Sunday, October 26, 2014

"4th Order Readymades" (Part 5)

Variously fretted over by art historians, theorists, and even Duchamp himself (posthumously) these past 100 years, critical positions on the readymade vary widely. Thierry de Duve’s position in 1994 was that Duchamp reduced art to “the most primary convention…of all modernist artistic practice, namely that works of art are shown in order to be judged as such.”(1) Yet there is doubt that Duchamp originally wanted to show the readys as “works of art” and he said as much in a 1964 interview: “It was an idea; to have it in your own place like a fire. It was not intended to be shown.”(2)

50 years after he conducted that interview, Duchamp’s renowned biographer Calvin Tomkins takes the intransigent Conceptual Art stance: “The real point of the readymades was to deny the possibility of defining art. Art can be anything. It isn’t an object or even an image, it’s an activity of the spirit.”(3) 

This brings us to the final, 4th Order – objects combined with “action.” Our survey yields only five such artists. Not unsurprisingly, four of these objects/projects use collaborative action as a transformative methodology to extend Duchamp’s basic disruption of function into social practice.

The 4th Order readys run the gamut of collaborative actions; two submissions even involved your humble curator. Allison Yasukawa submitted a collaborative invitation for me to wear a lottery ticket on the bottom of one of my shoes for the duration of the show; it’s called Limp and I accepted. John Perreault’s piece was to be Something Stolen, specifically “by Mark Cameron Boyd or someone he designates.” Naturally, I designated John as that “someone” so he “stole” one of his own small paintings from a gallery. (“Furthermore, although the medium is instant coffee, I stole the idea from Victor Hugo, who did many drawings using coffee.”)(4)

Mazin Abdelhameid wryly addresses the readymade’s expansion to the virtual world by inviting museum visitors to “place found objects and ready-mades, whether it be something inside a pocket, or a recently bought item” on a display shelf, photograph it and share via various social media platforms using #FOUND. Abdelhameid’s piece functions as social practice by asking the public to act as a “marketing tool for both itself and the exhibit” and he has also set-up off-site locations, in addition to this Katzen Arts Center site, “to engage with the public through an introduction of Marcel Duchamp’s various concepts.”(5)

William Brovelli’s conflates the necessity of the dual “sites” of his readymade while questioning the tangibility of objects in a virtual world. Ostensibly “interactive,” his domain name’s URL lies dormant on a Wi-Fi connected flat-screen monitor, its lean design streaming only an obdurate minimalism. 

With Mix ‘n Match, Jackie Hoysted references Duchamp’s “rectified” readymades (L.H.O.O.Q. and Pharmacy) to create a participatory rectification and appropriation of Damien Hirst’s spot paintings. Hoysted’s deferral of the “action” to the museum visitor easily shifts her piece from a 2nd Order “assist” to a uniquely transformative 4th Order readymade, with a subtle critique of how Hirst “employs a large staff” to make his “mass-produced readymade commodities.”(6)

[Next week: Part 6, “Objet trouvé”] 
IMAGE: Jackie Hoysted, Mix ‘n Match; 2014; encaustic on wooden disks, interactive installation, dimensions variable (H48xW156 inches); © Copyright by Jackie Hoysted; photo by MCB.


1. De Duve, Thierry. “Echoes of the Readymade: Critique of Pure Modernism” in The
Duchamp Effect; (Marcia Buskirk, Mignon Nixon: eds.); Cambridge:MIT; 1996; p. 96.

2. Tomkins, Calvin. Marcel Duchamp: The Afternoon Interviews; Brooklyn: Badlands; 2013; p. 73.

3. Ibid., p. 17.

4. Quote from June 5, 2014 statement by John Perreault.

5. Quotes from undated statement by Mazin Abdelhameid.

6. Quote from undated statement by Jackie Hoysted.

Saturday, October 11, 2014

Friday, October 10, 2014

And not to forget... Objet Trouvé (Part 6)

An object that may have indeterminate function, origin and/or conscious recognition for us but is “irreplaceable” for the one who found it.

Allow me to briefly address the distinctions of the found object. Contradictions have ensued in an artist’s selection of, or as Duchamp would have it, their “indifference” to, an object as a readymade. Certain art historians, scholars, critics and curators throughout the 20th century have exasperatingly continued to classify artists’ found objects as readymades, and conversely, confuse readymades with found objects. A cursory Internet search of objet trouvé produces 22 million hits but a quick glance at MOMA’s site reveals: “With the exception of the Ready-made, in which a manufactured object is generally presented on its own without mediation, the objet trouvé is most often used as raw material in an assemblage with juxtaposition as a guiding principle.”(1)

One may easily see the complications, as “the found object shares with the readymade a lack of obvious aesthetic quality and little intervention on the part of the artist beyond putting the object in circulation.” However, we must recognize that “while the readymade is essentially indifferent, multiple, and mass-produced, the found object is essentially singular or irreplaceable.”(2) I might add, that that irreplaceability is specific to the artist who found it and that we must remain open to the possibility that a mass-produced, commodity object, whether new or “used,” may fulfill an artist’s “singular or irreplaceable” need.

During the final weeks before the open call deadline, American University Museum staff and I had received numerous queries as to “what” a readymade was and “how” a readymade was defined. As I explained on my Theory Now blog, I declined to answer because to do so would be tantamount to prescribing the kinds of submissions that artists should submit. In our exhibition of these works, we now know the “who,” “when” and “where” of this mystery but the “why” may forever elude us.

It has been my fervent hope that my Readymade@100 exhibition would attract an audience ready to engage in new debate and discourse on Duchamp’s readymade and its contemporary manifestations. I believe that it is the continuous give-and-take of discourse, the assertion and counter-assertion of argument, that will compel us, if not to a position of understanding, at least to a better grasp of the subject. Finally, whether these “new readymades” meet your measure of authenticity, or you find yourself merely “indifferent,” I trust that this exhibition is a transformative experience.

IMAGE: Rebecca Hirsh, The Rake’s Progress; 2012; steel; 18x18x11 inches; © Copyright by the artist; photo by MCB.


2. Iversen, Margaret. “Found Object, Readymade, Photograph;” Art Journal, Vol. 63, No. 2; Summer 2004; p. 48-50.