Duchamp on The Creative Act

If you've ever called someone.."artfag"

STOP HERE

thia article is of no use to you.

however.. for the artists...

____________________________________________

THE CREATIVE ACT

by Marcel Duchamp

Let us consider two important factors, the two poles of the creation of art: the artist on the one hand, and on the other the spectator who later becomes the posterity.

To all appearances, the artist acts like a mediumistic being who, from the labyrinth beyond time and space, seeks his way out to a clearing.

If we give the attributes of a medium to the artist, we must then deny him the state of consciousness on the esthetic plane about what he is doing or why he is doing it. All his decisions in the artistic execution of the work rest with pure intuition and cannot be translated into a self-analysis, spoken or written, or even thought out.

T.S. Eliot, in his essay on "Tradition and Individual Talent", writes: "The more perfect the artist, the more completely separate in him will be the man who suffers and the mind which creates; the more perfectly will the mind digest and transmute the passions which are its material."

Millions of artists create; only a few thousands are discussed or accepted by the spectator and many less again are consecrated by posterity.

In the last analysis, the artist may shout from all the rooftops that he is a genius: he will have to wait for the verdict of the spectator in order that his declarations take a social value and that, finally, posterity includes him in the primers of Artist History.

I know that this statement will not meet with the approval of many artists who refuse this mediumistic role and insist on the validity of their awareness in the creative act - yet, art history has consistently decided upon the virtues of a work of art thorough considerations completely divorced from the rationalized explanations of the artist.

If the artist, as a human being, full of the best intentions toward himself and the whole world, plays no role at all in the judgment of his own work, how can one describe the phenomenon which prompts the spectator to react critically to the work of art? In other words, how does this reaction come about?

This phenomenon is comparable to a transference from the artist to the spectator in the form of an esthetic osmosis taking place through the inert matter, such as pigment, piano or marble.

But before we go further, I want to clarify our understanding of the word 'art' - to be sure, without any attempt at a definition.

What I have in mind is that art may be bad, good or indifferent, but, whatever adjective is used, we must call it art, and bad art is still art in the same way that a bad emotion is still an emotion.

Therefore, when I refer to 'art coefficient', it will be understood that I refer not only to great art, but I am trying to describe the subjective mechanism which produces art in the raw state .. .`a l'e`tat brut - bad, good or indifferent.

In the creative act, the artist goes from intention to realization through a chain of totally subjective reactions. His struggle toward the realization is a series of efforts, pains, satisfaction, refusals, decisions, which also cannot and must not be fully self-conscious, at least on the esthetic plane.

The result of this struggle is a difference between the intention and its realization, a difference which the artist is not aware of. Consequently, in the chain of reactions accompanying the creative act, a link is missing. This gap, representing the inability of the artist to express fully his intention, this difference between what he intended to realize and did realize, is the personal 'art coefficient' contained in the work.

In other works, the personal 'art coefficient' is like a arithmetical relation between the unexpressed but intended and the unintentionally expressed.

To avoid a misunderstanding, we must remember that this 'art coefficient' is a personal expression of art a` l'e`tat brut, that is, still in a raw state, which must be 'refined' as pure sugar from molasses by the spectator; the digit of this coefficient has no bearing whatsoever on his verdict. The creative act takes another aspect when the spectator experiences the phenomenon of transmutation: through the change from inert matter into a work of art, an actual transubtantiation has taken place, and the role of the spectator is to determine the weight of the work on the esthetic scale.

All in all, the creative act is not performed by the artist alone; the spectator brings the work in contact with the external world by deciphering and interpreting its inner qualification and thus adds his contribution to the creative act. This becomes even more obvious when posterity gives a final verdict and sometimes rehabilitates forgotten artists.

(From Session on the Creative Act, Convention of the American Federation of Arts, Houston, Texas, April 1957)

theres no way im reading that, but im sure its great.

When I get older I could see myself writing stuff like this, but right now I'm too impatient, I just want to paint shit. So it seems like a lot of intellectual wandering without enough of a point.

I do see what he means by the gap between what was intended and what comes out, although I'm usually very conscious of how my shit didn't come out like I meant it.

Duchamp in general gets the thumbs up, he did some dope shit and was also a strong amateur chess player.

he was an expert at chess. http://members.aol.com/mindwebart3/marcelpg4.htm

from above...

the artist may shout from all the rooftops that he is a genius: he will have to wait for the verdict of the spectator in order that his declarations take a social value and that, finally, posterity includes him in the primers of Artist History.

thanks zesto.

i'll add this, from his later years:

"I believe that art is the only form of activity in which man shows

himself to be a true individual....only in art is he capable of going

beyond the animal state, because art is an outlet toward regions which

are not ruled by space and time."

duchamp is such a fuckin' overlord...his

influence and ideas are so expansive...its hard to comprehend fully.....

...i don't know, i think he's arguably more influential than picasso...

i fuckin' love duchamp.................................reading his stuff

is a good way to fuck your head over and make your brain buzz....

i actually started a thread of duchamp pieces and

some dada stuff last night, but, as i figured, nobody

gave a shit, and the ones that did had nothing to say about it

or dismissed it as 'garbage'(you're too cool seeking).....

.....so i deleted it.

i've got the counterpart cd to "the creative act" cd...its called

'erratum musical: 7 variations on a draw of 88 notes'....

pretty nice....to me anyhow.

what else you got zesto?

[This message has been edited by brown twinkie (edited 07-23-2001).]

was also a strong amateur chess player.

He was a member of the national french chess team.

but i feel what you say,being a chess player means a lot to art making

AWESOME!

Thanks for posting...definitely worth the read.

i though i'd post this stuff, maybe for interests sake, &

cuz i'm bored................and becuz they were pals and cage

is an incredible person as well.

and...who could

be seen as duchamp's equal in the music world. both

of them played chess together, which must have been

fun to watch....two brainiacs goin' at it....anyhow, these were done by cage.

the title of these comes from when jasper johns was asked to

say something about duchamp, who had died the previous year,

and he said 'i don't want to say anything about marcel'.

http://www.solwaygallery.com/media/plexigram1.jpg'>

Not Wanting to Say Anything About Marcel, I, 1969

http://www.solwaygallery.com/media/plexigram2.jpg'>

" ", II

http://www.solwaygallery.com/media/cagelithob.jpg'>

" ", III

Great stuff twinkie,

A thread about duchamp is poor without images or even mathematics.

duchamp on Individuality:

"The individual, man as a man, man as a brain, if you like, interests me more than what he

makes, because I've noticed that most artists only repeat themselves. "

[This message has been edited by brown twinkie (edited 07-23-2001).]

All you duchamp lovers sould read(if havent already)his interviews with pierre cabanne.

The hagakure for art

philly mueseum of art has alot of doperiffic duchamp pieces.

http://members.aol.com/mindwebart3/parisair.JPG'>

"Marcel brought this glass vile back to America from Paris as a Souvenir for a friend in 1919. He had gone into a Pharmacy and asked the Pharmacist to empty any vile of all its' medicine - and then to use his torch to reseal the glass, thus making the vile now full of air from Paris."

___________________________________________

gooooooood goood good article!!

thanks bruva!

http://www.wfu.edu/users/alwinegn/Junco.JPG'>

------------------

$$$666MAKROS666$$$

3D anyone...??

"IN 1958, Lionel and Roger Penrose published a paper announcing their discovery of impossible figures, (Penrose & Penrose, 1958). These impossible figures formed a new class of visual illustrations, specifically demonstrating a foible in human perception of dimensionality in representations. If we are given a conflicting but balanced mix of visual clues, our logic in two-dimensional representations becomes overwhelmed, and we can easily be fooled about what is possible or likely in three dimensions. The rendered object, on the one hand, looks right; but on the other hand, our intuition tells us that something must be wrong and signals us to use our minds. Our faulty senses always win."

If you've ever called someone.."artfag"

STOP HERE

thia article is of no use to you.

however.. for the artists...

***

ehh.. I love Duchamp (the toilet was genius!), but the above portion of zesto's post really pissed me off. see, the reason most artists, or artistically involved people, are called "artfag" is because of their rabid pretensious nature. most artists I know seclude themselves from the rest of society because they've been "oh-so abused" by the workaday citizen. boo-fucking-hoo. artists are wonderful people, but everyone is wonderful. just because you create something doesn't make you any better than a blue-collar American who doesn't understand what it is you're doing. saying that anyone who doesn't understand the world of art has no use for what Duchamp has to say is way above and beyond your realm of decision-making. I love art and love the process of delivering my own art to the world, but I don't get hung up on calling myself an artist every chance I get or making others feel like outcasts just because I feel like an outcast. it's ridiculous to me that most of the people in life who get irritated by a problem tend to attempt its solution by replicating what it is that irritated them in the first place. instead of dismissing those that don't empathize with artistic creation, why not welcome them and teach them what it is you know that makes you so special. if you've ever called anyone an artfag, please read this article. it may mean more to you than to an artfag anyhow.

this is not necessarily directed at zesto, simply directed at a flippant comment that may or may not be indicative of him/her as a person (if I've offended you, I'm sorry). however, I do see the hoity-toity quality of high art on this board all too often, so it is directed at someone or something. if you do fit in this category do yourself a favor and watch what you say.

Originally posted by DISCO BRYSO:

however, I do see the hoity-toity quality of high art on this board all too often, so it is directed at someone or something. if you do fit in this category do yourself a favor and watch what you say.

hmm.....

maybe i'm an idiot...and maybe i'm 'pretentious' for even saying/thinking this...but...... it feels like you're alluding to....and maybe taking

issue with either some of my comments, some of my flick posts, or both, in addition to zesto's comment.

are you? you're obviously refering to someone on this board...

otherwise....why offer advice through a meaningless threat..?............

not at all Mr. Twinkie. it honestly was written with no particulars in mind, well personal ones, but none relevant to the board. zesto's comment was like the final crack before the dam breaks. a watershed moment? (I hope not, I hate that phrase) although, if you feel I've described you maybe I have. this, however, would be purely incidental. I just can't stand pretensious people, and I love art, so I hate the basic contradictions I have to face if I am to pursue this vein. being an artist is like being a member of the exclusive high school clique. but it shouldn't be. anyone should be able to call themself an artist and create whatever it is they believe to be art (hence, the fundamental point of Duchamp's toilet). isn't the joy of art it's universal accessibility?

I had no one in mind. but I think what I said is about as honest and true as saying that there are toys on this board. I'm always down with dissent though... and please don't let me slow your "art posting" down, believe it or not I am a fan. super8 forever!

....no....you haven't described me....

um.....i agree with what your saying for the most part...

tired.....

simply...

the disclaimer was intended not to prevent

people from reading the article, but to make

it clear that the excert had nothing to do

with smut/music/hiphop/other current topics in Channel Zero

I've seen many post on here shout.."artfag, keep it real yo!"

and rather than waste the time of those who are uninterested,

I'd offered a disclaimer.

I'm not interested in making a conceptual art fourm

on here, as this is just not the place.

And yes Disco, this thread is available to

everyone who choses to read it.

i like this a lot.