Page 35 - Studio International - June 1966

You carry it with you. I had to reject Car tesianism in a `It was only an episode in my life. Who has not made a
way. I don't say that you can't be both. Perhaps I am.' spiral in his life ? Everybody has. But you can't keep on
At this point, Duchamp asked where this interview doing it. The Pops maybe were not retinal. Lichtenstein
would appear. When I told him, he said he used to buy is not retinal. They have some extra content. Mondrian
Studio in 1900 or 1903, a 'very good magazine at the was not retinal, Seurat was not, but Cezanne and Monet
time'. were. The whole century since 1880 works in retinal
I then asked him what he meant when he said that terms. Only sensuous feeling. It's like a bath. I got out
painting had become too 'retinal'. of the bath. The roto-reliefs were only a moment's visit
`Well, ever since the nineteenth century, painting has for me. There never was a programme with me, though.
been retinal. Of course the pre-Raphaelites were not, I never decided not to be retinal so clearly. I don't say my
they went further than the retina. Maybe they weren't way is the only way of doing things. Art is a condition, a
better, but at least they weren't retinal. The whole of Heraclitan condition of always changing, isn't it?'
modern art—the Impressionists, the Fauves, the Cubists— What about his interest in mathematics?
the whole, except maybe the Surrealists, were retinal. `Oh, I'm not much of a mathematician. In those days,
Abstract expressionism was very retinal, and of course, 1910, 1911, 1912, there was a lot of talk about the fourth
Op art is very retinal. A little too retinal for one's taste.' dimension and I was tempted. Non-Euclidian geometry
I interrupted to point out that the Op artists sometimes had been invented in the 1840's but we were just hearing
claim him as a father. He laughed. about Riemann in 1910. It was very interesting because
there were no straight lines left. Everything was curved.
I'd say I liked the fourth dimension as one more dimen-
sion in our lives. We knew an amateur mathematician,
Princet, and we used to talk with him. Now, you know,
I live only in three dimensions. It was mostly talk with
us, but it did add an extra-pictorial attraction.'
I next asked Duchamp how he felt about all the ela-
borate, often arcane interpretations of his work.
`I learned a lot from them,' he laughed. Then, more
seriously: 'You see, I do believe in the mediumistic role
of the artist. What's written about him gives him a way
of learning about himself. The artist's accomplishment is
never the same as the viewer's interpretation. When they
explain all those documents in the Green Box, they are
right to decide what they want to do with it. A work of
art is dependent on the explosion made by the onlooker.
It goes to the Louvre because of the onlookers.'
You have often remarked on your delight in a succès de
scandale. Why?
Portrait of chess players 1911
Oil on canvas `Because a succès de scandale has a chance to survive. In
39 3/4 x 39 3/4 in. 1870 a painter called Regnault painted a Salomé which
Philadelphia Museum of Art
(Arensberg Collection) was a great succès de scandale. Regnault died in the war.
But people kept talking about that picture and still do.
Guernica may not have been exactly a succès de scandale, but
The king and queen traversed it was at least shocking. Unfortunately, you cannot have
by swift nudes 1912
Pencil a succès de scandale every year.'
10+x 15+ in. Is it still possible to shock the public as Regnault did ?
Philadelphia Museum of Art `Today there is no shocking. The only thing shocking is
(Arensberg Collection)
"no shocking". Shocking has been one of the main themes
of modern art, its baggage. Something that would shock
me ? Well, Russian painting. Those young girls at the
window like in 1880, or Hitler in his bunker. It's a
diminished shock, but still a shock. Pop artists are not
shocking because the public is always expecting another
movement. They see it and they say: 'What's next?' A
movement should really last at least twenty years. The
only movement that seems to last for any time is Surreal-
ism, but that's because it is not essentially a painters'
movement.
' Movement ; modern—they're new words. Rather silly.
Think of Art Nouveau, how old it seems. The word
"artist", for instance. Until the French Revolution it
hardly existed from a social point of view. There were
artisans. Now the artists are integrated. They are com-