I have a splinter of wood from this. Don't ask how.
I saw it in Philadelphia. It's undeniably the most beautiful thing I've ever seen in my entire life, and I don't even pretend to understand it. I spent an hour AT LEAST in the Duchamp room alone.
i agree, this needs to be seen in person for the full affect. I think this is what he intended. He saw where we were moving with television and movies making everything sort of pale and cheap. Nothing is quite like this exhibit. Only one person at a time can look through the peep holes, and the scene inside is so dream-like and surreal...it's wild. The fact that you cannot see the woman's face gave me much to think about, lol.
This work really must be understood within the context of Duchamp's output. Interestingly, all of his major works share very little commonality. This is far different from anything else he created.
A fine work of art, I suggest that anyone take the time to see it in person; it is far more affecting that way.
Also, this has been on display since 1966 and will likely be on display for posterity, so there isn't much "current" about it.
GISWHES
Shar12866 4 months ago
A photo through each of those holes might create a noticeable stereoscopic effect when viewed together.
WispierTetrahedrons 1 year ago
I have a splinter of wood from this. Don't ask how.
I saw it in Philadelphia. It's undeniably the most beautiful thing I've ever seen in my entire life, and I don't even pretend to understand it. I spent an hour AT LEAST in the Duchamp room alone.
bacofishtaco 1 year ago
i was so close to seeing this exhibit in Philadelphia before it closed back in november. i regret not going so much!
trench 2 years ago
i agree, this needs to be seen in person for the full affect. I think this is what he intended. He saw where we were moving with television and movies making everything sort of pale and cheap. Nothing is quite like this exhibit. Only one person at a time can look through the peep holes, and the scene inside is so dream-like and surreal...it's wild. The fact that you cannot see the woman's face gave me much to think about, lol.
unit023 3 years ago
This work really must be understood within the context of Duchamp's output. Interestingly, all of his major works share very little commonality. This is far different from anything else he created.
A fine work of art, I suggest that anyone take the time to see it in person; it is far more affecting that way.
Also, this has been on display since 1966 and will likely be on display for posterity, so there isn't much "current" about it.
morphicresident 3 years ago
Duchamp is my absolute favorite, and this piece is my all-time favorite piece of art. You'll have a hard time finding this one in any of his books.
fknugly222 3 years ago 2