At 09:42 am +0000 19/5/00, Terrence J Kosick wrote:
>Terrence writes;
>
>I don't agree with this. Duchamp, in a purely objective practical way, was a
>sort of a clever aragont lazy artist and he was not a professional painter. He
>was more of a dabbler and and a chess player and mostly unemployed. He talked
>more than he produced art. I don't feel he really became a professional artist
>who could sustain his occupation. He said some interesting things and open the
>minds of culture thinking of art in a different ways.
oh yeah
he only was the father of new art languages (including those like fluxus
looking for elemental expression)
>I think the spectator brings sustainablitity to the atists works by opening
>their wallets. Something duchamp never realized nor probably could as he was
>not able to, living up to his name beyond a few shocking works and words, a
>kind of avoidence, a fear of eventual failure. He realized he could not
>support himself. A sutuation many artists sadly find themselves in.
may be some artists (like duchamp) reject to prostitute himself to make a
living
& thanks to him we can desclassify anything to art,
(that's it for the production & distribution of new knowledge)
a situation many artists sadly reject.
...pez
