so why the pretence that this particular shape, the “R. Mutt” signature, has significance?
Because reinterpretation is not an art historian’s job.
The original reaction is lost to time, dude. A modern audience is, broadly, already aware of the transgressive urinal, and so already more accepting of it. There is no recreating the piece. There is only recreating what it was.
I’m not talking about reinterpretation, I’m talking about faithful recreation. Archaeologists do that kind of thing, and it’s valuable, why not art historians?
And judging by your reaction my suggestion indeed is the right kind of transgression to recreate the thing.
If you want it a bit more pedestrian, just in case you happen to be a museum director: Ask the janitor to go into a hardware store, and buy a urinal they like. Then tell them to write “The real Duchamp” on it, and position it on a pedestal. Attach a standard museum plaque, crediting the work to the janitor.
Because reinterpretation is not an art historian’s job.
The original reaction is lost to time, dude. A modern audience is, broadly, already aware of the transgressive urinal, and so already more accepting of it. There is no recreating the piece. There is only recreating what it was.
I’m not talking about reinterpretation, I’m talking about faithful recreation. Archaeologists do that kind of thing, and it’s valuable, why not art historians?
And judging by your reaction my suggestion indeed is the right kind of transgression to recreate the thing.
If you want it a bit more pedestrian, just in case you happen to be a museum director: Ask the janitor to go into a hardware store, and buy a urinal they like. Then tell them to write “The real Duchamp” on it, and position it on a pedestal. Attach a standard museum plaque, crediting the work to the janitor.