Damon Lam (el 23/08/13 a las 8:48 am)
Because SOMEONE had removed his/her comment, I don't know the context to
this thread. But just as a note, Duchamp didn't pursue what he called
'retinal' art. And his art was deprived of any and all aesthetic values. So
I think "to the eye of the critic/creator" may be a wrong interpretation of
him since that echoed exactly Duchamp's idea of 'retinal' art.
John Hopper (el 13/04/13 a las 9:31 am)
Devin Papp (el 24/01/12 a las 6:34 am)
@beradification He influenced people to forget about the pre-conceived
values and ideas of art that people were taught from history and in
schools. Duchamp actually knew how to really paint and draw, he just mostly
decided not to. His ridiculous ideas were trying to get rid of the
self-importance of art and yet he pretty much became self-important because
of that. He had a sense of humor and even he did not take his stuff
Marc Williams (el 15/02/12 a las 6:20 am)
Those who do get bent out of shape by Duchamp don't have any joy in their
hearts or the imagination to find the things that are, or could be art,
that surround them all of the time. It might be wise for those folks to
have a glass of wine or three, it also couldn't hurt for those folks to
take an art history class or two.
letsif (el 13/11/11 a las 10:11 pm)
It's all context.
jaseguitar1 (el 09/12/10 a las 11:37 pm)
if you like the bicycle why not wear it. find it at red bubble:)
Princess Andress (el 05/12/12 a las 2:52 pm)
Thanks for Posting this video!
maxcohen13 (el 14/08/12 a las 6:17 pm)
While I agree that the artist occupies a transitional space, the work
produced does not. Each work is representative of a point in time. To
"strip it of it's position" is the antithesis of it's meaning.
Devin Papp (el 24/01/12 a las 6:36 am)
@beradification Some of his ideas were really dumb. But did anybody ever
think of doing it before him or had the balls to do it. nope
MrFreddy4 (el 08/09/11 a las 6:22 am)
@smackmya55 pretty good mate, your name on anon. i bet you wouldnt say that
to my face