Letty, I just found the name in an old thread, I didn't google a picture of it.
Here 'tis -
http://artchive.com/artchive/B/balla/dogleash.jpg.html
Osso that painting looks exactly like a study of my little French poodle, Henri! They must be related!
That's a great quote Letty....there's lot of
art I appreciate but don't like!!!
I love Duchamp. One of the things I like about him is his attitude. Here is a great website about him:
http://www.understandingduchamp.com/
Thanks, jp. Well, my my. Duchamp was a sculpture. I didn't realize that when I remarked about NDAS. Hmmmm. a sense of humor does follow my original line of thinking.
Osso, that doggie and his little legs running as fast as he could and going nowhere..I liked that one.
What did you think about Duchamp's sculptures/readymades? They caused quite a controversy when he first presented them as art.
jp, I got bumped while the site was downloading and it got stuck on 45%. I'll try again in a bit, though.
Like or dislike Duchamp, he has had more influence on modern painting than Picasso. Conceptual art, pop art, op art among the few genres he stimulated. "The Bride Stripped Bare By Her Bachelors" (Large Glass) is one of the major works in 20th Century art. He was as much an innovator and inventor as he was an artist. I love the wry visual pun of the urinal hung on the wall as if it were a drinking fountain. The understanding Duchamp site is good but only seeing the actual work in museums and not just reproductions is the only way to appreciate his art.
You're absolutely right, Mr. Wizard. I realize that one cannot appreciate reproductions. How did I miss the fact that you operated an art gallery? I just get used to seeing you in the film category, I guess.
Amazing!
I've had three art galleries in my lifetime, one in Laguna Beach devoted to avant garde art in the late 60's, early 70's. I am semi-retired now only doing some art and lighting consultation and design. I'm now back to painting. Which reminds me to check out and get back to the easel!
The reproductions of "Nude Descending the Staircase" that are online are especially bad. Paintings often depend on their scale but when the painting was unveiled at the Armory Show, it was the shock of the new. One art critic called it "an explosion in a shingle factory." That Duchamp could morph into a futurist painter and then go on to produce his conceptual works is what put him high up in art history. It was the time he produced these revolutionary works. From then on, he was emulated and immitated -- the sincerest form of flattery. If you really want to pick on the banal, try sitting in front of a Thomas Kinkade painting for one hour. Airsick bags provided.
thanks for finding the Balla painting
yes, that's the one i meant,
I read a fascinating book by an opthalmologist called the World through damaged vision or was it sight? (or something like that) where he discussed the eyesight problems that could have led to the distorted images by some artists (El Greco for one) - he wasn't claiming to be correct, merely saying it could be a cause for some distortions. I'll find the book and give the correct details and author.
I agree that Duchamp was more influential for the history of art, for its intellectual trajectory, than Picasso. But Picasso was, nevertheless, the far greater artist. Duchamp was an idea man, a clever individual, but, as far as I'm concerned not a great artist. His urinal idea is cute, no doubt. But there is nothing artistic about it, IF aesthetic values are essential to a definition of art.
Picasso painted many great masterpieces but his work as a whole represents a lot of mediocre copying of himself. Like the little girl in the nursery rhyme -- when he was good he was very, very good but when he was bad he was horrid.
The urinal was not done as a serious scuplture, of course. It was the abrupt changing of a visual semantic context that was shocking and sent the whole idea of what is art and what is not art reeling.
We're obviously still reeling from it.
The only painting that I have REALLY seen by Picasso was The Tragedy. I felt that one.
"The Tragedy" is one of the masterpieces. The second rate Picasso is by-and-large in privage hands. After 1942 and the "Mediterranean Suite" of prints, Picasso even admittedly began doing nothing buy copying himself. That's not to say he didn't produce some second-rate blue period paintings and red period paintings. Some of those look like banal decorative painting which rapidly became dated.
Illuminating comments, as usual LW. I was listening to a novelist being interviewed the other night. She said that after a certain age, novelists tend to repeat themselves in their work. I assume this also applies to Picasso.
Points well taken. Yes, Picasso copied himself; I wish I could (just for the thrill of it).
Anyway, I am not reeling from either Duchamp's challenge (the urinal) or Warhol's Brillo Box challenge (as interpreted by Arthur Danto). It's the intellectual art historians and critics who are reeling. But I consider art to be, at its core, beyond our intellectual endeavors. Art involves our entire brain, not just its cerebral cortex. Even after the "End of Art" people will continue to paint, and the more we ignore the fabrications of intellectuals, the more fulfilled we will be and the more likely we will be to explore and discover new forms and possibilities. We mustn't be constrained by history which is, after all, intellectual reconstruction, or construction. Who knows, Picasso might have made some profound and subtle changes and discoveries while copying himself?
Just a thought.
Well, JL. I am in your corner. I do recall a critic once observing about Warhol: "He didn't have any talent, so he changed the rules."
I remember telling a friend that the best legacy that we can leave those we love are our own creations, no matter how deficient they are.
The subject of this thread amuses me. It came from a limerick.
Often, critics are simply frustrated performers/writers/painters.
Rambled enough, I guess.
Nobody says: "We mustn't be constrained by history which is, after all, intellectual reconstruction, or construction."
This I love!
Naw, I don't think Picasso was making any subtle changes -- he admitted he was copying himself. Of course, Duchamp has imitators today, Jeff Koons being just one of them. However, one can only do that twisting of our visual perception once, maybe twice. After that, it gets into the realm of ad nauseum.
Stravinsky because of his constant originality did play critic and he was right -- he stated that Vivaldi had composed the same concerton over 2,000 times. I still love anything Vivaldi composed with mandolin and other diverse instrumentation.
I love a lot of Picasso imagery and am intellectually in tune with Duchamp's innovative view of the world. I think because of the constant imitation in conceptual art especially, Duchamp will seem dated.
I must smile a little. I once thought that Saint-Saens, was pronounced literally. Ah, but I got a real lecture and a laugh from our choir director.
Sa san, Letty. Back to Camille and Moulin Rouge.
