing. Why am I getting reverted?

And furthermore, that is not a point of view. At least, not a point of view that I am aware of. If you consider it a point of view, could you just tell me what the point of view is that you think I am promoting, as you see it?

And further furthermore, I do not consider it original research to describe the most obvious visual qualities of an object of art. It is white. Is it original research to describe it as being white? Bus stop 16:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

First, many people would disagree with you that the urinal is appealing on an artistic or formal level. This is your opinion that it is appealing. I, personally, find it appealing, but I'm not an expert, nor are you. And if you are, cite it to your work. We aren't here to posit what is "appealing" - we are here to present cited, sourced material to experts in the field, on the subject, or on the form itself. So we cite what we write to back up what we say. As it stands now, you are putting material in that says the work is "appealing" with no sources. I can assure you, any Request for Comment on this issue you would fail to pass the WP:NPOV criteria. This is official policy, and can't be circumvented by giving antonyms. Just find a source for what you write, that's all. Thanks. --David Shankbone 16:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

"Appealing" happens to be why the article exists. It is only in that sense that I am using the word. Appealing is why the object is housed in a museum. Appealing is why it is discussed. It has meaning. It has significance, in many people's minds. It is in that sense that it is "appealing." My usage of the word "appealing" equates with "value." Marcel Duchamp's Fountain serves as a flashpoint for discussing critical issues, for many people. It has "attractiveness" and it has "appeal."

It is art that we are talking about. It is visual art. Very few works of visual art are totally repulsive. It is perfectly natural to employ the word appealing to refer to smooth, curvilinear, porcelain white surfaces. That is straightforward, neutral, description.

I have not expressed a point of view. Nor have I done original research. This is a work of art that we are describing. It is not original research to say that the urinal is smooth. It happens to be white -- do you object to my saying it is white? I have not used fanciful language. I have not, for instance, compared it to "a dove in flight." It is white, so I have simply called it white. That is not original research, not in the context of a work of visual art. It would be ludicrous to think one could not state basic, incontrovertible facts pertaining to a work of visual art. There is no issue of original research. If you thought the object were blue, that would be a legitimate objection. But I contend that my referring to the object as white cannot possibly be construed as original research. Bus stop 18:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This is all your opinion. Not every piece of art in a museum, nor every article, do I find "appealing" - and I would be surprised if you could say the same thing. You can describe the work, but you can't give your opinion that it is "appealing" or any other value-laden term. --David Shankbone 18:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I am using the word appealing in the most general sense. I thought I explained that above. But also, I am referring to smooth, white, curvilinear surfaces. That language is associated with appealing. It is the general case that visual art contains at least some visually appealing qualities. That is not the exception -- that is generally the case. As I said above, it would be rare to find any work of visual art totally devoid of visually appealing characteristics. My use of the word appealing is without any particular import. There is no pushing of any point of view. Context is everything. Curvilinear and smooth are appealing qualities, generally. Since we are talking about visual art, there is no particular point of view being expressed. In a straightforward manner I am referring to obvious qualities, using the terms that are generally applicable. Bus stop 18:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You're still expressing opinions. That "smooth, white, curvilinear" is associated with the word "appealing" is an opinion you have, that you are ascribing as a fact. Says who? You? We aren't here to tell people what is appealing, and what is not. What you, yourself, think is obvious to others is a falsehood. Secondly, There are plenty of artists who don't effort to be "visually appealing" and many who effort NOT to be visually appealing, and you don't have to go far to find one. --David Shankbone 19:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you offer me an example of an artwork that has no visually appealing qualities? (And by the way, we are not talking primarily about artists. We are talking primarily about artworks. The subject of the article is not primarily Marcel Duchamp. The subject of the article is the sculpture titled Fountain, by Marcel Duchamp.) I would be interested to know which work of visual art you know of that has no appealing visual characteristics. Bus stop 19:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not here to educate you on the breadth of the art world, just to make sure you don't put your point of view into the article. Thanks. --David Shankbone 19:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't asking you to "educate" me. It was you who said that some artists make artwork deliberately intended to not be appealing. I just thought that if you could point to a work of art that you considered not appealing we could discuss that. I feel that the imperative to make artwork seductive and visually appealing is alive and well. I know it goes through changes. What is appealing in one period of time is not appealing in another period of time. I thought it might be interesting to discuss. Bus stop 19:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

True, it would be interesting, but this isn't a chat room, it's a page to discuss changes to Wikipedia, and such a discussion would be against guidelines and policy. --David Shankbone 20:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

But you are wrong. That is the point. "Appealing" is a natural and almost always present quality in works of art. Bus stop 20:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it. You just aren't entitled to put it into the article. Best of luck. --David Shankbone 20:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

That point of view was not put into the article. Bus stop 20:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Was it a "used" urinal?

Are you saying it was a used urinal? If so, from where do you get this information? Bus stop 21:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You should read the article, and what a Readymade is. The better question is, what leads you to believe it was a clean new professionally-produced urinal? --David Shankbone 21:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

In other words, you do not know that it was used. Then why are you saying, in your last edit summary, that the object wasn't "clean and new?" Do you know anything about this?

The article Readymades of Marcel Duchamp makes reference to "manufactured objects." I am equating "manufactured" with "professionally produced."

I can't attest to the fact that the urinal had never been urinated into. Do you have reason to believe that the urinal was used, in that sense? Bus stop 22:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Before you edit an article, you should know about it. No offense, but you are making yourself look foolish by admitting that, basically, you know nothing about this piece of art. By the way, that's my photograph on the page, and I know a good deal about it. You should research it before you expect others to explain it to you so that you don't make edits that are untrue, misleading, point-of-view, or otherwise inaccurate. I don't see much point to continuing this discussion. --David Shankbone 22:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
And note that you were the one who put in "clean, new"; I didn't replace that with "dirty and used".--David Shankbone 22:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

If you can not continue this discussion, that is OK. But I will continue to edit the article. And there will still be a need to resort to use of the Talk page to iron out differences. I'm sorry not to find you more conversational, since we are both trying to write a Wikipedia article on Fountain, a sculpture by Marcel Duchamp. Bus stop 22:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 90 Degrees?

"he turned it 90 degrees from its normal position" I beleive that should be 180 degrees? It is mentioned more than once...

I believe it's position as displayed in the art gallery represents a rotation of 90 degrees from its position of use in the average bathroom. The rotation is one from, for instance, the position of the hour hand on an analogue clock (the "small" hand) moving from the "12" to the "3." That I believe is a rotational movement of 90 degrees.
Specifically, instead of being "mounted" on the wall, it is "mounted" on the "floor." The angle formed between the wall (vertical) and the floor (horizontal) is 90 degrees. Bus stop 11:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Interpretations" section

This could really do with some inline citations. As it stands the only reference given is right at the end of the "The Artist's Name" subsection. Other parts, in particular the "Formal interpretation" subsection, currently read very much like original research. 86.132.138.205 22:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missing citation

Footnote 8 ("Quoted in Schwarz, p. 649.") is incomplete. Schwarz's work is not referred to in full in the "References" section or anywhere else in the article. Can someone provide a full reference? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Origins" section: quotations

Could someone could double check the the below excerpt:

The New York Dadaists stirred controversy about Fountain and its being hidden from view in the second issue of The Blind Man which included a photo of the piece and a letter by Alfred Stieglitz, and writings by Beatrice Wood and Arensberg. The text accompanying the photograph made a claim crucial to much later modern art: Whether Mr Mutt made the fountain with his own hands or not has no importance. He CHOSE it. He took an article of life, placed it so that its useful significance disappeared under the new title and point of view – created a new thought for that object.[5] In defense of the work being art, Wood also wrote: "The only works of art America has given are her plumbing and her bridges."[6] Duchamp described his purpose with the piece as shifting the focus of art from physical craft to intellectual interpretation.

I recall Duchamp's "The Richard Mutt Case" (1917) is the origin of the quotes not Stiegliz, Woods, or Arensberg, but I currently do not have any sources on hand to check before making any changes to the article. A reprint of Duchamp's article, however, can be found in Charles Harrison and Paul Wood's Art in Theory: 1900-2000: An Anthology of Changing Ideas (2002).

--Spiraltra (talk) 03:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I can attest that the Woods quote is from Blind Man. See the Blind Man link in references. The second issue of Blind Man includes writings of Wood, Arensberg and others. As well as, the Stieglitz photo and maybe some writing from Stieglitz (I don't remember.)
The "Whether Mr. Mutt made..." quote is from Blind Man, too. Page 5. The attribution is messed up in the wikipedia article. I'll fix it right now. It may be re-quoted in many articles and books like Art in Theory, but I think we should cite the original source - Blind Man.

--sparkitTALK 13:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)