Duchamp's Fountain should be exhibited in the bathroom

Author: Intelligence_06

Posts

Total: 49
Topic's author
#1
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
Duchamp's "Fountain" is basically an urinal with words written on it. Using 'utilitarianism, we could find that this artwork, if valued relatively objectively, brings LESS value than the average urinal since it is no different than the average urinal, but you aren't allowed to urinate in it because you are in a museum's exhibition section and not its bathrooms.

The things that make something admirable is not about how you look at it, but how you use it. I see no reason why it wouldn't be used as an urinal, it is built for that purpose. The fact I can't use it makes me admire it less.

This is different with classical artwork, where you have no intended use other than to look at it for Mona Lisa and other sculptures.

Of course, it could be categorized as a "sculpture", but it is a sculpture that could be used as an urinal and peeing on it doesn't make it less artistic: Cleaning is required for every public restroom whatsoever! Even if there are morons who will just pee on the side and not the way you are expected to pee, even janitors could do the restoration works necessary to keep this piece artistic and useful.

The only problem is that this is a urinal. However, on that gender-neutral bathrooms exist, this would be something.

Oh, you can't use it? Great, is it an urinal anymore? It certainly could be used as one, just not here. No matter what, this artpiece could be given a useful purpose and yet it is locked behind glass bars. I don't like that. I want it to be placed in bathrooms, where everyone can not only see it, but use it.

Artpieces have been commercialized over the past century. Bugatti make art that are cars, and you wouldn't just not drive it because it is intended to be driven. The same. The fountain urinal is intended to be urinated on, and not to be locked behind glass. Unleash its full potentials.
Topic's author
#2
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
Change my mind.
#3
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
This is the perversity that is modern art. A man makes a urinal for use and it's into a bathroom and no more about it. Another man sits in his studio and has an idea that he'll make a urinal and that everyone will be all about him for it, they'll come for miles to see him. It's entirely stupid. I need know nothing more about the man and I dislike him. 

Along the way, art became a sick game that rich play with money. It's all currency now, and the perversity comes into it where a very rich man will gamble on a nothing because his wealth affords that. And so a man's disrespect becomes "art". 
#4
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Intelligence_06
Duchamp's "Fountain" is basically an urinal with words written on it. Using 'utilitarianism, we could find that this artwork, if valued relatively objectively, brings LESS value than the average urinal since it is no different than the average urinal, but you aren't allowed to urinate in it because you are in a museum's exhibition section and not its bathrooms.
But if you are applying utilitarian arguments to art, then you have missed the point of art entirely.  If you valued the Mona Lisa objectively it is rancid grease on old cloth stretched between rotting bits of wood.

The things that make something admirable is not about how you look at it, but how you use it. I see no reason why it wouldn't be used as an urinal, it is built for that purpose. The fact I can't use it makes me admire it less.
So Gal Gadot can't be beautiful until you fuck her.....that's your argument?

This is different with classical artwork, where you have no intended use other than to look at it for Mona Lisa and other sculptures.
Why?  Why is classical art held to a different standard?  Where's the cutoff point between classical and non-classical and what criteria are you using?

Of course, it could be categorized as a "sculpture", but it is a sculpture that could be used as an urinal and peeing on it doesn't make it less artistic:
Which, if we aren't segregating art, should also apply to the Mona Lisa.  You should try it.

Cleaning is required for every public restroom whatsoever! Even if there are morons who will just pee on the side and not the way you are expected to pee, even janitors could do the restoration works necessary to keep this piece artistic and useful.
If the artist decides ahead of time how he wants his audience to react and works to create the desired effect then he has failed as an artist and his work is not art, it is pornography.  Star Wars is art because Lucas was just rendering what was in his head, he didn't much care how it would be received.  Star Wars: The Force Awakens is pornography because it only cares how it is perceived and rather than expressing some new viewpoint about Lucas' galaxy only does what it calculates as best to be accepted as Star Wars-like and  make a lot of money.

Fountain is art because Duchamp was mocking his audience who admired realism over expression.  Even today the museum art that most captivates the children and other novices is the hyper-real stuff- sculptures that look lifelike, paintings that look like photos.  Duchamp is expressing his contempt for the slaves to realism and their lack of engagement with God via the artist. 

The only problem is that this is a urinal. However, on that gender-neutral bathrooms exist, this would be something.  Oh, you can't use it? Great, is it an urinal anymore? It certainly could be used as one, just not here. No matter what, this artpiece could be given a useful purpose and yet it is locked behind glass bars. I don't like that. I want it to be placed in bathrooms, where everyone can not only see it, but use it.
You don't like it because you assume you have all the information you need to render judgement by simply viewing it, without any consideration of context, format, irony, audience, artist, God, medium, critique, controversy, etc, etc, etc.  Why would you make that assumption?

Artpieces have been commercialized over the past century. Bugatti make art that are cars, and you wouldn't just not drive it because it is intended to be driven.
Really?  So you'd just leave a Bugatti parked in the street like any other car?  You'd take a Bugatti on daily traffic-jammed commutes like any other car?  (Also, I don't know enough about Bugattis to say whether or not I would consider them art.)

The same. The fountain urinal is intended to be urinated on, and not to be locked behind glass. Unleash its full potentials.  Change my mind.
Duchamp is having a laugh at your expense.  I don't think Duchamp would want to change your mind or want me or anybody else to change it.  You are his target.  Let's respect the artist's intention.


#5
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 3,439
4
5
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
5
10
-->
@oromagi
@Intelligence_06
Plato's forms?

It's 'not a urinal, it's something created with 'almost the shape and use of a urinal.
But it's purpose isn't to be used for the bodily functions, but to stimulate the mind by it's jarring nature?
#6
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
A poorly done sculpture of a urinal is art now. 
#7
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@oromagi
(Also, I don't know enough about Bugattis to say whether or not I would consider them art.)
Are you are suggesting there exist objective criteria for what can and cannot be considered art and you simply don't have enough information to determine whether a Bugatti fits that objective criteria?
#8
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Intelligence_06
Any relation to Ruiz Duchamp?
#9
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
(Also, I don't know enough about Bugattis to say whether or not I would consider them art.)
Are you are suggesting there exist objective criteria for what can and cannot be considered art and you simply don't have enough information to determine whether a Bugatti fits that objective criteria?
No.  If I was suggesting that I would have said " I don't know enough about Bugattis to say whether or not Bugattis are art."  
#10
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@oromagi
Right, there are certain criteria for what art is and you lack sufficient information on Bugatti's to say whether they meet that criteria. I am asking whether those criteria are objective or subjective.
#11
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
By specifying "my consideration" I indicated subjectivity, as in resulting from or pertaining to personal mindsets or experience, arising from perceptive mental conditions within the brain and not necessarily or directly from external stimuli.
#12
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@oromagi
What is wrong with the idea that the fountain matches your subjective definition of art but not other people's?
#13
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
-->@oromagi
What is wrong with the idea that the fountain matches your subjective definition of art but not other people's?
nothing
#14
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Intelligence_06
  Utilitarianism is the claim that the moral action is the one that brings about the most good. 

  Not really applicable to the utility of art.
#15
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 3,439
4
5
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
5
10
-->
@oromagi
@Sum1hugme
Well, I vaguely recall Plato disliking art, as he felt it 'wasn't useful to what he saw as an ideal society, in his book, The Republic.

Hitler, didn't like some modern art, as he thought it fostered degeneracy or something.
He even had some fellow hold an exhibition of the 'bad art, but canceled the exhibition, after it kept getting attention from viewers.

. . .

Regarding utility though, I'd imagine that we create art for a 'purpose usually.
Though it need not be so 'physical as the roof of the house.

Though I suppose pretty or beautiful things invoke reactions inside a person,
Depression or happiness 'is physical in a way, expressed in our actions and energy, our interest or quality in work.

Sad or disturbing art, can make us thoughtful of events that require our situation, or appreciative of what we have.

Or just the 'expression of art, in lifting our spirits in a comedy, or startling our nerves as in horror films.
#16
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,801
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
How much is Duchamp's Fountain worth? It has an estimate of $2,000,000 to $3,000,000. And people get upset that Hunter Biden got paid 1/2 million for one of his paintings.
#17
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Lemming
Well, I vaguely recall Plato disliking art, as he felt it 'wasn't useful to what he saw as an ideal society, in his book, The Republic.
Yes, Socrates actually argued against the utility of the book you read his argument in.

Hitler, didn't like some modern art, as he thought it fostered degeneracy or something.
Hitler was a nasty little idiot who blew up his country and got everybody who ever knew him killed.  Why would anybody on earth give a single shit what Hitler thinks about anything?

Here's a debate I lost on the subject.
#18
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 3,439
4
5
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
5
10
-->
@oromagi
Yes, Socrates actually argued against the utility of the book you read his argument in. - oromagi
Is philosophy always 'art, though?

Hitler was a nasty little idiot who blew up his country and got everybody who ever knew him killed.  Why would anybody on earth give a single shit what Hitler thinks about anything? - oromagi
To point out how much the people disagreed with his view.

Well, or to not discard some ideas, based on their source.

Though 'I mentioned him, because he's what popped into my mind, of people seeing a utility of art in society.
Likely 'other examples I could have used, I suppose.

But I always found it funny that people seemed to like the art he called degenerate, so I thought to mention it.
#19
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
Is philosophy always 'art, though?
There's an argument to be made but I was suggesting that Plato's creative narrative biography of Socrates is unquestionably an example of art that Socrates would have ruled out from his ideal city-state.   No Plato's Republic would be permitted in Plato's Republic.

#20
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 3,439
4
5
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
5
10
-->
@oromagi
Well, his ideal city-state (In the book), 'also included deliberately lying to the people.
Though maybe that could be excused, if one's view of reality, is that we never see what it 'truly is, but the narrative that we 'make of it.

So jah, maybe I wouldn't be surprised if The Republic wasn't allowed.
#21
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Lemming
Socrates was more concerned that his warrior citizens were happy  Well informed seldom means happy.
Topic's author
#22
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@oromagi
Do you think that an urinal won’t be considered art if it is being used in the bathroom?

The thing is: In my opinion, a Urinal is an artwork even if it is to be peed on. An artwork that is usable is better than an artwork that is unusable. So what?


#23
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 3,439
4
5
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
5
10
-->
@Intelligence_06
I suppose murals or graffiti, upon the walls of a building, are art on an item that's serving it's purpose.
Or when someone makes a fancy toilet, it can still be used 'as a toilet.
Topic's author
#24
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@FLRW
Idk why.

A urinal that is just like any other but can’t be properly used because it is disconnected to sewage systems… suddenly makes its price skyrocket.

Mona Lisa has put millions of dollars of worth into it. What about this one? Just bring something in your home. It doesn’t with millions of dollars.

It is still art, but I don’t think it is a million-dollar one.
#25
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,190
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Intelligence_06
Art is a business, for those that promote themselves as professional artists,  and those that promote professional artists.

Marketing is key....Selling the useless to the gullible.

Nonetheless a shrewd investor can make a lot of dosh by doing so....So not so useless for some.


And Excuse the pun, but reading up on  Duchamp and his  fountain I came to the conclusion that Duchamp was actually taking the piss out of the Art Establishment.

#26
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Intelligence_06
@oromagi
Do you think that an urinal won’t be considered art if it is being used in the bathroom?  The thing is: In my opinion, a Urinal is an artwork even if it is to be peed on. An artwork that is usable is better than an artwork that is unusable. So what?
I think placing Duchamp's Fountain in a bathroom is failing to understand the ironic juxtaposition of the installation.   It's like saying let's remake Caddyshack but this time set in a bowling alley- you've missed what made the thing famous in the first place.

Could some other urinal installed in a bathroom be art?  Sure.  I've seen very decorative urinals and urinals painted to look like gaping mouths that were quite disturbing.  But putting Duchamp's Fountain in a bathroom is missing the point, killing the joke, and disrespecting the artist's intention. 


#27
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,320
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
This is the biggest facts I’ve ever heard
Topic's author
#28
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@ILikePie5
Which ones do you mean? Mine, Oromagi's or who's opinion do you agree with?
#29
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,320
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Intelligence_06
Yours lol.

Dadaism is fake art imo
Topic's author
#30
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@ILikePie5
everything is art if people call them so. The thing is, the beauty of the urinal comes not only from how beautiful it looks, but also that you could use it.