A urinal is considered "art", and is considered worth $3.6 million to boot?  Ah, it's in France.....

Seriously, what bunch of idiots consider "an ordinary white, porcelain urinal" as art?   What's next, a gay cowboy movie or something?

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10736641/

‘Artist’ attacks Duchamp's famous urinal
76-year-old French man previously vandalized ‘Fountain’ in 1993

TATE MODERN / AFP/Getty Images
A copy of Marcel Duchamp's "Fountain," from the Tate Modern in London. An elderly man from Provence allegedly attacked the original Thursday in Paris.  

Updated: 9:57 a.m. ET Jan. 6, 2006

PARIS - A 76-year-old performance artist was arrested after attacking Marcel Duchamp’s “Fountain” — a porcelain urinal — with a hammer, police said.

Duchamp’s 1917 piece — an ordinary white, porcelain urinal that’s been called one of the most influential works of modern art — was slightly chipped in the attack at the Pompidou Center in Paris, the museum said Thursday. It was removed from the exhibit for repair.



The suspect, a Provence resident whose identity was not released, already vandalized the work in 1993 — urinating into the piece when it was on display in Nimes, in southern France, police said.

During questioning, the man claimed his hammer attack on Wednesday was a work of performance art that might have pleased Dada artists. The early 20th-century avant-garde movement was the focus of the exhibit that ends Monday, police said.

A 2004 poll of 500 arts figures ranked “Fountain” as the most influential work of modern art — ahead of Pablo Picasso’s “Les Demoiselles d’Avignon,” Andy Warhol’s screen prints of Marilyn Monroe and “Guernica,” Picasso’s depiction of war’s devastation.

“Fountain” is estimated at $3.6 million.

© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Given the scarcity of Home Depots in France, it's practically irreplaceable.

It's a french water fountain.  Piss guzzeling frogs.

Frances definition of "art" is going down the shitter.

Quoted: Given the scarcity of Home Depots in France, it's practically irreplaceable.

But damn, that means my local Home Depot has a couple billion dollars worth of "art" on the shelves.....

Quoted: Quoted: Given the scarcity of Home Depots in France, it's practically irreplaceable. But damn, that means my local Home Depot has a couple billion dollars worth of "art" on the shelves.....

Invest now, before the dilettantes latch onto it!

OK - I don't know why I am about to waste my breath - but I will try.

Modern Art 101.

What is art? Everyone has their own definition of what is art or what could be art. It ranges from things that are pleasing to the eye, to things that require creative thought, to every day objects.

Now starting in the 1800's, art started to make a real change from classical to modern. Before it was more about composition, techincal skill, and style. But new movements began to form, such as the Impressionist - Cezanne, Degas, Monet etc. These wanted to capture not just a picture, but a mood or a feeling with the paint.

More and more movements would follow. Cubism, Abstract Expressionism, Minimalism, Dada, etc.

Now - when looking at ANY modern art peice, one needs too look at it context. This is because the art in question is usually a revolt against the norms of the time or pushing the envelope and experimentation. Its sort of like looking at an M1 grand. Some people who know nothing of history would call it a "gun". An ignorant person might say its an old worthless POS. Others would look at it and realize that it might have played an important historical roll and it is something to respect.

Duchamp' "Urinal" comes during the period known as Dada. For a nerdy art school defintion Dada is:
"An international movement among European artists and writers between 1915 and 1922, characterised by a spirit of anarchic revolt. Dada revelled in absurdity, and emphasised the role of the unpredictable in artistic creation.

It began in Zürich with the French poet Tristan Tzara thrusting a penknife into the pages of a dictionary to randomly find a name for the movement. This act in itself displays the importance of chance in Dada art. Irreverence was another key feature: in one of Dada's most notorious exhibitions, organised by Max Ernst, axes were provided for visitors to smash the works on show.

While perhaps seeming flippant on the surface, the Dada artists were actually fuelled by disillusionment and moral outrage at the unprecedented carnage of World War One, and the ultimate aim of the movement was to shock people out of complacency."

But in laymens terms, it was a group of artists that challenged the conventional, stuffy thinking of what art SHOULD be, and played with the thinking of what COULD be art. Could every day objects be art? Is art itself something that should be put on a pedestal and revered, or is it something that is disposable?

So, when you look at a urninal and say "thats absurd - thats not art!" then you completely get the point of the movement. They wanted to wake people up and relished in this absurdness.  They wanted to show that perhaps every day objects could be art. They wanted to challenge critics on how they defined what art was.

Dechamps "Urinal" isnt revered because its pleasing to look at, or that it is even something that was hard to create. It is remembered as a classic example of the Dada movement.

Sooo - you probably dont find it a great peice - but maybe now you have a bit of appreciation for it.

Now - here is some bonus info. In that definition it mentioned how one show people could smash up the works. Well the original Urinal was destroyed in this manner. This is a copy made in the 30s, I believe, which was signed and endored by Duchamp as close to the original as possible. I actually saw it when I was at the Tate Modern last year in London.

And - now that you know the history of the peice a bit, maybe you find the irony in a guy trying to smash it again. In fact, I bet Duchamp would have supported it.

Quoted: Modern Art 101. What is art? Everyone has their own definition of what is art or what could be art. It ranges from things that are pleasing to the eye, to things that require creative thought, to every day objects. (snip)

I understand your point.

However, if I take a stick, spear a piece of dog shit in it, and call it art, it doesn't really matter how many of these "high-minded intellectuals" I can persuade to give me all kinds of great reviews about my free-wheeling spirit, innovative art, and all of that crap.

There's no talent involved.  I wouldn't even begin to suggest that it's a matter of "thinking outside the normal realm of art", or some such psuedo-intellectual mumbo-jumbo.

When it all comes down to it, it's still a piece of shit on a stick....something any two-year-old could do without any thought process.

A lot of modern art could be compared to a one-year-old child banging on a piano with both fists, and given reviews equal to any of Mozart's finests works.

Quoted: OK - I don't know why I am about to waste my breath - but I will try. Modern Art 101. What is art? Everyone has their own definition of what is art or what could be art. It ranges from things that are pleasing to the eye, to things that require creative thought, to every day objects. Now starting in the 1800's, art started to make a real change from classical to modern. Before it was more about composition, techincal skill, and style. But new movements began to form, such as the Impressionist - Cezanne, Degas, Monet etc. These wanted to capture not just a picture, but a mood or a feeling with the paint. More and more movements would follow. Cubism, Abstract Expressionism, Minimalism, Dada, etc. Now - when looking at ANY modern art peice, one needs too look at it context. This is because the art in question is usually a revolt against the norms of the time or pushing the envelope and experimentation. Its sort of like looking at an M1 grand. Some people who know nothing of history would call it a "gun". An ignorant person might say its an old worthless POS. Others would look at it and realize that it might have played an important historical roll and it is something to respect. Duchamp' "Urinal" comes during the period known as Dada. For a nerdy art school defintion Dada is: "An international movement among European artists and writers between 1915 and 1922, characterised by a spirit of anarchic revolt. Dada revelled in absurdity, and emphasised the role of the unpredictable in artistic creation. It began in Zürich with the French poet Tristan Tzara thrusting a penknife into the pages of a dictionary to randomly find a name for the movement. This act in itself displays the importance of chance in Dada art. Irreverence was another key feature: in one of Dada's most notorious exhibitions, organised by Max Ernst, axes were provided for visitors to smash the works on show. While perhaps seeming flippant on the surface, the Dada artists were actually fuelled by disillusionment and moral outrage at the unprecedented carnage of World War One, and the ultimate aim of the movement was to shock people out of complacency." But in laymens terms, it was a group of artists that challenged the conventional, stuffy thinking of what art SHOULD be, and played with the thinking of what COULD be art. Could every day objects be art? Is art itself something that should be put on a pedestal and revered, or is it something that is disposable? So, when you look at a urninal and say "thats absurd - thats not art!" then you completely get the point of the movement. They wanted to wake people up and relished in this absurdness.  They wanted to show that perhaps every day objects could be art. They wanted to challenge critics on how they defined what art was. Dechamps "Urinal" isnt revered because its pleasing to look at, or that it is even something that was hard to create. It is remembered as a classic example of the Dada movement. Sooo - you probably dont find it a great peice - but maybe now you have a bit of appreciation for it. Now - here is some bonus info. In that definition it mentioned how one show people could smash up the works. Well the original Urinal was destroyed in this manner. This is a copy made in the 30s, I believe, which was signed and endored by Duchamp as close to the original as possible. I actually saw it when I was at the Tate Modern last year in London. And - now that you know the history of the peice a bit, maybe you find the irony in a guy trying to smash it again. In fact, I bet Duchamp would have supported it.

Translation

Artists today are libtards.


BTW - Norman Rockwell, if called an artist would get pissed, he called himself an illustrator.

Quoted: I understand your point. However, if I take a stick, spear a piece of dog shit in it, and call it art, it doesn't really matter how many of these "high-minded intellectuals" I can persuade to give me all kinds of great reviews about my free-wheeling spirit, innovative art, and all of that crap. There's no talent involved.  I wouldn't even begin to suggest that it's a matter of "thinking outside the normal realm of art", or some such psuedo-intellectual mumbo-jumbo. When it all comes down to it, it's still a piece of shit on a stick....something any two-year-old could do without any thought process. A lot of modern art could be compared to a one-year-old child banging on a piano with both fists, and given reviews equal to any of Mozart's finests works.

While perhaps in this case, there is little talent involved, there is some thought involved. Granted when talking Dada there isnt as much, but there is some.

We have 100+ years of modern art under our belt. It takes something pretty crazy to make the news today or to make people perk up. But back then the whole thing was something new and crazy and absurd. And that is why its important, because it broke paradigms of the time and was part of the progression towards other movements.

Its hard to defend Dada to non-artist because it is pretty stupid. I respect it as part of the history, but I dont particularly like it.

I do like your analogy with poo and a 2 year old. You're wrong, there is a thought process there. Picasso envied children and how they are completely uninhibited by their creativity.

Quoted: Translation Artists today are libtards. BTW - Norman Rockwell, if called an artist would get pissed, he called himself an illustrator.

Just because you dont understand or agree with something, doesn't make it retarded.

And Rockwell WAS an illustrator. The New Yorker would call him up, ask for a nice painting of a family eating dinner, and he painted it. He didnt make fine art - art for the sake of art or for creative pleasure. He made corporate art to fit a clients needs.

That said he was exceptional at it. I have a lot of respect for many illustrators. Their techincal ability is often something to awe.

Quoted: During questioning, the man claimed his hammer attack on Wednesday was a work of performance art that might have pleased Dada artists. The early 20th-century avant-garde movement was the focus of the exhibit that ends Monday, police said.

This is probably true…

French are just mad that they cannot piss standing over a urinal without pissing on their nutsack first.

Quoted: OK - I don't know why I am about to waste my breath - but I will try. Modern Art 101. What is art? Everyone has their own definition of what is art or what could be art. It ranges from things that are pleasing to the eye, to things that require creative thought, to every day objects. Now starting in the 1800's, art started to make a real change from classical to modern. Before it was more about composition, techincal skill, and style. But new movements began to form, such as the Impressionist - Cezanne, Degas, Monet etc. These wanted to capture not just a picture, but a mood or a feeling with the paint. More and more movements would follow. Cubism, Abstract Expressionism, Minimalism, Dada, etc. Now - when looking at ANY modern art peice, one needs too look at it context. This is because the art in question is usually a revolt against the norms of the time or pushing the envelope and experimentation. Its sort of like looking at an M1 grand. Some people who know nothing of history would call it a "gun". An ignorant person might say its an old worthless POS. Others would look at it and realize that it might have played an important historical roll and it is something to respect. Duchamp' "Urinal" comes during the period known as Dada. For a nerdy art school defintion Dada is: "An international movement among European artists and writers between 1915 and 1922, characterised by a spirit of anarchic revolt. Dada revelled in absurdity, and emphasised the role of the unpredictable in artistic creation. It began in Zürich with the French poet Tristan Tzara thrusting a penknife into the pages of a dictionary to randomly find a name for the movement. This act in itself displays the importance of chance in Dada art. Irreverence was another key feature: in one of Dada's most notorious exhibitions, organised by Max Ernst, axes were provided for visitors to smash the works on show. While perhaps seeming flippant on the surface, the Dada artists were actually fuelled by disillusionment and moral outrage at the unprecedented carnage of World War One, and the ultimate aim of the movement was to shock people out of complacency." But in laymens terms, it was a group of artists that challenged the conventional, stuffy thinking of what art SHOULD be, and played with the thinking of what COULD be art. Could every day objects be art? Is art itself something that should be put on a pedestal and revered, or is it something that is disposable? So, when you look at a urninal and say "thats absurd - thats not art!" then you completely get the point of the movement. They wanted to wake people up and relished in this absurdness.  They wanted to show that perhaps every day objects could be art. They wanted to challenge critics on how they defined what art was. Dechamps "Urinal" isnt revered because its pleasing to look at, or that it is even something that was hard to create. It is remembered as a classic example of the Dada movement. Sooo - you probably dont find it a great peice - but maybe now you have a bit of appreciation for it. Now - here is some bonus info. In that definition it mentioned how one show people could smash up the works. Well the original Urinal was destroyed in this manner. This is a copy made in the 30s, I believe, which was signed and endored by Duchamp as close to the original as possible. I actually saw it when I was at the Tate Modern last year in London. And - now that you know the history of the peice a bit, maybe you find the irony in a guy trying to smash it again. In fact, I bet Duchamp would have supported it.

The decline or rise of civilization can be tracked by what it considers "art?"  I don't give a flying f*** what snooty art professors think if they believe that a urinal is a work of art.  To put it in the same class as "The Mona Lisa" is so utterly ridiculous that it makes one wonder if there is any future for civilization.

Quoted: The decline or rise of civilization can be tracked by what it considers "art?"  I don't give a flying f*** what snooty art professors think if they believe that a urinal is a work of art.  To put it in the same class as "The Mona Lisa" is so utterly ridiculous that it makes one wonder if there is any future for civilization.

Lets look at that last statement.

There are different classes and levels of art appreciation. As I have said, this work is important because of the time it was made and why it was made. It symbolizes everything that Dada was about.

Now - I dont think any "snooty art professors" would put it in the same catagory as the Mona Lisa. You cant even really compare the two. When is Classic Rennassiance by probably the most famous artist ever, and the other is Dada. Which was MADE to be irrelevant.

Do you own a $2000 AR? Do you also own a cheaper $300AK? Or a $200 SKS? Or a $80 Mosin? Do you put any of those guns in the same class as your tricked out AR? No. But you probably appreciate them all on a different level.

Quoted: Quoted: Translation Artists today are libtards. BTW - Norman Rockwell, if called an artist would get pissed, he called himself an illustrator. Just because you dont understand or agree with something, doesn't make it retarded. And Rockwell WAS an illustrator. The New Yorker would call him up, ask for a nice painting of a family eating dinner, and he painted it. He didnt make fine art - art for the sake of art or for creative pleasure. He made corporate art to fit a clients needs. That said he was exceptional at it. I have a lot of respect for many illustrators. Their techincal ability is often something to awe.

Norman Rockwell was brilliantly talented... He was a true artist..not just a mere illustrator..
Not just anyone could capture the emotions and ideals that Rockwell did in his paintings.

How could I say the same for Duchamp? What creative genius does it take to call a urinal art?

Quoted: OK - I don't know why I am about to waste my breath - but I will try.

Heheheh, I didn't even try.

I just can't imagine a frenchman being masculine enough to stand while pissing, always figured they pissed sitting down.