by the laws Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven defaced the urinal and duchamp placed it in a gallery which changes its use and context therefore it isnt plagiarism by law.
Conceptual art is, essentially, a 180 degree departure from what we have traditionally thought of as “art”. And by art, I mean the visual arts: painting, drawing, sculpture, architecture etc. The big problem is that while the traditional visual arts have a millenniums long history, this new kid on the block, does not. Sculpture has evolved from The Venus of Willendorf to the Great Sphinx, the Venus De Milo, Michelangelo's David up to Rodin, the Statue of Liberty and Alexander Calder. The arts of painting and drawing can be traced back to the cave paintings of Lascaux in France to The Sistine Chapel, Monet and Degas, Mark Rothko and beyond. And through all of the changes, these art forms have stayed essentially the same: making marks on paper, canvas, wood, plaster etc. and building up forms in three dimensions as sculpture and architecture. Along with the evolution of these art genres has developed a language and a set of criteria that form standards by which such pieces can be critiqued, evaluated and placed in historical context. And while some people might like the lurid landscapes of Thomas Kinkade, his paintings are not and should not be hung alongside the landscapes of Church, Cole, van Gogh, Cézanne and Thiebaud. There IS such a thing as bad art and we know what it looks like and why! It is called esthetics. This cannot be said of Conceptual art. All sorts of crappy, bogus and hare brained stuff is piled up or strewn across the floors of museums and exalted as art because no one knows or can know what is worthy and what is not. So you get pieces of blank white paper crumpled up in a ball, three basketballs suspended in a fish tank and cans of human excrement. Welcome to the wonderful, wacky world of Conceptual art !
The part with the mona lisa made me burst out laughing i love that this guy had a way of trolling the art world but in a way that really challenged people's beliefs and opinions. You know im figuring out that in a way you can look at it like thats the main appeal of duchamp is the shock and humor of it, i think that having a good laugh at how whacky his ideas are can be seen as the substitution for the craftsmanship and originality that the vast majority of art is admired for. Btw good job on the thought provoking video, you really brought those themes in a modern lens there at the end when you mention NFTs and stuff like that, it shows that we are still currently struggling to define art in modern day just as much as we were in duchamp's time
The important thing is that anything can be art . if there’s a valid reason or thought behind its selection . But as there were only a limited number of readymade objects in Duchamp’s studio , there has to be some reasoning behind their choice. Otherwise he is not following his own reasoning . That’s the reasoning offered , in the Blind Man, 😊for the Fountain. As a readymade object. And by that reasoning all thought that a company’s an object has a valid point to be regarded as Art.
Duchamp appropriated the urinal without crediting the original “creator”, his friend Elsa vov Freytag-Loringhoven , except for one letter to his sister. The incriminating evidence was later published by Duchamp’s biographer, Francis Naumann: “April II [1917] My dear Suzanne- impossible d’écrire. (in the Parisian French of 1917, this meant ‘nothing much to write about’, re Dr. Glynn Thompson.) - I heard from Crotti that you were working hard. Tell me what you are making and if it’s not too difficult to send. Perhaps, I could have a show of your work in the month of October or November-next-here. But tell me what you are making- Tell this detail to the family: The Independents have opened here with immense success. One of my female friends under a masculine pseudonym, Richard Mutt, sent in a porcelain urinal as a sculpture it was not at all indecent-no reason for refusing it. The committee has decided to refuse to show this thing. I have handed in my resignation and it will be a bit of gossip of some value in New York- I would like to have a special exhibition of the people who were refused at the Independents-but that would be a redundancy! And the urinal would have been lonely- See you soon, Affect. Marcel." read more-->legrady.com/writing/history.html
@@jaksida300 Just because an object evokes some form of emotional reaction, that doesn't automatically declare said object as "art". This idea that art is "everything" is ridiculous and is an easy escape for hacks.
@@ArtNerdD Those pieces of art won’t connect with people. Who cares if a hack makes low effort art. There are also technically impressive pieces that are bland. Fountain is art, it is a century old piece with a very important part in art history.
Accepting the urinal thing as a artwork is not a obligatory thing at all (although there's an ideological pressure for it) , it is the concensus of some very powerful people and their bootlickers not humanity, thus I don't agree with the title. The fact that someone decided to put it in a museum does makes it an artwork? One thing is certain, it paved the way for an army of mediocre talentless hacks who call themselves artists to bastardize the word "art" till this day.
You are really full of yourself, aren't you? Why should anyone take you seriously when you insult them first? While much of what you have to say has, at least, some validity, your attempt to control the opinions or thoughts of others is pretty transparent. Are you merely arrogant, or insecure also?
@@jeffreyolson2139 just stated some facts about a very corrupt institution people. Something I don't understand, it is ok and expected to denounce corruption and fraud in the areas of politics, religion, sports and such, why not the same with art? SPECIALLY when it's so blatantly obvious! You'll need to be brainwashed to engulf that pill. I actually think Douchamp was a very capable artist who sadly will be remembered for this joke, which as today, got repeated ad nauseam, same old trick, different everyday use object sold as art, all for monetary gain! Is that the culture we strive for? How about stuff made with heart, brain, craft and soul? The worst part is, if we don't do anything about this, there won't be anymore great art being done since most of the recipes and methods got lost since pretty much no one else knows/uses them anymore.
That was the point in submitting it, to test the institute’s principles. If you advertise your art gallery as one where any artist’s work can be displayed provided they pay dues, you have to accept and display the “bad” art too otherwise you’re no better than those that only display art safely catering to their sensibilities. It’s very silly to pretend as if modern art is something the elites forced on the rest of us. If you consider the time period, it was quite the opposite. The powerful was against modern art and saw it as a sign of decaying culture. Even the Nazis famously cracked down on “degenerate” art in the 1920s. It’s been a scapegoat of conservatives for a century at this point.
@@jaksida300 regarding your second paragraph I agree It began as a sort of anti art punk attitude! BUT as always it gets engulfed by capitalism and becomes the stablishment, what began as rebel art now it is a commodity to please the rich people´s vanity (and a great tool to evade taxes and money laundering).
I think we have to accept that there will always be holes in the story. Most scholars believe it was Duchamp - but either way, it was Duchamp who curated the whole affair. There were many others (like Louise Norton, Walter Arensberg, and Beatrice Wood) involved so it’s also fair to call it a collaboration. I supposed Duchamp opened himself up to conspiracy by not caring about initially taking credit. From what I’ve read, a preponderance of evidence is on Duchamp’s side.
@@TheConspiracyofArt its only collaboration if you credit those the collaborated. to not credit her is to erase her which is a constant issue for female artists in art history. if you care about art history and the truth you have to confront the sexism of the art world and art historians.
Let me begin by telling you that when my brother was just starting school, he rebelled at the rules of spelling. Why did words have to be spelled in a particular way? Why couldn't he spell them as he wanted to spell them? He resented the rules and he resisted the authority of those who made them ! Keep this in mind. I think that Conceptual art originated with people who could not and would not do the difficult work required to become a 'traditional' artist. Can't master the necessary skills ? No knowledge of perspective? Can't draw? Don't want to have to learn color theory? Can't master composition? No knowledge of human anatomy? Can't render tonal values ? Can’t be bothered ? These are skills that you have to WORK to perfect. It’s difficult. It takes…..effort. However, you want a fast track to the exalted position of "artist “. Well then, belittle the importance of those skills and debase the notion that they are a prerequisite to creating art. Instead, create an art genre that you CAN do. A new genre. And let's call it Conceptual art. Conceptual artists claim that IDEAS and CONCEPTS are the main feature of their art. They can slap anything together and call it ''conceptual art'' confident that viewers will find SOMETHING to think about it no matter how banal or trivial the artist's concept! There is no way conceptual art pieces can be judged. The promoters of this art have attacked the motives and credibility of authorities and critics who might disparage the work. They have rejected museums and galleries as defining authorities. They reject the idea that art can be judged or criticized . All of this results in a decline in standards. And when you jettison standards, quality suffers. There really IS such a thing as BAD art ! We know this only because we have standards and criteria by which such things can be evaluated. It seems that conceptual art comes down to a basic idea: No one has the right or authority to make any judgements about art ! Art is anything you can get away with ! A whole new language has been created to give the work an air of legitimacy and gravitas. Conceptual art is 'sold' to the unwary public with ....."ArtSpeak". ArtSpeak is a unique assemblage of English words and phrases that the International Art world uses but which are devoid of meaning! Have you ever found yourself confronted by an art gallery’s description of an exhibition which seems completely indecipherable? Or an artist’s statement about their work which left you more confused than enlightened? You’re not alone. Here are examples of ArtSpeak: 'Works that probe the dialectic between innovations that seem to have been forgotten, the ruinous present state of projects once created amid great euphoria, and the present as an era of transitions and new beginnings.'' Or ''The exhibition reactivates his career-long investigation into the social mutations of desire and repression. But his earlier concerns with repression production--in the adolescent or in the family as a whole--give way to the vertiginous retrieval and wayward reinvention of mythical community and sub-cultural traditions.'' This language is meant to convince me that there is real substance to this drivel which is being passed off as art. I don't buy it. But plenty of other people DO buy it. Not because they love the work. They are laying out enormous sums in the belief that their investment will bring them high returns in the future. One Jeff Koons conceptual piece is three basketballs suspended in a fish tank. commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Three_Ball_Total_Equilibrium_Tank_by_Jeff_Koons,_Tate_Liverpool.jpg Here is Koons' own ArtSpeak explanation of his floating basketball 'concept' verbatim: “ This is an ultimate state of being. I wanted to play with people’s desires. They desire this equilibrium. They desire pre-birth. I was giving a definition of life and death. This is the eternal. This is what life is like, also, after death. Aspects of the eternal”. Rather lofty goals for 3 basketballs suspended in a fish tank!! It sold for $350,000. I wonder what it would have fetched without Koons' name attached to it. Or take the case of Martin Creed's ball of crumpled white copy paper. www.abebooks.com/signed/Work-sheet-paper-crumpled-ball-Creed/7404135374/bd He made almost 700 of them! Some sold for hundreds of dollars. Martin Creed, when asked during an interview how he would respond to those who say the crumpled paper ball isn’t art said : “ I wouldn’t call this art either. Who says, anyway, what’s good and what’s bad?” Interviewer: ''When confronted with conceptual art, we shouldn’t worry whether it’s art or not because no one really knows what art is.'' Is this what art has come to?? _________________________________ Something radical has happened to the art scene in the past 50 years. Cubism slid into non-representational art....what is often called Abstract. Abstract or non-representational art is a legitimate and often profound genre. But to many people, it appeared as if this new style had no structure, principles or standards of evaluation. Its markings seemed random and arbitrary. Something that anyone could do. Any composition of blotches or scribbles was “Abstract Art”. This was the slippery slope that led to the abandonment of standards in art. Art is what I say it is....and lots of people jumped on the art bandwagon. Anyone can be an artist. Anyone can mount a show. And who is to say if it has value or not ? A tacit agreement has formed among critics, galleries, publications and auction houses to promote and celebrate certain artists and styles. Objects with no artistic merit are touted and praised . Their value increases with every magazine article, every exhibition in a prestigious gallery. And when they come up for auction, sometimes the auction houses will lend vast sums to a bidder so that it appears as if the work of the particular artist is increasing in value. The upward spiral begins and fortunes are made. And many are reluctant to declare that the Emperor is, in fact, naked lest they appear boorish unsophisticated Philistines ! This is what dominates the art market today. The love of money is the root of all evil. It has corrupted politics. It has corrupted sport. It has corrupted healthcare. It has corrupted religion. And now it has corrupted art. But, there is reason to hope. As much of the wisdom of the Greeks and Romans was kept alive through the Middle Ages in small pockets of learning and culture, ateliers have sprung up around the world that are devoted to preserving and handing down the traditional visual arts: drawing, painting and sculpting to each new generation. And when this craze for conceptual art has burned itself out and when visual art is no longer looked on as mere decoration and when schools that have dissolved their art programs want to reestablish them again, the world will find these skills preserved through the atelier movement.
Naive question: should a crazy person handing in random stuff to a museum for displaying , be called an artist ? Let alone a genius ? This is a genuine question
The question Duchamp was asking: should anyone be called an artist when anyone can be one? But to answer your question, first tell me what an artist or genius is, then I'll try to give an answer.
@@TheConspiracyofArt Hmm,good question. The definition of artistic genius should be pretty absolute I think. From what I've read + videos I've watched I don't think it has changed in the West since the moment that people stopped having "god" as the answer for everything, namely, the Renaissance. Although ancient greeks and Romans in the West as well as in the Golden Ages of China and Persian cultures in the east, came to similar conclusions about singling out and looking up at someone that devoted themselves completetly to a particular form of art. My answer to your question is: an artisitic genius is someone who completetly dominates the technical skills of their art, including present and past techniques; is profoundly in touch with his/her feelings; is aware of him/her self as human and as an artist; is able to convey both simple and complex ideas and -- most importantly-- **feelings** through their art; and furthermore pushes the technical and expressive powers of their art outside of the boundaries of the particular point in space and time where that artist lives. There are at least 7 arts. Painting is only one of them, but my answer was for your more generic question about a genius in any of the arts. Although writers and musicians should probably be treated separately from visual artists (painters, sculpturists,etc.). Let's not even start with scientific geniuses lol, that's an even harder type of "animal" to define.
