I think it would be a mistake to try to relegate the readymade and its many relations to some other category. The point of Duchamp’s intervention (unless you fall into the camp that thinks Fountain was just a stunt) was to throw into question what people thought they knew about art, and to force them to contend with art’s philosophical bounds and the constraints of bourgeois “good taste.” When people these days say “that’s not art,” it’s often because their understanding of art history is limited -- they have no frames of reference for processing why a bicycle wheel on a stool should be considered art, much the same way I have no frame of reference sometimes for certain kinds of avant-garde music or theoretical physics. Most of the time I know better than to dismiss what I don’t understand, but I’m afraid lots of people have a much lower tolerance for anything that makes them feel uneducated or alienated. As I tell my students, “I don’t like that” or “I don’t get it” is a much more accurate way to respond to such work, and it opens the door to actual understanding (if you’re open to the explanation).
One addendum here: I’ve encountered lots of readymades and similar, and I’ve had what I would consider an aesthetic experience in front of them. It’s not one of awe in the face of beauty, but that’s not the only kind of aesthetic experience to be had.
Perhaps they feel like they do understand it, or at least that they ought to understand it -- after all, paintings have been around for ages, incorporated into people's lives in a way that theoretical physics never was. Then the twentieth century happened and they feel alienated from the art world, something they never thought possible.
I'm not trying to excuse people's lack of understanding, or unwillingness to make the effort to understand. I'd like to meet them halfway, though, and say "yes, this stuff is tricky, but here's what is going on."
I was brought up solidly within the Conceptual milieu where Duchampian thinking was de rigeur. All of the avant-garde mediums and practices were celebrated and taught. So if and when I encountered something new the thing to ask was not is it art, but what does it do?
That approach seems rare with the unwashed masses. Perhaps analogies might be useful. Walking around at the hardware store, surrounded by strange tools, a reasonable question would be to ask "what do these do?" Art objects could be just another kind of tool -- a tool for communication.
I think it would be a mistake to try to relegate the readymade and its many relations to some other category. The point of Duchamp’s intervention (unless you fall into the camp that thinks Fountain was just a stunt) was to throw into question what people thought they knew about art, and to force them to contend with art’s philosophical bounds and the constraints of bourgeois “good taste.” When people these days say “that’s not art,” it’s often because their understanding of art history is limited -- they have no frames of reference for processing why a bicycle wheel on a stool should be considered art, much the same way I have no frame of reference sometimes for certain kinds of avant-garde music or theoretical physics. Most of the time I know better than to dismiss what I don’t understand, but I’m afraid lots of people have a much lower tolerance for anything that makes them feel uneducated or alienated. As I tell my students, “I don’t like that” or “I don’t get it” is a much more accurate way to respond to such work, and it opens the door to actual understanding (if you’re open to the explanation).
One addendum here: I’ve encountered lots of readymades and similar, and I’ve had what I would consider an aesthetic experience in front of them. It’s not one of awe in the face of beauty, but that’s not the only kind of aesthetic experience to be had.
Agreed. There is so much good art which is not "beautiful" in the conventional sense at all.
Perhaps they feel like they do understand it, or at least that they ought to understand it -- after all, paintings have been around for ages, incorporated into people's lives in a way that theoretical physics never was. Then the twentieth century happened and they feel alienated from the art world, something they never thought possible.
I'm not trying to excuse people's lack of understanding, or unwillingness to make the effort to understand. I'd like to meet them halfway, though, and say "yes, this stuff is tricky, but here's what is going on."
I was brought up solidly within the Conceptual milieu where Duchampian thinking was de rigeur. All of the avant-garde mediums and practices were celebrated and taught. So if and when I encountered something new the thing to ask was not is it art, but what does it do?
That approach seems rare with the unwashed masses. Perhaps analogies might be useful. Walking around at the hardware store, surrounded by strange tools, a reasonable question would be to ask "what do these do?" Art objects could be just another kind of tool -- a tool for communication.
Exactly. Beautiful and mystifying tools.
The people who are naturally defensive toward avant-gardes need to address creative functionality rather than aesthetic justification