Regarding Etant Donnes, what is your point exactly? I've seen it at the Philadelphia Museum of Art. Is it really the case that Duchamp never wanted it shown? Seems unlikely. Even if that were true, there's a difference between concealing all of your art from all audiences and working on one piece for many years that you may or may not have wanted to show. Duchamp had plenty of other artworks out there for us all to see and his place in the art world was secured regardless of Etant Donnes. What I make of it is that it is an astounding, moving, disturbing piece of work, regardless of Duchamp's motivations, integrity or talent. Maybe a better example would be the work of Henry Darger? I don't know too much about him, but he seems to me to be a more likely candidate to be making art for himself. Rob Quoting Maurice Rickard <maurice@mac.com>:
At 3:00 PM -0400 7/28/04, Olivier Borzeix wrote:
...and, less cinically, because unexposed art isn't art. An artist who's never gonna show, present or somehow expose anything because he doesn't want to is simply not an artist even if he's the truest, has the best integruty and talent in the world.
So what are we to make of Duchamp's _Etant Donnés_, then? --
Maurice Rickard http://mauricerickard.com/ | http://onezeromusic.com/
_______________________________________________ zorn-list mailing list zorn-list@mailman.xmission.com To UNSUBSCRIBE or Change Your Subscription Options, go to the webpage below http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/zorn-list
-- "Bones heal. Chicks dig scars. And the United States of America has the best doctor-to-daredevil ratio in the world." -Capt. Lance Murdoch