Talk:Marcel Duchamp/Archive 1

Archive 1

Alexina Duchamp

Someone please add/incorporate her into the article. -Feydey 20:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! -->>sparkit|TALK<< 21:01, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Urinal

wasn't the idea behind to urinal to challenge conceptions of what constituted art? -- the idea being that it was, essentially, just a urinal. But because it was signed and displayed, it became a piece of art. -- user:Tarquin

Recent research has shown that almost all of his so-called 'found' art was actually created by him. His urinal, while appearing to be a standard item, actually is not functional at all and was made from his own design. It seems that Duchamp was making a joke within a joke, by pretending that he was offering everyday items as art. I'll try to find the reference and add it into the article. -Willmcw 23:32, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's interesting if true.

Nevertheless, as User:Tarquin says, the artist's assertion and the placing of a readymade in a gallery context is part of what makes the object 'art'. I have a suspicion that Duchamp may have said something of the sort, and similar comments have been made by other artists down the age - recently Tracey Emin's My Bed in the 1999 Turner Prize was defended on these grounds.

With the urinal, Duchamp also displayed it turned around and mounted horizontally. This and the title Fountain encourage the viewer to see the 'found' object in a new light (when visiting the urinals in many pubs, I'm often reminded of Duchamp's Fountain and the joke that 'pubs don't sell beer, they just rent it'.)

As I understand it, it is this shift of meaning from representation and the intention of the artist to the interpretation of the viewer, which is part of the lasting significance of Duchamp's work. -- Solipsist 09:32, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well said. -Willmcw 09:53, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't believe that Duchamp 'created' his found objects. This is mainly based on the inability to find identical objects (how hard did you look?). There is quite a lot of evidence, in fact, that he didn't create them. Any number of artists and friends of his were present when he purchased them. Though it *would* be interesting if he had, I think it's a flight of fancy, and frankly, beside the point. -- Sigma-6 21:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

It is also based, in the case of Fountain, on the fact that the object is supposedly not functional. -Willmcw 21:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

(I've heard that too many times without the evidence of its nonfunctionality produced. To me that remains a rumour) It remains beside the point. In his own words; "Whether Mr. Mutt with his own hands made the fountain or not has no importance. He CHOSE it. He took an ordinary article of life, placed it so that its useful significance disappeared under a new title and point of view -- created a new thought for that object." Though I see your point, and it certainly does seem 'Duchampian' to make a statement like that (confounding the art world by contradicting himself in a comment on it), and yeah, if it were true it would be interesting, my point is, I've heard it a hundred times, but show me *how, why, where, and who checked*. No-one ever has. -- Sigma-6 05:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure how many people are aware of this, but claims regarding the nonfunctionality of fountain are dubious at best. The only evidence we have regarding the nature of the object put forth for inclusion in the Society of Independent Artists exhibition is the photograph taken of the item by Alfred Stieglitz. The exact details of its whereabouts during and immediately after the exhibition are unclear to say the least. Various accounts place it behind a partition in the exhibition, in a skip after it finished (or possibly before), and being taken home by Walter Arensberg himself. The only thing that is known about this "original" is that it was eventually lost. (I must confess that I am amused by the idea that Arensberg hauled this ceramic and iron lump home, only to loose it soon after. How exactly does one misplace a urinal?) The ones that one sees in museums today are (for the most part) not only non-functional, but were never intended to function. In 1964, in partnership with the dealer and his cataloguer, Arturo Schwarz, an edition of eight (plus 2 non-numbered) “Fountains” were produced and offered for sale through the Schwarz Gallery in Milan. In addition to “Fountain,” virtually all of Duchamp’s readymades were offered in similar editions of eight, with (I believe) the full set available for $2,000. Industrial draughtsmen were commissioned to create the preparatory drawings required for these “authorized” editions. (This is all in the Schwarz’s The Complete Works of Marcel Duchamp: Revised and Expanded Paperback Edition, Ref# 345d (fountain), & #603-605 (the preparatory drawings))

I think I know the confusion of the found vs. created readymades. Duchamp didn't particularly value the ready-made objects and tended to throw or give them away. So in the early 1960s he had a series of replica custom-made (because toilets, snow shovels, etc. no longer looked liked they did when he originally did the ready-mades) for display in museums. A bit ironic that the ready-made we see in the museum is actually a limited-edition custom-made object. - Ethan Ham

Vandalism?

Does anyone want to bring up the recent vandaism of 'Fountain' in the article? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10736641 --JohnDBuell 07:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

images of duchamp's work

Does anyone know about the copyright status for the images representing Duchamp's work? The issue is interesting because of Duchamp's motivation in creating readymades; most of the time he already took mass produced objects, so can we safely say that his objects are not licensed themselves but representations/photographs of them are?--81.215.215.108 07:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Photos would be the copyright of the photographer, unless they're outside the relevant time period or released into the public domain. As far as the objects are concerned, this is a subtle legal point. The copyright on the objects was with the manufacturer, so Duchamp may have been in breach himself (or probably would be nowadays), if his rendition did not significantly creatively alter the original to create a new work. See Damien Hirst:

In 2000, Hirst's sculpture Hymn (which Saatchi had bought for a reported £1m) was given pole position at the show Ant Noises (an anagram of "sensation") in the Saatchi Gallery. Hirst was then sued himself for breach of copyright over this sculpture, which was a 20ft six ton enlargement of his son Connor's 14" Young Scientist Anatomy Set designed by Norman Emms, 10,000 of which are sold a year by Hull-based toy manufacturer Humbrol for £14.99 each. Hirst paid an undisclosed sum to two charities, Children Nationwide and the Toy Trust in an out-of-court settlement.

Tyrenius 12:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Note however, that copyright generally only applies to 'creative' works. AFIK many everyday objects wouldn't qualify for copyright protection. However, in the UK at least, there is the related concept of a Registered Design which is more similar to patent protection. In the case of Duchamp's Fountain, it is plausible that the underlying urinal would not be copyrightable, although most photographs of the recreated Fountains would chose to include the R. Mutt signature which could easily count as a creative element and make copyright applicable. In other instances of art works including readymades it could be the general assemblage that would be considered creative. To complicate things further, French copyright law is notably more encompassing than in most territories and has few of the common exceptions, so you would need an international copyright lawyer to be sure.

Also as Tyrenius says, a photograph would also be copyrighted in itself, which would be a problem unless it was old enough for copyright to have expired (unlikely for most Duchamp works) or unless the photographer had was released under a free license such as GFDL. -- Solipsist 14:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

However, as Wikipedia is hosted in the US, it is US law we need to be concerned with. Tyrenius 14:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Copyrights of Duchamp's work are managed by the Artists Rights Society. >>sparkit|TALK<< 17:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

hatnote

The hatnote on this article is very confusing to someone who is not familiar with the work ("or the musical production alias derived from the rectified readymade"). Can it be reworded to contain less dadaist jargon? -- nae'blis _(talk) 16:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Rene Clair film "Entr'acte'"

Edited the article because Marcel plays chess with Man Ray in the film, NOT Francis Picabia. There are many still images on the internet to prove this.--64.126.92.172 22:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Gabriela

French-American???

Marcel Duchamp is 100 % French and it's not because he lived in the New York that he is "French-American". He was born in Blainville (France), studied in Paris and died in Paris. And he first moved to NYC in 1913 when he was 26...

Pablo Picasso lived the bigger part of his life in France, but he is still a Spanish artist... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.234.240.81 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Duchamp did become a naturalized American citizen, which merits the title "French-American".

Yes. He became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1955. It's in the article. (>>sparkit|TALK<< 01:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC))

Photo of Fountain

I can't decide where to place this photograph on this page (at the top, where it is first mentioned? Under "Readymades?") The people on this page can move it to where they think it is best suited. I also enjoyed reading this discussion page. --DavidShankBone 15:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Société Anonyme

I would like to raise a question regarding the first line in the "Société Anonyme" section. It begins, "Escaping service in the First World War on the pretext of a dubious heart condition..." What is/was the justification behind classifying Duchamp's heart condition as "dubious"? Most interviewers and biographers seem more than willing to take Duchamp at his word on this point. While I beleve that even Duchamp himself describes his condition as a 'minor defect,' I have yet to encounter any other reference that doubts the existance of said condition. Is there any concrete evidence for the doubt expressed in this statement?

It's now edited. >>sparkit|TALK<< 18:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Significant things not covered yet

* Kenetic art. Rotoreliefs-1920. Rotary demisphere-1925. He coined the term 'mobile' Mobile (sculpture).

• Films
• Green box and Box in a valise
• Non-wife relationships.
• Daughter - see Tompkins, Calvin (1996). Duchamp: A Biography. U.S.: Henry Holt and Company. ISBN 0-8050-5789-7.

(>>sparkit|TALK<< 18:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC))

The main article states at: "Nude Descending a Staircase (Main article: Nude Descending a Staircase, No. 2)" the following: "In 1912, Duchamp painted Nude Descending a Staircase, No. 2 (Nu duscendant un éscalier n° 2), . . ." While I have no actual knowledge of what Duchamp named the painting, I'm quite positive that there is no word "duscendant" in the French language. The correct present participle would be "descendant" in French. Eric C. 10:53, 27 Oct 2006 (UTC)

Anarchist?

Does anyone have a source for this info?

Politically, Duchamp ... identified with Individualist Anarchism...

The influence of Stirner is well documented. As is his non-support of World War I. But, in peer-reviewed/published books is there discussion of his identifying with anarchism?

Thanks. >>sparkit|TALK<< 02:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed it.

Was...

Political views

Politically, Duchamp opposed World War I and identified with Individualist Anarchism, in particular with Max Stirner's philosophical tract The Ego and Its Own, the study of which Duchamp considered the turning point in his artistic and intellectual development.

The notorious antiartist seems to have made a significant break with his former concerns just when he was formulating his work, The Bride Stripped Bare by Her Bachelors, Even (1915-23), which was, according to the best reconstructions that have been attempted, already in his mind several years earlier when certain commentators, perhaps most notably the Duchamp scholar Francis Naumann, believe Duchamp first encountered the work of Stirner.

>>sparkit|TALK<< 20:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

L.H.O.O.Q.

lhooq redirects here, but there's nothing about it in the article. There should be something added here, or change the redirect(s) to the Mona Lisa article. There's enough info there. --ScarletSpiderDave 09:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It now redirects to Readymades of Marcel Duchamp. -->>sparkit|TALK<< 00:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, even better. You changed LHOOQ (all caps). I changed lhooq and l.h.o.o.q. to match. They don't seem to work right for me for some reason though. They still go here, though I pasted the same code you used. Are they not instant? Also, I'm not sure exactly how everything works, and if there are other versions of the redirect. (Gee, redirects are more complicated than I thought) --ScarletSpiderDave 10:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Legacy

As it stands, the "Legacy" section begins with words that aren't Duchamp's: should this bit of information be placed in this section? Also, introducing this information it states "Duchamp is usually considered to have a negative attitude to later artists who developed the ideas he had initiated" Is this accurate? Usually considered by whom? If so, it should be cited, since this does not sound accurate to me. The whole section, in fact, needs to be re-written since an excerpt of Dali's introduction to Cabanne's book and a reference to Mike Schneider (the most germane artist to bring up in this section??) do not constitute a substantial, accurate representation of Duchamp's manifold legacy. A chronological survey or reference to movements like Pop Art and artists like Sol Lewitt, I think, might be a good place to begin. Ibickerstaff 03:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. --sparkit^TALK 14:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice article

Very nice article. I'm about to assess it as B-class in all the WikiProject tags, and add a chess WP tag, but would encourage the editors of the articles to aim for Good Article or A class, and maybe eventually make this a featured article. Carcharoth 13:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Enneagram?

I've been searching for a source for the claim that 'L'opposition et cases conjuguées sont réconciliées' (Opposition and Sister Squares are Reconciled) is plotted on enneagram-like charts. Can't find anything to do with the fact that it's done using enneagram-like charts. Anyone have a source for that, or can anyone find any images of it? I'd be most interested...--Jaybzjaybz 14:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Lasker-Reichelm Position

Could someone please add a page for the Lasker-Reichelm Position? The basic position can be found at http://samuel-beckett.net/hugill.html and the solution can be found in IM David Levy's book How Computers Play Chess. -- (December 8, 2007) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.74.108.200 (talk) 23:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Gay?

Duchamp is not gay. glbtq: encyclopedia of gay, lesbian, bisexual, & queer culture:

• "Despite the provocative and explicit nature of his work, Duchamp valued the "beauty of indifference" in his private life. His enormous personal charm and easy-going nature attracted many female lovers but few passionate attachments. A brief marriage in 1927 shocked his friends and ended quickly in divorce. A second marriage to Alexina (Teeny) Sattler in 1954 lasted the rest of his life."

Hyacinth 04:31, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

-- Dpayne1912 06:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC) I assume this statement is meant to be funny: "Duchamp enjoyed the companioniship of many women". "Funny" is not, however, our goal. Is there any evidence of his enjoyment? Is there any evidence of "many" women (or only two or three)? It is, in fact, almost easier to argue that the incorrect word in this sentence is "Duchamp". Perhaps the easiest editorial correction is to simply point out that "Pablo Picasso enjoyed the company of many women" -- though it is, perhaps, more relevant to remind our readers that "Duchamp also did not enjoy the company of many women" -- which, in order to force the issue, I have just done.

It was not intended to be funny. It was intended to convey that Duchamp had many female lovers over the course of his life. I may have written it over euphamistically perhaps, but humor was not intended.

Whether he enjoyed his experiences with his many lovers or not, I can't think of any references for that. He did keep going back for more. According to Tompkins there is evidence of many - Sarazin-Lavassor, Teeny, Picabia's ex, Maria Martins, Mary Reynolds, Yvonne Chastel with whom he had a daughter, Beatrice Wood, and more. (Tompkins, Calvin (1996). Duchamp: A Biography, U.S.: Henry Holt and Company, Inc. ISBN 0-8050-5789-7.)

Tompkins does not tell of any male lovers or hint of any action in that direction.

Is the problem relevance? Wording? Evidence?

>>sparkit|TALK<< 15:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Duchamp did enjoy the [sexual] companionship of many women. There is one such occasion documented. In the "Ephemerides" section of "Marcel Duchamp: Work and Life" (The MIT Press, 1993, ISBN 0-262-08225-X) the entry for July 31, 1924 describes an orgy that Duchamp had with three women, Yvonne Chastel, Mimi, and Jeanne. The next day Duchamp indicated to Henri Pierre Roche that he did enjoy it. Certa 20:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Little Known Fact: Mary Reynolds was involved with Duchamp for several years, interrupted by his brief marriage to Lydie Saracin-Lavassor in 1927. Their relatioship was not an average one in the 1930's, as he pursued a sex life outside of the relationship and urged Reynolds to follow. However, it is well known that their relationship was indeed emotional and physical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.179.78.140 (talk) 18:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

IP edits.

This page is getting quite a few repeat IP vandal edits. Wikipedia:Semi-Protection would seem a sensible way to continue if this vandalism re-occurs. ChessCreator (talk) 22:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Duchamp Chess Riddle

I added a para in Turns to Chess section. If anyone would want to add the diagram of the composition here is the code in FEN: 1r6/1PR5/5p2/1P5p/5K2/8/6k1/8 w - - 0 1 --Cammacleay (talk) 12:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Advice to modern art collectors?

In the first paragraph it says:

"Duchamp's output had considerable influence on the development of post-World War I Western art, and whose advice to modern art collectors helped shape the tastes of the Western art world."

Just wondering -- is there a source saying that Duchamp's "advice to modern art collectors helped shape the tastes of the Western art world"?

There very well may be a source for this, but I don't see one obviously placed after that assertion. Bus stop (talk) 18:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Tomkins: Duchamp: A Biography. Tomkins writes thoughout the book about Duchamp advising Peggy Guggenheim, Katherine Dreier, Walter Pach, Arensberg, at least one MOMA director and others. Tompkins, as I recall, asserts that Duchamp's advice influenced their tastes. I don't have page numbers handy - I'd have to comb the book to find them. --sparkit^TALK 06:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Another reference here http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9902E1DA1E3DF93AA25755C0A96E958260 Teapotgeorge^Talk 15:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Could we consider the following wording:

Marcel Duchamp (IPA: [maʀsɛl dyˈʃɑ̃]) (28 July 1887 – 2 October 1968) was a French artist whose work is most often associated with the Dadaist and Surrealist movements. Duchamp's output influenced the development of post-World War I Western art. He is known to have advised modern art collectors (Peggy Guggenheim, among other prominent figures), thereby helping to shape the tastes of the Western art world. Bus stop (talk) 14:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I suppose ultimately a section about his advise to collectors is needed. Anyhow, we can take out my commented comment for one thing. :) In that last sentence I think we can be more to the point...

He advised modern art collectors, such as Peggy Guggenheim and other prominent figures, and helped shape the tastes of the Western art world.

--sparkit^TALK 05:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that a section addressing his influence on, and advice to, art collectors would be a good idea. The last sentence does need to be changed; I agree with you about that too. But I think I would slightly modify your suggested version to read something like the following. Tell me if this is acceptable:

Marcel Duchamp (IPA: [maʀsɛl dyˈʃɑ̃]) (28 July 1887 – 2 October 1968) was a French artist whose work is most often associated with the Dadaist and Surrealist movements. Duchamp's output influenced the development of post-World War I Western art. He advised modern art collectors, such as Peggy Guggenheim and other prominent figures, thereby helping to shape the tastes of Western art during this period. Bus stop (talk) 16:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. Thanks! --sparkit^TALK 02:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Would it be possible to add : A Marriage in Check – The Heart of the Bride Stripped Bare by Her Bachelor, Even (Marcel Duchamp and Lydie Fischer Sarazin-Levassor) Lydie Fischer Sarazin-Levassor Les presses du réel – Avant-gardes, Dijon.

http://www.lespressesdureel.com/EN/ouvrage.php?id=968&menu= —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.97.231.20 (talk) 13:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:VAMOS

Most images used in visual arts articles are often irregular. The MoS are guidelines not policies, generally we use 300px in the lede and thumb default; sometimes but not always upright default, there is no one way because images and articles are so varied...Modernist (talk) 19:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the image use policy is a policy. Cheers. Yworo (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Not really - it is all practice and negotiation in real terms...Modernist (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You really need to have more respect for the policies and guidelines. They are here to help Wikipedia have a more consistent presentation across articles. Yworo (talk) 20:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Read this MOS:IMAGES and cut the personal attacks...Modernist (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

What I said wasn't a personal attack, but what you just said is. Yworo (talk) 20:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

To be clear:

• The thumbnail option may be used ("thumb"), or another size may be fixed. The default thumbnail width is 220 pixels; users can adjust this in their preferences. An option such as "|300px|" resizes the image to the specified width in pixels, and "upright=1.2" (or "|frameless|upright=1.2" for plain pictures) resizes an image to approximately the given multiple of a user's preferred width. An image should generally be no more than 500 pixels tall and 400 pixels ("upright=1.8") wide, so it can be comfortably displayed next to the text on the smallest monitors in common use; an image can be wider if it uses the "center" or "none" options to stand alone. The {{Wide image}} and {{Tall image}} templates display images that would otherwise be unreasonably wide or tall. Examples where adjusting the size may be appropriate include, but are not limited to, the following:...Modernist (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with lead images being 300px, I always leave them that way. But the MoS is only a guideline, while the image use policy is a policy. So enlargement of images elsewhere is undesirable for the reasons given in the latter. I have no problem with removal of "upright" from the major work illustrated, I should have left it off that one, but I believe it should be returned to the other images which don't require the additional detail. The point of the IUP is that every reader has the ability to click on the image for more detail. Yworo (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Look in most cases I use and prefer the upright default; - mix a few up - and lets move on...Modernist (talk) 20:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, fine. Yes, let's move on. Yworo (talk) 20:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Dada and Surrealism

From what I remeber marcel duchamp rejected the notion of being eather a Dadaist or a Surrealist. I'm not saying that he isn't associated with the movements, but it should say somewhere that he didn't coinsider himself a part of them. Even though the readymade was pure Dada, he was in America when he invented that, and Dada was a movement that, at that point, was mainly in France. Also, none of his works, exept Etant donnés (and even that is iffy), were even remotely surreal. The Large Glass and the green box and stuff I think is still coinsidered dadaism. I just think it should be mentioned don't you?

Lexxicanradio1 (talk) 21:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

How many official works?

I received an email from someone and he inquired as to how many official works Duchamp produced during circa 1908 to 1923. Does anybody know and would it not be worth posting in the article? Thanks! --LAgurl (talk) 09:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You could probably determine this fairly accurately with the catalogue raisonné, but it's very expensive. Or you could write to his estate or whoever manages it, but they can be sort of cagey about that kind of thing because of authentication liability issues.DILNN1 (talk) 21:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Rewrite needed, maybe?

It is interesting to note that this wiki article tackles NONE of the most important aspects of Duchamp's works, which can be condensed much more than there is on http://www.understandingduchamp.com/ I was extremely pleased with the presentation on that site, and in comparison, this wiki article is total bollocks. Duchamp's intentions in his work are omitted almost completely. When I intially read this article for the first time I concluded that Duchamp was a failed chess master, not a brilliant artist. That's my two cents obviously. Hope nobdoy takes any offence. L-Enormi (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I rewrote the section on his death, which I felt was a little bit on the sophomoric art-speak poetic side, that it was unclear and repetitive. I also added another citation that supports some clarifying info I included. Another Wikipedia contributor keeps reverting it to the previous version. Can someone else weigh in on this issue in some way to get it resolved? Would be gratefully appreciated.DILNN1 (talk) 21:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Reception

Is there any good reason why an art reception by another known artist (here Saâdane Afif) was removed, respectively is unwanted? --Sister Ray (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

This is an article about Marcel Duchamp. The Afif piece should appear in the Afif article...Modernist (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I added Fountain Archive to the See also section...Modernist (talk) 19:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, i think that's a passable alternative. Thank you! :) --Sister Ray (talk) 06:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Personal Life

The paragraph about his secret relationship seems to be saying that in 1988 Duchamp (d. 1968) allowed Mary Reynolds (later in that same paragraph said to have died in 1950) to reveal their relationship. Clearly, there is some inaccuracy here. Noplotr (talk) 04:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

indeed, so I move this here till it's corrected:

After Sarazin-Lavassor's death (June 23, 1988),<ref>[[:fr:Lydie Sarazin-Levassor]].</ref> Duchamp allowed Mary Reynolds to reveal their complicated—and heretofore secret—ongoing 20-year relationship.<ref>Susan Glover Godlewski. "Warm Ashes: The Life and Career of Mary Reynolds". [http://www.artic.edu/reynolds/essays/godlewski4.php Marcel Duchamp]</ref> They were together until her death in 1950 of uterine cancer.--tickle me 20:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Impact on art

User:Modernist changed the lead to insert conceptual into this sentence in the lead.

Duchamp has had an immense impact on twentieth-century and twenty first-century conceptual art.

I reverted this addition with the edit summary "See cited ref: "[...] the readymade, is arguably the century’s most influential development on artists’ creative process".

Modernist then reinstated conceptual with the edit summary "what ref are you talking about? take this to talk".

As I had hoped was clear from my summary, I was referring to the reference cited at the end of the paragraph. This is from the Metropolital Museum of Art [1] and says "His most striking, iconoclastic gesture, the readymade, is arguably the century's most influential development on artists' creative process." This is clearly saying that Duchamp had an immense impact of twentieth-century art. It does not restrict this to conceptual art.

In the Legacy section we have the following statements, all well-sourced:

• Duchamp is considered by many critics to be one of the most important artists of the 20th century
• his Fountain was voted "the most influential artwork of the 20th century" by a panel of prominent artists and art historians

These sources cited in the article attest to Duchamp being highly influential:

• "Regarded by many in the art world as the most influential artist of the century" (Duchamp:A biography. ISBN 0805057897)
• "the status he has lately assumed as the 20th century's most influential artist." [2]
• "Looking back over the last hundred years as a whole, Duchamp now is widely regarded as the most influential artist of the century." [3]
• "Arguably the most influential artist of the 20th century." [4] (Museum of Fine Arts, Boston)

He may be overrated as an artist, but these sources make it clear that he has been immensely influential, and this influence is not restricted to conceptual art. Verbcatcher (talk) 00:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• To be clear and as a major contributor to this article having added much of the above - Duchamp's importance in 20th and 21st century art is manifested by his appropriations and/or other contributions to our understanding of art as something determined by the artist. In other words - It's art because I say so. Ultimately in simple terms he was the first conceptual artist...Modernist (talk) 02:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • To be even more clear - the readymades are conceptual works of art; essentially the first conceptual art...Modernist (talk) 02:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I reverted the addition of 'conceptual' because it suggests that Duchamp's influence was restricted to conceptual art. The sources cited in the article indicate that his influence was wider. However, his influence is most prominent on conceptual art. I suggest "Duchamp has had an immense impact on twentieth-century and twenty first-century art and he had a seminal influence on the development of conceptual art." Verbcatcher (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• Done...Modernist (talk) 00:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Citzenship

In this edit, an unregistered editor indicated that Duchamp retained his French citizenship until his death, and that he had dual citizenship after taking US citizenship in 1955. The cited source doesn't help with this. The following sources indicate that both countries recognize dual citizenship.[5][6] In the absence of a source that says Duchamp relinquished his French citizenship, or that someone in his position would have been required to do so, I think we should keep the new text and indicate dual nationality after 1955. Verbcatcher (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Marcel Duchamp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/matisse.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080320203734/http://www.artscienceresearchlab.org/articles/panorama.htm to http://www.artscienceresearchlab.org/articles/panorama.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121027213202/http://www.toutfait.com/online_journal_details.php?postid=866 to http://www.toutfait.com/online_journal_details.php?postid=866
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081004024543/http://www.centrepompidou.fr/education/ressources/ENS-Duchamp_en/ENS-duchamp_en.html to http://www.centrepompidou.fr/education/ressources/ENS-Duchamp_en/ENS-duchamp_en.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040816123824/http://www.tate.org.uk/onlineevents/archive/duchamp_legacy.htm to http://www.tate.org.uk/onlineevents/archive/duchamp_legacy.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Duchamp Sneeze.jpg

File:Duchamp Sneeze.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a non-free use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 11:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Fountain

Another pun on R.Mutt, R stood for Richard, french slang for moneybags. The urinal was also bought from Mott Works. The comic characters Mutt and Jeff were also supposidly influences on the false identity. Duchamp originally submitted the work to an Independant Artists Gallery (which he was a director of) to agitate the people responsable for hanging the art, (Duchamp hated the organization of the Gallery). Even though he (R.Mutt) paid the full price entitling him to 2 exhibits they wouldnt display Fountain, and so (after briefly losing the work) Duchamp wrote an articile in defence of "R.Mutt"

Duchamp also stated that the act of chosing the object was the artists work, and its title also made the object an artwork.

There should be language in this entry regarding the doubt around the Urinal's proper credit. This article, and this article discuss the evidence that the Fountain was actually created by the Dadaist Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven. On the baroness's wiki page there is discussion of this, as well as note that another possible candidate for the Fountain's actual designer is Louise Norton. Because there is already mention of this on those other wiki pages, it doesn't make sense not to at least reference the controversy, and cite the articles. I know there is some discussion of this on the talk section of the Fountain's entry page, but this needs to be updated. Trishcan (talk) 13:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Comment on Joseph Nechvatal

"Joseph Nechvatal has cast a considerable light on The Large Glass by noting [...]" - this is at best a very subjective statement, at worst some questionable publicity on a particular art theorist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.172.233.247 (talk) 21:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Surrealist?

Just so I don't entangle myself and others in an edit war...

Can somebody clarify to me and others whether he was or was not a Surrealist?

I originally took him and Arthur Cravan off the "Surrealist" template; afterwards I closely read this specific article, and noticed several mentions of Andre Breton and the other Surrealists ("collaborated with the Surrealists" sentence in "Later Artistic Involvement", plus his involvement in Dreams That Money Can Buy), so I put him back onto it; naturally I assumed that this page should have the template stuck on too, and so I did. Now I see that somebody has thanked me for putting him back onto the template, and someone else has removed it because he was "Not a Surrealist". Reading the non-Dada sections again, however, it seems to me that he was somewhat of a Surrealist - and as a result, I'm rather confused!

If somebody can give me a clear explanation of the events, that would be much appreciated! Orlando the Cat (talk) 08:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Orlando the Cat, Duchamp was obviously involved with the Breton and the surrealists. His involvement included his participation in the exhibition of surrealist objects at Galerie Ratton (1936) the design for Galerie Gradiva's entrance (1937), he was the "generator and arbitrator" for the Exposition Internationale du Surréalisme in 1938, participated in the First Papers of Surrealism (1942), designed the cover for Le Surréalisme en 1947, the cover for Le Surréalisme, même (1956), etc... He never joined the movement though. When Breton published the Manifeste du surréalisme in 1924, Duchamp had already given up making art for playing chess.

I think it would be fair, and I think we have sources to back that up (Tomkins), to say that he was peripheral. Vexations (talk) 15:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

It's true that most of Duchamp's art works relate to Cubism and Dada - he was, after all, older than the Surrealist generation, and was related to other Cubist-influenced artists such as his brothers Jacques Villon and Raymond Duchamp-Villon. However, he is included in René Passeron's Concise Encyclopedia of Surrealism (1975, English translation 1984), not only on account of his active participation in the Surrealist exhibitions (to which he contributed environments), but also his involvement with Breton in editing both Minotaure and VVV, where 'works' of his also appeared. While categorising Duchamp as a French Surrealist artist may not be entirely accurate, he certainly belongs in the Surrealism category. Sweetpool50 (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Sweetpool50, where you wrote Breton's art works relate to Cubism and Dada did you mean Duchamp's art works relate to Cubism and Dada? Vexations (talk) 17:31, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the mistype, which I've corrected. Sweetpool50 (talk) 19:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Vexations, Sweetpool50, this is transforming into a paradox - does this mean that he was and he wasn't a Surrealist at the same time, just as Arthur Cravan was and wasn't a Dadaist? If he produced only one or two works in collaboration with Breton and co. then it would be easier, but seeing how he did more than a few Surrealist collaborations, the case seems to be swinging in defense of the template; seeing how the situation is as of yet unresolved, does that mean that in the meantime I am justified in returning the template onto this page? What happens next? Orlando the Cat (talk) 12:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Orlando the Cat, we say in the article: "From the mid-1930s onward, he collaborated with the Surrealists; however, he did not join the movement, despite the coaxing of André Breton". It would be inconsistent to add him to a list of members of the movement. Vexations (talk) 13:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Surrealism was all about paradox. Duchamp was an art theorist who distrusted academic distinctions and especially the commodification of the arts, which is why he does not fit within either/or definitions. He did not sign up to the Surrealist manifesto but he was a trusted associate in Surrealist activities of the man who drew up that manifesto. On account of this, a distinguished French art historian has included him as a Surrealist (rather than a precursor or an influence) in an encyclopedia of the subject. Surely that is sufficient to include Duchamp in the template? If it is not, then it is the template (and Coldcreation) that is wrong. The references are all on the side of inclusion. Sweetpool50 (talk) 13:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Vexations, Sweetpool50, so does that mean that eventually he was some sort of a Surrealist? Yes, it would be somewhat inconsistent to the "coaxing" sentence, but I would say that to be the close acquaintance of Breton (the one who wrote the Surrealist manifesto if I am not mistaken) despite not actually signing, plus the collaborations already above stated, would be enough to include him in the category. Orlando the Cat (talk) 01:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Orlando the Cat, In my opinion, Duchamp should not be categorized as a surrealist (nor a cubist for that matter), but maybe you could post a notice of this discussion at WT:WikiProject Visual arts and get other people's opinion? Vexations (talk) 03:25, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Vexations, it is done; it's here. I didn't really know how to word it, so it may be a bit vague, but I hope it's sufficient to be understood. Thank you for the advice! Orlando the Cat (talk) 23:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Arguably, Duchamp was not even a Dadaist. He dislike all "isms". The question is, does one qualify to be a Surrealist simply by participating in several of its group endeavors? A note on Cubism: One of the (if not the) most well-known Cubist paintings is Duchamp's Nude Descending a Staircase, No. 2. His interest in Surrealism was in its relation to philosophy, sociology and literature (see Dialogues With Marcel Duchamp (this page)). Coldcreation (talk) 04:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, he surely qualifies as a Cubist, by weight of 'Nude descending' alone. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Randy Kryn, he most certainly didn't qualify as a cubist at the time he wanted to show the painting. The cubists were incredibly dogmatic and the introduction of time in a painting, something they considered "futurist" was anathema to them. Nude descending a staircase was rejected for the 1912 Salon des Indépendants, by his brothers, nota bene. So, in a way, they kicked him out of the movement. Vexations (talk) 13:56, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think anyone personally owned the Cubist movement. Its founders and basic followers can, of course, give opinions, but by that time the cat is out of thee bag and, later, reputable sources more-or-less decide who historically did what and what descriptors belong. He seems to fit the sourced Cubist mold (which would be quite the thing. "Cubist mold" a good name for a poem, painting, and other artwork). The Surrealist thing, I don't really have an opinion on that. It's kind of iffy on both ends of the spectrum, so the decision probably rests on which way it slightly tips. Sources should put that one to bed. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Randy Kryn, In Cabanne's Dialogues With Marcel Duchamp (p. 27), Duchamp said: "Cubism interested me for only a few months. At the end of 1912 I was already thinking of something else. So it was a form of experiment, more than a conviction." Vexations (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Duchamp seems to have been a self-admitted Cubist. He may be iffy if 'Staircase' (1912) didn't exist, but with his succinct memory and that iconic cubist painting, then add the sources, and Cubism seems to include this multi-talented chess player. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Vexations, so were the Surrealists "incredibly dogmatic", with Breton excommunicating signed-up members in the papal manner. One sympathises with Marcel for not wishing to join movements whose membership was so fractious. But that is no excuse for WP editors to be fundamentalist in return and demand to see an artist's membership card before sanctioning what his stylistic affinities demonstrate him so clearly to be that art historians unhesitatingly group him with those tendencies. Here on WP we go with the written evidence. I have already cited Passeron's mention of Duchamp in his Encyclopedia of Surrealism. Critics in 1912 were already including Duchamp in their surveys of Cubism: André Salmon in his Anecdotal History of Cubism, Guillaume Apollinaire in his article on "The Beginnings of Cubism", for example. The documents can be found in Edward F. Fry's Thames & Hudson book on Cubism. I or another can add the references to the article once we reach concensus. Sweetpool50 (talk) 16:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Sweetpool50, Sweetpool50, I don't immediately have access to all the sources you mention, but I have read Apollinaire on Duchamp and do not recall him as particularly reliable when it comes to Duchamp. Would you be able to provide a brief excerpt from the sources that shows that those authors consider Duchamp a cubist or, perhaps more germane to this discussion, a surrealist? Thanks, Vexations (talk) 17:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• In terms of bringing third parties to this discussion, you need to show what reliable, secondary sources assert that Duchamp was either "a cubist" or "a surrealist" and then we can determine whether the claim holds on its merits. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 23:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

That Duchamp was a Cubist between 1911 and 1913 (during the crucial years) is reflected in his work of the period (exhibited at most of the major Cubist exhibitions) and all the relevant literature and reliable sources. Many of those sources are already present in the Duchamp article and the Nude Descending a Staircase, No. 2 article. Passing over the Dadaist component of his activities, the Surrealism connection has been documented. The question remains, and sources have yet to confirm, whether his connection to Surrealism and his brief participation in several Surrealist events and writings on the topic is/are sufficient to maintain the notion that Duchamp was a Surrealist, and therefore to tag the article with a Surrealism template. Coldcreation (talk) 07:14, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

References needed to clarify Exhibition design and installation art section

There appears to be conflicting claims as to Duchamp's role in the Surrealist expo. The language in the paragraph is unclear and discusses Dali and then credits Duchamp. I have tried to make the language consistent, introduced new sourced information, and later asked for a reference to clarify. I've been reverted twice by User:Sweetpool50 for performing seemingly basic functions of Wikipedia. It is unclear why this happened. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I see the sourced info I added was due to my error. It was from an expo of the same name, organised with Breton and Duchamp in 1947. I will reword and re-position this, reverting also to language I changed. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

The article on the 1938 Exposition Internationale du Surréalisme is lacking specific references considering its length and breadth. It makes the overall point the the expo was collaborative and mentions through out various contributions (e.g. Revolving doors, his mannequin) by Duchamp.

I would recommend adopting the specific language from this article to explain the roles given to artists:

Duchamp participated in the design of the 1938 Exposition Internationale du Surréalisme, held at the Galerie des Beaux-arts, Paris. The show was organised by André Breton and Paul Éluard, featuring "Two hundred and twenty-nine artworks by sixty exhibitors from fourteen countries... at this multimedia exhibition." The Surrealists wanted to create an exhibition which in itself would be a creative act, thus working collaboratively in its staging. Marcel Duchamp was named as "Generateur-arbitre", Salvador Dalí and Max Ernst were listed as technical directors, Man Ray was chief lighting technician and Wolfgang Paalen responsible for "water and foliage".

The following remains unsourced and I would suggest removing it becuase it is a) contradictory (stating Breton placed it, then therefore Duchamp confronted guests?) b) unsourced, and c) about 2 other artists.

At the exhibition's entrance Breton placed Salvador Dalí's Rainy Taxi, a work consisting of a taxicab rigged to produce a drizzle of water down the inside of its windows, with a shark-headed creature in the driver's seat, and a blond mannequin covered with live snails in the back. In this way Duchamp confronted guests entering the exhibition, who were in full evening dress.

And to change this for accuracy:

Plus belles rues de Paris (The most beautiful streets of Paris) filled one side of the lobby with mannequins dressed by various Surrealists.

Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok, done. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 22:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

References

oops

earlier I added a todo (* needs mention of the scandal of "The Nude Descending a Staircase" at the Armory Show. --sparkit 05:29, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)), but I'd skimmed over the section -- it's already there. Off to bed for me! --sparkit 05:40, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Maria Martins?

What about his relationship with Maria Martins being named among the women? Wasn't Etant Donnés originally dedicated to her? If nothing else, that makes her significant. -LE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.211.81 (talk) 08:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Calvin Tomkin book about Duchamp has a chapter called Maria. He did some other pieces using her as model, muse and sometimes, mold. -OF — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.128.90 (talk) 00:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Surrealists

There is bad words under collaberation with surrealists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.8.173 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the comment about Dali, shit, and Duchamp is worthy of being here. It doesn't add anything to the understanding of Duchamp's works and legacy. It's a triviality and also is just hearsay or gossip (Dali's). Anyway, I have never heard of Verona, but I do know that the artist Piero Manzoni canned artist's shit in 1961. But really, out of place here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.1.126 (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

French

Is it really significant that 'échecs' (chess) is also French for 'failure'? I can't see why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.123.206 (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Duchamp as a chess player

"Many" consider Duchamp to have been of what is known today as IM (International Master) strength. There are three international titles of chess proficiency, International Grand Master - GM or IGM, International Master - IM, FIDE Master - FM) while the vast majority of players are untitled. The titles themselves were instituted after Duchamp ended his international chess playing career. While Duchamp may not have made his mark on the international chess scene as such, he was strong enough to play on the French team at three team world championships (Olympiads). 158.174.226.96 (talk) 05:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

"a couple of dozen small cubes of marble resembling sugar cubes"

Aren't there over a hundred of these? Викидим (talk) 00:28, 2 October 2023 (UTC)