4 ms·

Nitpicking, but that comment in the closing paragraph is jarring: "Anyone can put a urinal on the wall and call it art". It's clearly a reference to Marcel Duch

Nitpicking, but that comment in the closing paragraph is jarring: "Anyone can put a urinal on the wall and call it art". It's clearly a reference to Marcel Duchamp's Fountain - a key work in the argument of what is and isn't art. However, that urinal, and its reproductions, were pointedly never mounted on a wall, but flat on a pedestal where it couldn't be used. It's like the author had heard the phrase but didn't know what it was about? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)

sliverstorm 13y ago
You understood the reference, and so did everyone else, so does it really matter if he says "on the wall" instead of "on a pedestal"? Also, you have misquoted (?) the article. When quoted like that, it sounds like the author is criticizing Daft Punk, when in fact the author is addressing potential detractors.
- tomphoolery 13y ago
  It's just funny to me because it shows the author's lack of understanding of the Duchamp piece or why it was interesting at all.
001sky 13y ago
"Anyone can put a urinal on the wall and call it art" I'm not sure this is too far from the point of duschamp's piece, which is that you can "put anything on a pedastal" and the "sign it", and as long as it's done by someone with a certain "aura", such an act becomes transformative. The "wall" and the "pedastal" need not be taken literally, IMHO. There is a whole "deconstruct the art gallery" theme that followed. Things like..."pile of rocks in a white cube". And for that matter, the actual "white cube" itself. see, eg. http://www.amazon.com/Inside-White-Cube-Ideology-Gallery/dp/0520220404 http://www.amazon.com/Inside-White-Cube-Ideology-Gallery/dp/...
- bch 13y ago
  If I recall correctly Andy Warhol used to do exactly this (sign everyday items, including urinals). He called it "ready made art." I want to say "see also: Banksy", but I don't know if that idea is completely thought out.
  - rhizome 13y ago
    Readymades were a Duchamp thing completely. Warhol was influenced by them (and Duchamp in general), but he didn't call his work by that term, regardless of similarities in method or concept. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Readymades_of_Marcel_Duchamp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Readymades_of_Marcel_Duchamp
    - bch 13y ago
      It's been a long time since, I read it, but in Bob Colacello's biography[1][2], I thought he mentioned that Warhol did create (or at least _refer to_) items as "ready made art", without (if I recall correctly) reference to Duchamp. But I could be mistaken. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Colacello http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Colacello [2] http://www.amazon.com/Holy-Terror-Andy-Warhol-Close/dp/0815410085 http://www.amazon.com/Holy-Terror-Andy-Warhol-Close/dp/08154...
      - justinator 13y ago
        Warhol would do things like mass-produce objects that looked very much like other things, example: screen printed Brillo Boxes - and then photograph them in say, a super market. It's similar, but different - Duchamp, as the story goes, would just buy the object and call it art. There's some controversy over that, as some of these Found Objects aren't so commonplace, but have key differences in them, to make them more aesthetically pleasing - they may be actually one-ofs, that only look like something commonplace and mass-produced, giving Duchamp the last laugh. That's what happens, when a chess player starts makin' art! Also see the Warhol's Campbell Soup cans - he just really liked Campbell tomato soup. Speaking of canned things, see, Piero Manzoni's "Canned Shit", where, well, it's what it says on the tin, I guess. I guess, as I haven't actually opened one, myself, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist%27s_Shit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist%27s_Shit Warhol would use many different mass-production (cheap!) techniques to produce his art. One of my favorites is xerox'd photographs of flowers, he would almost give away for free - certain that they would be both collectable, and that people would simply throw them away, because hey: it's just some cheap photocopy. The one's that survive are worth quite a bit. Incidentally, he didn't get the copyright to the original photograph, so lost money on the whole thing. I think warhol's biggest, "Readymades" were the actors of his films, who would get little, if any direction and they would just film them doing their thing. See, "Chelsea Girls" > Justin, (author of Dada Mail)
5555624 13y ago
Or the author saw it in a TV show or film. There's an episode of the old show, "My Name is Earl" which shows an art gallery and a urinal mounted on the wall. (Earl's brother Randy uses it and then comments how it doesn't flush.) That episode has been shown on TBS in the past week, so the author might have seen it.
- bazzargh 13y ago
  Yup, and I did wonder about that (or generally if it was a recent pop culture reference). I checked google&IMDB before posting in case it was a quote. I didn't recall that MNIE episode - good spot.

sliverstorm 13y ago

You understood the reference, and so did everyone else, so does it really matter if he says "on the wall" instead of "on a pedestal"? Also, you have misquoted (?) the article. When quoted like that, it sounds like the author is criticizing Daft Punk, when in fact the author is addressing potential detractors.

tomphoolery 13y ago
It's just funny to me because it shows the author's lack of understanding of the Duchamp piece or why it was interesting at all.

001sky 13y ago

"Anyone can put a urinal on the wall and call it art" I'm not sure this is too far from the point of duschamp's piece, which is that you can "put anything on a pedastal" and the "sign it", and as long as it's done by someone with a certain "aura", such an act becomes transformative. The "wall" and the "pedastal" need not be taken literally, IMHO. There is a whole "deconstruct the art gallery" theme that followed. Things like..."pile of rocks in a white cube". And for that matter, the actual "white cube" itself. see, eg. http://www.amazon.com/Inside-White-Cube-Ideology-Gallery/dp/0520220404 http://www.amazon.com/Inside-White-Cube-Ideology-Gallery/dp/...

bch 13y ago
If I recall correctly Andy Warhol used to do exactly this (sign everyday items, including urinals). He called it "ready made art." I want to say "see also: Banksy", but I don't know if that idea is completely thought out.
- rhizome 13y ago
  Readymades were a Duchamp thing completely. Warhol was influenced by them (and Duchamp in general), but he didn't call his work by that term, regardless of similarities in method or concept. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Readymades_of_Marcel_Duchamp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Readymades_of_Marcel_Duchamp
  - bch 13y ago
    It's been a long time since, I read it, but in Bob Colacello's biography[1][2], I thought he mentioned that Warhol did create (or at least _refer to_) items as "ready made art", without (if I recall correctly) reference to Duchamp. But I could be mistaken. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Colacello http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Colacello [2] http://www.amazon.com/Holy-Terror-Andy-Warhol-Close/dp/0815410085 http://www.amazon.com/Holy-Terror-Andy-Warhol-Close/dp/08154...
    - justinator 13y ago
      Warhol would do things like mass-produce objects that looked very much like other things, example: screen printed Brillo Boxes - and then photograph them in say, a super market. It's similar, but different - Duchamp, as the story goes, would just buy the object and call it art. There's some controversy over that, as some of these Found Objects aren't so commonplace, but have key differences in them, to make them more aesthetically pleasing - they may be actually one-ofs, that only look like something commonplace and mass-produced, giving Duchamp the last laugh. That's what happens, when a chess player starts makin' art! Also see the Warhol's Campbell Soup cans - he just really liked Campbell tomato soup. Speaking of canned things, see, Piero Manzoni's "Canned Shit", where, well, it's what it says on the tin, I guess. I guess, as I haven't actually opened one, myself, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist%27s_Shit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist%27s_Shit Warhol would use many different mass-production (cheap!) techniques to produce his art. One of my favorites is xerox'd photographs of flowers, he would almost give away for free - certain that they would be both collectable, and that people would simply throw them away, because hey: it's just some cheap photocopy. The one's that survive are worth quite a bit. Incidentally, he didn't get the copyright to the original photograph, so lost money on the whole thing. I think warhol's biggest, "Readymades" were the actors of his films, who would get little, if any direction and they would just film them doing their thing. See, "Chelsea Girls" > Justin, (author of Dada Mail)

5555624 13y ago

Or the author saw it in a TV show or film. There's an episode of the old show, "My Name is Earl" which shows an art gallery and a urinal mounted on the wall. (Earl's brother Randy uses it and then comments how it doesn't flush.) That episode has been shown on TBS in the past week, so the author might have seen it.

bazzargh 13y ago
Yup, and I did wonder about that (or generally if it was a recent pop culture reference). I checked google&IMDB before posting in case it was a quote. I didn't recall that MNIE episode - good spot.