Attack on Duchamp's Urinal

The San Francisco Chronicle reported on Saturday that Marcel Duchamp's "Fountain" was attacked with a hammer by a 76-year old self-proclaimed "performance artist." Duchamp's famous urinal first appeared in 1917 as an attempt to arouse the bourgeoisie - bringing greater attention to the socially and politically charged art movement known as dada, a movement which paved the way for surrealism, situationism, pop art, punk rock and sampling. The urinal was the most notable of a series of objects that Duchamp did not create, but instead found (or purchased) and subsequently displayed; these he called "ready-mades." Duchamp was fond of these objects for their "lack of uniqueness," and while many critics of modern art cite it as an example of a void in artistic skill and context, art historian Hans Richter argues, "We all share the feeling that our scientific faith lacks something - that reality is nowhere to be found, not even in ourselves - that these bottle racks and coal shovels are only expressions of the emptiness of the world through which we stumble. The bottle rack says, 'Art is junk.' The urinal says, 'Art is a trick.'''

So what does an attack on the urinal symbolize? The man in question - Pierre Pinoncelli, who also urinated in the urinal back in 1993, said he intended it as performance art, further stating that Duchamp would have appreciated it. While only the ghost of Duchamp can speak for that, the real question is not "is this art?" but "is this dada?" It would appear that Pinoncelli finds the fact that the urinal is embraced by galleries and valued at $3.6 million as going against the original intention of the work. An act of dada would be to change the context of the work of art, thus reengaging the public in discussions similar to those back in 1917. However, this is rather impossible. Art movements die and evolve into new ones, and while we can appreciate them in historical context, it is hard to believe that they could regain their original political and social power. Much like how punk rock and graffiti do not bear the same social relevance that they did in decades past, the philosophies of art movements can be adopted, however the formal elements need to shift in order to subvert society. Besides, the gallery that celebrates modern art and is fairly inexpensive does not seem like quite the symbol of bourgeois excess that it once did. The White House - or even Urban Outfitters - may be a better place to start.

For those interested in further learning about how subversive art movements evolve and connect over the course of history, Grail Marcus' "Lipstick Traces: A Secret History of the 20th Century" is as good a place to start as any. Be careful where you carry it though as it has been know to encourage others to shout "Dada is not punk!" in your direction.

(Thanks Hillary for passing that article along).