on 10-30-2004 07:08 AM
Duchamp wasn't an artist, he was a con man. Many people don't agree with me on the following (and I've had many arguments through various art history courses about it), but I don't feel art is art unless it is a combination of both creative expression/interpretation AND technical skill. If you're feeling angry and depressed one day, that's certainly emotional, but violently throwing red and black paint on a canvas didn't just create artwork. In the same vein, flipping a urinal over and calling it a fountain means you're a smartass, not an artist. Duchamp managed to convince people otherwise, and (IMO) inadvertantly gave rise to the snobbish, supercilious art critic culture we have today, in which people hang white painted canvas on a white wall above a white leather couch and pretend they're some sort of sophisticated cultural elite. I don't expect people here to see it this way, as very few people elsewhere do, but I revile most so-called modern 'art' as intellectual bullshit. If you threw it together in twenty minutes and no one can tell what in the hell it's supposed to represent, it's not art and you're not an artist. Art that cannot communicate effectively is no different than the aimless scribbling of a small child.
Yes, I have very strong feelings about this. Not surprisingly, I changed my major after just two years [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]
And, you know, I think this would be a pretty interesting discussion to have here on Polycount, but I don't know how many people are reading this thread...