How Marcel Duchamp Misconceived Idea As Art
Emerging during the trauma of World War One (1914-1918), Dada practitioners framed their chaotic output as an explicit repudiation of the nationalist ideologies and cultural landscape that contributed to the devastation of Europe. Harnessing nonsense, fortuity, and scorn, Dadaists sought to extinguish the concept of 'high art'.
High Art could be equally considered in the following contrasting ways:
High Art: canonical artworks distinguished by exceptional aesthetic merit, conceptual depth, and enduring cultural significance, historically valued by cultivated, scholarly audiences.
High Art: a category hallowed by bourgeois institutions who ignore or denigrate art outside their sphere of interest or influence, while denoting artworks of presumed excellence that often require specialised knowledge and access, serving simultaneously as cultural capital and class demarcation.
Bourgeois: characteristic of the middle class, especially their perceived focus on material possessions and conventional viewpoints.
Into this world of differing perspectives about art, one of the most influential cultural statements of the twentieth century laid the foundation for what would become known as 'Conceptual Art'.
In April 1917, Marcel Duchamp submitted 'Fountain' (an inverted porcelain urinal) to the inaugural exhibition of New York's Society of Independent Artists at Grand Central Palace.
Duchamp described his offering as a "readymade", his term for everyday objects elevated to art solely through the artist's assertion. Although the Society's policy mandated acceptance of all submissions from paying members, 'Fountain' was never presented for show on the grounds of its implausibility as a work of art, leaving it in limbo of being formally accepted, but not physically displayed.
A photo of 'Fountain' appeared later that year in the second and final edition of 'The Blind Man', an art and Dada journal.
'Fountain', Reproduced In 'The Blind Man, No. 2', New York, 1917.
The original 'Fountain' was lost or destroyed shortly after it was rejected. The only incontrovertible photographic evidence of it was taken by Alfred Stieglitz, an American who was well known for his interest and promotion of avant-garde art.
Duchamp would later make 'replicas' of 'Fountain', however these often differed as compared with the original.
Marcel Duchamp often wrote, spoke about, and referenced 'Fountain'. The following quotes with short commentaries introduce many of the themes this study will go on to interrogate:
"With the readymade, I declared: any object can become art if the artist decides it is."
Source: Lecture at MoMA, Apropos of "Readymades" (1961), published in Salt Seller (1973).
Duchamp's declaration that the artist is the arbiter of what defines art is perhaps the most influential of his viewpoints. Asserting something is so, does not however make it so. The nature of art is explored more thoroughly in subsequent sections below.
"The irony of 'Fountain' was that by rejecting it, the art world validated its power to define art."
Source: Private letter to Walter Arensberg (dated August 25, 1917), archived in the Philadelphia Museum of Art.
Within months of submission, Duchamp's confidence and ambition to transform how art is perceived is clear.
Given 'Fountain' was only submitted to a single exhibition, this points to a position of cynicism about the 'art world', and perhaps a calculation about how best to achieve notoriety.
One might think of the 'art world' more broadly as the body of art found across the globe that includes music, visual art, literature, drama, and dance, rather than being confined to Western art galleries, museums, places of learning, their patrons, and the related eco system that includes publishers, critics, journalists, administrators, and promotional agents. In this way one might consider Duchamp is focussed on the politics of art in Western societies, rather than about the nature of art.
"Art is a habit-forming drug for the privileged. The readymade was a vaccine against this disease."
Source: Interview with Otto Hahn, Passport No. G255300 (1966), discussing early Readymades.
With his emotive language Duchamp appears to consider art as a narrowly confined political arena, rather than more widely as a description of non-utilitarian outcomes of creativity that carry sensory, aesthetic, and emotional significance that move both the mind and body.
Marcel Duchamp's 'Fountain' provokes debate about what art is. His contribution is an 'idea object', not an 'art object'.
The following explores this viewpoint.
'Fountain' was a collaborative effort.
The title 'Fountain' was conceived by Walter Arensberg, an American art collector, critic and poet, and the Italian American painter Joseph Stella. Arensberg and Stella were, like Duchamp, founding board members of New York's Society of Independent Artists. All three contributed to the idea and submission for exhibition of 'Fountain'.
Duchamp never took credit for the title, nor did he ever attempt an explanation of its meaning. It could otherwise be argued that Duchamp brought the title and object together to be experienced as a single work of art.
From the Harriet Janis Interviews 1951/1952:
Marcel Duchamp: "...we called it 'Fountain'. I don't know why because I think Stella and Arensberg decided it was better to call it 'Fountain'..."
"...it had to be scandalous - the idea of scandal was - presided to the choice to send something to the Independents - we were talking, Stella and I and Arensberg and I - we spoke of it for doing it and came to the idea of a urinal - then we thought we would buy one, you see of course it went with the idea of readymades - already existed then, you see it was at 67th Street here in my studio and all these readymades were on the ceiling - the idea of getting a urinal came all of itself, you see it was not difficult to have the idea and well, once the idea was there it was done - we would send it to the Independents and nom-de-plume because we didn’t want to attract the attention, not that we were ashamed of it at all, but it would have been silly on my part being one of the members of the Committee to do it as a form of reaction or as something of a revolutionary gesture and sort of play with my authority there to force it in, so to speak - I didn’t want to use it in connection with my position so that’s why we introduced the word “Mutt” in it and I think of course it was a play on Mott works where we bought this thing and changed to mutt, m-u-t-t instead of m-o-t-t and Richard, I don’t know where Richard came - it must have been Richard Mott works, or we just invented the name Richard for the fun of it either, I can’t remember the details of that and then we sent it to the Independents and the poor fellows couldn’t sleep for three days and there was a meeting of the committee."
Duchamp’s persistent use of the word “we” in his reminiscence underscores the highly collaborative nature of the conception and submission of 'Fountain'.
Duchamp's phrase "...once the idea was there it was done..." shows how he viewed 'Fountain' in essence as an idea.
The Society of Independent Artists rejected 'Fountain' and determined it was “...by no definition, a work of art".
Walter Arensberg circumvented this decision by acquiring, then including 'Fountain' as part of a respected art collection shortly after its rejection by the Society of Independent Artists. This cultural placement categorised the object 'Fountain' as art.
The submission of 'Fountain' to the Society of Independent Artists in 1917, and the subsequent refusal to be shown by the exhibition's committee, constitutes the conceptual framework that renders the work historically significant.
The urinal does not however become art through its submission; rather, the act of submission becomes a commentary on the institutions that would validate or reject it.
The institutional context functions as a mirror rather than a transformer. It reflects back to the viewer the assumptions and power structures that determine what is permitted within the category of art. The urinal itself remains unchanged; only the viewer's relationship to institutional frameworks shift. 'Fountain' is best understood as a tool for philosophical investigation, not a participant in aesthetic practice.
By ensuring the inclusion of 'Fountain' into a respected art collection, Arensberg not only recognised the work as culturally significant, but also declared the object as being art. One might consider this as political manoeuvring. That is, the use of power, in this case cultural privilege, to impose influence and control over taste and opinion. This was ironically the same charge being made against the arts establishment of the day by Duchamp and his collaborators.
Duchamp noted that the 'readymade' was a way to get away from the physical act of painting and to favor the mind and ideas over manual execution. His statements explicitly distance the object from artistic production and align his work with philosophical provocation.
The urinal is an industrially manufactured plumbing fixture, designed for efficient waste disposal. Its form follows function. No material transformation occurred before submitting 'Fountain' with the exception of the addition of a name, date, title, and its reorientation.
The material of the object remains unchanged and arrives in the gallery as it would arrive in a showroom: complete, finished, and defined by its utilitarian purpose.
One might argue that Duchamp's rotation of the urinal (turning it on its back) constitutes an intervention. However, this minimal reorientation creates no new aesthetic relationships between elements. More obviously, the design of the urinal with a curved base made it easier for it to be seated on its back which was flat and originally designed to be easily fixed to a wall.
Duchamp states he had no intention or interpretation about the visual object. The urinal acquires meaning only through external conceptual imposition: the proposed re-location of the object into an art exhibition.
Some commend the feminine and masculine forms of 'Fountain' and consider it to be a complex metaphor. The interpretation of an object is not however evidence it is art. It simply shows humans are curious creatures that are unable to switch off their journeys of thought and imagination, whatever they encounter.
Any object, sound, thought, or movement might be considered as if it were art, but this does not make a given object, sound, thought, or movement art. Art is made, with purpose, and care.
Art objects are for the mind and body; objects that are only for the mind and that provoke discourse serve a different function. Marcel Duchamp's 'Fountain' provokes consideration of what art is. It is object as concept, not art. Accepting the 'Fountain' as art dislocates the body from the experience of art, and considers art can be solely of the mind. This purely intellectual view of art ultimately impoverishes what art can be, and what art can do. Art transcends the cognitive alone; it summons the integration of intellect, emotion, and physical sensation into a singular, immersive engagement.
If context is the only thing that transforms the urinal into art, then the category becomes infinitely malleable, rendering the term 'art' meaningless. Art cannot be anything and everything dependant on the artist's assertion, as anyone could then define themself as an artist and declare anything they wish to be art. Art in this way would be of no significance, and therefore loose its foundational quality and value.
That viewers perceive a urinal differently in a gallery than in a plumbing showroom does not alter what the object fundamentally is. Context affects reception, but reception is not the same as creation. An object does not become art through being seen as art; it becomes art through being made as art. Making art brings things together to form a unified whole: at times spontaneously, at others with consideration, but always with care, and thought.
Some argue that Duchamp's choice of selecting one urinal among many constitutes creative activity. However, selection alone lacks the formal transformation of art. A curator selecting paintings for exhibition exercises judgment, but does not become the artist who created those paintings. Selection is a curatorial or critical activity, distinct from artistic production. Even if Duchamp intended his selection as creative, the object itself remains unchanged and possesses no qualities beyond those inherent in industrial design.
That the Museum of Modern Art houses 'Fountain' and that scholars discuss it within art-historical discourse does not establish its nature as art; it establishes only that institutions possess the power to confer attention and prestige. A urinal remains a urinal whether displayed in a gallery or a bathroom. The institutional setting generates discourse about art and does not transform the object into art.
Duchamp frames 'readymades' as instruments of thought rather than objects of aesthetic experience. The urinal remains a urinal. What changes is not the object but the viewer's relationship to the concept of art.
Duchamp's 'readymades' are conceptual provocations that use objects as vehicles for questioning art's definition. They succeed brilliantly at this, but their success lies precisely in their status as non-art as this forces us to examine what art is, might be, or is not.
Marcel Duchamp's 'Fountain' functions as a potent object that not only incites ideas about art, but also institutional authority, definitional boundaries, and the relationship between intention and material. These are valuable contributions to philosophical and critical discourse about art.
The designation matters. Calling 'Fountain' art, collapses meaningful distinctions between artistic creation and critical observation, between aesthetic experience and conceptual reflection. The work's historical importance is undeniable, but its importance stems from its function as a philosophical instrument that exposed the art world's unexamined assumptions. It is an object about art, not an object of art. Recognising this distinction preserves both the specificity of artistic practice, and the intellectual force of Duchamp's radical gesture.
The submission event was an expression that generated discourse about art's definitional boundaries. The urinal served as a prop, a symbol exploited for its certain ability to provoke.
What 'Fountain' accomplishes is philosophically significant but categorically distinct from art making: it destabilises the viewer's assumptions about artistic boundaries, inciting ideas about the nature, definition, and the institutional construction and acceptance of art.
'Fountain' is not a failed artwork; it is a successful object whose power derives precisely from its contrast to art. It assists in the study and understanding about the nature of art and its cultural bias. To call it art is to collapse the vital distinction between aesthetic practice and conceptual provocation, and in doing so, to diminish both.
An example that counters the assertion that Duchamp was the first to use 'readymades' are the works by the French humorist Alphonse Allais (1854–1905). Through the 'Incoherents' movement, Allais transformed everyday objects into absurdist works with pun-laden titles that subverted artistic convention.
There are also a number of unanswerable questions that arise about the origin of 'Fountain'. Duchamp sent a letter to his sister forty eight hours after the exhibition committee declined the urinal for display. Duchamp wrote "One of my female friends, under the masculine pseudonym Richard Mutt, sent and submitted a porcelain urinal as a sculpture". Duchamp might have been referring to his female alter ego, or a woman collaborator. In the original French language 'Avait envoyé' in this context refers to both the physical act of delivery and the institutional gesture of entering a work for exhibition. Using only the English word "sent" as a substitute in translation collapses this into mere postal logistics, while adding "submitted" properly signals the juried-exhibition context. This is not to say "...had sent a porcelain urinal..." which is often quoted as a conventional translation is incorrect, but that it is equally possible that "sent and submitted" was intended. This opens the plausibility that a woman was the originator of 'Fountain'.
Questions about who conceived 'Fountain' are important as it is regarded as a seminal example that subsequently influenced the development of 'Conceptual Art'.
'Fountain' is often assumed to be solely the work of Duchamp. The English newspaper 'The Independent' noted in a February 2008 article that "...with this single "readymade" work ('Fountain'), Duchamp invented conceptual art and severed for ever the traditional link between the artist's labour and the merit of the work".
It would have been more accurate to state that for some, Duchamp's contribution was to sever the traditional link between the artist's craft and the merit of a work of art, but that for others this is a matter of thoughtful and serious debate that challenges the foundation and precursor of 'Conceptual Art'.
'Conceptual Art' is a movement that inverts traditional artistic values by treating the idea as the artwork and the physical expression as merely its byproduct. Meaning takes precedence over sensory experience, inviting viewers to engage with concepts and contexts. I regard 'Conceptual Art' as a categorical fallacy. What follows elaborates upon my point of view.
In my publication The Craft of Art I define art as:
Something created and crafted for the mind and body that carries special significance (emotional, intellectual, spiritual, aesthetic, metaphoric, symbolic, societal, political).
I have also asserted that something conceived of in the mind alone is not art.
Aesthetics: the qualities felt when experiencing something in the mind and body. With many forms of art this may be the way light, sound, or movement become apparent, and with literature is primarily the way ideas are expressed, thought of, and felt emotionally.
Art, in its essential form, is something created through deliberate effort and that has elements that invite sensory, emotional, and intellectual response. These responses arise from the artistic material (for example the artwork's texture, colour, volume etc.) and/or formal properties (for example the artwork's movement, sound, langage etc.), rather than solely from an object's external framing, or contextual assignment.
Visual art, music, dance, drama, photography, film, sculpture, and literature all carry significance for the body. The intelect further enriches art's foundational revelation.
Misappropriation in this context is the unauthorised use of intellectual property or tangible assets without a person's permission, resulting in harm to that person's reputation, income, and/or legacy.
Consider using something already made that you declare as art. This may be an object someone has already taken the time to design and produce, an image produced by artificial intelligence (ai), or perhaps a work of art already in existence. Is the nature of the readymade a veiled excuse to exploit the efforts of others? Who becomes the arbiter of what readymade is acceptable to use, and what readymade is not?
All artists are influenced by other artist's work, and they often use elements from art they have experienced (consciously and unconsciously), but they do not present something in its entirety and declare it their own. Those who do may be accused of plagiarism, misappropriation, or theft.
While some may not have carefully considered these issues, others may simply ignore them. The economic consequences of plagiarism, misappropriation, and theft are recognised because of their negative economic impact, but more importantly the ethical imperative of acting in a manner that does not harm another should be the priority when considering issues of originality and ownership.
Turning to the use of ai, there are similar issues that arise depending on how the data used to generate the ai output is gathered. Some ai companies are more careful to ensure their data and models have ethical guardrails.
If something is made using ethical ai with the intention of provoking the mind and body, and which carries special significance, then one might well think of what appears to be a similar work as 'Fountain' is art.
The following is an example of a standing urinal that was made with ai as a tool in the creative process, and is given the title 'A Matter of Private Relief'. The 'object' is 'situated' in an art gallery, much as 'Fountain' was preposed to be in 1917.
A Matter of Private Relief
The difference of 'A Matter of Private Relief' as compared with 'Fountain' is that this 'object' was not one already in existence (a 'readymade'), although it appears 'real'. Importantly, the relationship between the different visual elements (the urinal, how and where it is located, its tone and composition), work together to present a unified whole.
While 'Fountain' was presented as 'anti-art' and an example of using a 'readymade' object, 'A Matter of Private Relief' was created and presented to be art. That is, the originator, the author of these words, created this work as art, crafted it with care, and invites the audience to consider their emotional, aesthetic, and intellectual response to it.
What complicates matters is that this work uses ai, and that the viewer considers how, while not a 'readymade' object from the real world, the work is a product of a human interacting with, and using a number of technologies, including ai. In this instance the data-set used is ethically sourced from existing images that are then modified in complex ways.
Using ai to create art raises questions about its originality. Note that in 'A Matter of Private Relief' there were many additional steps during the creative process, rather than entering only a single prompt that might be percieved as 'too easy' to make art. This judgement indicates the degree of care and thought when making art is of significance to many.
Ai played no part in conceiving the image or title of the work 'A Matter of Private Relief'. Ai made no 'choice' about the objects or location, but rather followed an iterative flow of prompts that gradually led to a 'core image' that was then modified in composition, tone, colour, and exposure. Most importantly, the artwork was not completed until the title was brought together with the image.
The words 'A Matter of Private Relief' forms an integral part of the artwork and asks the viewer to consider matters of privacy and dignity, of cultural convention, and about the aesthetic form and qualities of the standing urinal. In addition, the work (a urinal placed in an art gallery) references Duchamp's 'Fountain' while remaining distinct in orientation, form, and purpose.
Language, light, and cultural memory work together to create the whole: the artwork.
One might consider that language and object also work together in 'Fountain' with the exception of one crucial issue: for Duchamp, 'art' was a 'mirage', whereas the individual artist and their creative and intellectual processes are 'real'. This views art as being primarily of the mind which contradicts the experience of art being of the mind and body.
The image below is named 'Object As Idea'.
As the originator of this image I do not wish for this to be thought of as art. I view this as an illustration that helps to make a point.
Using iterative ai, I have 'placed' the image of an ordinary domestic toilet in a gallery. Although I took care with the line and symmetry of the toilet's placement within the space, the beauty of the toilet's design and form, the image's minimalist tonal quality, and that the elements are compositionally satisfying, I do not experience this work as art. I ask myself why? How is this any different than the work 'A Matter of Private Relief' above that I declared of as art? My effort with 'Object As Idea' was to envision an ordinary toilet situated in an art gallery so that I could better clarify and ponder on the relationship between ideas and art. In other words, this image is illustrative.
'A Matter of Private Relief' is layered with possible meaning, more convincing and more beautiful, yet also aesthetically complex because the urinal appears to be in use, or used. One view of it would not open up the many possibilities that it brings forth, and I therefore wish to return to this work to consider it again and again. Perhaps most significantly, because the title allows me to relate viscerally to the work, 'A Matter of Private Relief' encourages me to place myself in contemplation of it. In other words, this art for me assumes personal and societal significance.
With 'Object As Idea' the image illustrates a certain psychological detachment as compared with 'A Matter of Private Relief'. The toilet could be any toilet, and like Duchamp's work, I am not drawn back to the visual here, but to the ideas the image excites. Put simply, my body is less engaged.
Object As Idea
Following my writing and making about 'Fountain' I began work on 'A Fountain of Misunderstandings'.
I thought how fountains require force. How Duchamp's 'Fountain' as a vessel that was not functional, was nevertheless thought provoking. I thought about how animals who urinate use their force from within to expel what would otherwise poison them. This thought felt poetic as I pondered further and came to better value objects I use for waste. I thought about how important it is to use a form for the art that is gender neutral, and wondered whether it might be possible to create an image that attempted to show both the caustic results of urination, but also its necessity, and its beauty.
A Fountain of Misunderstandings
I experience art as I do with all those things I most value: with my body and my mind, for this is to be human and alive.
. . .