Who is the Duchamp of literature?

>Michael Craig-Martin's 'An Oak Tree'
I just looked this up and its truly terrible. thanks, I feel better about my shit life now because at least I'm not this guy.

>Nietzsche: 'Reject the land of your forefathers'

what's this from?

It's a line in Zarathustra

Duchamp was quite literally influenced by The Ego and It's Own, and he mentioned it amongst the three authors that changed his view on art (the others being Roussel and Diogenes [author-ish I guess])

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Menard,_Author_of_the_Quixote

well said

Then he goes on to say "It is to my childrensland that I look"

but yeah.

Is there anything more played out than Nietzsche-cocksucking?

Exactly, but my point is that Nietzsche is cherry-picked and condensed because he's able to say subversive things powerfully in few words. Those quotable lines are then taken as tenets when they are thrown around superficially, rather than just one line in a very complex set of ideas. Hence the general misunderstanding of him outside of serious study and the gigantic meme of him being for lack of better terms the entry level fedora edge lord, God is dead as just a metaphor appealing to daddy issue angst.

Joyce cocksucking.

arno schmidt

I wouldn't relate Nietzsche to Duchamp only because as far as visual art goes, Duchamp produced fucking garbage, whereas as far as philosophy goes, Nietzsche produced, to quote the man himself, "an inexhaustible well into which no bucket descends without coming up with gold and goodness." I wouldn't say the same about Duchamp for the visual arts.

Allen Ginsberg amplified and accelerated the postmodern bs in poetry. Now we're stuck getting poet laureates like Juan Felipe Herrera

Brett Easton Ellis is that particular bit of Duchamp in the OP pic.

Ginsberg is great though

duchamps garbage is completely in contrary to nietzsche's views on what is good art for starters

T. Visual arts certified expert opinion

artrenewal.org/Article/Title/abstract-art-is-not-art
artrenewal.org/Article/Title/good-art-bad-art

You shut your whore mouth Koons' Hoovers and Equilibrium Tanks are great.

I really don't see it. what is it you like about them?

>artrenewal.com

denisdutton.com/bell.htm

Ok but if you read my post I am comparing them based on their crude subversive influence, not on the actual content of their work or stances on art.

But as to calling Duchamp shit based on the readymade objects... Nude Descending Staircase he did when he was 25 and the technique and effect were so refined and hybridised that it was rejected by the cubists for being too futurist, the futurists for being too cubist. It is today regarded as exceeding all members of both groups in its quality.

But I feel The Large Glass or The Bride Stripped Bare By Her Bachelors is his greatest achievement. Look at it and read around it if you care to.

Another thing they have in common is that they cease their successful careers in their respective fields prematurely, Nietzsche due to madness, Duchamp due to chess

Tzara ?

Imagine defending Jeff Koons, the absolute state of this place.

If Warhol and Duchamp had had some kind of gay art baby and that baby was then molested by a new age cultist, the result would be Koons. So vapid, but such a great way with words. True rhetorician. I can imagine every time he uses that line 'The Wet/Dry Hoover is very much like Kierkegaard's Either/Or' on banker types they must think him so transcendentally intelligent with his intelligent references and such. He saw them coming.

>>But as to calling Duchamp shit based on the readymade objects... Nude Descending Staircase he did when he was 25 and the technique and effect were so refined and hybridised that it was rejected by the cubists for being too futurist, the futurists for being too cubist. It is today regarded as exceeding all members of both groups in its quality.
cubists and futurists are both cretins so not much of an achievement

>The Large Glass or The Bride Stripped Bare By Her Bachelors is his greatest achievement.

why's that? and what do you think of Étant Donnés?

Bataille

I had completely forgotten about that piece. It's definitely up there with his best. Makes me think of the Black Dahlia. A must see for anyone who thinks of Duchamp as simply an ideas man and not a talented painter prior to changing art with his ideas.

As for The Large Glass. I like that it's a very personal work, taking seven years to complete, the wire and dust materials used accumulated on his apartment floor and he collected it up, which is unique, laborious and eccentric in itself. This dirt, dust, scrap metal is used to the effect of representing seduction as a machinic series of processes, with the figures of the bride and her bachelors resembling more so tools than anthropomorphic figures. I think it's a very original penetration of materialism to get to the machinic noumena that hides beneath phenomena. It has an aesthetic that I enjoy and stimulates ideas for me regarding process philosophy, free will, empiricism. Was great seeing the surviving replica recently alongside Dali's work.

I am by no means a fan of either. But both groups required particular techniques and specific motifs of their artists to be considered 'part of the gang', Duchamp waltzes along at 25 and defies either group and exceeds either group. Whether or not you like cubism or futurism you must admit that, especially creating futurist work and pull it off, requires a lot of skill.

i love Étant Donnés. I've actually been getting back into aesthetics and art criticism and would love some recommendations about texts on the Big Glass. Tomkins goes into it and Etant Donnés in his Duchamp's biography but he clearly wanted to save material for a future book on both works.

>stylish as fuck
>women literally threw themselves at him
>hanged around with some of the most influential minds of the 20th century, influenced them while remaining his very own artist up to the end
>1,90m, square jaw, always groomed
>debunked the entirety of western art almost as a joke
>100 years on, 50 years after his death, the art world still hasn't managed to overcome him
>fantastic chess player by all accounts
A übermensch, anyone who dislikes Duchamp should leave this board now and never return. Your mind is not fit for literature if you're a consumer of cheap retinal art.

Unfortunately I won't be able to recommend you any books regarding Duchamp in a critical sense, but if you haven't watch his BBC interview from the 60s and read Walter Benjamin Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.

>Duchamp: Jeff Koons' readymade Hoovers or Michael Craig-Martin's 'An Oak Tree'...
yeah, those are a couple of examples, but most of art since Duchamp (especially conceptual art) is heavily indebted to him in one way or another.

Fucking CHAD, found a rich old lady to sexually bait for money while making contacts in high society and selling his lads work to unsuspecting rich people.
I did already, I love Benjy as much as I love Marcel. I'll check the interview though, thanks.

This is a Kierkegaardian board, not a Nietzschean one. You belong on /b/.

I'm saying those shitty works are indebted to Duchamp. What are you saying, that good contemporary modern works are indebted to Duchamp? Such as?

>We have to provide a theoretical and philosophical context for the feelings of the tens of millions of people out there who are disgusted and feel an aversion for Modernism.
at no point in either of these overlong, angry, off-putting rants does this guy ever actually do this. he begs the question constantly. he talks about how people only like modern art just because they are told to like it, and then... just tells people they shouldn't. there's no explanation of why his favourite artists are the best - in fact at one point he says it's simply obvious from looking at them, that you should look at art as if there was no context. he doesn't even acknowledge the possibility of genuinely actually enjoying a piece of modern art. his position is completely dogmatic and not remotely philosophical.

If this was bait, well done. I've wasted half my afternoon reading this crap just in case there was a valid criticism somewhere that was worth thinking about. there isn't.

>stylish as fuck
pic related

What a God

One of my old girlfriends kept a photography book of his on her coffee table. I never saw the appeal. I give him the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to me being to plebeian to understand it.

>Nude Descending Staircase
I have no idea how you can have any feeling whatsoever for shit like this. A fleeting "oh, that's odd" sensation or "huh, well that's a nice pattern" but nothing more. And that's the function of painting, to produce feeling via visual effect.

pic related

Meant for

Maybe you feel that way but it's ambitious in trying to portray motion, freezing separate instances of being in one chain so you can see the entire descending of the staircase. It makes you think of Parmenides viewing the universe as averse to change and motion, seeing all instances within the universe as a static whole. Or it makes you think of the slow exposure on a camera.

I don't agree anyway that art has to cause feelings in all recipients, some people will always be averse or indifferent to something or art generally.

>it's ambitious in trying to portray motion, freezing separate instances of being in one chain so you can see the entire descending of the staircase
There is no staircase to be seen.

>It makes you think of Parmenides viewing the universe as averse to change and motion, seeing all instances within the universe as a static whole.
Not really.

>Or it makes you think of the slow exposure on a camera.
Maybe this. Doesn't mean there is anything visually satisfying about it.

>I don't agree anyway that art has to cause feelings in all recipients
Feeling is a prerequisite to calling something a work of art. If one does not feel from the work, they have no right to call it a work of art. That said, different art forms have different functions. Painting's is visual.

>If one does not feel from the work, they have no right to call it a work of art
pure ideology

Pure common sense. Read Schiller sometime if you can't wrap your head around it.

What should I read from him, exactly?

Common sense is ideology, user.

sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/schiller-education.asp

>Feeling is a prerequisite to calling something a work of art.
that's the kind of stuff Duchamp was laughing at desu

Sounds like a classic degenerate.

yeah but he unironically presented a urinal as a work of art so the jokes on him ultimately, no matter what point is being made

What's the joke?

How so?

You see the entirety of the figures descent.

Anyway there's no point arguing over whether the nude gives you feelings or not. You're a pleb and consider for one moment how ridiculous and narrow your definition of art is. Some art is functional for instance. Also who is it that decides the feeling that is provoked, does the Nude become art because I feel something looking at it, even though you do not? What feelings would a post-Christian world have towards the ceiling of the Sistine chapel?

Obviously the best works of art combine artistic technique, skill, beauty, feeling, intellect, but it is not a requirement that art be any of these things. Think.

>introduce foreign concepts to a certain realm of human endeavor (they are foreign precisely because they are erroneous and the masters surrounding said realm know better)
>act like you know better
>even mock the people who are drastically more educated than you are

It's classic degeneracy.

>Juan Felipe Herrera
googled the name + poemas and didnt get anything, not a single poem in two pages, just propaganda pieces of how good he is or what awards he received. whats going on here?

>You see the entirety of the figures descent.
There are no figures to be seen.

>consider for one moment how ridiculous and narrow your definition of art is
It is "narrow" to you because you don't actually care about art and only seek to "expand" it into a realm that you do care about. You would rather it mold itself to your interests rather than the other way around. Which is fine, perfectly natural thing to do; you are in fact the pleb, however, since in the process you mutate it into something it isn't.

>Also who is it that decides the feeling that is provoked
The individuals best experienced with and educated in an art form.

>Think.
No, feel. That's the whole point. If you want to think, go read philosophy.

Where did you get this definition of degeneracy, user?

It's fostered by my own experience and volition.

>who is the Duchamp of literature?
James Joyce.

It figures.

Kind of weird he made that while French soldiers were dying en masse.

I suspect you misunderstand. I'm well read, but at the same time I'm not simply regurgitating what I've read. I only say what I've felt to be the case myself. In that sense it is "by my own experience and volition." But I give credit where due when it is proper to give it.

This is the correct answer, and this thread is full of painfully embarrassing contrived bullshit, but then again what do I expect from Veeky Forums

Duchamp certainly wasn't being unironic. Fountain itself is the joke, and it's gone over your head.

>introduce foreign concepts to a certain realm of human endeavor
>classic degeneracy

and how exactly is human endeavour meant to progress in your universally familiar little world?

By continually rebuilding the superior man who refines the insight of the previous age's superior men.

how does the first superior man come to be? what's the lineage of these superior men in the history of art? are there any left, and if not who was the last one?

>how does the first superior man come to be?
It's always a natural occurrence, like a storm cloud. It starts when comparison of things becomes possible.

>what's the lineage of these superior men in the history of art?
Read Schiller, as mentioned before. Read his educators if you're interested further. Do your own reading to see who he influenced. A philosopher that brought his aesthetic into the realm of philosophy is Nietzsche. You'll discover who are the superior men of today if you study these men.

But comparison of things becomes possible when new concepts are introduced, user.

Dude, just get some sort of anthology on art history. While Duchamp had some very obscure works that would need a biography of his to start getting understood, the main gist of his early (and most important) works is pretty simple once you're acquainted with what was going on in art and aesthetics back then.

Right, but not all of them survive the torrential storm that follows from superior men. Part of the building process is in the destruction of faulty thinking.

Gertrude Stein

>The change in that is that red weakens an hour. The change has come. There is no search. But there is, there is that hope and that interpretation and sometime, surely any is unwelcome, sometime there is breath and there will be a sinecure and charming very charming is that clean and cleansing. Certainly glittering is handsome and convincing.

>There is no gratitude in mercy and in medicine. There can be breakages in Japanese. That is no programme. That is no color chosen. It was chosen yesterday, that showed spitting and perhaps washing and polishing. It certainly showed no obligation and perhaps if borrowing is not natural there is some use in giving.

this guy knows his duchamp and his stirner

>what's the lineage of these superior men in the history of art?
>Read Schiller

alright, thanks for the recommendation. but could you sketch it out? just name a few names, chronologically, so I know what increasingly superior art looks like, otherwise we have nothing to compare Duchamp to. is this improvement in art, roughly speaking, about increasing realism? increasing technique? increasing aesthetics? increasing symbolism?

>Part of the building process is in the destruction of faulty thinking.

which is precisely what Duchamp sets out to do, so...

190m? i thought he was a manlet. look at that interview with him and that other big guy

faulty thinking destroys itself desu, like heavy-handed metaphors

what is this?

A work of literature.

gertrude stein

>just name a few names, chronologically, so I know what increasingly superior art looks like
I'll say this: painting is no longer of superior art. They were overtaken by photography, then movies. It's about the aesthetic experience.

Duchamp is a faulty thinker.

How so?

a poetry book rrose selavy by marcel duchamp?

fucking lol. photography is pygmy tier compared to the tradition of painting

she's more of a Picasso.