Page 44 - Studio International - January February 1975

seemed antiquated. The picture The Bow, in his Salon 1845; and in his last Salon translation was printed in the catalogue
according to Vachtová,' 6 was not 1859, he adds that the key to this new for Duchamp's American retrospective
exhibited until 1957. discovery of reality will be the Water Always Writes in * Plural')
imagination — the imagination that warns against a fossilized, lexical
4. `decomposes everything created and, interpretation of Duchamp's symbols
At that time Robert Delaunay also
belonged to the same circle as Duchamp with the materials that it gathers and where, for example, 'gas' always means
and Kupka. In 1912 he was interested in treats according to rules whose origins exclusively the male principle and 'water'
`rhythmic simultaneity' and beyond that, we must seek only in the deepest levels of the female principle. He suggests using
in a new theme : 'the sky above the city, the spirit, creates a new world.' the term 'signs', which are 'moveable
zeppelins, towers, aeroplanes' and he I would go so far as to say that the pieces of syntax' that 'change their
painted a cycle of pictures of the Eiffel significance of Duchamp's Large Glass meaning .. . according to the context'.
Tower. But while in Delaunay's mind, all and the ready-mades from the same Unfortunately, however, the very term
this meant 'the poetry of modern life', 17 period lies in the fact that they reveal the `sign' implies that unambiguity, that
Duchamp's importance lies in the fact source of the modern world's rigid welding of a meaning to its material
that he discovered a great deal more in fascination for us : its symbolic value. It is container, that Paz wishes to avoid. A sign
this modern civilization than mere true that Duchamp has emphasized that at least has a relative stability within a
picturesqueness. In another study on he wanted his work to appeal first of all to given system, context or code. A symbolic
Duchamp" I have tried to demonstrate `the grey matter of the brain', and even system, on the other hand, a priori
that the usual interpretations of his ready- that he wanted to renew the old excludes all such stability; a symbol not
mades are unsatisfactory. Such allegorical type of painting. A detailed only can, but in fact always does mean
interpretations are based on André analysis may in fact reveal allegory in the everything. What is most typical of a
Breton's famous statement about ready- Large Glass: we may conceive its forms as symbol is its polysemantical nature. In the
mades as 'manufactured objects raised to signs and for these signs, find a lexical words of Paul Ricoeur :
the dignity of art objects through the meaning. But the work is effective before What we call quite simply ambiguity as
artist's choice' But this explanation one can explain it, and the explanation compared with the need for
explains nothing. The artist is no scarcely adds anything to its impact. For unambiguity in logical thought means
magician who, by a mere gesture, can before the work is allegory, before it that symbols only symbolize
transform something that is not art into appeals to the 'grey matter', it speaks (to something in groups that limit and
art. Here Breton is really paraphrasing maintain the metaphor) to the subcortex, articulate their meaning."
the interpretation given in an editorial to archaic levels of awareness, to the area If we read the symbolic interpretations
in the second (and last) issue of The of moods, intimations, to the of Duchamp's work, we may be
Blind Man (New York, May 1917). unstructured or the just structuring surprised at how absolutely arbitrary
The article is not signed, but Duchamp awareness of the world, to those these interpretations seem — anything
himself was certainly its co-author. It `deepest levels of the spirit' that may, in the end, mean anything. I am
was published in defence of the Baudelaire speaks of. And the same thinking in particular of the most recent
provocative ready-made Fontaine. applies to Duchamp's ready-mades : they interpretation by Arturo Schwarz in the
Breton, who did not know English, are not things that belong to our excerpt from his forthcoming book
made use of only the first part of this rationally organized world, but rather L'alchimiste mis a nu chez le célibataire,
explanation and thus missed its they have been lifted out of it and have mime that appeared in the Italian review
meaning. Fontaine was signed, as is well ceased to be useful. They have been Data." But that, in fact, is how it is.
known, 'R. Mutt'. subjected to a process of `ostranenie' A rational interpretation of symbols is
Whether Mr Mutt with his own (defamiliarization) — a term coined by impossible. Symbolic discourse has a place
hands made the fountain or not has Viktor Shklovsky in the same period to precisely where rational discourse ceases
no importance. He CHOSE it. He explain the aesthetics of Russian to be possible. A work of art cannot be
took an ordinary article of life, Futurism. Marcelin Pleynet is quite deciphered like a rebus. Our
placed it so that its useful significance wrong to ascribe a 'transgressive understanding of it comes from another
disappeared under the new title and ideological structure' to Duchamp's and deeper source. Jung, for this reason,
point of view — created a new thought Fontaine, which according to him argued against Freud's rational
for that object. consists in the fact that one could have interpretations — if we are to understand
Duchamp's operation was truly more urinated into the pissoir at the a symbol, we must admit that it means no
complex than Breton supposed. exhibition." He failed to notice that more than what it in fact is :
In the first place, the ready-mades Duchamp placed the pissoir on its back, I doubt whether we are justified in
were not simply chosen; they were thus removing it from its practical context. assuming that a dream is something
also placed in a setting that had nothing Duchamp's ready-mades are the same as other than what it appears to be. . . . I
to do with their original function, and they would be in a shop window, would tend rather to invoke another
usually in an inappropriate position — separated from us by glass, untouchable, Jewish authority, namely the Talmud,
hung, or turned on their sides. In the just as his La Mari& is untouchable. One which says that a dream is its own
second place, regardless of how much might even speak of the 'myth of the shop interpretation.
Duchamp's interpreters may insist on it, window' so typical for our modern To reduce a symbol to a definable
they were not chosen randomly. world. Some of Duchamp's remarks from meaning is in fact to rob it of its real
Duchamp always emphasized his 1913, published in the collection meaning. To read the world
absolute indifference, but it was A L'infinitif 20 relate directly to this : symbolically, we must grasp the fact that
indifference of a special kind: just as one From the demands of the shop everything is present in everything. In
speaks of methodical doubt in Descartes, windows, from the inevitable symbolic thinking, the presence of the
so one may speak of methodical response to shop windows, my choice is universe is actively felt in each of its
indifference in Duchamp. What he was determined. No obstinacy, ad parts, everywhere; anything whatsoever
trying to do was to eliminate any absurdum, of hiding the coition can manifest it.
conscious, volitional motivation through a glass pane with one or many For Karl Jaspers, symbols are the
whatsoever, be it practical or aesthetic, objects of the shop window. The `language of transcendence', its 'ciphers',
and in this way, to release other penalty consists in cutting the pane endlessly and arbitrarily ambiguous:
motivations: let us call them symbolic in and in feeling regret as soon as Visible symbolics do not permit the
the sense that Mallarmé and especially possession is consummated. QED. separation of sign and meaning, for
Baudelaire understood symbolism. For The ready-made 'chooses you, so to both are contained in one. If we wish to
whereas Mallarmé sought his symbolic speak', he replied many years later when clarify for ourselves what the symbol
material, in keeping with the style of the he was asked how in fact he chose refers to, then we do separate them, but
end of the century, in distant cultures and them. 2' only with the help of new symbolics,
long extinct times, Baudelaire felt that 'a Octavio Paz, in one of the most and not by explaining them in terms of
painter, a genuine painter, will be one penetrating analyses of Duchamp's work something different. What we have
who is capable of discovering the epic which forms the second part of his already had will merely be clearer. We
nature of contemporary life,' as he wrote Appariencia Desnuda (1974 — the English return and look into new depths. '5
34