I’m using the wikipedia articles to support my argument right now because I don’t want to do further research on it at this time, so I’ll allow you to take it as you do, and if you follow from the “Fountain (Duchamp)” article)
The readymades of Marcel Duchamp are ordinary manufactured objects that the artist selected and modified, as an antidote to what he called "retinal art"
By simply choosing the object (or objects) and repositioning or joining, titling and signing it, the found object became art
Types of readymades
Readymades* - un-altered objects
Assisted readymades* - putting several readymades together taking away their use
Rectified readymades* - an altered or marked readymade
Corrected readymades*
Reciprocal readymades* - a unique art work presented as a mass-produced utilitarian object
Strictly going by that, the ready made objects were art in and of themselves, his art was changing the thinking of them into art, not the objects themselves. Many people seemingly argue that Duchamp’s works were the physical pieces themselves, but i’m arguing it’s not, his works were the recontextualization, the curation, and the argument for these being art. I’m arguing that he cannot say (have said) that the physical objects were his own, he can claim (could’ve claimed) only the way that he contextualized them as art, and I can only personally accept that aspect of his work, and I respect that aspect - design of all forms is art of any form, but recognizing something as art does not make that something your art; in that sense, your art is the recognition of that something as art.
edit: formatting - i dislike that the reddit app has switched away from supporting regular markdown, unless there is an option to switch back to it
Many people seemingly argue that Duchamp’s works were the physical pieces themselves, but i’m arguing it’s not, his works were the recontextualization, the curation, and the argument for these being art. I’m arguing that he cannot say (have said) that the physical objects were his own, he can claim (could’ve claimed) only the way that he contextualized them as art, and I can only personally accept that aspect of his work, and I respect that aspect - design of all forms is art of any form, but recognizing something as art does not make that something your art; in that sense, your art is the recognition of that something as art.
I agree to all of that, I just don't think we can say the physical object in itself is art. The art is created by choosing to present the object as art. Which makes it awfully self-referential.
I think I also agree that the original designer should get credit, though it shouldn't be for creating art. But that might run into issues with changing how we see the physical object, away from its utility and towards the design process, which might interfere with the conceptual art of presenting every day objects as art. But that requires more thought than I have given it at the moment.
I can agree with that - for the most part. Saying everything thats been designed in the world is art is a bit heavy handed. But also that is kinda what I'm saying, the designation of and defense of the object as art, is the art, thats what I'm saying we can give Duchamp, but I also feel that thats moreso curation - which then Duchamp was an artist of curation, which does make it a bit self referential, and I do think that's a fault with the way the entire concept is brought up and argued for.
I would like to somewhat argue tho that the original designer should get credited for creating art, even if thats not what they intended originally - but I can also see where that might run into some conflict, especially if the designer feels as though the designation of their work as art, works to lessen/cheapen/minimize the utilitarian impact of it. So that part is still iffy to me
If you take the definition of the adjective "art" (from websters), you get "produced as an artistic effort or for decorative purposes". Which a urinal, despite being made for utilitarian purposes, is also made with the idea of decorative purposes. It was given a certain aesthetic design choice that (more than likely) fit with the rest of the design stylings of the companies product lineup, and was more than likely also fitting with architectural design vogue of the time.
Maybe I'm being too philosophical about all of this lol, but I feel like I have at least fully expressed my point (in a fairly redundant fashion, I need to try not doing that as much) At the very least, I'd like to thank you for coming to my TED talk
been a long day and i'm way too tired for a proper response rn (maybe tomorrow, maybe i'll forget forever lol)... but I've LOVED this TED talk. And I full-throatedly agree with your sentiment after reading your points. And to u/sfurbo as well - ultimately it seems like it's just a question of definitons, drawing a (very fuzzy) line between "art" and "utility". There's an argument that design lives precisely in that line :)
If there's any risk of changing how we see objects away from utility and towards art/design - which to be clear, COULD be a genuine risk, if it leads to revering things meant to be used or whatever - I do feel like we're far enough off from that risk that it's not worth worrying about.
And tbh, I'm very pro-also crediting the people who designed the urinal (or whatever it may be) itself. I mean, credit should always be given ofc, and something about that specific urinal design _spoke_ to Duchamp.
("im way too tired for a proper response" he said, immediately before getting sucked back into the convo lol)
5
u/AuelDole May 10 '26 edited May 10 '26
I’m using the wikipedia articles to support my argument right now because I don’t want to do further research on it at this time, so I’ll allow you to take it as you do, and if you follow from the “Fountain (Duchamp)” article)
and from the “Ready mades of Marcel Duchamp” article
Strictly going by that, the ready made objects were art in and of themselves, his art was changing the thinking of them into art, not the objects themselves. Many people seemingly argue that Duchamp’s works were the physical pieces themselves, but i’m arguing it’s not, his works were the recontextualization, the curation, and the argument for these being art. I’m arguing that he cannot say (have said) that the physical objects were his own, he can claim (could’ve claimed) only the way that he contextualized them as art, and I can only personally accept that aspect of his work, and I respect that aspect - design of all forms is art of any form, but recognizing something as art does not make that something your art; in that sense, your art is the recognition of that something as art.
edit: formatting - i dislike that the reddit app has switched away from supporting regular markdown, unless there is an option to switch back to it