Modern Art & Ideas Transforming Everyday Objects: An ...
Modern Art & Ideas Transforming Everyday Objects: An Essay Surashree Kulkarni Dadaism was an avantgarde movement which took its roots in the early 20th century as a protest against the bourgeois interests of the capitalist society [1]. Simply put, Dadaist artists claimed to liberate art from intellectual and traditional conformity. They sought to detach aesthetics and art in that, they believed that art is supposed to be beyond beautiful, it does not exist to merely please one aesthetically, but to draw forth an intense reaction, something that affects a person’s sensibilities. Marcel Duchamp coined the term antiart in 1913 when he created his readymades , a new concept that used ordinary manufactured objects; by simply repositioning, titling or signing it, the object became art. Duchamp believed that these readymades were more than ‘retinal art’ something that only appeals the mere eye. Here, I talk about three pieces that were part of the Dadaist movement, and are remarkably deep in their significance and the value they bring without being traditionally artistic. I was fortunate enough to see two of these pieces in person during a recent trip to the Museum of Modern Art (MoMa) in New York. FOUNTAIN, MARCEL DUCHAMP, 1917/1964 (replica) Porcelain.
This first piece is a porcelain urinal, signed “R. Mutt”, created by Marcel Duchamp in 1917. It was among his very first readymades, and was rejected by the Society of Independent Artists for an exhibition at The Grand Central Palace in New York, even though the exhibition rules
stated that anybody who paid an entry fee would be allowed to showcase their art. Marcel Duchamp, through this piece, makes us question the very meaning of art . What is art? What is considered good art? What is considered bad art? Who is allowed to be a judge of this? Shouldn’t art be something that is created by an artist? Part of the reason this piece is particularly fascinating to me is that it stands to question everything a person layman or art historian alike thinks about art. In it, Duchamp attempts to create a new concept, a new theme of artwork instead. He challenges the notion that art should be something created by the artist’s own hands, and instead aims to promote the thought that art should be about an artist’s idea the object used is but a medium. In a world that reveres beauty and hands down judgement on everything that is untraditional, abnormal, or nonconforming to the rules of society, this piece is wonderfully rebellious and elicits a strong first reaction either of disgust or dismissal. Duchamp’s Fountain forces a person to reevaluate his opinions of art, and sometimes, funnily enough, even doubt them. Either way, one can not possibly ignore this scandalous piece of work. Some tout it to be “the urinal that changed art history”. BOOK 4, LUCAS SAMARAS, 1962 Book with pins, table knife, scissors, razor blade, metal foil, piece of glass and plastic rod.
In 1960, Samaras began a series of Surrealist inspired* boxes filled with personal materials that he encrusted in needles, mirrors, shards of glass, and brightly colored beads. His Book 4 is a beautiful, multifaceted object. It includes eight fictional narratives written by the artist in the period 19591967, however, it is not a story book. Each page is a surprise containing pop–ups, pockets, interlocking layers, foldouts, and hidden pamphlets. [3] * a subset of the Dadaist movement that focused on artwork that brought forth the thoughts of the unconscious mind, rather than what the artist imagined, or looked at.
For me, Samaras’ Book 4 almost seems to say ‘Life is a book’: wonderful, dangerous and full of surprises, and yet one can’t seem to resist touching it, opening it and looking at the pages a thought that mimics man’s constant pursuit to understand what life is. By simply poking pins and needles through a book, Lucas Samaras manages to capture the viewer’s imagination with questions about the possible contents of the book How dangerous would it be to handle it? What secrets does it contain? ARTIST’S SHIT, PIERO MANZONI, 1961 Tin can, printed paper and excrement.
In May 1961, Piero Manzoni created ninety cans of Merda d'artista , Artist’s Shit. It came at a time when Manzoni was heavily experimenting with commoditization of his own body substances, such as marking eggs with his thumbprints, or selling balloons filled with his breath. In December 1961 Manzoni claimed: 'I should like all artists to sell their fingerprints, or else stage competitions to see who can draw the longest line or sell their shit in tins. The fingerprint is the only sign of the personality that can be accepted: if collectors want something intimate, really personal to the artist, there's the artist's own shit, that is really his.' [4] Manzoni’s inspiration for this work seems to have come from his own father, who worked in a tin factory, and one day told his son: “Your work is a piece of shit”. This work came at a time when art connoisseurs cared more about who made a piece of art, rather than the artwork itself. Manzoni’s Artist’s Shit was his way of emphasising the consumer culture in the art world then: a work of art made by an already famous artist was likely to be appreciated more, deemed to be more expensive and was simply called better art. Artist’s Shit is significant even today, as it seems to have implications beyond the art industry: a materialistic world that lusts after designer goods and that worships even the shit of the likes of the Kardashians and alike. Adding to the multilayered irony this extremely intelligent piece of work seems to present is the fact that a tin was sold for €124,000 at Sotheby’s in 2007. (Another was sold for £97,250 in 2008, and yet another for £182,500 at Christie’s in 2015.) Here are a few other Dadaistinspired artworks I love: L.H.O.O.Q, MARCEL DUCHAMP, 1919 Coloured reproduction.
OBJECT, MERET OPPENHEIM, 1936 Fur covered cup, saucer, spoon.
This first piece is a porcelain urinal, signed “R. Mutt”, created by Marcel Duchamp in 1917. It was among his very first readymades, and was rejected by the Society of Independent Artists for an exhibition at The Grand Central Palace in New York, even though the exhibition rules
stated that anybody who paid an entry fee would be allowed to showcase their art. Marcel Duchamp, through this piece, makes us question the very meaning of art . What is art? What is considered good art? What is considered bad art? Who is allowed to be a judge of this? Shouldn’t art be something that is created by an artist? Part of the reason this piece is particularly fascinating to me is that it stands to question everything a person layman or art historian alike thinks about art. In it, Duchamp attempts to create a new concept, a new theme of artwork instead. He challenges the notion that art should be something created by the artist’s own hands, and instead aims to promote the thought that art should be about an artist’s idea the object used is but a medium. In a world that reveres beauty and hands down judgement on everything that is untraditional, abnormal, or nonconforming to the rules of society, this piece is wonderfully rebellious and elicits a strong first reaction either of disgust or dismissal. Duchamp’s Fountain forces a person to reevaluate his opinions of art, and sometimes, funnily enough, even doubt them. Either way, one can not possibly ignore this scandalous piece of work. Some tout it to be “the urinal that changed art history”. BOOK 4, LUCAS SAMARAS, 1962 Book with pins, table knife, scissors, razor blade, metal foil, piece of glass and plastic rod.
In 1960, Samaras began a series of Surrealist inspired* boxes filled with personal materials that he encrusted in needles, mirrors, shards of glass, and brightly colored beads. His Book 4 is a beautiful, multifaceted object. It includes eight fictional narratives written by the artist in the period 19591967, however, it is not a story book. Each page is a surprise containing pop–ups, pockets, interlocking layers, foldouts, and hidden pamphlets. [3] * a subset of the Dadaist movement that focused on artwork that brought forth the thoughts of the unconscious mind, rather than what the artist imagined, or looked at.
For me, Samaras’ Book 4 almost seems to say ‘Life is a book’: wonderful, dangerous and full of surprises, and yet one can’t seem to resist touching it, opening it and looking at the pages a thought that mimics man’s constant pursuit to understand what life is. By simply poking pins and needles through a book, Lucas Samaras manages to capture the viewer’s imagination with questions about the possible contents of the book How dangerous would it be to handle it? What secrets does it contain? ARTIST’S SHIT, PIERO MANZONI, 1961 Tin can, printed paper and excrement.
In May 1961, Piero Manzoni created ninety cans of Merda d'artista , Artist’s Shit. It came at a time when Manzoni was heavily experimenting with commoditization of his own body substances, such as marking eggs with his thumbprints, or selling balloons filled with his breath. In December 1961 Manzoni claimed: 'I should like all artists to sell their fingerprints, or else stage competitions to see who can draw the longest line or sell their shit in tins. The fingerprint is the only sign of the personality that can be accepted: if collectors want something intimate, really personal to the artist, there's the artist's own shit, that is really his.' [4] Manzoni’s inspiration for this work seems to have come from his own father, who worked in a tin factory, and one day told his son: “Your work is a piece of shit”. This work came at a time when art connoisseurs cared more about who made a piece of art, rather than the artwork itself. Manzoni’s Artist’s Shit was his way of emphasising the consumer culture in the art world then: a work of art made by an already famous artist was likely to be appreciated more, deemed to be more expensive and was simply called better art. Artist’s Shit is significant even today, as it seems to have implications beyond the art industry: a materialistic world that lusts after designer goods and that worships even the shit of the likes of the Kardashians and alike. Adding to the multilayered irony this extremely intelligent piece of work seems to present is the fact that a tin was sold for €124,000 at Sotheby’s in 2007. (Another was sold for £97,250 in 2008, and yet another for £182,500 at Christie’s in 2015.) Here are a few other Dadaistinspired artworks I love: L.H.O.O.Q, MARCEL DUCHAMP, 1919 Coloured reproduction.
OBJECT, MERET OPPENHEIM, 1936 Fur covered cup, saucer, spoon.
