If you are a copyright owner and believe that your copyrighted works have been used in a way that constitutes copyright infringement, here is our DMCA Notice.

« This Week in Sex: This Place is a Zoo | Main | H.P. Lovecraft: An Appreciation »

January 06, 2006



It was removed from the exhibit for repair.

Why don't they just replace it with another one?


Because it's almost impossible to find an exact copy; they stopped making this model years ago.


I'm not quite seeing the significance here, sir.


I think Duchamp would have appreciated the whole affair quite honestly.


It mentions he had previously "attacked" it by urinating in it. Didn't Eno once take a wizz in it at some posh art dinner/function?


Crazed septuagenarian attention-hogs of all lands: unite! There is nothing we cannot accomplish! Let us rise up and critique post-Benjaminian authenticity discourse.


YESSSS !! Let's destroy all the urinals of the UNIVERSE !!


Well, the idea of the readymade is that an artist doesn't need to create something--he can just select an already existing thing that meets his criteria for a valid sculpture. Duchamp didn't just pull stuff off the rack and exhibit it, he chose carefully and there was a mild scandal a few years ago when some conservators found that he'd actually made some modifications to a few of the readymades before exhibiting them. A lot of people thought he just used the objects as is and developed elaborate theories on that basis, so they were pissed.

I find this all pretty hilarious, but if you're interested, there's an astonishingly comprehensive article exhaustively reasearching every conceivable aspect of Duchamp's Fountain:


"Because it's almost impossible to find an exact copy"

Sweet Jesus, it IS a copy. That's the damn point, isn't it? It's a copy, first of all, since it's not the original object from the first notorious show. And, secondly, because there's like seven of the new (60's era) edition.

I sympathize with those annoyed by the destruction of these works though they are (and are, intended to be) essentially "fakes" or "copies"--thus not art-"works" at all. They have historical, not artistic, value. But I think Chrix is right--Duchamp would probably be amused. It is certainly in the spirit of the original--though the urinating stunt is more aesthetically perfect.


Result: he has to pay 214,000 euros (about 263,000 $) plus 3 months of prison with respite.

link here


The best mp3 archive! www.mp3page.org. Download Mp3 NOW!

The comments to this entry are closed.