Artist Zhang Yu, 2021
In fact, questioning Marcel Duchamp is a challenge to art history and can even lead to a contemporary turning point in the development of art in existing art history. Duchamp was a "madman" full of wisdom, and his ready-made art was not only truly surpassed by no one in a hundred years. It also stops the development of contemporary art from wandering.
Bounded by Duchamp – a reinterpretation of The Fountain
Text/ Zhang Yu
When Fountain was born 100 years ago as creative art, I insisted that the development of art for a hundred years had stopped with Marcel Duchamp. The art world is not only full of respect for Duchamp, but also has always followed, but also fell into the "trap" set by Duchamp and could not extricate himself, until the present.
Duchamp's madness was actually rational, with the first ready-made art, Bicycle Wheels, completed in 1913; the second in Bottle Racks; and the third ready-made work, Snow Shovel, completed in 1915. In addition, "50cc Paris Air" was created in 1919, and there is also the much-talked about "Big Glass" and so on.
Duchamp: Springs (ready-made), 1917
The most famous, however, is the moment in 1917 when Duchamp seemed to be "crazy", not because he signed the ready-made male urinal bought directly from the store as "R. mutt", but absurdly nominated "Izumi" and sent it to the art museum (although it was not exhibited), so that it became a scandal at the time. But from that moment on, the readymade product as art shattered all the previous perceptions of art. What exactly is art? Part of the apology published in may 1917 in the original Dada magazine The Blind man in defense of The Fountain consisted of Duchamp's defense of the readymade and answer to the question: It does not matter whether the Fountain was made by my own hand, it was I who chose it and gave it a new name, so that people could see it from a new perspective, so that the original practical meaning was erased and a new understanding was enlightened. Thus this nominalist view gives artists a more free pair of wings.
But it is puzzling that Duchamp has just stated what art is under the name of "The Fountain", but can also explain: "The outer edge curves and triangle composition of the urinal are no different from Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa, and the warm and smooth texture effect and the transformation of light and shade are exactly the same as the marble statues of the ancient Greek carver Hitriz." "Interpret the work "Spring" with such sensory consciousness. I think Duchamp's visual description of the "urinal" is not only unconvincing but even chiseled in its expression of "Spring" as a ready-made art. Of course, I agree with Thierry de Diff's polysemy reflection on Duchamp's ready-made products, "that is, ready-made products embody a historical process of change from aesthetics to nominated art." But the polysemy reflection does not mean that it can be over-interpreted, and over-interpretation will inevitably lead to a deviation from the core problem presented by "Springs" itself.
In a 1959 Duchamp interview (published in 1974 in an audio magazine), George Hurd Hamilton asked Duchamp, "How can we treat ready-made products as works of art?" Duchamp's answer was straightforward: "This is the difficulty, because art must first be defined." Can we try to define art? We've tried it. Everyone has tried. Every century has a new definition of art, that is, no one definition applies to each century. So if we accept the idea of not defining art as a reasonable concept, then the readymade becomes a satire because it declares, 'This is something I call art, but I myself don't even do anything.'" We know that, etymologically, 'art' means 'handmade'. This is the ready-made product, so it is a possibility to negate the definition of art. Because you don't define electricity, you see the result of electricity, you don't define it. This time Duchamp spoke very clearly, and the ready-made product allowed him to do nothing. I thought that Duchamp was doing nothing with the ready-made "Fountain" and refuting the participation of the main body of art in art history. This clearly grasps a redefinition of art.
If we accept the perception of Duchamp's readymade products as "not doing" to refute "doing", but what is the core problem I ask Duchamp about not doing? Is it just out of the idea of not targeting? So, what is the root of not doing it? Although you are not involved in the art of handmade craftsmanship, you are involved in the nomination of readymade products by ideas. Nomination is the foundation of ready-made goods into art, and in fact nomination is also a kind of doing. It seems to me that there is such an entrance to continue to ask questions, which can also be understood as a crack in the question, of course, we have not touched this crack.
At this point, I don't believe That Duchamp would deliberately leave this crack, because none of the ready-made products after Fountains can continue to explicitly "don't do" further thinking. Analysis of the relevant texts left by Duchamp has come to an abrupt end here, and the gap left behind is undoubtedly Duchamp's gap. While I have no doubt that Fountain uses ready-made products as some of the associations that art might be related to, Duchamp's overall thinking about the core issue of the expression of Fountains is still missing at its origin. Of course, this is not a problem of omission, but a defect in understanding.
I still think of The Fountain as the most thorough expression of Duchamp's readymade art, or more precisely of the ready-made nomination (the key is the nomination), and to this day. On the one hand, Duchamp broke the boundary between art and life, and the ready-made art created by duchamps is still difficult to surpass. In the hundred years since the birth of "Spring", modern, postmodern and contemporary art seem to be diverse in form, such as the art after Duchamp, which is essentially indiscriminate. Because, posterity did not realize Duchamp's lack of cognition of ready-made products.
"Spring" has also suffered half a century of snub after its birth as a ready-made art, but the incident of "Spring" has left a strong impact on people's hearts. It wasn't until Arthur C. Danto discovered Andy Warhol's The Briro Box in the 1960s that he brilliantly pointed out: "Treating something as art requires something of value that the eye cannot see—an atmosphere of theory, a knowledge of art history, an art world." As a result, more and more people realize the irreplaceable importance of "Springs" in art history. The British philosopher Richard Wolfheim took the analytical philosophical approach to thinking, arguing that the readymade revealed the problems of very few works in some typical examples of avant-garde artistic activity in the 20th century; the critic Peter Beagle used the cultural theory research method to argue that Duchamp used urinals to criticize the art system of the society at that time. Treat ready-made goods as items with sociological tendencies.
Putting aside the criticism of Duchamp in art history, I think that the readymade art form not only subverts the universality of the visual art of art history, but also presents a very sharp problem as art with the industrialized daily (product) readymade: nominating the ready-made product as conceptual art; not imposing any handmade act on the ready-made product, and exploring the presentation of the ultimate artistic concept of the object of expression, "no self". If "Quan" is really a presentation of "no self", then it also subverts the artistic presentation of art history that has always been in the "self". This is obviously a problem that we cannot avoid, and rethinking, re-understanding, and redefining is also the meaning of criticism.
In many of our discussions over the past hundred years, the ready-made Quan has focused on the extension caused by the ready-made product, and ignored the exclusion of the "subject self" of the ready-made product—thus obtaining an artistic presentation of the "no-self".
In the 1960s, the American conceptual artist Joseph Kosus J. Kosuth argued that Duchamp's ready-made products made "the nature of art change from morphological to functional problems." This change is from 'appearance' to 'perception'. At the same time, he believed that all art after Duchamp was conceptual. Conceptual art is only a conceptual existence, which is to question the validity of traditional art forms.
Of course, I think that the art after Duchamp is all art of conceptual existence, giving the subjective concept to the expression of the object. However, "no self" was not recognized as a problem after Duchamp, such as: land art, poor art, minimalism and materialism, especially the materialist artist Li Yuhuan's theories of "relational terms" and "Yubai art" were proposed along the trajectory of Duchamp's thought with no or very little intervention in the object. Therefore, I believe that any art is presented in form. So I don't think that ideas can directly subvert form, because the conceptual art of art history is also the art of form.
Obviously, our judgment of works of art cannot avoid the evolution of art history. Art history art develops classical art of self-reproduction and imitation, with the artist as the subject's imitation intervention in the true representation of the object; Paul Cézanne created the artist's subject to no longer reproduce the object for imitation, but emphasizes how to express the feelings about the object in personal language, highlighting the dialogue with nature. Thus began the development of art ontology, completing the first turning point in art history; the conceptual art created by Duchamp in the form of ready-made products seemed to more completely subvert all art forms in art history, and art history took another turn.
When Danto discovered Warhol's Briro Box, Duchamp's ready-made art became more and more prominent. Danto, however, argued that the Brero Box could not be discussed in terms of modernism, and wrote The End of Art in the 1980s. But the development of art did not take a turn as a result.
Why would Danto use "The Briro Box" as the end of art and ignore the ready-made "Spring", which is already a pioneering work. What is the difference between "Briro Box" and "Spring"? "Spring" is a real finished product; "Briro Box" is an imitation of a ready-made product, which is reproduced by means of artificial production and depiction. This makes the expression in the process of reproducing imitation and the readymade product have a further intervention of the subject's behavior, and it is obvious that this intervention has not yet made the participation of the subject and the art reproduced in art history essentially distinguished. Neither viewing in reproducible form nor examining as a ready-made product is as thorough as Duchamp's critique of art history. In fact, the problems touched upon by "Briro Box" have long been solved by "Springs", and the consumer culture associated with "Briro Box" is only an extension of Duchamp's concept.
Andy Warhol, Briro Box, Imitation Ready-Made, 1964
Duchamp's ready-made art Fountain is nothing more than an attempt to create an art that is contrary to art history—the conceptual art of the object of the existence of "no self". This work seems to complete the "go to me" presentation in the artistic expression that removes the presence of the subject, so that the subject of the work of art is not present. In this way, the "no self" of Duchamp's ready-made art changed the trajectory of art history and opened up a new art history narrative. The subsequent Briro Box, along with the art of land, the art of poverty, minimalism and materialism, all follow the dissolution of "there is me" and the presentation of "no self".
Li Yuhuan, a materialist and monochrome painting artist, emphasizes the removal of modernism's attention to the self, and his creative method is also to minimize the subject's intervention in the object. From the self-concern, try to remove the subjective and artificial behavior of the intervention of the object "thing", so that the "thing" and the spatial relationship have a more natural relationship, and cooperate with nature to produce the view of "residual white". In view of the absolutely people-oriented face of the world after the industrialization revolution, it ignores the harmonious coexistence between man and nature.
Western modern art, especially after World War II, mainly followed the trajectory of Duchamp's thought. Although the art of land, the art of poverty, minimalism, and materialism extended Duchamp's ideas outward, emphasizing both the participation of the artist's thought and behavior, and the reduction of subject intervention in the object, creating a relationship with nature or interaction with nature, the problem is that this perception still does not jump out of Duchamp's ideological framework in essence. No matter how much we reduce the subject's behavior toward the object, the subject's mind is always participatory, even controlling. That is to say, "having me" is essentially indelible.
Let's go back to the ready-made "Spring", when Duchamp moved the ready-made product into the art museum, he gave it his own ideological concept, and the concept of "Spring" as the main body of the creator was presented. This idea is like Descartes' "I think, therefore I am." I think of the inevitable intervention of an idea as the subject of the artist. Since the ideology comes from the creator, the artwork created by the artist must be the existence of "there is me". Although Fountain is a ready-made product of industrialization, once given the concept of art, it necessarily belongs to the consciousness category of the cognitive system. If ready-made art also belongs to the "self" on the ideological level, it is concluded that art history art is the art of "having me" existence. Of course, this "having me" is based on the mind, the conscious mind, not the "me" in which the mind dominates the real body of the body. But the idea is also me, so it seems that the presentation of "no self" of Duchamp's ready-made products is not valid.
If the "no self" of Duchamp's ready-made product is not established, then the real self is not established. This is the I have been asking about the whole sexual subject's I am—the simultaneous existence of the mind, body, and body in that moment is the manifestation of the true subject me.
From this point of view, Duchamp's ready-made art and later land art, poor art, minimalism and materialism, etc., are neither the presence of the real "no self" nor the presence of the real "me" subject. This leads to a new answer, if there is art in art history that emphasizes the questioning of the "existence of the subject"; there is also art that explores the elimination of the "no-self" of the subject. From this reasoning, all the art of Duchamp and his art history has nothing to do with the art of the real subject I am, nor with the art of the subject's absence. In other words, art history has neither created the real "art of selfless existence" nor the art of presenting the "real existence of the subject."
In short, art history art has not gone to the extreme of expression or presentation in these two aspects, which not only lacks the art of "the real existence of the subject", but also misunderstands the "selfless existence" of art. It is true that Duchamp's "Fountain" has become the touchstone of our creative art today, and solving Duchamp's unfinished problem is the current creative art and the challenge to art history.
Looking at these two aspects from the perspective of art history, it is actually the questioning of these two aspects: first, to ask the artistic expression of the creation and presentation of the subject's true self-existence, "referred to" becomes the core of the expression (the presentation of the mind, body and physical unity of the subject); second, to question the art of creating the absence of the subject (to express the visual presentation of the "pointed out", but the "refers" does not present the long-term visual existence of the object, and the "refers" has the preparation for natural disappearance at any time on the object, and finally eliminates the artwork). Of course, the creative art of "having me" and "no self" of "self-real existence" touches on a new question, how to eliminate the art form, the artwork, as the ultimate question of "having me and no self" as an expression.
Zhang Yu: Dot Moss - Fingerprint (Sculpture), Fingerprint, Propylene, 2017 (Scheme)
Although "Spring" subverts all art forms with the concept of ready-made art, it subverts form in form (ready-made is certainly a form). So far, the discussion of art from Cézanne to Duchamp and to the present art history has always revolved around the questioning of language forms. If the form of creation language is only the mental existence of the creator's subjective consciousness, it is not the real existence of the subject whose mind, body and body are one. Therefore, art in art history is both a subject and a lack of (real) subject existence. "There is me" and "no self" are in a form of thinking.
The crux of the matter is that the real "me" and "no self" are the two poles of a problem, which can be both two or two sides of the same coin. Therefore, I think the most important thing is to complete the ultimate existence of the real self, so as to be able to touch the ultimate dimension of selflessness. In fact, "no-self" is in a kind of empty meditation, because if the artist wants to create art, there is no real "no-self" subject who is not present. "No-self" is more of a suspension of consciousness, so the absence of the subject of "no-self" is only a representation of a visual form. In this way, it seems that the "no-self" art in which the subject is not present can only present the disappearance of the artwork in the form of creative art. In other words, "no-self" can only be achieved through "having me." It is true that asking how to present the real existence of the subject is the core value of expression, and it is the real challenge to "Spring" and art history.
Sharing Duchamp's thought is actually aimed at how to create art to complete the ultimate expression: First, the artist is extremely important, and the creation of art is due to the intervention of the artist's thought; but in the ultimate dimension, it envisions the creation of a creative art method that completely eliminates the subject's intervention in the object of expression, so as to eliminate the subject to obtain the ultimate presentation of creative art. The problem is that the creative art of excluding the subject is obviously impossible. Duchamp simply couldn't do it. Maybe Duchamp thought The Fountain had done it, or maybe he knew he hadn't done it. Perhaps Duchamp did not realize that the ultimate form of creative art is not "no self" or "no self", but whether or not he can create and present "the real self of the subject" is the ultimate expression of creative art.
Yu Zhang: Dot Moss-Fingerprint 20210729 (Sculpture), Fingerprint, Propylene, 2021
The above discussion is my further questioning of "Spring", and it can also be said that I am another interpretation of "Spring". It may be proved that "Spring" is Duchamp's thinking on creating the ultimate expression, but when asked, it found Duchamp's misunderstanding, Duchamp did not realize that the ultimate expression of "having me" in the real existence of self, how to come from the ultimate question of "no self", this is the "Duchamp Trap" I said earlier. I believe it wasn't deliberate, it's just that he hasn't found a definitive answer yet. Therefore, the saying that "everything is art, everyone is an artist" has always been a lie.
We have studied and analyzed the interpretation of different versions of "Quan" in art history over the past hundred years, mostly for the interpretation of its meaning or even the amplification of meaning, without touching on the torture of the core issues given to the work. Facts have proved that the discussion that stays in the sense is unable to perceive the essential relationship of creative art, and it is impossible to explore the core point of its expression and to seek a logical starting point beyond it.
Reiterating the development of art, only by creating art with "self-real existence" can we change the dilemma that Duchamp himself cannot solve. In other words, if we complete the questioning of the above ultimate question, Duchamp's era will come to an end.
After thirty years of artistic practice and reflection on "Fingerprints" and subsequently "Flesh in the Mud", I deeply feel that the creative art of art history ignores the expression of the real existence of the subject- the questioning of the existence of the existent. Objectively speaking, the "existence of existence" and "existence of existence" that create visual art are different referring relationships and cognitive levels; "having me and not having me" is actually the ultimate question of "having me", and how to "really have me" is the core issue of discussion. In fact, "no-self" is just a space of time that "has me".
In the face of the huge and complicated development of art history and art, the questions we can still ask or need to explore exist only in the gaps between the problem and the problem link. This is also a crack in Duchamp's thinking about the Fountain that I mentioned earlier.
A tribute to the centenary of Duchamp's Fountain.
March 18, 2017 T3 International Art District
(Originally published in Shanghai Art Review, No. 214, No. 4, 2021)
Source: Yidian Art