by ninjacodemonkey

user profile | dashboard | imagewall

« older newer »

Search this moblog

Recent visitors

Duchamp's "Fountain"

(viewed 2284 times)
Bookmark and Share
7th May 2005, 01:45  

spongevid says:

i want to go there again!

7th May 2005, 02:06

Me too! I want to go weekly.

I love this piece. It was voted the single most important work of art in the 20th Century.

It's my second favourite piece at the Tate.

7th May 2005, 21:31

JudgeTredd says:

this is why i love modern art. it's crud. hope it helps the art snobs sleep at night believing that they live on a higher plain to the rest of humanity. as for me, i reckon an average plumber could manage this. says it all really doesn't it. gosh, i wonder what Constable would say..... only one of the most accomplished artists in history...personally i think i'd rate his opinion slightly higher than a modern art critic. sorry if that's coming on a bit strong, but for god's sake it a toilet! they're made by the thousand.

14th Jul 2005, 16:13

Thing is, while anyone *could* do it, no-one thought of doing it, until Duchamp did.

14th Jul 2005, 16:19

JudgeTredd says:

or the corkscrew, ladle, hammer, screwdriver, kitchen sink, glass, mars bar etc. i just don't get it. maybe i'm a neanderthal, i'm not above swallowing being wrong about something, but for my money if someone has the talent & patience to learn an art like painting something so that you say 'wow is that a photograph', that's far more clever than getting a bus stop put in the tate as 'a representation of time & life today'. ps. my wife disagrees with me & i'm honest enough to admit it. now find a modern art critic who will admit the same...

14th Jul 2005, 16:27

Art isn't cleverness though, is it? The technical skill of the artist isn't what makes something art or not. If I want to see a perfect picture of something, I'll look at a photograph.

Art is interpretation. Art is the artist showing you something you wouldn't see if you looked at the thing yourself. That's the "value add" if you like.

14th Jul 2005, 17:00

JudgeTredd says:

don't get me wrong, i realise the connotations behind interpretation, it's just that i think a person should go through the process of 'apprenticeship', learning how to express their skill before they decide which route to go down. it didn't do renoir or picasso any harm, they didn't end up mainstrem. it's the same with music. whilst beethoven went down the schooling route, he was still one of the great composers and quite a rebel. there are musicians out there without schooling, like (this depends on your taste) massive attack or portishead or sting who have still managed to master the art very well, but there are groups like the beach boys too who are completely stuck in a rut and really only know a few chords. they were the talent of their day, but stagnated because they didn't know how to express their 'art' well enough. imagine what the beatles or elvis could have done with enough musical knowledge. that they had the ability is not in question. art such as sculpture hits me the same way. a person may have an insight into life/unusual aspects, but to convey it takes more than what i see in most of the tate exhibits. maybe i'm wrong. it's happened before...

14th Jul 2005, 17:18

JudgeTredd says:

as i said before, please feel free to leave any comment you like on my moblog, there's a couple of slightly arty ones on earlier pages. i definately am not an artist though. i welcome any comments. the more humerous the better. after all, if i can't take it, i shouldn't give it....please don't mistake the rather serious comments i've left today for anything offensive, i just guessed you might be the kind of person who may appreciate a small debate. Andrew (the Judge)

14th Jul 2005, 17:24

But you seem to be assuming that Duchamp *didn't* go through that process.. have you seen "Nude Descending A Staircase"?

Check out
And no, I don't mind debate at all. No offence taken.

14th Jul 2005, 17:34

JudgeTredd says:

thanks, i'll check it now.

14th Jul 2005, 17:37

JudgeTredd says:

hmm. i suppose it's down to taste. i like some of his work, but i'm a little unconvinced on the technical ability side of things. the 3 strings is a case in point. randomly dropped pieces of string are not art & don't mean anything - they are randomly dropped pieces of string. just as bubble gum trodden into the road is just bubble gum. maybe i'm too literal. but then again, being literal means my house is a house, my flowers grow and my dogs love life. not such a bad position overall.

14th Jul 2005, 17:55