Duchamp, Fountain (1917)

Marcel Duchamp, Fountain (1917)
Porcelain
 360 mm  x 480 mm x 610 mm
 

Dada. One of the most controversial art movements out there to date, yet probably a personal favourite of mine. It produced all sorts of art, but this is probably one of the most well known, even to those who aren't art history buffs. But what is it?

 

To the observant, it looks like a men's porcelain urinal, and you'd be exactly right. It's been signed by Duchamp as R. Mutt 1917, and besides from being placed on it's back, that's the only modification to the piece. I know, not much to talk about in terms of composition or colour. I can sense your agitation already, a men's urinal? Really? How is this art? It's the same argument that's raged for years since Duchamp first created it. But let me pose a question back, how is it not art? Does art need a motive, a reason, to be aesthetically beautiful to be called art? Does it need emotion behind it? And this is why I love Dada, it inspires such debate and thought which I feel anyone can contribute to, you don't need to be a scholar or educated in the subject to have an opinion. I've been sitting here for the past couple minutes deciding where to start, and struggling to find a point in which to dive into the fray.

 

Dada was born out of war and conflict, with roots being in World War I. I feel like the movement is culturally outrageous but disillusioned, a sort of jaded perspective on art. The artists were questioning everything around them, especially materialist and political ideas that could have contributed to the suffering of the war. Art is just one way in which this was vented, another cry of frustration.

 

"Dada hurts. Dada does not jest, for the reason that it was experienced by revolutionary men and not by philistines who demand that art be a decoration for the mendacity of their own emotions."

                                - Richard Huelsenbeck



 

I love that quote, because it really sums up the heart of why Dada became popular. It was a cynical look at the art world of the time, of the pompous artists and entangled emotions, and instead looking at the physical aspect and saying, why not?

It's also interesting that Dada isn't a movement of paintings, or sculptures. It's a movement of anything and everything. Because they were asking what art really was, they were putting everything forward as a certain art form. Everyday objects to paper collages were presented, and I cannot think of a reason as to why they aren't art.

 

What is art? It's such a difficult question, and I've spent countless hours arguing with people about it, and I have to say I have Dada to thank. I also thank Dada for making me think so hard about it, and finally convincing me to be quite firmly in the camp that everything is art. I've heard a huge range of arguments. Art should be appealing aesthetically (do I have to be drawn to it by the way it looks?), should have to have meaning (can I not just like it because it looks nice with no deeper meaning?), is a personal decision (but therefore if I say it's art, you must accept it is too?), has to be man-made (so a mountain cannot be art, but a picture of a mountain can be?). I'm not saying you have to be one way or the other, I've had to stop and think when an argument was put forward. It's a vague grey area, not one of black and white, and you have to be prepared to change your position.
Just a side note, when asking what art is, we're not arguing about what you like. There are plenty of pieces or artists that I just cannot stand, but I'm not saying that they're art because I like them. You have to stand back, say 'I don't like this piece. But I accept that it has standing as art.' Otherwise I'll just be sitting here trying to force you to agree with my favourite artists, and it's about the definition of art, or lack thereof, that's being questioned.

Of course I attach emotions to this movement simply because it gets such a strong reaction from me. Is this against what those from the Dada movement wanted? I really don't know. All I know is that this simple photo of a porcelain urinal invokes so much more than was perhaps intended.

What is art? Or because art is everything, does it lack a definition?