Marcel Duchamp, Fountain, 1917/1964, porcelain urinal, paint, San Francisco Museum of Modern Art. Speakers: Dr. Beth Harris and Dr. Steven Zucker. Created by Beth Harris and Steven Zucker.
We have all sorts of household objects and tools in museums, even art museums. Fast forward 5,000 years and people could put this in a museum and speculate about its use or give it artistic value. If a person from the past were to come to our museums and see the urns and things like that, they would probably laugh or shrug at our fascination with them. Just think of context.
yeah in a way but if i take a shit in a bowl and put it behind a glass and call it art, and some people like it, i wouldnt say that those people have a profound opinion of my "work of art" i would just say that they have some sort of mental disorder related to scatology
@@smarthistoryvideos So you're saying that nowhere throughout history someone had done somethng similar to this? I guaruntee there was a caveman that rubbed some pigment on a rock and called it art so what makes this any different?
Who doesn't want to start their week getting trolled by Duchamp? lol. Each time I've seen him so far: "This freakin' guy..." 🤣😭 He didn't even spell the name right! It's Mott, isn't it?! Didn't even close the "o"... I appreciate what he's getting at, though. That idea of, "Who are you to say what art is, much less that this can't be an example of it?" He's a rebel.
no but sherrie levine made a bronze version in 1996 called fountain (buddha). there's been tons of tributes and parodies of this piece but the 1917 duchamp version is the original (or at least if it was made by duchamp, there's a bit of controversy over that).
Could it be considered plagiarism? He didn't make the urinal, but through signing it he claimed it as his own. I guess it depends on how much effort needs to be involved to "transform" and object. I think the piece could be stronger if he tracked down the person that personally made the urinal and had them sign it. Then i would highlight the idea that any creation is art because credit would be given to the "real artist"
got to love that nearly 100 years later and people are still 'pissed off' by this. Duchamp wasn't making a statement as much as asking questions.
It's because we are 100 years later and art still looks like this garbage. lol
We have all sorts of household objects and tools in museums, even art museums. Fast forward 5,000 years and people could put this in a museum and speculate about its use or give it artistic value. If a person from the past were to come to our museums and see the urns and things like that, they would probably laugh or shrug at our fascination with them. Just think of context.
Art is alchemy, good POV
He was just want convey that whatever you think is a art is art
'beauty is in the eye of beholder'
yeah in a way but if i take a shit in a bowl and put it behind a glass and call it art, and some people like it, i wouldnt say that those people have a profound opinion of my "work of art" i would just say that they have some sort of mental disorder related to scatology
You guys really helped me !!
I have a used bedpan that I signed with a sharpie. ART!
Making a copy is fairly easy. You could also write out the words of a famous poem. It's the invention that is hard.
@@smarthistoryvideos So you're saying that nowhere throughout history someone had done somethng similar to this? I guaruntee there was a caveman that rubbed some pigment on a rock and called it art so what makes this any different?
@@user-iv5yk4nr4q That isn't what we said at all.
@@smarthistoryvideos LOL
When he signed it, it is art😛
Well someone else actually did design it, and it wasn’t him.
Great job :)
Who doesn't want to start their week getting trolled by Duchamp? lol.
Each time I've seen him so far: "This freakin' guy..." 🤣😭
He didn't even spell the name right! It's Mott, isn't it?! Didn't even close the "o"...
I appreciate what he's getting at, though. That idea of, "Who are you to say what art is, much less that this can't be an example of it?" He's a rebel.
The Urinal = Lowbrow.
Was this bronze first?
No
no but sherrie levine made a bronze version in 1996 called fountain (buddha). there's been tons of tributes and parodies of this piece but the 1917 duchamp version is the original (or at least if it was made by duchamp, there's a bit of controversy over that).
Could it be considered plagiarism? He didn't make the urinal, but through signing it he claimed it as his own. I guess it depends on how much effort needs to be involved to "transform" and object. I think the piece could be stronger if he tracked down the person that personally made the urinal and had them sign it. Then i would highlight the idea that any creation is art because credit would be given to the "real artist"
his art wasn't the urinal. his art was the concept of a upside down urinal being a fountain.
@@ErFuyl I guess that makes more sense. Too bad no one talks about it that way
Falta subtítulo en Español