Michael
Oct 23rd 2008, 12:24 AM
In 2004, a panel comprising 500 of Britain’s most esteemed artists, critics and historians voted Marcel Duchamp’s Fountain the most influential artwork of the 20th century. Created for the inaugural exhibition of the Society of Independent Artists in 1917, Fountain was a urinal – a common plumbing fixture purchased from a wholesaler in New York City – signed by Duchamp with the pseudonym “R. Mutt” and rotated so that it lay on its back. A porcelain bowl designed to collect piss was recognized as the single-most important contribution to art in the past century. Ahead of Picasso, ahead of Pollock. Matisse didn’t even make the list. Among the world’s aesthetes, there were scattered cries of foul. And just as it had in 1917, Fountain ignited a debate over the meaning of art.
Article - Read More (http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/80/andy_warhol.html)
I think the essay conveys my opinion of modern art rather well. For me, Andy Warhol is the symbol and definition of modern art itself.
But that only describes modern art by pointing at something and saying "that to me, is art". My opinion is not worth any more or less than anyone else's.
I guess the issue that interests me most here is, does this kind of art/artist have any relevance other than as entertainment? Or alternatively, are not the greatest artists of the 20th century to be found only outside of art galleries anyways? I think the 'best' artists of the 20th century all used cameras or musical instruments or live a life on stage.
Picking up an industrial object and putting on a table and calling it 'art' was indeed a radical and inspiring idea - art as the essential expression of an idea. That makes sense. But how is it worth any money? How can that industrial-grade urnial that Marcel Duchamp put on exhibition be worth any money? People do pay for this stuff. That kind of just freaks me out. Galleries filled with common stuff that people pay lots of money for. If the idea is everything, I can just put any old urinal on a table in my apartment and produce the same 'idea-effect' upon my friends as Duchamp evoked amongst the Society of Independent Artists in 1917. That is 'art as an idea'. How can that specific urinal that Duchamp used valued as 'art' and the one displayed in my living room not? Are modern artists nothing more than a capitalist fraud?
Article - Read More (http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/80/andy_warhol.html)
I think the essay conveys my opinion of modern art rather well. For me, Andy Warhol is the symbol and definition of modern art itself.
But that only describes modern art by pointing at something and saying "that to me, is art". My opinion is not worth any more or less than anyone else's.
I guess the issue that interests me most here is, does this kind of art/artist have any relevance other than as entertainment? Or alternatively, are not the greatest artists of the 20th century to be found only outside of art galleries anyways? I think the 'best' artists of the 20th century all used cameras or musical instruments or live a life on stage.
Picking up an industrial object and putting on a table and calling it 'art' was indeed a radical and inspiring idea - art as the essential expression of an idea. That makes sense. But how is it worth any money? How can that industrial-grade urnial that Marcel Duchamp put on exhibition be worth any money? People do pay for this stuff. That kind of just freaks me out. Galleries filled with common stuff that people pay lots of money for. If the idea is everything, I can just put any old urinal on a table in my apartment and produce the same 'idea-effect' upon my friends as Duchamp evoked amongst the Society of Independent Artists in 1917. That is 'art as an idea'. How can that specific urinal that Duchamp used valued as 'art' and the one displayed in my living room not? Are modern artists nothing more than a capitalist fraud?