Thank you for saving me the typing, Jason.
Although I must say that I don't really see the fountain as art, but of course... art is always subjective.
This is the problem of placing Dada pieces in museums and art books. Duchamp basically did exactly what you see. He bought a urinal, signed it with a fake name, plopped it on a plinth, and submitted it under the fake name, "R. Mutt," you can see on the side. The original was lost but Duchamp made copies.
Although I must say that I don't really see the fountain as art, but of course... art is always subjective.
Precisely!
You would not have thought that before
Fountain was exhibited. Really, you wouldn't. Everybody thought art was objective and that's what you would have been taught in school. With one stroke, Duchamp made art subjective as we understand it in the modern sense. That's how radical this one piece was when it was introduced to the world. No shit (and fortunately, no pee either!).
Fountain has been hailed as the most influential artwork of the 20th century because it precisely brought the entire question of, "What is art?," to the minds of artists, critics, and eventually, everyone in the western world.
Here's a good critique of what the impact of
Fountain has been:
Duchamp adamantly asserted that he wanted to "de-deify" the artist. The readymades provide a way around inflexible either-or aesthetic propositions. They represent a Copernican shift in art. Fountain is what's called an "acheropoietoi," [sic] an image not shaped by the hands of an artist.
Fountain brings us into contact with an original that is still an original but that also exists in an altered philosophical and metaphysical state. It is a manifestation of the Kantian sublime: A work of art that transcends a form but that is also intelligible, an object that strikes down an idea while allowing it to spring up stronger. - The Village Voice
A bit heady, but there it is. Another good article is
here, from
The Telegraph.
:smile:
