Art History: Marcel Duchamp - Research Paper Example

 Thesis statement Because Marcel Duchamp emphasized artist’s conceptual rather than the medium and composition of art, he became a successful artist in the twentieth Century. The essay is an analysis of some of the famous works of Marcel Duchamp, a great controversial French artist who lived in New York. The essay provides brief background information of each central work belonging to Duchamp. The essay analyzes a total of five general Duchamp’s art. It then examines some of the interpretations of each work. It further analyzes the artist’s motives of creating the art. Marcel Duchamp was the first modern artist who shifted the entire basis of the work of art towards the conceptual and away from the traditional focus on medium and composition. He was a constant provocateur. He occasionally attacked convention at every turn, including the convention of authorship and even art itself. His entire artwork was controversial. In the first section, Duchamp’s fountain is described, analyzed and interpreted. The second part analyzes The Nude. The third section examines The Large Glass. The same procedure is used in subsequent sections. There are photographs of Marcel Duchamp’s work at the end of this text. The photographs are captioned and in some cases placed under one category. The photos that have been placed alongside one another are supposed to be compared for the purpose of analysis. The works have not been discussed in chronological order in which Marcel Duchamp produced them. Timelines of the production for each work has, however, been provided. The Fountain The Fountain was one of Marcel Duchamp’s famous arts. It was typically a bathtub he brought into an exhibition in April 1917 as an art1. The American Society of Independent Artists was the organizer of the exhibitions. Duchamp had registered the Fountain using the name of an unfamiliar person known as Richard Mutt. The jury at the exhibition decided that the Fountain did not qualify as art. They, therefore, nullified it. Duchamp decided to remove it from the exhibition. Figure 1 shows the Fountain. There were two reasons that made the jury reject Marcel Duchamp’s Fountain at the art exhibition. First, there were some people in the jury who argued that the so called Fountain was immoral (Camfield 76). It was familiar bathroom equipment that the owner wanted to display alongside conventional artwork. No one knew what the Fountain meant at that time. The argument of immorality, therefore, must have come from the usual use associated with the bathtub. Its primary function of performing unpleasant body function was the only available interpretation. The Fountain was then ruled out unfit for public display. Duchamp himself was, thus, the only person who could correctly provide the hidden meaning. The bathtub was indeed an art because Duchamp made it an art. It became an art because of his conceptual. The jury failed because they were not the artists. The second reason for rejecting Fountain at the exhibition was plagiarism (Camfield 76). Some people in the jury claimed that the Fountain did not represent an original work. According to the jury, Robert Mutt, the disguised owner, did not make the urinal. It, therefore, amounted to presenting another person’s work that in itself was not acceptable. In modern art, the maker does not matter. What matters most is the artist who conceptualizes the art in the object under consideration. The aspect of originality in modern art is centered on the actual art but not on the material of the art. The Fountain did not get the necessary attention because the jury dismissed it from the display at the exhibition. It came back to the public domain one month later. An anonymous writer wrote an article in The Blind Man. The Blind Man was a newspaper owned by Beatrice Wood, a close associate of Duchamp (Camfield 76). The article brought back the Fountain again to the public domain. Most people were not even cognizant of the existence of the Fountain because they were not given an opportunity to view it at the exhibitions. The anonymous article defended Mutt’s case. It argued that the Fountain was not immoral as it had earlier been ruled by the jury. The Fountain did not deserve to be termed immoral because men’s urinary is displayed in public even in plumbing shops. The fountain did not also deserve to be termed plagiarism because the artist chose to make it an art. The creator of the Fountain did not matter. What mattered most was the Duchamp who chose to make it an art. The craftsman of an object does not matter; what matters most is the artist who makes the object art. The statement, which originally came from Duchamp, opened new perspectives of thought in the world of arts. It shifted the conventional arts to a different point of view. Any form of art is the artist’s perception of things rather than the physical appearance of the artwork itself. The artwork shifts from physical appearances of things to mental perceptions of the artist. Duchamp transformed the urinal’s name, place, and its point of view (Camfield 78). He removed what many people saw as an ordinary thing in life and placed it in a totally different context. Duchamp’s intention was simply to create new viewpoints in the world of art. He modified the bathtub by inverting it rather than placing it upright in its usual way. The inversion shifted the bathtub from its physical appearances to mental perceptions of the artist. One of the possible interpretations of Duchamp’s Fountain was an image of Buddha. The inverted urinal bears close resemblance to Buddha when the two are placed alongside one another. The interpretation originated from an article entitled “Buddha of the Bathroom” that The Blind Man published together with that of Duchamp. Louise Norton was the writer of the article. Norton was one of Duchamp’s close friends who had insider knowledge about the Fountain. Duchamp himself, therefore, must have agreed with Norton’s interpretation prior to its publication (Camfield 78). Figures 2 and 3 justify Norton’s interpretation of the Fountain. A second possible interpretation fitting the fountain is homosexuality. It is an object used by both men and women. Its introduction to the world of arts makes it qualify to be put under human sexuality. The bathtub is also closely associated with male genitalia. It could be interpreted as female genitalia because of its association with men. Another interpretation of the Fountain is Virgin Mary. The Fountain and Virgin Mary have closely resembling outlines. The shadows along the Fountain’s margin resemble the clothes worn by Virgin Mary. The photographs captioned Figure 2 and 3 clarify this interpretation. The Bride Stripped Bare by Her Bachelors, Even Marcel Duchamp created an art that he named The Bride Stripped Bare by Her Bachelors, Even. It is popularly known as The Large Glass or The Bride. Duchamp began working on the project in 1915 and left it unfinished in 1923. He subsequently published his notes containing details of the whole project together with what he intended to achieve. The photograph captioned figure 4 shows The Large Glass. Duchamp’s Large Glass consists of two major parts: the upper and the lower sections. In the upper region, Duchamp wanted to create a two dimensional projection of a three dimensional shadow of a four dimensional Bride. Since the glass support was a two dimensional object, it did not adequately reveal the intended fourth dimension of the Bride. In the lower section, Duchamp wanted to create a realm of the Bachelors apparatus in three dimensions. The three-dimensional lower section contradicts with the four-dimensional upper section. It is not possible to measure the four-dimensional upper section of the Bride, unlike the three-dimensional Bachelors lower part. It is, thus, difficult to make a comparison of the two parts of The Large Glass. The Bachelors apparatus includes a square, rectangle, hemisphere, and asymmetrical handle. Duchamp intentionally made all the Bachelors apparatus imperfectly. The lower and upper parts of The Large Glass, therefore, represent two unique realities. Duchamp intended to design what he called ‘rehabilitated perspective’ when he was working on the project. Analysis of his work reveals that he wanted to introduce a fourth perspective of objects. In so doing, he challenged the world of arts to adopt his new ideas. It was not immediately clear what made Duchamp depict four dimensions in a two-dimensional surface. He was already aware of the limitations of representing three-dimensional objects in a two-dimensional surface. A possible explanation why he did so was to discover if there was any mathematical relationship linking the two phenomena. Duchamp himself was the only person who could correctly provide the hidden meaning. Duchamp chose to paint on a glass pane because he wanted the viewer to see the bride from multiple perspectives. The multiple perspectives would then enable the viewer to reconstruct the fourth dimension of the object. The idea is compared to how a sphere resembles a circle when it is viewed from one perspective. An object can only be confirmed as a sphere by wandering around it. Duchamp may have also chosen glass because of its similarities to a sphere that is above the flat land. An observer on the land would view the three dimensional object in a two dimensional space (Bodish 535-536). Duchamp, therefore, managed to successfully challenge the ideas of existing artists that ignored the fourth perspective. His large Glass shifted the conventional arts to a different point of view. The Large Glass is his perception of art rather than mere pieces of glass joined together. The artwork shifted from the glassware to the art in the glassware. Duchamp might have abandoned working on the project in 1923 because he wanted to communicate that his fourth perspective did not exist in real life. If he had given up on the project, he could not have published his other works related to the project. He partitioned the Large Glass into two sections. One section represented the real world while the other section represented his world of thought. He, therefore, distinguished reality from thought. The Large Glass could have been a challenge from Duchamp to the world of art. His perception of geometry in four dimensions might have made him conclude that some things in the world were impossible to be measured. That is why he used imperfect features that resemble ordinary shapes such as triangles, circles, and squares. Nude Descending a Staircase, No. 2 Marcel Duchamp crafted a painting that he named Nude Descending a Staircase, No. 2 in 1912. Some photographs of moving objects partially inspired him when he was coming up with a painting project. The painting depicted a highly distorted image of an object in motion. The distortion resulted from the incorporation of motion and time into the resulting image. Duchamp, therefore, produced the image of an object as it is seen (Bodish 539-540). The photograph captioned Figure 7 shows the famous project. Duchamp successfully included the fourth dimension in the painting. It was, thus, a true life representation of reality. His interest in the fourth dimension is clearly seen in the painting. The fourth dimension must have been his major centre of interest. Other artists at the time ignored the fourth perspective in their paintings. Duchamp chose the controversial way by incorporating this aspect in his work. He modified the bathtub by inverting it rather than placing it upright in its usual way. The fourth dimension shifted the painting from its physical appearances to mental perceptions of Duchamp. The famous painting was first displayed at the Armory Show. It had some elements of modern art. In spite of this, it appeared controversial. The Jury proclaimed it scandalous because it did not depict nudity as its name suggested. It was, thus, rejected because it did not resemble a nude. The painting had elements of Marcel’s analytical cubism. Cubism was the static representation of motion. The whole project criticized all traditional art which represented subjects in just a single place and time. Duchamp’s painting had all these elements. In fact, it had a close resemblance to futurism. The multiple overlapping two dimensional images clarified the blending of motion and time. Previous artists presented three-dimensional objects in two dimensional surfaces. Duchamp contradicted them with his nude. The Nude Descending a Staircase consisted series of overlapping images viewed from different perspectives. The aspect of time might have been excluded from the painting. Time was not one of the aspects of the fourth perspective in Duchamp’s geometry. His argument is that if a three dimensional object is projected on a surface, it produces a two dimensional image. Any three dimensional object, thus, must be the image of another projection of a four dimensional source2. The painting, thus, was just an abstract that the artist chose to be an art. Duchamp chose to paint on a plane surface because he wanted the viewer to see the artwork from multiple perspectives. The multiple perspectives would then enable the viewer to reconstruct the fourth dimension of the painting. The Portrait of Chess players Duchamp got involved in playing chess in the course of his life. He was a highly dedicated player. In fact, the game dominated more than twenty years of his life. The people who were with him admitted that there was nothing unusual about his long-term involvement. In 1923, Duchamp had left art for chess. It later came out clearly that he had not quit arts. There were many contradictions surrounding Duchamp’s involvement in chess and art. Some people like Francois Le Lionnais described him as a conformist player who stuck to conventional playing styles. Others argued that he was a Dadaist player because of the love he had for chess. There were several clues along his way that indicated his knowledge of chess. At first, no one knew that his theory of chess was a reflection of the shattered glass in his Bride. It is his involvement in multiple schemes that made him a historical figure. According to him, chess and art are married. He claimed that a very complex multi-layered relationship exists between art and chess. Duchamp wanted the modern art to take an intellectual direction. He clarified that his version of the art was an intellectual activity and, therefore, criticized conventional art. Duchamp's intellect exceeded the realms of chess. In 1932, he wrote a study on a specific end game situation which occurred while playing chess. The work was titled Opposition and Sister Squares Are Reconciled. Duchamp clarified that it was purely an intellectual study without practical application, because the situations were rare. There was no chess player who used to pay attention to such occurrences. Duchamp's involvement in chess was greatly associated with his artistic agenda. He was interested in the way chess evoked abstract intellectual movement of objects in a new perspective of reality. Duchamp explained that this was his idea of symbolism in the game. He further elaborated that the symbolism had no importance in the highly addictive game. Duchamp was interested in chess because of the paradox that exists between restriction and freedom. Chess has a large room for imaginative thought within a restricted set of rules. Duchamp came up with a theory that established the union between chess and art. He, however, clarified the way he valued chess and art and distinguished the two. Duchamp did not make the chess. He liked playing it. In fact, there was nothing unusual about his long-term love with the game. His inseparable relationship with the chess must have originated from his conceptual of the game. He probably made the chess his art. That is why he was highly addicted. According to him, chess had a large room for imaginative thought within a restricted set of rules. His interest resulted from the way chess evoked abstract intellectual movement of objects in a new perspective of reality. The Illuminating Gas The Illuminating Gas was one of Marcel Duchamp’s final arts that took him nearly twenty years to develop. He worked secretly on this project from 1946 to 1966. Duchamp installed the project at the Philadelphia Museum of Arts. He issued restrictions regarding photographing the piece. The piece was supposed to stay for fifteen years without photographing. The Illuminating Gas mainly consisted of a nude female holding a gas lamp concealed in an enclosure with two peepholes. The nude female was submerged in twigs, in an open landscape with glittering waterfall (Haralambidou 5). The images captioned Figure 8 clarify this description. The famous painting had some elements of modern art. In spite of this, it appeared controversial. An analysis of what Marcel Duchamp might have tried to convey through the painting remains a mystery. Some people argue that the atmosphere could resemble a crime scene. Interpretation, thus, varies for every viewer. Duchamp himself was, thus, was the only person who could correctly give the hidden meaning. One of the possible interpretations of the Illuminating gas is that Duchamp might have tried to invert the rules of linear perspective in order to expose ignored assumptions. The two pre-installed peepholes might have indicated an expanded spatiality (Haralambidou 7). Duchamp’s interest in stereoscopy might have also inspired him to create an image to blossom in space. The project created by Duchamp is used an avenue for criticism. He used his architectural design to analyze spatial phenomena that had not been adopted by other artists. An analysis of the photo reveals that he wanted to reveal a fourth perspective of objects. In so doing, he criticized the world of arts that had not adopted his new ideas. A piece of art might have also tried to mock the static representation of objects that Duchamp himself never admired. The designer of the art probably wanted to openly display the inadequacies of conventional art. The use of a lamp signified new light that conventional artists could not see. The nude female could be a conventional artist who needed to get out of the twigs and enter a new limelight. He modified the painting by covering it rather than opening it up in its usual way. The concealing shifted the piece from its physical appearances to mental perceptions of the artist. The whole project criticized all traditional art which represented subjects in just a single place and time. Duchamp’s painting had all these elements. The two peepholes in the painting might have artistically represented the viewer’s limited perspective at time. The enclosure must have represented the abstracts of nature that makes it impossible for the viewer to find the fourth perspective. Photographs Figure 1: The 1917 Fountain. (Source: Google) Figure 2: Buddha Figure 3: The Fountain Figure 4: The Fountain Figure 5: Virgin Mary Figure 6: The Large Glass Figure 7: Nude Descending a Staircase, No. 2 Figure 8: The illuminating Gas: (Source: Google) Works Cited Camfield, A. William. “Marcel Duchamp’s Fountain: its History and Aesthetics in the Context of 1917.” Marcel Dunchamp, Fountain. Houston, TX: Houston Fine Art Press, 1989. Print. Haralambidou, Penelope. “The Corridor, the Tower and the Fall.” N.p, n.d. Web. 30 April 2014. < http://www.domobaal.com/resources/penelopeharalambidou/penelope-haralambidou-essay-domobaal.pdf> Ian, Randall. “Re-Evaluating the Art and Chess of Marcel Duchamp.” “Marcel Duchamp-Biography.” The European Graduate School. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 April 2014. < http://www.egs.edu/library/marcel-duchamp/biography/> Read More