> 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.
The latter is certainly true, as Duchamp decreed in 1912 the he did not believe
in "the creative function of the artist." "Everyone does something and people who
do things on a canvas with a frame, are called artists." And this was in 1912!!
My favorite Duchampian quote is, "I prefer breathing to working."
> 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.
He was a revolutionary, and he accomplished this by maintaining his freedom - I
believe he was supported mainly by his patron, Walter Arensberg, so he did have a
means of sustenance.
>
>
> 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.
I don't believe it (see above) as far as Duchamp goes, but I'm prejudiced. He is
a hero of mine and I DO believe he changed the art-making oeuvre. I don't believe
conceptual art would exist if it weren't for Duchamp. Yep, he played chess and he
played chess because he had achieved his freedom - he only made, as far as I know
30-40 works in 50 or so years - he made art to make art, for himself - he was
focused and free and I think it admirable. Of course, he had Arensberg behind
him.
I do commercial artwork, but my real art is for myself and I don't expect to sell
it. I just do it for me, and work professionally at something else. I'm not sure
whether this is sad, I'm not sure whether this is happy - I think it's just what I
do to maintain my individuality in the creative process, and I used to be lots
more idealistic about it. But, sadly, overall, the economic system and the
mindset of the U.S. is not set up for the individual as far as artmaking, seems
only to be so in retrospect. Thank god there are some patrons out there outside
of the mainstream.
Best,
PK
> >
> > "all in all, the creative act is not performed by the artist alone; the
> > spectator brings the work in contact with the external world by deciphering
> > and interpreting its inner qualifications and thus adds his contribution to
> > he creative act.* this becomes even more obvious when posterity gives its
> > final veredict and sometimes rehabilites forgotten artists."
> >
> > m.duchamp
> > april 1957
> >
> >
