French surrealism at its best :) I bet the dadaists would have had fun watching this movie back to front exclamating nonsense with a loud voice. Down with fish! marmelade cars embed themselves in adamantine jelly! Chocolat mouse and mustard sticks horn their discontent with serpentine clangor! ...Aaahhh now that was a relieve ;)
es interesante;pienso que al arte actual puede aplicarse con comodidad El concepto del dadaísmo .En realidad era un anti-artista Marcell? o un verdadero genio artístico que no lo aceptaba??
I want to know what the hell Duchamp is doing up there in that tree. Seems to be directing something about the bride and his chess game facinations. Interesting...I'm just wondering what this video is because "breaking glass" is only a segment or fraction of this video.
Marcel Duchamp is arguably one of the greatest artists of all time: right up there with Leonardo, Michelangelo, Raphael, Turner, Picabia, Man Ray, Metzinger, and Gleizes. Great video.
Just seeing if anyone was paying attention. I disagree with your dropping off of Raphael though. Man Ray too may stand the test of time. Are you familliar with his work?
YES! He does not display any of the double-duplicity & complication of thought that Duchamp portrays with such simplicity. People don't parallel Duchamps art/thought as comments on say physics for example because of their disguised nature. However the underlying nature of Duchamp is very much a comment on not only art but particle physics. Physicist on the other hand do not have the facilities of mind to handle what Duchamp is doing!
R. Mutt, broke all the rules. Art became whatever you wanted it to be: a great white shark soaked in formaldehyde, your own body transformed by plastic surgery, an arrangement of rocks in the desert, it doesn't even have to be something physical, something real, it can simply be virtual, a political message, an idea to be realized or not. And, clearly, the more it engages the public the more history will appreciate it.
Yes. It is unfortunate that the status quo is what dictates a "successful" artist today. The true artists will go unseen in todays society- overshadowed by Hollywood and other charletons all over. Just like the spectrum of light great art, seems, will show itself not today, as Duchamp predicted, but say in 100-200 year whilst todays crap will have disappeared into the great void.
For the scientist, things are slightly different, but there is a striking similarity—she too must create beauty and elegance using the full powers of the imagination in pursuit of an underlying truth. And, the more daring, outrageous, scandalous the theory, the more attention and publicity it seems to attract. The idealized big bang has not failed in this respect: credo quia absurdum.
Furthermore, great art is created in every form with NATURE in mind- from Cezanne & Van Gogh to Duchamp. Everything, trees, people, rocks, sky, land, sun, moon are the same and even and on level with the horizon. One must not overshoot nor undershoot what one sees in relation to themself. The art which does not account for what I've mentioned tends to be rather one-dimensional and flat, uninteresting. It is unaware.
I don't. What the fuck are these axioms? There are no axioms in art! Especially at the turn of the 20th century: Absurdist, futurist, dadist would laugh in his smug face! "One must not oveshoot nor undershoot what one sees in relation to themself??" Not even proper fucking grammer let alone art. Sounds like a manifesto realism.Jesus, this guy's either a failed artist turned art teacher or... I don't know what. Pisses me off. This guy is what is wrong with Art criticism.
That is the point you have not yet observed. Duchamps was a genius. He went further than any other human being before him. And guess what, his art (anti-art) is still alive and kicking. Rock on.
Duchamp comunica da un tronco cavo - Leonardo nei suoi indovinelli diceva che all'interno delle piante è racchiusa la ricchezza (si riferiva ai bauli in legno).
dada
dadaist2011 10 months ago
Focus is what aspect one is noticing.
JC (Not Johnny Cash)
composerpoet 1 year ago
Perf
suzieq0008 1 year ago
dedico estp a Raphael el Niño de Linares ....quien aun se
atreve a romper la misteriosa materia que compone un
cristal
juanbosco31 2 years ago
meat sticks on brown sheets
TheFreakSupper 2 years ago
translation for the less edjumacated?
LampHarvester 2 years ago 10
No parley vu french
9KLLIB 3 years ago 3
como anda esto che
lebleufleur 3 years ago 3
tu sens du bout des seins hahahah
you smell from the tits. why do u smell from the tits? because i want to smell from the tits. i like to smell from the tits.
Hahahahaha
orbitalstardust21 3 years ago
"Sentir" in french doesn't only mean "smell" but also "feel". In this sentence, we understand "You feel from the tits". Also "sentir" mean "stink".
ordureblanchie 2 years ago
stink means puer but you can say sentir mauvais smelling bad !!!
josepolo950 2 years ago
this guy talks funny
twinkietown 3 years ago
dunno french :(:(
airsunlight 3 years ago
always the best
duchamp
thammi 3 years ago 2
French surrealism at its best :) I bet the dadaists would have had fun watching this movie back to front exclamating nonsense with a loud voice. Down with fish! marmelade cars embed themselves in adamantine jelly! Chocolat mouse and mustard sticks horn their discontent with serpentine clangor! ...Aaahhh now that was a relieve ;)
VincentJS 3 years ago 14
es interesante;pienso que al arte actual puede aplicarse con comodidad El concepto del dadaísmo .En realidad era un anti-artista Marcell? o un verdadero genio artístico que no lo aceptaba??
entwilklung 4 years ago
charleton heston
elmphelmp 4 years ago
I want to know what the hell Duchamp is doing up there in that tree. Seems to be directing something about the bride and his chess game facinations. Interesting...I'm just wondering what this video is because "breaking glass" is only a segment or fraction of this video.
pishdad 4 years ago
Marcel Duchamp is arguably one of the greatest artists of all time: right up there with Leonardo, Michelangelo, Raphael, Turner, Picabia, Man Ray, Metzinger, and Gleizes. Great video.
DVDjHex 4 years ago
Hey you forgot Yosemite Sam! After Michelangelo your list drops in a very great spike fashion.
pishdad 4 years ago
Just seeing if anyone was paying attention. I disagree with your dropping off of Raphael though. Man Ray too may stand the test of time. Are you familliar with his work?
DVDjHex 4 years ago
YES! He does not display any of the double-duplicity & complication of thought that Duchamp portrays with such simplicity. People don't parallel Duchamps art/thought as comments on say physics for example because of their disguised nature. However the underlying nature of Duchamp is very much a comment on not only art but particle physics. Physicist on the other hand do not have the facilities of mind to handle what Duchamp is doing!
pishdad 4 years ago
R. Mutt, broke all the rules. Art became whatever you wanted it to be: a great white shark soaked in formaldehyde, your own body transformed by plastic surgery, an arrangement of rocks in the desert, it doesn't even have to be something physical, something real, it can simply be virtual, a political message, an idea to be realized or not. And, clearly, the more it engages the public the more history will appreciate it.
DVDjHex 4 years ago
Yes. It is unfortunate that the status quo is what dictates a "successful" artist today. The true artists will go unseen in todays society- overshadowed by Hollywood and other charletons all over. Just like the spectrum of light great art, seems, will show itself not today, as Duchamp predicted, but say in 100-200 year whilst todays crap will have disappeared into the great void.
pishdad 4 years ago
charlatans, not charletons. Apart from that very true
GreggaryPeccary 4 years ago
For the scientist, things are slightly different, but there is a striking similarity—she too must create beauty and elegance using the full powers of the imagination in pursuit of an underlying truth. And, the more daring, outrageous, scandalous the theory, the more attention and publicity it seems to attract. The idealized big bang has not failed in this respect: credo quia absurdum.
DVDjHex 4 years ago
Furthermore, great art is created in every form with NATURE in mind- from Cezanne & Van Gogh to Duchamp. Everything, trees, people, rocks, sky, land, sun, moon are the same and even and on level with the horizon. One must not overshoot nor undershoot what one sees in relation to themself. The art which does not account for what I've mentioned tends to be rather one-dimensional and flat, uninteresting. It is unaware.
pishdad 4 years ago
I like your style pishdad.
DVDjHex 4 years ago
I don't. What the fuck are these axioms? There are no axioms in art! Especially at the turn of the 20th century: Absurdist, futurist, dadist would laugh in his smug face! "One must not oveshoot nor undershoot what one sees in relation to themself??" Not even proper fucking grammer let alone art. Sounds like a manifesto realism.Jesus, this guy's either a failed artist turned art teacher or... I don't know what. Pisses me off. This guy is what is wrong with Art criticism.
alejandro15187 4 years ago
Good points alejandro.
Duchamp was a genius.
DVDjHex 4 years ago
art for art sake
mundabe2000 4 years ago
Ex nihilo nihil. (Nothing [comes] from nothing).
That is the point you have not yet observed. Duchamps was a genius. He went further than any other human being before him. And guess what, his art (anti-art) is still alive and kicking. Rock on.
DVDjHex 3 years ago
Neat!
nanogirl 4 years ago
great vid
jasonx6482 4 years ago
Duchamp comunica da un tronco cavo - Leonardo nei suoi indovinelli diceva che all'interno delle piante è racchiusa la ricchezza (si riferiva ai bauli in legno).
lullor 4 years ago
Cool!
caroljbowie 4 years ago
Interesting document !
spiritofboz 4 years ago
great great great
tourettetv 4 years ago
exellente material
video arte inedito
saludos
erico
ericmarchant 4 years ago