Marcel Duchamp, Monte Carlo Bond Paris 1924
The Museum of Modern Art,
New York
photocollage on colored lithograph/letterpress,
mounted on flat cardboard holder
imitated, rectified readymade
31.5 x 19.5 cm
photocollage on colored lithograph/letterpress,
mounted on flat cardboard holder
imitated, rectified readymade
31.5 x 19.5 cm
A firm grasp of what Hegel really meant by the dissolution of art
would be a very strong interpretive tool in the contemporary art world.
Of course, the test case for Hegel’s true relevance to contemporary art is the
application of the Lectures on Aesthetics to Marcel Duchamp,
because Duchamp is by common consent the ürsprung of the
contemporary.[1] In addition, Duchamp’s own aesthetics-or
anti-aesthetics-intersects with Hegel’s in a way that reveals much about art’s
dissolution. Arguing strongly for the continuing relevance of the Lectures,
Hegel’s philosophy of art illuminates Duchamp’s anti-art, and Duchamp’s work in
turn illuminates Hegel’s aesthetics. Duchamp’s interest in Pyrrhonian
philosophy invites an investigation of skepticism as it appears in the Phenomenology
of Spirit and the Lectures on the History of Philosophy,
while the satirical aspects of Duchamp’s work recall Hegel’s treatment of Roman
comedy. Furthermore, Duchamp’s reading of Max Stirner’s The
Ego and its Own allows us to develop a Hegelian criticism of Duchamp’s
work from an ethical perspective, immediately recalling the philosopher’s
trenchant criticism of irony during the Romantic period.
[1]. For example, Kimball complains: “Almost everything
championed as innovative in contemporary art is essentially a tired repetition
of gestures inaugurated by the likes of Marcel Duchamp” (Kimball,
2008:27). The conservative position in
art writing, for lack of a better word, generally frowns on contemporary art as
lacking in aesthetic, moral, and spiritual value, but agrees with advocates of
the contemporary on the central importance of Duchamp; “the post-1945 artists
of Pop Art, Happenings, Op Art, Fluxus, Conceptual Art…all felt that Duchamp
belonged to them, that he was their ‘prototype.’” Rudolf
E. Kuenzli’s introduction to Marcel
Duchamp, Artist of the Century Eds. Kuenzli and Francis M. Naumann
(Massachusetts; MIT, 1991) p. 1 Therefore
Duchamp is blamed for contemporary artists who uncreatively follow in his
footsteps, while the importance of Duchamp in his context is entirely missed.
No comments:
Post a Comment