Marcel Duchamp - On Indifferent Taste

[n3r0n3]

Duchamp is Copernic. What came before him and what came after cannot be judged by the same criterias. For what about pop art, with all due respect, that's a marketing strategy. Americans made money out of duchamp, duchamp and futurism made punk out of art.

[cranparent]

chill the fuck out and do some watercolor paintings dudes

[HxhXnin9e]

le maître à penser des petits-bourgeois

[jehouse]

You are all painfully boring.

[seaeselesex]

attempting to end discussion on endless discussion style forum = beradification = actual motivated culture destroyer.

your denial of the inclusion of shit within the scope of art shows an immaturity about you and a duchamp-style "turning of one's back" to a more or less conceptually based art world. You hate Duchamp because he reflects some characteristic you see in yourself that you're attempting to purge by furious masturbation to images you have no real connect with by no fault of your own

[beradification]

Duchamp was always among the rich and powerful wherever he went. Most notably Peggy Guggenheim. He was talentless and therefore made up tales about being inventive and provocative to attract attention. If he had been from some second or third world country instead of France, no one would have paid the slightest attention to him. Anybody who thinks he was a good philosopher or thinker is being conned.

[8cccpeevostokzempf]

@beradification

Hey List Maker! What does your untutored "Intuition" tell you about Johns, Rauschenberg, Warhol, Rothko, de Kooning, Stella, Pollock, Beuys, Haacke,--bunch of frauds right? I bet you're a Mondrian sort of person--sort of Graphic Oriented--right? I bet you know what you like--Yummy Art--So Easy On The Mind. Poor Baby so confused by all that grown up fakey stuff--there there.. Try not to think about it. I'm sure you'll find a way.

[beradification]

@8cccpeevostokzempf All those you listed are frauds including Mondrian. I prefer mostly baroque painting and classical sculpture. Dali is the greatest modern painter by a long stretch. Yves Tanguy is up there for modern artists. Pollack was a murderer by the way. Johns was corporate america's wet dream.

[8cccpeevostokzempf]

@beradification ahhhhhhh--you're pushing my buttons, right? Pulling my chain? Very funny. Very wry. BTW I think the "murderer" you're thinking of is Carl Andre. Or Fra Angelico perhaps?

[beradification]

@beradification No, Pollock was most definitely the murderer I was thinking of. You tell me if I'm pushing your buttons or not, it's not up to me to decide.

Pierre Pinoncelli was right to do what he did.

[123Mars]

Taste maker!

[beradification]

@123Mars Duchamp was a motivated culture destroyer.

[ethorii]

Genius. Blended utility and art to make what at the time must have seemed an almost alien statement.

[MsNatFan]

Hey, did you know theres a retrospective of Nat Finkelsteins work (featuring Duchamp) from 20th Jan - 14th Feb at a gallery in London called IDEA GENERATION you should check it out! :-)

[oneu778]

i think Duchamp was an interesting guy but the fact is that dada only became recognized as an important art movement after the pop artists gave it credit for their inspiration.

[lloplop]

that might be the most idiotic things I have ever read on youtube. that is quite the insult.

[oneu778]

Oh that so. i only learned that fact while watching a documentary at the tate modern.

[lloplop]

learn the difference between fact and opinion. study art history and you will realized you misinterpreted was was being said. I wont have a conversation with someone ignorant. yeah the fountain and the large glass were overlooked until pop. ok sure whatever you say

[moonsnooker]

A-abstract ; he was every bit the genius. Duchamp knew exactly what he was doing & what fundamental questions he was asking. When fountain was rejected by the board in 1917 he himself resigned; a man who resigns cares.

The significance of Duchamp lies in his taking a mundane, worthless everyday object, an object he didnt make, and raising it to the hitherto elite status of "art". Opening new avenues of expression for a century to come, dissolving assumptions that had stood for centuries. Genius

[17205513]

for mr.abstact obviously you've never seen the duchamp painting figure descending down a staircase #2. he brought a diffrent sensibilitiy to art its niether right or wrong. either your into or you aren't and thats all.

[josepolo950]

one of my favorite painting that woman coming down the stairs !!! Geniale !!!!

[AuroraAbstract]

Well, in the end we shall see whose mind is tiny and who had the broader vision. Time will always tell. Greatness in art is about talent, not thoughts of talent.

[AuroraAbstract]

Sorry Roquefort! Anything can be art, but you have to make it into art! Not just put a sign on it and call it art.Duchamp never defined what the difference was between good & bad taste. Greenberg did! Big difference! Duchamp was only good at getting attention! He only discovered that the real world exists!! Duh! And he discovered it whilst staring into a urinal!He was no more philosopher than my cat! Who sits and watches water dripping from the faucet,with amazement! Duchamp was a tiny mind!

[cineasta71]

tiny mind that made you speak about him...

[AuroraAbstract]

photek, I think you are making too much of Duchamp!(Many people do!).I think he was far simpler than you realize. I don't think he really cared,or thought much about art or the implications and reaction people would have. I think he was amusing himself and his friends because he just wasn't a great artist, and he knew it.

[roquefort88888]

I'm not a huge fan of Duchamp's work, but my impression of this clip is much the same as photek's.

When MD says "indifference", sure he's using a casual urbane expression, but beneath this there is a fundamental point being made - that "good taste" and "bad taste" are both the enemies of human creativity.

Like the Vedic expression that the wise man "clings neither to this nor to that".

You may be right that he wasn't a "great" artist, but as an art philosopher he has few peers.

[jpapare]

@roquefort88888 I like what you said about good and bad taste being enemies of creativity.

Your comment punctuated the short video for me beautifully. Thank you.

[MrWowforever]

ignorance is bliss :)

[photek1944]

He's not talking about indifference, like he doesn't care. He's talking about Salomo Friedländers "creative indifference". The artist unites all possible polarities in himself and chooses from this "inner everything" to make his work of art. the avant-garde of the early 20th century did so, because all other people were separating things from how they really exist (together). the avant-garde merely represented this new reality; the fourth dimension, consequently to Einsteins relativity theory,

[73elephants]

At the aesthetic level, he doesn't care at all. At another level, he cares a lot: he has chosen "indifferent" objects because the indifferent is anathema to art, and he is expressing his hatred of the art world. His readymades are an insult directed at the modernists. It's a somewhat private joke, because he knows the artworld is collectively too stupid to know it is being insulted. He particularly is attacking the mismatch between the "anything goes" rhetoric of modernism and actual practice.

[MrWowforever]

73elephants do you know these names: Walter Arensburg, Katherine Drier, Andre Breton, Alfred Barr, Richard Hamilton...? My point is that this story is more compex than a youtube comment will allow. The art world is not 'collectively stupid', the masses are. Duchamp hated convention, which comes from the masses, not artists. Duchamps final piece took the last 25 yrs of his life to make. He was paradoxically (deeply) involved with aesthetics :)

[73elephants]

Everybody knows that you don't have to be very intelligent to become an artist or start an art gallery. Smart people tend to go into banking or law.

Convention does not come from the masses, but from the ruling and upper-middle classes -- i.e., the bourgeoisie. Dada mocked bourgeois taste, not the taste of "the masses". Duchamp saw modernism as being also bourgeois convention, merely disguised. His hatred of the art world came from quarrels with certain artists, especially Albert Gleizes.

[MrWowforever]

read a book on Duchamp, Calvin Tomkins is informative. You are allowed to believe your own stupidity, but don't post it. You are simply wrong. Your first sentence proves you are afraid of Art and as uninformed about Art as you are Duchamp. Philistine:)

[73elephants]

No, my first sentence proves that I know the art world well. It is swarming with mediocre intellects. Really intelligent people in the art world are comparatively rare.

I am completely right about Duchamp. You read about his quarrel with Gleizes, and think for a while about how and why it so closely parallels the urinal stunt. Then you will understand.

Your last word ("philistine") proves that you don't understand either Duchamp or dadaism. There are no philistines, according to dadaism.

[MrWowforever]

a philistine is one who doesn't read books and then speaks without regard to the facts. Thats you. Its not worth arguing with you. What do you do for a living?

[73elephants]

@MrWowforever

Your definition is wrong. A philistine is someone who is uninterested in arts or ideas. Or, to put it as the dictionary does, one " who is lacking in or hostile or smugly indifferent to cultural values, intellectual pursuits, aesthetic refinement, etc., or is contentedly commonplace in ideas and tastes." That's you. Until you actually start *thinking*, rather than mindlessly parroting popular misunderstandings of the events of that period.

[3idiot3]

73elephants the r word

[pues13]

@MrWowforever . WOOOOOOo!!!!!! MrWowforever just wooped 73elephants ass on some youtube BATTle comments!!!!!!!

[kellylynn2008]

@pues13 cheers.....i love that 73elephants looked up 'philistine' in the dictionary. very funny.

[nofuntasy]

marcel duchamp, dada es suicidal art¡¡¡¡ fuck off art, jaja. el arte es cagarsue de frio¡¡

[thammi]

me too...

he's a genious.

[bretblatt]

damn! i wish there was more.

[artcopNYC]

Since the 60s, Duchamps fountain is paradigm for what is Art. Pandemonium reigns in the fey, mere anarchy is in the fan, shit is everywhere.HEY, hello YOU MEAN ART IS BECAUSE ( I ) SAY SO?

It doesn't have to do the things that arT does? tee hee - knox

[8cccpeevostokzempf]

No. Not because YOU say so. Because HE said so. And because he was THE FIRST to say so it was an act of art. Afterwards people said, hey! My kid could have done that. Same w/ regards Pollock. John Waters' take on that sort of comment is: Well then Dummy, why didn't they. MD separates the people who know how to think about art from those who don't. Your intuition will only take you as far as it has taken you. Your post id proof of that.

[73elephants]

The answer to the question "why didn't they" is that they are not charlatans or lunatics.

Only charlatans and fools produce worthless, artless, charmless shit, and insist that the public praise them as artists.

The rest of us *could* do that, but we don't, because we have too much respect for our selves and our fellows to behave that way.

Marcel Duchamp is a cult leader. His self-contradictory ideas make no sense at all, but people follow his Word as if it were from the mouth of god.

[ClavicleofSolomon]

I don't think Duchamp ever insisted anyone consider him anything. Plus his art covers a wide variety of styles. "The Fountain" and other "readymades" were just one phase of his work. Is "Etant Donnes" worthless, artless, charmless shit?

[73elephants]

Duchamp practiced art for only a few years in his youth. He gave it up as a result of a quarrel between himself and other members of the cubist group of which he had been a member. After that, he was very bitter about the art world, and spent his life systematically mocking and undermining it. (The readymades were part of that.) He was right to the extent that the art world has been stupid enough to take his statements at face value, and to mistake his parodies, insults and provocations for art.

[8cccpeevostokzempf]

@73elephants

Dear 73--Apologies for that last ill-tempered blast. I'm itching to spill the beans--but not t yet--not here--but I'll drop you a clue: Any Post-Duchampian "argument" that might be made (with whomever) w/ respect to the category "ART" is made within peramiters MD established. You're looking and thinking too hard and too deep in all the wrong places. The "answer" singular--not plural--is hidden in plain view--I'll follow up with a useful analogy in a later post. Best wishes.

[8cccpeevostokzempf]

@73elephants What is your well-reasoned position w/ respect to Linear Algebra?--or The Periodic Table?  There's no such thing as an intellectual democracy buddy--uninformed opinions don't count. You sound like a book-burner.

[73elephants]

@8cccpeevostokzempf Did you read up on Duchamp's quarrel with Gleizes? Did you? Indeed, uninformed opinions do not count, and until you understand the nature of Duchamp's quarrel with Gleizes, you will never understand the nature of Duchamp's quarrel with art.

[milionis]

Marcel is Dead! Long live Lord Duchamp!

dimitris milionis

[8cccpeevostokzempf]

Duchamp was magnificently full of shit. He never told the truth in his entire life. Why bother? No one would get it if he did. He didn't nother telling the truth. He did the truth. All Art is subsumed under his wing. Marcel Duchamp. Carl Andre. Andy Kaufman. 20th cent's grreatest wise men.

[konzwambii]

Didn't Carl Andre throw his wife out of their 6th floor window in Soho? Wow, what a wise man.

[8cccpeevostokzempf]

Yeah, but it wouldn't have made the news if he hadn't been Carl Andre first. Big prob separating the artist from the art as with (some people's problem with) Reifensthal. Not an easy call. I make it about 51/49 % on the side of the art irrespective. But as Dennis Miller used to say, "I could be wrong." B regards, keep in touch.

[73elephants]

Carl Andre and Leni Riefenstahl are two very different cases.

Carl Andre is a person of very dubious character making "art" of no artistry, or beauty, or meaning.

Leni Riefenstahl is, on a personal level, quite decent, and her art is very skilful and beautiful. The problem is that some of it was made as propaganda for a very negative ideology.

Should we admire Andre or his work? Certainly not. Should we admire Riefenstal or her work? Certainly, some of the work. Probably not all.

[beradification]

@8cccpeevostokzempf this is all true except for your conclusion, its a complete non-sequitor. it should read '20th century's greatest bullshit artists'.

[beradification]

@8cccpeevostokzempf I think I can probably name 1,000! wiser 20th century men.

To start off I'll point you to Dr Martin Luther King, Einstein, Gandi, etc... there are many others..

[stavokg]

@beradification --Wiser in their respective fields, yes. Duchamp's wisdom lies within the field of art--especially philosophy of art and visual thinking.

[m1n3for3v3r]

@8cccpeevostokzempf Andre and Kaufman? LOL way to invalidate everything you just said

[m1n3for3v3r]

@8cccpeevostokzempf actually, duchamp is pretty straight forward, blatant, literal, etc. Seems you are the one who doesnt tell the truth and just makes things up?  or maybe youre just dumb? my money leans toward the latter.

[luludeuva]

Thanks a lot for uploaded this great video... I love Duchamp¡¡

[eriksatie9]

me too! thank you! :)

[starlettine]

Marcel Duchamp is lord masta 1337 str8 up hxc gangsta ftw 4evuh n alweyzzz.

[kryshtal]

what ?

[starlettine]

That is seven months old.

[kryshtal]

so.... famous quotes of Aristotle are still used today, if its meaninless then dont post it at all

[starlettine]

OH BIG, FLIRTY TEAPOT

OH GREAT WHITE

Break your Aristotle and burn all the Cezannes

[rezka]

el maestro de la modernidad!

el señor: marcel duchamp.

hijo de puta!