8 Matching Annotations
  1. Oct 2022
    1. Built and assembled without anyparticular significance or any value, Walter de Maria's Boxes for MeaninglessWork could also be an echo of Duchamp's sound strategies. In aparallel project, Robert Morris realized Card File (1962-3), a series ofcards on which a series of hazy concepts are written and laid out alphabetically on a vertical support. Through this initial process, Morriscreated a description of the necessary stages required to achieve thework. The terms used in this file include such things as accidents,alphabets, cards, categories, conception, criticism, or decisions, dissatisfactions, durations, forms, future, interruptions, names, numbers,possibilities, prices, purchases, owners, and signature. As a result, thework had no content other than the circumstances of its execution.Through this piece, Morris also asserted that if one wished to understand and penetrate all subtleties of the work, one would have toconsider all the methods used in bringing it forth. The status of thework of art is immediately called into question, because the range ofcards can undergo a change:In a broad sense art has always been on object, static and final, eventhough structurally it may have been a depiction or existed as afragment. What is being attacked, however, is something more thanart as icon. Under attack is the rationalistic notion that art is a formof work that results in a finished product. Duchamp, of course,attacked the Marxist notion that labor was an index of value, butReadymades are traditionally iconic art objects. What art now has inits hand ismutable stuffwhich need not arrive at the point of beingfinalized with respect to either time or space. The notion thatworkis an irreversible process ending in a static icon-object no longer hasmuch relevance.25Marcel Duchamp's musical and "Dismountable approximation" illustrate this process perfectly. John Cage recalled that "for his final opus,Given: 1. The Waterfall, 2. The Illuminating Gas, exhibited in Philadelphia, [Duchamp] wrote a book [the "Dismountable approximation"]that provided a blueprint for dismantling the work and rebuilding it.26It also provided information on how to proceed, as well as the only definition of the musical notation, isn't that so? So it is a musical work ofart; because when you follow the instructions you produce sounds."27But Given: 1. The Waterfall, 2. The Illuminating Gas was never createdas a musical piece, even though it is entirely "possible to do it. . . .Andif one takes it like a musical piece, one gets the piece [that Duchamp]This content downloaded from 194.27.18.18 on Fri, 18 Dec 2015 12:35:27 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

      card file as art!

    2. Sophie Stévance and Catrina Flint de Médicis. “Marcel Duchamp’s Musical Secret Boxed in the Tradition of the Real: A New Instrumental Paradigm.” Perspectives of New Music, vol. 45, no. 2, 2007, pp. 150–70. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25164661

  2. Apr 2022
    1. In 1934, Marcel Duchamp announced the publication of his Green Box (edition of 320 copies) in a subscription bulletin — an enormous undertaking since each box contains 94 individual items mostly supposed “facsimiles” (Duchamp’s word) of notes first written between 1911 and 1915, each printed and torn upon templates to match the borders of the scribbled originals for a total of 30,080 scraps and pages.

      Marcel Duchamp announced his project the Green Box in 1934 as an edition of 320 copies of a box of 94 items. Most of the items were supposed "facsimiles" as described by Duchamp, of notes he wrote from 1911 to 1915.

      How is or isn't this like a zettelkasten or card index, admittedly a small collection?

    1. It will, here again, find amplematerial in the short circuits of Duchamp’s antiart objects: “Metaphor ‘taken atthe letter’: a geometry book suspended by a thread (‘geometry in space’),” not tomention “the ‘Paris air’ ampule.” 10
    2. Hence Leiris’s interest in Duchamp’s rotoreliefs, which he describesas “records to look at and not to listen to,”9 records, in other words, whose sound is soto speak “hidden” by their look, as if they were painted over to the point of beingsilenced.
    3. As for Duchamp, his early interest in Roussel was probably revived by the stunningdisclosure that most of his narratives, and among them the cult novel Impressionsd’Afrique (1910), had been generated from puns reminiscent of LHOOQ.

      L.H.O.O.Q. is a Marcel Duchamp readymade artwork conceived in 1919. The work consists of a cheap postcard reproduction of Da Vinci's Mona Lisa (the found object or objet trouvé), "improved" by Duchamp with the addition of a penciled in moustache and a goatee with the title drawn in large capital letters underneath.

      L.H.O.O.Q. is a pun whose letters pronounced one at a time in French sound like "Elle a chaud au cul". This translates variously as "She is hot in the arse" or "She has a hot ass". "Avoir chaud au cul" is a vulgar expression implying that a woman has sexual restlessness. Duchamp, in an interview, gave a loose translation of L.H.O.O.Q. as "there is fire down below". (Schwarz 203)


      link: https://hyp.is/GPVO4sA6EeyYiZdqyfGJSA/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.H.O.O.Q.

    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.H.O.O.Q.

      L.H.O.O.Q. is a Marcel Duchamp readymade artwork conceived in 1919. The work consists of a cheap postcard reproduction of Da Vinci's Mona Lisa (the found object or objet trouvé), "improved" by Duchamp with the addition of a penciled in moustache and a goatee with the title drawn in large capital letters underneath.

      L.H.O.O.Q. is a pun whose letters pronounced one at a time in French sound like "Elle a chaud au cul". This translates variously as "She is hot in the arse" or "She has a hot ass". "Avoir chaud au cul" is a vulgar expression implying that a woman has sexual restlessness. Duchamp, in an interview, gave a loose translation of L.H.O.O.Q. as "there is fire down below". (Schwarz 203)


      Was the the original artistic source for the long string of childhood pranks in which children were often seen marking up and defacing pictures in books and magazines? Were there others prior?