Page 37 - Studio International - January February 1975

mise a nue par ses célibataires, même. A long produced aesthetic inventions which word-images, which unfortunately
series of preliminary works of various manifested a new - or perhaps the real, cannot be translated easily. Between
kinds were combined in this so-called old - aesthetic through their newness. I speech and writing, he put the double-
Great Glass between 1915 and 1923. mean the 'readymade', which is under meanings of speech into writing, and
Duchamp's fame today is founded not discussion here. Imagine, as Duchamp transformed, for example, the 'objet
only on this work, which is documented himself explains, 'buying ice-tongs as d'art' into an 'objet-dard', or played a
comprehensively by the artist in the "ready-mades" ', or a bottle-rack as he game with his pseudonym Rrose Sélavy,
Green Box, and about which there is a did with Porte-Bouteilles in 1914, which he presented as the name of a wise
study by Serge Stauffer in the catalogue followed by a series of similar objects lady: 'c'est la vie' (such is life). But also in
of this exhibition, but also on a series of designated 'ready-made' and exhibited in other respects : whoever reads his texts
inventions which are still valuable today, art exhibitions. The amazing fact is that comes across countless creations, whose
especially the so-called 'Readymade', things which are emphatically not combinatory aesthetic, philosophical and
which means the selection and generally seen from an aesthetic view- critical worth has yet to be recognized.
interpretation of all or any objects. point, become aesthetic through the Since the ruin of the Great Glass,
Finally I should mention Duchamp's chooser, through the kind of choice, and Marcel Duchamp has very much
experiments on 'precision-optics' which gain new significance through time. Quite restricted his creative work. The artist
led to the `rotoreliefs' after he had ordinary things are brought into an who began with delicate Cezanne-like
produced such effects with the help of a unexpectedly new context deliberately works and finally wanted to destroy the
specially constructed device in the film and provocatively, and are put into a aesthetic, who is indeed one of the most
Anemic-Cinema in 1926. museum apparently absurdly. What is the fruitful stimuli in the art of the twentieth
The Great Glass was exhibited in point of it ? Has nothing like it ever century, has only occasionally added
New York in 1926-27, finished after happened before ? Certainly, we must anything new to his old works. His
several interruptions, and labelled by look at what is in the museums and test activity has become more and more
Duchamp conclusively uncompleted. it: when object x is i,000 years old it limited to the authentic interpretation
While being transported back from the succeeds a priori as a work of art and thus and documentation of his own unchanged
exhibition the glasses broke. And so this gets into the museum. Older =more intentions, and to the presentation of his
masterpiece has not only remained valuable =more art. Is therefore a friends, especially Constantine Brancusi,
`incomplete', but has also become revaluing of the objects of everyday life whose first American exhibition he
`irreparable'. meant ? Should the fatal gulf between art organized, and later the surrealists and
In the meantime, however, Duchamp and everyday life be bridged ? That was dadaists.
had shifted his talents to another field: probably not Duchamp's intention. And Duchamp had always been wise in his
chess. It was not inessential for his yet it is no accident that, at the same time choice of methods. He knew, when he
development that he should occupy as his dadaistic demonstrations, the first made his own decisive contribution, how
himself early on with chess; he got on so traces of the creation of an improved to keep himself from the danger of self-
well that he represented France in environment appear, aimed at imitation. That cannot be too highly
international matches and in 1932 integrating art into everyday life and appreciated, and in this he is surely an
published a book on finals together with corresponding to civilization today. The example to be followed.
Halberstadt. The boundary between complete environment - the whole of
meaning, logical consistency and play is life - as art. I believe the essence of [From W egleitung No 234, Kunstgewerbemuseum,
the actual element that Duchamp Duchamp's function as thinker and Zurich, 196o, and written on the occasion of the
Duchamp exhibition held in Zurich that year.
adopted in art, and one can find here the artist, critic and interpreter is seen here, Translated from the German by Gill Maddick.]
point of connection between artistic and is one of the reasons for his relevance
personalities as different as Duchamp, today
Klee and Vantongerloo. This collapsing A still further field should be
of the thought,game into artistic reality, mentioned here, in which Duchamp
this setting of rules of play, resulting in boasts achievements, the extent of which
absence of play, this creation of open is not yet sufficiently recognized :
systems - as Klee so correctly said 'Art language. Through a mixture of play and
plays an unknowing or "ignorant" game word combinations Duchamp has coined Sieves by Richard Hamilton,
signed d'après Marcel Duchamp
with the highest things and yet achieves
them' - characterizes their work, which
becomes art even when the greatest risks
are taken, justifies the well-known phrase
of Schwitters: 'Everything an artist
spits is art'.
Duchamp expressed himself again and
again in writing. A selection of his
statements is reprinted in the catalogue of
this exhibition, selected and translated by
Serge Stauffer, who has for years
collected material for a book about
Marcel Duchamp. In preparing this
exhibition I came across his work, and he
put his careful text translations at our
disposal saving us much effort and time;
I would like to thank him for this, with
the hope that his work will be brought to
a successful conclusion. I also owe thanks
to Arnold Fawcus, the publisher of the
large Duchamp monograph, which
appeared in his Trianon Press, written by
Robert Lebel. Mr Fawcus took an active
part in bringing this exhibition about -
giving valuable help in acquiring the
exhibits and the documentation.
And now back to the second question,
why Duchamp is of particular significance
for us today, since he himself did not seek
the aesthetically valuable, but actually
by uncompromising non-aestheticizing
27