2025.02.04
I asked google/AI some questions today
Q:
What if Fountain was accepted by the Society of Independent Artists in 1917?
A:
If Marcel Duchamp’s Fountain had been displayed in 1917, it likely would have accelerated the acceptance of conceptual art, forcing an immediate redefinition of art from "craftsmanship" to "intellectual choice" decades earlier. It would have validated readymades instantly, likely causing more shock but faster mainstream institutional integration.
Here is a deeper look at what might have happened:
Potential Outcomes of Acceptance
Conceptual Art Timeline Shifts: The debate over whether an artist’s idea matters more than their handiwork would have peaked in 1917 rather than over the following decades.
Dada Movement Legitimacy: The Dadaist critique of "reasonable" society, aesthetics, and the art market would have been instantly validated.
The "Readymade" Becomes Standard: Artists might have begun experimenting with found objects much sooner, breaking down traditional sculpture definitions faster.
Society of Independent Artists' Credibility: The society would have upheld its "no-jury" promise, perhaps becoming a more radical institution, though it might have also faced severe backlash for lowering standards.
Duchamp's Role: Duchamp might not have resigned in protest, possibly pushing the boundary even further with more provocative works immediately after.
The Irony
Duchamp intended for it to be accepted, aiming to test if the society truly allowed "anything" to be art. The suppression (hiding it behind a partition) rather than official rejection actually helped cement its infamy and status as the ultimate challenge to the art world, making the scandal arguably more powerful than simple display.
Q:
Did Duchamp actually want Fountain to be accepted by the Society of Independent Artists in 1917?
A:
No, Marcel Duchamp intended Fountain (1917) to be a provocation and a test, not a serious submission, aiming to expose the hypocrisy of the Society of Independent Artists. By submitting a urinal under a pseudonym to challenge their "all-inclusive" policy, he expected resistance, ultimately resigning when it was suppressed.
Here are the key details regarding his intentions:
The Goal was a Test: Duchamp, a board member himself, wanted to see if the Society would uphold its promise to accept any work as long as a fee was paid.
Intended to Stir Trouble: It was conceived as a prank to cause a stir in the "stuffy" art world.
Pseudonym Used: He submitted it as "R. Mutt" specifically to avoid personal connection and ensure it was judged on its own merits (or lack thereof).
The Reaction was Expected: When the board rejected and hid the piece, it proved his point about the limitations of their open-mindedness, leading to his resignation.
In short, the scandal and rejection were the desired outcomes, establishing Fountain as a key work of conceptual art.
Q:
How was Duchamp sure that Fountain would not be accepted by the Society of Independent Artists in 1917?
A:
Marcel Duchamp, a board member of the Society of Independent Artists, likely knew Fountain--an anonymous, store-bought urinal signed "R. Mutt"--would be rejected because it directly challenged the board's traditional views, defying their requirement for handmade "art". He intended it as a deliberate provocation to test their "no-jury" policy.
Here are the key reasons why he knew it wouldn't be accepted:
The "Readymade" Nature: It was a mass-produced, utilitarian object, not a crafted piece, contradicting conventional definitions of art.
Deliberate Provocation: Duchamp later stated it was a test of the Society's supposed forward-thinking, open-admission ethos.
The Pseudonym: By signing it "R. Mutt" and submitting it anonymously, he ensured they would judge the object on its own merits rather than his reputation.
Board Bias: Despite the Society's "no jury" rule, Duchamp anticipated that the directors would deem it "immoral" and vulgar, ultimately hiding it from view.
Ultimately, the board decided that while it might be useful, it was "by no definition, a work of art".
An hour later I asked the asked the first question again.
Q:
What if Fountain was accepted by the Society of Independent Artists in 1917?
A:
If Fountain had been openly displayed by the Society of Independent Artists in 1917, it would have instantly validated "readymade" conceptual art, forced an earlier crisis in traditional aesthetic standards, and likely caused a scandal-driven rift within the Society, potentially ruining its credibility sooner while accelerating the Dada movement’s influence.
Here is a deeper look at what might have happened:
Potential Consequences of Acceptance
Immediate Redefinition of Art: The debate over whether craft and beauty are necessary for art would have hit the mainstream decades earlier. It would have proven that an artist’s choice and intellectual intent outweighed manual skill immediately.
Society of Independent Artists Scandal: The Society promised to show anything submitted with a fee. Accepting a urinal would have made them look ridiculous to the public and critics, likely causing infighting, resignations, and loss of funding, as this blog post suggests, Bellows' reaction illustrates the shock it would have caused.
Accelerated Dada/Conceptual Art: The Dada movement would have gained a massive, public victory, cementing "anti-art" concepts faster, note SFMOMA and SFMOMA.
Duchamp's Move Backfired? Duchamp created the piece specifically to test the limits of the "independent" premise; if they had accepted it, the act of "rejection" (the real point of his stunt) would have been lost, according to Artforum.
Ultimately, the suppression and controversy surrounding its removal actually fueled its legend more than a quiet, accepted display might have.
An hour later I asked the asked the second question again.
Q:
Did Duchamp actually want Fountain to be accepted by the Society of Independent Artists in 1917?
A:
No, Marcel Duchamp likely did not expect or need Fountain to be seriously accepted as a masterpiece; it was conceived as a deliberate trap and test of the Society of Independent Artists’ "no-jury" policy. By submitting a urinal as "R. Mutt," he aimed to expose the hypocrisy of the art establishment and challenge the definition of art.
Here are the key details regarding his intentions:
The "Test" Theory: The Society claimed they would accept any work if the fee was paid. Duchamp, a board member, wanted to see if they would stick to this rule for something clearly non-traditional.
Purposeful Provocation: It was designed to cause a stir and act as a prank, highlighting that art is about the idea, not just craft.
Pseudonym Usage: He submitted it under "R. Mutt" to avoid personal association and see how the work itself was judged.
The Outcome: When the board rejected it (or "suppressed" it by hiding it), it proved his point about their limited, conservative view of art.
Reaction: Duchamp resigned from the board in protest, fulfilling his role in creating the scandal.
In short, the rejection was essential to the artwork's conceptual success.
An hour later I asked the asked the third question again.
Q:
How was Duchamp sure that Fountain would not be accepted by the Society of Independent Artists in 1917?
A:
Marcel Duchamp was sure Fountain would be rejected because he deliberately designed it as a provocative, anti-art "readymade"--a urinal signed "R. Mutt"--to test the Society of Independent Artists’ promise of "no jury". By submitting it anonymously, he anticipated the board would deem it immoral, unoriginal, and not true art.
Here is why Duchamp knew it would be rejected:
The "No Jury" Test: The Society claimed any artist paying a fee could exhibit, but Duchamp suspected their "openness" had limits. He wanted to see if they would accept something completely devoid of traditional craft.
Deliberate Absurdity: He took a functional, mass-produced item, flipped it on its back, and titled it, directly challenging the notion that art requires handmade skill.
Anonymous Submission: He signed it "R. Mutt" (a play on the manufacturer J.L. Mott and comic strip "Mutt and Jeff") to hide his involvement as a board member, ensuring the piece was judged on its own merits--or lack thereof.
Anticipated Reaction: He knew the board would likely view it as a joke, a disgrace, or "immoral," rather than art, proving his point that art world standards were rigid.
Ultimately, the board hid the piece behind a partition, leading Duchamp to resign in protest.
2025.02.04
451 Rhawn Gallery
23:48
2015.02.04
Session 14: His bjark is BIGger than his bjite – A chat with Bjarke Ingels at the opening of BIG's "Hot to Cold" exhibition
"Dark side of the moon architecture" versus "I kissed a girl architecture?"
In any case, both revolve around Money architecture.
2007.02.04
political architects
Eutropia, Helena, and Constantine
They did a lot more than dabble; their architecture and urbanism shifted the whole paradigm of the Roman Empire.
2005.02.04
Re: what kind of mf forum is this?
finally watched Eyes Wide Shut yesterday
ha ha
du et al
what's the opposite of abstract?
gosh, the lengths people will go to just to get a thrill
Shira made us all laugh back in early 1980 when she suggested "I tore 'em at Forum."
one size fits all, I'm sure
my suggestion was a non sequitor
"He walked into the room. Only the light was Forum 80."
2004.02.04
Re: Neo Goth
Oh goodie. Now I know what I'm doing today. Finally my Dark Shadows Series of 1985 will be documented at Museumpeace. "Angelique's coffin is at stake," and just wait till you see the phantom opera buffs.
 
chop chop
When I got my first answering machine, also back in 1985, I used to record the greeting with the TV on in the background. Remember when NJN, the New Jersey Network, was rebroadcasting Dark Shadows every night at 6:30? Anyway, at one fortuitous greeting recording, after saying please leave your message, a voice from the TV in the background then asked, "Quentin, is that you?" As a result, people used to leave the funniest messages.
Wonder what my Goth would be like these daze.
Re: Neo Goth
Jim Williams (one of the main characters of Afterlife Address of Choice) owned the dagger that castrated Rasputin.*
 
* Which might still have some of my fingerprints on it. . . lol
Re: what to do with the art that doesn't sell
Gosh, just about all I do is collect art that doesn't sell.
One of the best qualities of a collector is to be unique. You copy?
"This game still has the fangs."
for ages 6 to 14 (their blood tastes the best anyway)
2001.02.04
diversity and entropy
I agree with you that Baroque architecture is not a product of 17th century politics, because Baroque architecture is more the product of 16th century politics (especially politics outside Italy that destabilized Italy). The Baroque of the 17th century is really just a reenactment of its illusory 16th century self, meaning the 17th century Baroque mirrors the 16th century Baroque. To understand the Baroque fully, you must learn to recognize both the illusory self of the Baroque and the Baroque's mirrored reenactment of its illusory self. For reflection of the Baroque to be true requires the Baroque's reflection to be Baroque as well.
2000.02.04
Re: [looking glass] the old masters
ps
I very much question the widespread opinion that being able to design well is dependent upon being able to hand-draw well. Such thinking basically means that someone without the use of one or both hands could never be a good designer. Let's hear it for all the **digitally** impaired designers out there that can now fulfill their design dreams because of CAD.
pss
Anyone hear any more about the new voice activated drawing software that speaknoevil.com is working on? last I heard they just about finished their deconstruction language version, and next plan to develop several dead language versions.
ciao 4 now OR volare sursum deorsum pedes!
1989.02.04
the only pictures remaining of No Doubt, The Artist Suffered!
1953.02.04
1953. Wednesday, New York City
Sending a borrowed copy of the Art News annual [31.1.1953], Marcel encloses some comments for Breton about the project for Flair. As there are only 30 pages and room therefore for only on illustration per person, Marcel suggests that the drawing by Maurice Henry which was published in the Almanach Surréaliste du demi-siècle de la Nef might be used.
He emphasizes how useful Donati has been in liaising with Flair, gives Breton further information about Louise Bourgeois who was on the list of names in his last letter [31.1.1953] and also reminds him that Xenia Cage is the wife of the composer. Does Breton accept Lionel Abel as translator?
Marcel would like an illustration of the Large Glass [5.2.1923] in colour, but as it is still in storage at Philadelphia, pending the installation of the Arensberg Collection, he proposes to colour by hand a good black-and-white photograph instead.
As he severed relations completely with Kiesler [8.11.1947] about two years ago, Marcel requests Breton to contact the architect directly about his reproduction for Flair.
Ephemerides
1952.02.04
1952. Monday, New York City
With no news from them for several months [27.10.1951], Marcel writes to Louise and Walter Arensberg about "Duchamp Frères & Sœur", due to open on 25 February. "The art magazines are very keen about the idea of a 'family of artists'," explains Marcel, "and I have to go through interview after interview [15.1.1952]."
Concerned by Philadelphia's long silence [13.4.1951], Marcel asks: "What do you know about the appropriation and the preparations for the rooms? They are a bit slow to my taste."
Ephemerides
|