Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by lucia mesquita bleasby on April 5, 2012 at 21:50

Duchamp

Marcel Duchamp . Bicycle Wheel, 1910. By the 1960's art took a new direction. But none of these new ideas and concepts have emerged were it not for the avant-garde and artistic movements that have happened before, such as Dadaism, and other movements that made the arts themselves in fields very broad and open to all media and to produce vehicles , create and think about art. Transforming it into an art of ideas and concepts."And then we have that artistic movement of one man, Marcel Duchamp - for me, a truly modern movement because it implies that each artist can do what you should do - a movement for each person and open to all. "Willem de Kooning, statement made at a symposium held at the Museum of Modern Art in New York, February 5, 1951.Citado the book Concepts of Modern Art, Nikos Stangos (organizer), Jorge Zahar Editor. These ideas and changes would not have happened if not for him, Marcel Duchamp, the great revolutionary arts of all time. As stated on the book, Concepts of Modern Art, already in 1917 the young artist who claimed he was "more interested in ideas than in the final product." Marcel Duchamp . Creation of dust (Photography), 1920s. Duchamp who has had several artistic movements such as Fauvism, Impressionism, Expressionism, Cubism, Dadaism, with paintings and sculptures that do not have earned him much recognition. Duchamp decided to leave Europe and go to New York. At first the presentation of his picture - "Nude Descending a Staircase" - was not well accepted, but then, within the "Armory Show" exhibition that started the modern art in the U.S. in 1912, the same picture was very receptive. Marcel Duchamp . The Large Glass, 1926.Duchamp's departure from Europe helped in developing their work, as Europe was still very attached to traditions and scholarship that somehow prevented its development.Duchamp is remembered as the great revolutionary of the arts worldwide. Well, after Leonardo Da Vinci, he was the artist who most radically transformed the way of making art. And then comes another revolutionary, he is the great re-inventor of modern and contemporary art. Marcel Ducamp . NU Descending a Staircase, 1912. One of his best known works in painting - Nude Descending a Staircase - presents a picture that is geometrized all deconstructed. It these forms repeatedly placed side by side, giving a sense of motion. Because of this sense of movement this work had much resemblance to the futuristic work. But as Duchamp himself said in the book Theories of Modern Art, this work had nothing to do with the Futurists, because when Duchamp was doing Nu futurists were already exhibiting their work. He was more interested in the decomposition of the Cubist form than the movement of the Futurists. Marcel Duchamp . With my tongue in my cheek (photo) 1920s. In Dadaism is that Duchamp began to show in advance of his time because he said he began to see more inside than the outside. Was this internalization that he believed that an artist could use anything as art. Like the Dadaists preached the negation of art Duchamp felt at home because his intention was to escape the physical aspect of painting. He was interested in ideas and not specifically on visual works. For Duchamp Dada was a release form, as given, as they called his followers tried to show the various ways of making art that was not connected with the existing work, painting and sculpture. They wanted to show that the art could also use photographs, collages, performances and even the body itself. Lulled by the Dadaists Duchamp found a peak creating their ready-mades, which were common objects like bottle holders, bicycle wheels and even a urinal, which so far is one of his most famous ready-mades. All these objects were presented as objects of art. Duchamp's ready-mades had endowed with values. But we know that was not assigned any value objects that composed it. Except for that function that had been built. Marcel Duchamp . The dryer cylinders, 1914 The most striking when Duchamp was an art contest promoted in the U.S. he tried to put a urinal on display, obviously the work was not accepted even making it part of the judging committee. But Duchamp was smart! Remanded the urinal with the title "Fountain" and signed with the name "R. Mutt. " Unaware that the source was Duchamp, accepted it for exposure, although it has not won any awards. His ready-made whipped all the judges and participants. When Duchamp signed a urinal, he showed that the object had no artistic value until that moment, but which have now passed, after the judgment made by a subject. Some see the urinal female forms, where the man to do his throws urine on the female form. It seemed a sexist thought, but certainly that was not his intention to Duchamp. His intention was to break down barriers, breaking paradigms, change the direction of the arts. And it did! Duchamp reinvented the way of making art, being an artist, the art of thinking. His thought until now gaining followers.

Permalink Reply by lucia mesquita bleasby on April 5, 2012 at 22:13

The crisis of art
 
            The art world can be viewed as a universe in which the arts produce, sell it and consume it as a triad of complex relationships.Some data in these links are very curious, for example, the fact is not always the person who has money to buy have a properly trained to discern, for example, between quality work and one that just repeats foreign fashions.
             The U.S. are replaced then a position of world hegemony and the production of an art "autonomous" in the sense not to praise the productions of the European past, living with action painting and pop art as if, somehow, the landmarks Initial art.
            While the former advocates the power of gesture, the second turns to the appropriation of pop culture as a means of expression.The so-called conceptual art, soon after, with its root would be the end of metalinguistic reasoning, which makes art just to reflect on what it is, a process that gradually leads to a great void.
           considers that the United States, with its hegemony in the artistic world of post-war, would have led to three interconnected and equally serious problem: the elimination of the idea of art as something sublime, understanding it as the mere existence of an object, without discussion its purpose, and praise the use of any technique, provided that allows the art to enter the world of mass communication.
            The crisis of art would then be linked to a devaluation of their own thinking about what art means and, above all, the links established in an ever deeper between the image, the mass culture and industrial society. The value that is replaced is not the art object in itself, but the financial value that each object has.
            A concrete expression of this can be found in the major collectors around the world. By showing their works, do not refer to them as works of art, analyzing their intrinsic elements such as balance, color or light. They treat it as "I have a Portinari, a Rembrandt."
            In this view, the signature is more important than the frame.The art market, following this logic, the signature value more than the work itself. No matter what is done, but who signs. This appreciation of the artist as producer of the work, under a kind of mystical aureole and even mystical, goes back, as you can remember to own romanticism, in which, often, the creator is more important than their artistic creation.
           it appears then that the artists put themselves into two groups: the "entered into the system and the technological-industrial artists who do not renounce the role of intellectuals" As the Russian socialist realism put their art in the service of political propaganda, the artists of the first group would be directed only to have commercial success. Any research would be for profit - and, of course, that wealth leads to power.
            The aesthetic research was directed, thereby to generate fine products, ie easily consumable, giving the artist name and visible on the market. Done that name, quality is secondary, because the consumer would be getting the signature and not the image you see in the table (this indeed is the least important).
            The conclusion of this reasoning is that the famous "crisis of art" would have artists in one of his main culprits. From the moment we leave aside individual research on behalf of the market, would sacrifice his art and "sell" as artists. If they did success as opposed to the market, it would only while they had a certain "permit" system to remain active and productive.
           marked by a deep romanticism in relation to the artist, plays the creator, to be authentic, in a romantic marginality, ie it can only have quality if you are part of the system, which means diving in endless suffering.
            The consequence of thought is a vicious circle for the artist who wishes to remain virtuous, that is, he says, there are two paths: the integration of the system and maintenance of the role of intellectual. Those who choose the second, do not wish to enter, to marginalize and, consequently, deviate increasingly from the system who wish to fight.
            What remains is very little. Far from the system, the artist who preserves his intellectual capacity hard time selling your whom? And when selling, would not be creating their own system, which would also need to fight to maintain aesthetic consistency?There's no escape this thought, the result of a vision, in my view, mistaken, that the artist needs to be marginal to capitalism for quality.
            What makes the artist is his best painting, sculpture, engraving or expertise and thought of making a work of art, regardless of the technique used. Entering the market depends on numerous factors - many unrelated to the artist himself. And, if you enter in the market, with sales success and the public did not seem a sin or a "sale" to the system,
            Being successful sales and public is not sin, but much of the historiography and art critic insists that argument, finding that if you enter the market is synonymous with a kind of selling the very soul of capitalism. Such a view limits the artist's own creative capacity that they feel needs to be marginal to the system, to get critical acclaim.
            Worse still believes that entering the market is practically an evil in itself, almost a show of mediocrity when you think the reverse is more logical thinking: unable to insert a work of quality in a market marked by sameness is what constitutes the real challenge,helping to raise the common taste.
In doing so, the artist will not be lowering his work, but striving to raise the standard of taste in the market. Anxious for news - something's own way of acting and thinking of capitalism - the system opens loopholes. Knowing it takes is a proof of talent and survival in the crowded global markets

Permalink Reply by lucia mesquita bleasby on April 5, 2012 at 22:32

It is not the case for rejecting the production of Duchamp, as suggested by the purist wing of the critics, so solemnly ignored by artists who could not be more innocuous. Art criticism can only become a real dialogue instead of confrontation or condescension, if you can isolate the causes of anemia. It is necessary to suspect, first, not Duchamp, but its misinterpretation. When the French began to sign common objects and call them readymades, was launching a challenge, putting a question, which was respected as such could never have become the paradigm that is now ridiculous.There is nothing easier than to imitate Duchamp, especially in a context extremely receptive to both. If Duchamp's gesture was at least a novelty and fit with the personality of its creator, those of his successors hardly add anything relevant. Source of Duchamp was not meant to be a model to imitate, as a readymade little interest to another formal variations, only ideas. Ideas, even the best tend to stand out of things to come without them, which makes it an agony to note the redundancy of most works of conceptual art. Not an experience of the most frequent finding in them a very new concept, let alone presented in a more exciting that in a good book of philosophy. "Art is whatever an artist calls art"
Even today it makes fun of Miró's canvases or Malevich, a plethora of suggestions that any child could do the same. This is far from ring true for a well-trained eye, however, in the case of "duchampianismo" creeping over, the joke takes consistency.Anyone can cut a piece of reality here and say I found this interesting. Suffice it to have a ready-made, but we are already doing this all the time. Duchamp's famous urinal only vibrates as a work of art for those who consent. All art is for those who accept it shut its daily functions and reconnect it with a story that begins in ancient Greece. On the other hand, even the most intense Monet painting can no longer be seen as art by someone who can only relate it to the market logic. There are few who unlearned look at your water lilies as a gesture of overcoming, as a major milestone not only for individuals but for humans as a species. They prefer to think that in a modern masterpiece there is nothing more than its price in the auctions, or the way the frame leans against the wall, or a combination of banal materials and techniques. This was precisely the question that Duchamp and Dadaism forced us to do, and no one deigns to answer, just repeat the question.
      Since the art arose long after the appearance of man, it can not be considered an intrinsic need and are therefore likely to disappear. This discussion can arise sometimes extremely explicit, sometimes a little diluted, however, make clear Duchamp as a paradigm, which is what has been done, involves considering whether art should or should not perish. . The true poetry was in life, but is blaming the production of works of art for making us forget that. We admit that this utopia, born with the anti-art, and that influences most of the contemporary production, has its romantic side, a so anarchic as opposed to something that can be understood as conditioning (the art "stuck" in the painting or sculpture). see the counterculture, the May 68, the raves open, Mardi Gras, poetic terrorism, all the creativity of anonymous activists, etc. - but the artists, even when they declare themselves anti-artists or something similar, remain one step behind the revolutionary leap that defend with dogged rhetoric. After many experiments, it becomes hypocrisy to ignore something that seems irrefutable: the promise of anti-art of breaking down the boundaries between creative space and space of life just is not fulfilled because there was no interest to do so. Those that most closely relate to the death of art are those who claim more obstinately sharp separation between the space of life and art. By simply pouring a piece of reality - are sticks, pairs of shoes, soap box, vacuum powder, a stuffed pig, a dog sick or what else they intend - in an exhibition space, reinforce the need of the art circuit of a body authorized to say: This is not a common object, this is art.

Permalink Reply by lucia mesquita bleasby on April 5, 2012 at 22:38

obras de Duchamp – apesar de ser avessa a ele porque teve uma briga com Dalí -, Magritte, Klint, Picasso, Andy Warhol e Lichestein. 

Permalink Reply by lucia mesquita bleasby on April 5, 2012 at 23:00

Transversality of the Design for Reuse

" In nature nothing is created, nothing is lost, everything is transformed " 
Antoine Laurent Lavoisier (1743 - 1794)

 

The famous words of Lavoisier "In nature nothing is created, nothing is lost, everything is transformed" was used as the basic idea for the construction of this article. Thus, we make a theoretical analysis of the application of the concept of reuse and left the analysis culminating in the artistic and architectural design.We rely on the reuse, seen and felt by different sensitivities, but the unifying point is reusing a pre-existence that can be re-used. Demonstrating that the design can be unifying discipline projectual these principles and attitudes. Within the concept of reuse can make an eclectic approach in several areas in order to contextualize the various applications.

 

We begin by addressing the concept of garbage (solid useless) transformed into a work of art where the culture of the twentieth century has been involved with materials recovered, reused, scraps, fragments and disposable, for some, no use or meaning, and others are considered " raw materials "for their invaluable artistic creations. Picasso, Tatlin and Marinetti, Mimmo Rotella, Louise Nevelson, Marcel Duchamp, Kurt Schwitters and Chirstian Boltanski are some of the artists interested in this type of material considered "junk" 

 

Even the avant-garde artists of the early twentieth century used "junk" in his works. Futurism, Cubism and Dadaism were movements that stood out in this context of art, only later considered as such. The intention of these artists was clear that using, scratch paper, rope, twine, trash, tickets ship and train, that is, material that was considered of low value, it was possible to make artistic creations in the same way, as traditional materials have been used...

 

Between 1960 and 1970 the use of "junk" has expanded to almost all the artwork as a form of denunciation of excessive consumerism and social critique of these times, considering the theories of the Fluxus group, visiva Poetry, Pop Art and Nouveau Realism In However, the years 1980 and 1990 were extremely poetic exploration.

                                  

                                              

From an artistic standpoint, we somehow reinterpret the concept of reuse from the perspective of Duchamp's ready-made: pieces  Duchamp pieces removed from their original context and insert them in the context of diffusion of art, deeply questioning the implicit value of modern art.The various forms of interpretation of parts, existing in a particular function, they require a complex process, but clear and objective - to try to understand the visitor as if you want the object to be understood. Dogmatism forefront caused by Duchamp did deviate out of the way that art is meant simply facing the visual. Duchamp denied all the principles that prevailed in the artistic expression of the moment, using the principle of art for art, basing himself on two strategies: the intimate link between linguistic and visual elements and ready-made". The ready-made were seen as a synonym for anti-art that has stressed the process of artistic creation, differing from all hitherto. Duchamp gave new meanings to objects that played a particular role everyday, belonging to a new definition of meaning, opening and expanding the field of what could be considered art and its definition.

 

 [Marcel Duchamp, image taken from Web Site: picasaweb.google.com / fotosaula / # Dadaism, access date 24 March 2010].

 

 

Air de Paris, 1916. Reay-made: glass bulb, diameter 20.5 cm, height 13.3 cm. [Marcel Duchamp, image taken from Web Site: picasaweb.google.com / fotosaula / # Dadaism, 

 

                              

 

                          

 

 

                      

 

Permalink Reply by lucia mesquita bleasby on April 6, 2012 at 0:27

How should a toilet urinal artwork?

Say what is art is difficult thing. Several people have studied this issue trying to define this concept. But if we ask someone who has minimal contact with the culture she'll identify works of art and artists that marked the history of mankind.

 The answer to the question "The q ue is art? "has been improved in various ways over time, there are controversies to answer this question.

 "Art Matters" the emergence of the modern artist who is against the proposed concept of art in the Middle Ages : "... At this stage the artistic production developed in the manner that the guilds responsible for all production Handmade " . That is, something to be considered art was judged based on criteria precious craftsmen who perfectly mastered the necessary techniques.

Today, professionals who discuss art have criteria less precious in his judgments, criteria that increasingly involve the idea embodied in the work of art than know-how, giving rise to the modern artist.

It was the Renaissance that artists began to be independent of craft guilds and craft houses. The artist was gaining independence and importance in society and his work left to be confused with the craftsman, whose production obeys technical steps. Instead, the artist was encouraged to create innovative, individual expression and production of original works, able not only to distinguish them, but to surprise the clientele of the art market.

This occurs notably in Modernism, in which the rupture occurs in all the materiality dictated by medieval art, going to give more importance to the proposed idea of artistic creation. Example of such innovation is the emergence of twentieth century art movements (expressionism, fauvi smo, cubism).

For this reason the question posed in the title of this post ("How should a urinal bowl work of art?") Was answered by Duchamp through the creation of the Source, Sues for a ready-mades (everyday objects that the artist transformed into works of art to sign them and give them names, proposing them for consideration).

Duchamp was an artist who through his work questioned what art work and proposed a new method to be executed, under the concept of ideas, thus expanding the concept of contemporary art. The object was a work of art was meant to be the subject of contemplation, admiration, he should lead a discussion, and this reflection was the goal and the work of Duchamp. This theoretical background has influenced the generations that followed and were fundamental to art history that followed. Movements such as Dadaism, Surrealism and Abstract Expressionism were very influenced by this artist.

This can be noted that the concept of art, making art and artist have taken completely different directions proposed by the Middle Ages. This similarity shows the development of artistic consciousness and its especividade. It also demonstrates that art has become increasingly the eyes of society an activity of the mind, as do manual gave way to invention and idea.

, "The Age of Extremes" , he says exactly the innovations that occurred in the twentieth century and breaks throughout the term of art: painting, literature, music, film, media (radio), and later television. Shows how access to these art forms contributed to the formation of a new viewing public.

 "Marcel Duchamp or the Castle of Purity ":" ... Picasso became visible in our century, Duchamp showed us that all the arts, without excluding the eye, spring and end in an invisible zone. The lucidity of instinct opposed the instinct for clarity: the invisible is not dark or mysterious, but transparent. "

Duchamp, in interviews, said he wanted to invent or find their own way, rather than being a mere interpreter of a theory, and succeeded.

Permalink Reply by lucia mesquita bleasby on April 13, 2012 at 5:43

Duchamp Chess X
 
                  "Know that chess is my drug,"

Because of my close contact with artists and chess players, I realized that not all artists are chess players, but all chess players are artists.
- Marcel Duchamp in 1952.

Marcel Duchamp was, before anything, a chess player - As a strategist who analyzes positions, studying the functioning of systems, prolonged silences and sort of escape to faraway places, as the months he spent in Munich in 1912, while vanguards boiled in France or even the trip he took to Buenos Aires, at the end of the decade of ten. As a tactical strike to make the game unstable, sacrificing their own parts to open the game - the story - thereby destroying the dominant concepts, it sends its Source Duchamp with the signature of R. Mutt for the Arensberg Salon in New York, in 1917, creating a shock and general suggesting a revision in the concept of art.
The relationship between Duchamp and chess are certainly very curious. First, we must start from the idea that, before being an artist, Duchamp was a player - "My ambition is to be a professional chess player," said the artist, at some point in their life. Duchamp spent much more time dedicated to the game of life than anything else - including art. Especially in the period between the late twenties and early thirties,
Duchamp, who came to stay five hours solving problems of location, also translated books and even wrote about chess - the book that today has become a rare work Duchamp. . . It also says that the death of Duchamp in Paris, was first reported by the chess column newspaper Le Figaro. one of the women of Duchamp once, in order to claim spousal attention, rose early and glued all the pieces of his game on the board ...
Duchamp was an obsessive player, in many moments of seclusion, played by correspondence with strangers ... - "I feel I'm ready to make me one of those maniacs who do nothing but to play chess. All around me takes the form of horse or queen, and my exterior is only of interest to me if their transformations lead to winning or losing positions!.'' ...
Marcel Duchamp was, above all, a chess player - and this idea in this sense also goes through his entire career as an artist. In his works still quite early, the game appears as a representation of a match between his two brothers under The Game of Chess (1910), a painting still conventional, while most avant-garde experimentation in the context Portrait of Chess Players (1911), where , instead of painting his brothers playing, Duchamp painted two men "thinking" chess, since there is no longer possible to recognize figurative - the intensity of thought that pervades the painting erases any possibility of representation, and also withinThe king and queen surrounded by swift nudes (1912), picture post-Nude Descending a Staircase (1912), where it is possible to view a step in the suspension of the traditions of painting, through the incorporation of a written non-sense in the titles and of his own pictorial language, when Duchamp was already thinking about a semi-abstraction that could express the movement.
A less direct manner, works as The Bride Stripped Bare by her Bachelors even [The Large Glass], Etant donnés and even the character Rrose Sélavy often are thought of, among other things, like large chess metaphors - all suggesting a building game through ladies, most versatile and powerful part of the game, and pedestrians, celibate. It is also well known and symbolic "performance" of Duchamp in 1963, when he plays chess with a naked young woman, Eve Babitz, with his work The Large Glass in the background - performance that can point not only for their own performance, conducted by an older man, Duchamp, and a young and very beautiful naked woman, Eve, but also as a possible game of the mirror with the very large glass.
The XEQUE
                                    
Duchamp, as we know, was responsible for the deconstruction of the concept of art - that is, by exposing the functioning of a radical system: the composition of its mechanisms of values and powers.
In chess, other than the card game, there is no cheating, but brilliant moves: those who make the game unstable and open - hence the term retard, delay: the undecidable. Duchamp, there is no definition, but a voltage drop which extends, investment concepts, splits and cracks, since the artist subverted the rules by acting from them, realizing the possible holes .. could make bids from enemies at the most propitious. First, as a strategist, won positions for the next moment, make a tactical move, Sheikh - the readymade.O great player, however, is one that can confuse the two characteristics, suggesting a balance between tactics and strategy.

Lucia mosque Fortaleza Ceara Brazil luciamesquita@gmail.com

Permalink Reply by lucia mesquita bleasby on April 23, 2012 at 17:59

MARCEL DUCHAMP

         
    French artist Marcel Duchamp (1887-1968) did it ... Duchamp, to my knowledge, was a happy person, had this calling, and one of the reasons for suspecting that I was happy that he is not having the money as something important. It had everything to get rich quick: not interested, because I never crossed his mind to be a modern academic or a professional avant-garde. He had, indeed, a great artistic ambition maioir perhaps the artistic ambitions of this century. Almost never repeated. In 1912 he painted a picture that named "Nude Descending a Staircase", as the shape / style, the students are classified as Cubo-Futurist, beyond what is formally spectacular, the picture bears his name inscribed on the inferiror: Duchamp made the titles of his works entered as structural components, besides the great impact that some bring, because they make puns, creating an apparent distance - very large - about what you see, are the embodiment of values in a strictly literary work that belongs to the universe of Fine Arts. The so-Nu, participating in major shows in the U.S., New York, in 1913 - Armory Show - caused a sensation and became a celebrity among Duchamp artists and aficionados of the Arts in that city. Could have painted more than one hundred paintings that were variations of "Naked", but did not. Celebrated in the U.S. before, this country ended up with the core of his work, which is in the Philadelphia Museum of Art. Purely retinal painting, the one that holds a very strong dose of conceptualism, worked for years in the "Large Glass", which eventually damaged by an accident, having been incorporated into this accident.But what is more remarkable in the work of Duchamp is to have him come to take art as something already done, with or without some changes: the ready-mades.The project - Duchamp was an artist-thinker - contains the annulment of personal taste: that guided the choice of a particular object to which imputed the aesthetic content, coupled with the possibility of reproduction, thus avoiding a thing of the single object. Whether or not it is possible to reset your tastes, no matter much, what matters most is to have this as a project. You have to be radical. There are moments that require the most radical. And do not let greed Duchampian for less.Some ready-mades are industrial objects, manufactured in series, others can be made equal. With this, Duchamp provides a direct hit in the craft. (The revolution in art Picasso on the other hand, was different: it has always been grounded in the craft. Picasso, a producer of compulsive art objects, never gave up the craft in favor of a concept, but every act that results in art has very brain, Picasso needed the commitment to the craft requires manual labor). The most famous of Duchamp's Ready-Made was by him called The Source and it is a male urinal, these bolted to the wall. He descontextualizou, signed it, dated it and put in a position that is not one that would allow an appropriate use (in the design of ready-made, not in change of function, but function-no unless it is the aestheticimputed to the object by the artist). SOURCE n'a, Duchamp, conceptually reverses the roles: the urinal, so sink male urine source: a releasing water or anything else. Formally, this object reminds feminima gigantic genitals exposed, referring this setting, the context of nineteenth-century realist painter Gustave Courbet's L'Origine du monde = a woman astride sex exposed, but topped with a fluff: a source. LIFE. In Duchamp's last work, an installation that was mounted at the Museum of Art Philadelphia, after his death in 1968, the voyeur, the party sees an old door, a woman lay, three-dimensional, with sex, without fluff exposed, butdoes not see his face, as in the context of Courbet. It is day, but the left hand holds a lamp burning. Etant donnes. THE SOURCE. Duchamp is the inventors of these artists, the opening to be tracked by the bites that come next. Duchamp and their endless ways ...