Following Tom Rosenthal's work took me to Marcel Duchamp (pron, Marcel Du-sha) and that made me wonder: What exactly is it that makes painted art so important? Why do certain pieces of art become really famous? What is the cryptic meaning behind, say, a brush on canvas, that I don't understand, yet, is sold for millions? So I started reading articles and from what I understand, this is how it work:
A painter paints
Displays painting in a gallery
Gallery determines the price of the painting
Sells the painting to a buyer
Critics decipher the painting and the painter and determine a meaning
The meaning deciphered can change the course of history
Initial main goal: to turn painter into a well known brand OR make his painting really famous (which in turn will turn the painter into a well known brand)
Increased controversy = increased popularity of painting = increased selling price for the painting = increased chances of painter's name becoming the "Brand" = increased chances of his future paintings/art work being recognized successfully = increased critique = increased chances of it being "revolutionary"
To prove this equation, we have
Exhibit # 1:
Painting of Mona Lisa. Hung in Louvre. Unknown until it was stolen in 1911 and then all of a sudden, it was everywhere. It became a master piece due to the fact that it became so well known.
Once the artist has established themselves as a renowned painter, anything they do might be considered a form of art.
Exhibit # 2:
Marcel Duchamp's Bicycle Wheel. About this work of art, Duchamp said "Please note that I didn't want to make a work of art out of [Bicycle Wheel]. The word 'Readymade' did not appear until 1915, when I went to the United States. It was an interesting word, but when I put a bicycle wheel on a stool, the fork down, there was no idea of a 'readymade,' or anything else. It was just a distraction. I didn't have any special reason to do it, or any intention of showing it, or describing anything. No nothing like that..."
And yet, when he displayed this bicycle wheel, it was revolutionary enough to create a new art movement "Readymade"
Exhibit # 3
Marcel Duchamp's "Fountain". To layman's eye, it is nothing but a urinal with "R. Mutt 1917" scribbled on it's side. But in the world of art, putting up a urinal in an art exhibition was a way Duchamp criticized certain aspects of art. The more I read about it, the more interpretations I come across: It was a practical joke; it represented sexuality and eroticism (men's urinal having features of masculinity and yet, has the feminine property of "receiving men's fluid") and so many more. The list is never ending.
The fascinating part is that a common urinal had the power to evoke so much criticism, so many interpretations and an artistic revolution. It just made me wonder. What is the difference between Marcel's urinal and this:
Because this piece of art (which is basically a black line drawn on a paper) could be interpreted as:
The Line: Rejection of Modern Education
In "The Line", the artist subtly rejects modern forms of education and highlights the negative impact it has had on people. She used a lined paper, ordinary for all uses and purposes, because she wanted to emphasize and hint at the quality of media that reaches us and adds to our knowledge (I used it because it was easier to reach). The use of black color indicates a gloom that has set over the never ending race to achieve more and more in the fields of education, without much attention given to the use and importance of what is being learned (I used a black pen because that was closest to me). The break in the stroke of the line represents how contemporary education is bound to falter and lose it's momentum once it is understood that these modern methods do nothing but hinder progress and motivation of the mind (The pen stopped working so I had to draw the line again).
Am I right? No. Wrong.
For one, these artist have put their minds and souls into their paintings. It might be a representation of something which feels tiny to me, but they put a part of their whole selves - their ideas and imagination and efforts into one idea. And people can connect to that idea. Art is a form of connection and it's the connection that people look for.
I do have to say that I find it quite fascinating, how one person got so much power that their choice of displaying a urinal could invoke such a momentous response. What makes Duchamp's urinal so different from all the urinals around the world? Why is it that my "The Line" can't be used for revolutionary purposes to re-evaluate and change methods of education? I would say the difference was fame and location. This urinal wasn't an ordinary urinal because it was Marcel Duchamp's urinal and it wasn't displayed in a toilet. It was displayed in a gallery. My "The Line" is strictly restricted to the reach of my imaginary fan base. Art, in any form, thrives on the "celebrity effect".
However, the thing that fascinates me the most is how I started writing this post a bit critical of artists and painters, but during the process of writing, I have realized that it is a strange, yet beautiful phenomenon. How maybe just a stroke of brush can make someone somewhere feel like they understand what someone so far away from them did. Or maybe it made them want to understand the artist - the desire to seek what another person might be thinking. It is such an integral part of being human. The desire to express, understand, feel and connect. So maybe paintings and poetry might not be my cup of tea, but I do understand it's purpose now - connection. We might over do it at times, but the sentiment persists.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/25/prankster-puts-glasses-on-gallery-floor---and-visitors-mistake-t/
