Alfred Stieglitz's Photograph of Marcel Duchamp's Fountain - Term Paper Example

History of Photography: analysis and research about Alfred Stieglitzs photograph of Marcel Duchamps Fountain art work. Duchamp’s Fountain is one of the most controversial objects in modern art’s history. The veiled, mysterious, iconic quality of Fountain is inseparable from the photograph, and the role of Albert Stieglitz must be put into consideration at this juncture. Stieglitz revolutionized camera work by stressing ‘straight’ untouched photography. Stieglitz controlled the photograph to a great extent. It may seem reasonable to attribute a significant role in the photograph to Duchamp; however, the in this analysis it remains a superb Stieglitz photograph. Stieglitz placed the ‘Fountain’ at the viewer’s eye level, brought it close, and magnified its presence. He further rotated it slightly on its axis to set up just a touch of tension, and lighted it from above such that it looks dramatically isolated against its setting yet also veiled, moody and mysterious. Duchamp’s ‘the Fountain’ is viewed through the eyes of Albert Stieglitz. The photograph is white in color that is made of the spectrum of colors. It is made of porcelain which is a polished/breakable material. Stieglitz took an ordinary object, gave it meaning by positioning it in such a way that its useful significance was overshadowed by the new one with a new title and a new point of view, thus creating a whole new thought for that object. Alfred Stieglitz life spanned from 1864 to 1946. Stieglitz was the most respected photographer of his time, and he fought for the recognition of photography as a valid form of art (Myers and Stedman 17). He is one of the figures who revolutionized the American photography. Luminous-Lint finds it hard to imagine the direction that photography would have taken without the involvement of Stieglitz. He was a promoter of other people’s works, illuminating them with his photo works. The ‘Fountain’ was brought to 291, and when it was there it was photographed by Stieglitz who was greatly amused by Duchamp’s ‘Fountain’. The main reason for photographing it is that he felt that it was important to fight bigotry in America. The lighting in Stieglitz’s photograph of Fountain is magnificent because through it he employs his skills to ensure that the shadow falls across the urinal to resemble a veil. Stieglitz’s photograph was named “Madonna of the Bathroom” (Ramirez 55). Stieglitz freed this form of art from its functional purpose, thus making aesthetic contribution. Previously, the esthetic qualities of the object were not emphasized. The shadow of the urinal is made to suggest a veil. The urinal is placed in front of a painting thus, relegating the painting to mere background. The lens of Stieglitz’s camera, the Duchamp’s urinal, and the background painting were not aligned in parallel planes. Stieglitz just used his photography skills to ensure that the shadow is cast across the urinal. Fountain sparked a huge historical scandal in the art world. Its newly assigned uses were a distortion of what it was originally intended to be. Ramirez observes that the image suggests some interesting properties (55); the urinal has been rotated 90 degrees from its normal position, rests its rear part horizontally on a high pedestal. Stieglitz places the light at a slight angle. Combined with low placement of the point of observation and also at an angle, a more or less oval curved edge is vividly highlighted. This placement of light and point of observation gave the image the appearance of a Buddha or a Madonna. The Stieglitz’s photograph resides in the Pictorial period. During this period deep space was widely used to carry actual content. Stieglitz lifetime was characterized by two agents of change – technological invention and revolutionary aesthetic insight. The issues about pictorial conventions characterized this period. Pictorial conventions and modes of representation continually reinforced the principles of linear perspective, proportion, and symmetry (Modrak and Anthens 11). Linear perspective claimed the existence of a vanishing point along the horizon. Linear perspective supplied a fixed relationship between the viewer and the world, one in which “depictions of visual space acquired a new solidity”. During this period, the viewfinder mediated a situation by allowing the user to address a subject behind the known entity of the frame, protecting it against the uncertainties of physical interaction. By rotating and illuminating it through photography, Stieglitz makes the image a bisexual object. Duchamp intention was to make an ordinary object through creative art, but Stieglitz took the piece of art and produced an artwork about artworks (Brennan 59). Metaphorically, Fountain has Stieglitz written all over it. The original object was rejected in the 1917 exhibition, but Stieglitz’s photograph revived it and made it acceptable. In his letter to Henry McBride, Stieglitz attaches greater importance to his photograph than the original object itself (Brennan 59). Stieglitz critics described his camera as an extension of his body, and his photographs as an extension of his spirit. People believed that machines cannot make art; people did. However, Stieglitz used his camera as a paintbrush; he used it as a tool to give value to an image that was considered insignificant. While the original image had one meaning, Stieglitz gave the Fountain two different meanings. While a urinal is a receptacle of liquid, a fountain is a dispenser of liquid; one is oriented toward input; the other is oriented towards output. It seems that the scandal that was generated by the Fountain made it famous. The item that was meant to be a urinal was given a different meaning to a photograph. The photograph was taken after the item was rotated 90 degrees elicited discussions from both the supporters and critics. The lesson learnt is not that Fountain was made art through a simple act of being named as art (Judovitz 67). The question one can ask himself is whether he would fail to appreciate Fountain adequately if he violated either of the general norms that partly constitute an appreciative practice. Does someone fall short in appreciating Fountain as a sculpture? Or if he appreciates it in a way that is inconsistent with its being a kind of performance? There are two possible responses to these questions. The work either belongs to one traditional art or a new kind of art. The rationale is that this image is that it reflects the viewer’s empirical understanding of the work; it makes sense of the work in its terms. Duchamp conducted the pioneering work. He is a pioneer who worked brilliantly behind the scenes, in disguise as Mutt, duping the Society, and leaving Stieglitz to generate the scandal. All these events contributed to making Fountain famous. Towards this end, the historians suggest that all that is required to make a work of art is to take an item and call it art, in the right circumstances (Lopes 201). These questions overshadow the fact that this item was never displayed. Its presence is evoked by its reproduction through photographs. The value of his item is tied to its reproduction rather than the object itself. Surprisingly, Duchamp uses the documentation/reproduction to attach a new appraisal of that object. The Duchamp’s dry art is transformed by Stieglitz into wet art. This is the significance that is attached to the history of photography. Photography made an unrecognized object famous such that it is a subject of discussion that finds relevance today. Duchamp’s urinal is not considered an art because this is an object that is mass produced. Stieglitz’s photograph of the urinal is the real art because it depicts something else – the image of Buddha or Madonna. After having suffered death, the object is reassembled and brought back to life. Stieglitz’s photography takes a different direction from the one that was taken by the photographers of that period. Most photographers of this period used basic elements of light and shadow to create and reinforce a sense of time, place, and mood. The period was also characterized by the practice of straight photography; however, none of this characterization is seen in Stieglitz works. He even refused the reproduction of his works in reviews arguing that the quality of his negatives and prints would be interfered with. In her speech at Sackler Museum auditorium, Deborah Martin Kao singled out Stieglitz works from the other photographers of that period such as Lee Friedlander, Garry Winogrand, and Diane Arbus (Corydon). She referred to Stieglitz as “the father of fine-arts street photography” arguing that his influence continues to be felt today. She also referred to him as “an artist who is bigger than life”. The other photographers of that period depended on allegorical and posed images to mimic painting. For instance, Henry Tablot’s “The Open Door” soft tones are seen to be an answer to the detailed documentary qualities of the daguerreotype. Other painterly tradition can be seen in the works of Henry Robinson, who used his photography to show the life of the noble peasantry. Stieglitz ushered in a new era of fine art photography; he is a champion of modern art. Other artists that were associated to Stieglitz include Clarence White (1871-1925), Gertrude Kasebier (1852-1934), Paul Strand (1890-1976), and Edward Steichen (1879-1973). Clarence White school is known for training some of the world’s most celebrated photographers of the 20th century (Curtis). Like Stieglitz, White promoted photography as an art form. Both Clarence and Stieglitz greatly contributed to the promotion of photography as an art form. Pablo Picasso (1881-1973) is also another artist who made a contribution to the new ways of representing the surrounding objects. He was a Spanish, who is considered as one of the most prolific artists in history. He joined the Barcelona Academy of Fine Arts in the 1890s where he experimented his talent with a wide range of visual expression. Picasso extensively used blue color to depict worn, pathetic, and alienated figures. In one of his works, Picasso reconfigured a bicycle’s handlebars and seat into bull’s head sculpture. Stieglitz had a tendency of placing his subjects in front of artworks. Duchamp’s Fountain is placed in front of Marsden Hartley’s painting. Both Duchamp’s Fountain and Hartley’s artworks suggest an ambiguous display of sexuality. Duchamp described his object as a ‘feminine’ form. However, it remained an object intended for male usage. Duchamp made Stieglitz believe that Fountain was submitted to the Society by a young woman. Hartley’s painting is a depiction of a masculine subject – a display of soldiers in prewar Berlin. Brennan introduces the readers to a homosexual artist, Hartley, who was sexually attracted to soldiers. In combining both works, Stieglitz introduces the readers to the issues of gender and sexuality. Ramirez asks himself, “if the urinal gathers the masculine ‘waterfall’ what is its real gender? (56). Stieglitz photograph reveals the unstable, gendered qualities of Fountain. Ramirez refers to Fountain as a ‘bisexual object’ (65). Stieglitz placed the urinal horizontally, with the water-inlet facing the viewer, depicting a woman lying flat on her back, brazenly exposing her sexual organs for intercourse. This presentation or depiction is in complete contrast to the original intention of use. Such contradictions and interactions between fame and female sexuality characterize Stieglitz works. The image depicts both a urinal inlet and a vagina in a sexual act. Interpreted in another way, both the vagina and the fountain are sources of water. However, there is a difference because a fountain is a source of clean water mostly valuable for healing. Metaphorically, sexual and urination functions of the body reflect the actual dual function of both male and female genitalia in procreation and elimination. Cross-gender inferences eliminate the concept of Fountain being purely male, functional object. At this point, the continuing psychological power of human life seems beyond discussion. That is the reason one can find it easy to discuss Stieglitz’s Fountain without having seen it. In its Buddha’s resemblance, Stieglitz draws the attention of the viewers to traditional aesthetic merits of creativity and beauty. Stieglitz brought out the sacred aspects of the traditional art materials. Furthermore, he reaffirmed the thing that is valued most in the work of art is not the material, but the artist’s mental concept. Backdrop and lighting transformed the urinal, turned upside down so as to transform male function into female form. However, the question in the minds of viewers and readers is, ‘who was the creator of Fountain? Duchamp or Stieglitz? Conclusion Fountain has caused a lot of controversies since it was refused entry at the Society’s art show. Stieglitz’s rotation of the object and pseudonym signature “R. Mutt 1917” made it one of the most recognizable icons in the history of modern art. It became a subject of historical interpretations with many historians and scholars deriving several meanings of the object. Critics argue that the image is of no significant use in the history of art. Supporters of Duchamp and Stieglitz argue that it is one of the best artwork as well as photographic art in history. Ramirez explores the controversies surrounding this piece of artwork. Its embodiment of both masculine and feminine characteristics makes it one of the most controversial but important work of art. The gendered bisexual nature of Fountain is widely supported. Greben argues that Duchamp wittly positioned the phallic receptacle on Fountain’s side to suggest female genitalia (105). However, ironical Fountain is symbolic, and tells a story and forms the fantasy of space. Its sexual meaning, absurd space, and broad tone of separation make a connection between the present and the past. Stieglitz’s Fountain photograph was unmanipulated. Despite a lack of manipulation, the Fountain has become a figure of symbolism and many interpretations have been derived from it. Therefore, Fountain is an image of the past, the present, and the future. Its significance will continue into future generations. Stieglitz took an ordinary object, gave it meaning by positioning it in such a way that its useful significance was overshadowed by the new one with a new title and a new point of view, thus creating a whole new thought for that object. Works Cited Brennan, Marcia. Painting Gender, Constructing Theory: The Alfred Stieglitz Circle and American Formalist Aesthetics. Massachusetts: The MIT Press. 2001. Print Curtis, Verna. Photos from the Clarence H. White School. Library of Congress, 60, no. 12. (December 2001). Web. Greben, Deidre Stein. "The Odd Couple." Art News 102.9 (Oct 2003): 104-5. Ireland, Corydon. When Photography Became Art. Harvard Gazette. Web. http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2010/10/when-photography-became-art/  Judovitz, Dalia. Unpacking Duchamp: Art in Transit. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1995. Lopes, Dominic. Beyond Art. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2014. Print Modrak, Rebekah and Anthes, Bill. Reframing Photography: Theory and Practice. New York. Taylor and Francis. 2011. Print. Myers, Linda, and Stedman, Judith. Art & Artists of 20th Century America. Teacher Created Resources. 2001. Print. Ramírez, Juan. Duchamp: Love and Death, Even. Reaktion Books. London. 1998. Print. Read More