Re: reenacting Primarily Not Duchamp
Cher (and cher alike) Bill:
First off, I think you're lying when you say, "I can't find your Duchampiana," but then again, maybe you're telling the truth since the exhibit is indeed called "Primarily Not Duchamp" suggesting (at least) that the exhibit was/is primarily something other than Duchamp(iana). You say you fell into a statement (of) mine, while I and my work fell into (or is it through?) the cracks it seems, at least from my perspective relative to yours. [Then again, maybe you just didn't 'get' the hyperlinks (and thus didn't view the exhibit at all), which is understandable, but not necessarily tolerable.]
Ah, the (ongoing sterotypic) cliches regarding art and wall, artist and architect; one thinks how primative it all really is, the notion of art on (cave) walls, that is. Plus, who exactly are these "architects [that] hate painting so much that they take up painting to show how to make a work of virtual space that does not push the walls around in actual space? I'm requesting you provide evidence!
And, as to "transmogrification into bits in virtual space" isn't that more or less exactly what Duchamp did himself to his own art via De Ou Par Marcel Duchamp Ou Rrose Selavy (1935-41)?
Thanks for extending Primarily Not Duchamp into performance.
Re: Duchamp Painting
I will be happy to add my (own) signature to your painting. This (apposite?) apposition on my part may well increase the value of your (faux?) Duchamp in time. Don't worry, I can be very cheap.
More creative before or after sex?
There is no before or after; it's always sex for me.