Duchamp's Fountain should not be "exhibited" at all. Change my mind if you will.

Author: Intelligence_06

Posts

Total: 11
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
Why do we need to exhibit something we can easily see everyday, especially since it can literally be seen, felt and used a few hundreds of feet away?(museums, especially ones that display "famous" works, like this, should have bathrooms).

This "fountain" is no different than the normal one you use in the bathroom, except for maybe a few signatures. If anything, it is WORSE at being an urinal due to it being an old model and new designers have came up with more ergonomic designs. Why do we have to appreciate this one thing we consider as art when we can see equivalent-artistic things, but more useful, in the bathroom? What more artistic value does this one bring when you can't even use it(you will get fined and get kicked by the guards if you attempt to pee in this one artwork)?

The fact is that most urinals we see in museums qualified enough to exhibit this artwork is as artistic, if not more artistic than Duchamp's fountain. If we are appreciating a certain fountain just because someone signed on it or someone touched on it, aren't we straying away from the message it is trying to convey?
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
Art galleries are for looks. You look at sculptures and look at paintings on the walls. That is their intended purpose. Fountains/urinals, cars, and buildings, these are not only for looks, but also for their purpose. Not being able to use them really subtracts the artistic value of it.

Of course, when using it can easily lead to breaking it, it should still be for looks majorly. Most people nowadays who go on the 1st Benz model would probably yank and crank until the shaft is broken and the car is in pieces, which definitely subtracts its artistic value. All things art galleries or whatever is exhibiting these artforms should aim to maximize artistic values. In this case, looking at paintings is already probably at its max value, and being able to pee in a fountain specifically made for peeing is also of more artistic value than, say, one enclosed in the glass box for looks, because you can touch and use it, which is better than not, and there is little likelihood someone will just barge in and chop the urinals with a sledgehammer. In that case, the fountain is industrially easy to reproduce and replace.


Topic's author
#3
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
The thing is: a taped banana is art, but it is "less art" than even a normal banana due to the effort you need to use the banana(eat it) is more than a normal banana. Seeing pretty things is a benefit. Having to do stuff in order to see it is a cost. The benefit doesn't change but the fact you have to peel the tape off from the wall is added cost, which makes the net benefit less than, say, eating a normal banana without tape. Unless you find a banana taped to a wall much more visually appealing than a normal store-bought banana, this has no business worth more than a regular banana.

Don't get me wrong. A normal banana is art. A taped banana should not cost $100,000 just because someone famous did it, at least in my opinion. If the banana actually is net this valuable, it should cost that much. If anything, saying this is worth $100,000 just because the beholder(taper?) said so is not at all the message conveyed by art of this caliber. You should have your own ideas of how much this worth, whether if you like it or not, and not follow the public idea regardless if they say it is good or bad. It is art, it has artistic value, it is a matter of more or less. A realism artist would consider dada art less than an abstract artist, probably. That doesn't mean either one is "true".
#4
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,303
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
Duck the urinal
Topic's author
#5
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@ILikePie5
Please elaborate?

Perhaps, dunk the urinal?
#6
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,303
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Intelligence_06
Meant to be the f word sorry
Topic's author
#7
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 172
Posts: 3,946
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@ILikePie5
I think using the urinal as a masturbation device is a terrible choice as the holes are small and you would either hurt yourself or get the urinal dysfunctional.

Though, masturbating or “f—king” and emptying semen to the urinal is somewhat plausible, in my opinion.
#8
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Intelligence_06
Why do we need to exhibit something we can easily see everyday, especially since it can literally be seen, felt and used a few hundreds of feet away?(museums, especially ones that display "famous" works, like this, should have bathrooms).

This "fountain" is no different than the normal one you use in the bathroom, except for maybe a few signatures. If anything, it is WORSE at being an urinal due to it being an old model and new designers have came up with more ergonomic designs. Why do we have to appreciate this one thing we consider as art when we can see equivalent-artistic things, but more useful, in the bathroom? What more artistic value does this one bring when you can't even use it(you will get fined and get kicked by the guards if you attempt to pee in this one artwork)?

The fact is that most urinals we see in museums qualified enough to exhibit this artwork is as artistic, if not more artistic than Duchamp's fountain. If we are appreciating a certain fountain just because someone signed on it or someone touched on it, aren't we straying away from the message it is trying to convey?
Any object can be displayed by any person or organization for any reason.
#9
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Any object can be displayed by any person or organization for any reason.
Should it though?
#10
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Any object can be displayed by any person or organization for any reason.
Should it though?
PLEASE PROTECT US

PLEASE PROTECT US FROM MEDICAL MISINFORMATION

PLEASE PROTECT US FROM FINANCIAL MISINFORMATION

PLEASE PROTECT US FROM RELIGIOUS MISINFORMATION

PLEASE PROTECT US FROM EMOTIONAL MISINFORMATION

PLEASE PROTECT US FROM SCIENTIFIC MISINFORMATION

PLEASE PROTECT US
#11
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11