It has been said that art is a tryst, for in the joy of it maker and beholder meet.
~Kojiro Tomita
As Wartenberg points out in The Nature of Art, many people--both experts of various arts and the casual viewers of art--are of the belief that “art communicates emotion between a creator and an audience.” Not necessarily does this have to mean that such communication is good or bad, it simply is; each individual has their own unique tastes and therefore judges what they see before them labelled as ‘art’ in varying lights. Everyone’s perception of things differs on various levels based on their unique life experiences and ideals; so, then, it would only follow that what is seen as art to one person, may not be seen as art to another.
Take for instance, the example of Marcel Duchamp’s Fountain,¹ with which Duchamp took a mass-produced urinal and signed the name “R. Mutt.” Some may have seen this as an ingenious work of art that shattered the conventional boundaries of previous conceptions of what made something a work of art; in fact, it was labelled “the most influential modern art work of all time” in a poll of 500 art experts in the run-up to 2004’s Turner Prize. As art expert Simon Wilson explained, "It reflects the dynamic nature of art today and the idea that the creative process that goes into a work of art is the most important thing - the work itself can be made of anything and can take any form."² Sure, Duchamp or critics could come up with some bullocks about how the pseudo name of “R. Mutt” has a deeper meaning to it, but how is anyone to know that it wasn’t something Duchamp just came up with as a joke or he simply got lazy for a period in his career? In fact, Duchamp made an entire series called Readymades which were nothing more than everyday objects with a signature on them, some of which include In advance of the broken arm (a snow shovel),³ Comb (yes, just a comb),4 and Trap (a coat rack).5
To other experts and observers, however—myself included—a piece of art like this comes across as just something of a joke. How could a urinal that was simply signed by someone who was labelled as an ‘artist’ be considered a work of art? If this is the case, then seemingly any individual could take an object, sign a random alter ego on it, and submit it for exhibition. It seems to me that when works such as this beat out pieces of true, original, even inspired thought and emotion (Fountain won out over Picasso's Les Demoiselles d'Avignon (1907) and Guernica (1937) and Andy Warhol's Marilyn Diptych (1962) for the 2004 Turner Prize) it somewhat delegitimizes works that, in my opinion, deserve more attention and are of a greater value or significance.
Surely, I could see Fountain for its comedic value; but when it’s winning over pieces which seek to make a statement against actual political or cultural matters, works that really seek to make a difference with the power of the artist, something seems to have gone critically wrong with society’s definition of what classifies as ‘art’. What has the significance of the message being communicated between "maker and beholder" become?
PHOTO & ARTICLE LINKS:
¹ ”Fountain.” Web. 28 Jan 2011. http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://torontoist.com/attachments/toronto_david/duchamp_fountain.jpg&imgrefurl=http://torontoist.com/2007/12/is_it_art.php&h=756&w=640&sz=103&tbnid=GBmavGRUwDknyM:&tbnh=142&tbnw=120&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dduchamp%2527s%2Breadymades&zoom=1&q=duchamp%27s+readymades&hl=&usg=__x2Lksz-03NEH_psMhKoQHm2v5JE=&sa=X&ei=LGVCTdi1FoP68Aaluq3WAQ&ved=0CEUQ9QEwBg
² "Duchamp's urinal tops art survey." BBC News (2004): Web. 28 Jan 2011. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4059997.stm>.
³“In advance of the broken arm.” Web. 28 Jan 2011. http://www.philamuseum.org/collections/permanent/51552.html
4”Comb.” Web. 28 Jan 2011. http://www.philamuseum.org/collections/permanent/51552.html
5”Trap.” Web. 28 Jan 2011. http://www.toutfait.com/issues/volume2/issue_5/articles/gerrard/images/03_Coatrack1964_big.jpg
