Page 64 - Studio International - April 1971

gives cause for speaking of a work when difficulty of the question and of the failure of the possibility of making anything which is presented
dealing with artistic production, i.e. a style, a Cubist venture, replies 'No' ; this Cézannian inside a museum/gallery say anything—and this
production, a sensibility, talent, etc. In fact, ambition is impossible. What is shown on a is what the dominant ideology wants : that what
despite the legend according to which Duchamp canvas will always be an illusion. The only way is contained should provide, very subtly, a
chose the objects that he ex-poses [exhibits] is to show the object itself. Thus thinks screen for the container. Maybe the museum,
accidentally, or else made sure they were the Duchamp. There is no more representation and the gallery are indispensable (inseparable) from
least characteristic possible, the most common, one approaches the complete, global solution a work, whatever it may be, but then they should
chosen without taste—neither good nor bad— and its consequences : rupture. Because then be clearly perceived as such, that is, implied,
we have, finally, a series of objects that have a the object presented will be only 'that which it in the presented work itself. The museum is
factory 'style', a formal relation to each other. is'. ignored for the benefit of the work, while the
In other words, there is the same aesthetic Now, here the reasoning becomes specious, latter exists only through the museum. So
relation between a bicycle wheel on a stool and a not to say false (if it is the case that it was true Duchamp's undertaking is revealed: we have
bottle-rack as between Renoir's Moulin de la before!). The object in question is not in fact already seen that the objects chosen had a
galette and his Balançoire. the object shown to us. We will not enlarge unique style; in addition, they will now appear
Additionally, acting in this way, Duchamp upon this phenomenon of transformation or composed, automatically, in the room where
thought to avoid the sensibility occasioned by become enraptured by it, because there have they will be presented, exhibited, and will
all artisan or manual 'craft' in presenting been lengthy and frequent descriptions of the become one of the decorative elements
industrial objects, generally produced by miraculous and fantastic power of man to (representation) of this new big tableau which
machines and in great quantity, therefore a indicate, to touch (like God) something and by is the gallery, the museum.
priori cold, neutral, having only a utilitarian this sole action to transform it into something If we insist on this example, it is because it
value. We find ourselves today confronted by else called here work of art. We won't contradict appears to us easy enough to follow, the first
objects of another age, simply privileged and this thesis, except that instead of rejoicing we of its kind, and symbolized as if drawn by
committed to the role of witnesses of an era by are rather sad to see that belief in miracles is still Duchamp himself. It would not be so with
the magic of art, the talent of the artist. The so widespread. Now this 'miracle' is simple to numerous artistic examples which are
artist in his role of preserver is certainly not an explain. Here the fundamental contradiction nevertheless identical, but less apparent.
innovation. The 'rupture' effected by Duchamp of Duchamp's venture appears. In reality, if Nevertheless, and in all cases, we are convinced
appears only as an empty or symbolic gesture one can say that Duchamp's urinal is different that—thanks to Duchamp, let us acknowledge
and, instead of a radical rupture, what is offered from another one seen in public pissotières and it—the museum/gallery plays the same
us is a work whose characteristic would be its not as he wished—as one would have us believe— powerful role, heavy with consequences, that
obsolescence. This obsolete work is a little like a urinal and nothing more, it is because this operates in the case of the urinal, with all that
our grandmother's attic exposed, with the urinal is taken out of context—which is what which is presented within it. The museum/
exception that the objects represented are not Duchamp remarked was the commonplace of gallery, for lack of being taken into
unfamiliar. It is in any case a failure in relation every work of art, whatever it was. He was consideration, is the framework, the habit, the
to the aim—or rather in relation to what one going to make the same mistake at a higher level. spider's web where until today all the
would have us believe or accept. It is traditional Let us follow his experience: A) let us take any `speeches' [messages] become entangled—
art and not a rupture with this art. It is an urinal or one identical to that chosen by speeches attempted while forgetting that the
imaginary questioning. But the influence of this Duchamp, let us put it in the museum; it museum/gallery is the inescapable 'support' on
minor work still endures. The one who wanted becomes a work of art and even, by extension, which art history is 'painted'. Wishing to
to kill the art object in fact perpetuates it, and in a Duchamp (but this is only an anecdotal detail; eliminate the tableau/support, on the pretext
the most obsessive and conservative manner what is important is that it becomes charged that what is painted can only be illusion,
possible. The Pop artists among others have with another meaning); B) Let us take the Duchamp introduces into a new framework/
understood this so well that they have seen urinal exhibited by Duchamp and let us replace tableau a real object which, at the same time,
Duchamp as no more than the forerunner of it in the public pissotières. It is no longer becomes artificial, motiveless, i.e. artistic. An
`painting-with-no-matter-what', of 'everything anything but a urinal with neither more nor apple is made to be munched, and represented
is art', 'nothing is art'. Duchamp would in this less aesthetic or saleable value than the 25 on a canvas it loses at least that function. In the
way, and uniquely, have renewed the technical others that surround it. Now, during the same way the urinal, not utilizable, loses its
media of pictorial expression. Is that all ?! transport of a urinal from a pissotiere to a function when represented in a museum/
But—and this is the crux of the problem— museum, it is not the urinal as object, materially, gallery/tableau. Pushing this image, let us take
why can we say that a bottle-stand which is which has changed. It is certainly 'the same away the museum/gallery: there is no more art.
exhibited is art and not rupture with art ? one' that one sees. But it is taken out of its This simplistic and seductive solution would
Duchamp made traditional art, adding a new context—and the loop is looped—in the same not of course, resolve anything, but it shows
form (without great consistency) to the multiples way as Cezanne's 'apple' was, and it is no more intentionally the real importance of the gallery/
which make an art history possible. Why could `real', despite appearances, than the painted museum where art is seen or thanks to which art
and can this evidence pass almost unperceived `apple'. is shown.
and influence a number of artistic attempts, The reason for this is that the place where `A real object which, at the same time,
thus making them instantly sterile and this urinal has just been put (the museum, the becomes artificial', we wrote above. Motiveless ?
regressive ? gallery, or any other defined artistic place) has Not entirely, because the museum is going to
We said that one of the questions posed by the same function as the support or tableau for show its double role here :
Cezanne's work was : is it possible to eliminate the 'apple'. The 'apple' is received inside the a) aesthetic, by becoming the real and
the subject in painting and to manifest only canvas, the urinal inside the museum. The inseparable support of the work inscribed
painting as painted—or paint itself—that is, to framework of the representation has become therein. Support of forms moving from one
show a painting without a history other than its enlarged. What has changed is the framework place to another, certainly, but where the work
own, without illusion, without representation in which the object is seen, the container. This is inevitably absorbed.
of the beyond, without perspective, without a verification, through not having been clearly b) economic, by giving this work/object a
framework other than the one on which this seen or analysed until now, is one of the saleable value by according it privilege,
`painting' is inscribed—its support ? essential causes of censures, that have been conserving it.
Duchamp, catching a glimpse of the operating since Cezanne's Questions, of the Like the chiaroscuro that privileged a certain
184