Academic literature on the topic 'Duchamp, Marcel, 1887-1968 Appreciation'

<p>El presente artículo estudia el aparato geométrico de la obra de Marcel Duchamp (1887-1968), Moulin à café o Molinillo de Café, también conocido por La Amoladora o su denominación inglesa, The Coffee Grinder, de 1911. Esta obra, (considerada seminal por el propio Duchamp), será fundamental para el desarrollo de la La Mariée de 1912 y de La Marièe mise à nu par ses cèlibataires meme, 1915-1923, (La novia puesta al desnudo por sus solteros, incluso), también conocida como Le Grand Vérre, El Gran Vidrio, o The Large Glass. Para la elaboración de este estudio ha sido fundamental la publicación De ou par Marcel Duchamp par Ulf Linde. (Aman y Birnbaum, 2013). Para poder contextualizar este estudio, en su tiempo, en las artes y la arquitectura, recomiendo leer mi anterior trabajo sobre la cuestión, titulado, Crítica del análisis geométrico realizado por Ulf Linde acerca de la obra de Marcel Duchamp. (Franco, 2017) 1, del cual, éste es continuación.</p>

Abstract Artikkelen drøfter sammenhenger mellom Marcel Duchamp (1887–1968) sin tenkning og danseimprovisasjon og kontaktimprovisasjon som tradisjoner. Forskningsprosjektet er tuftet på erfaring utøvere av danseimprovisasjon og kontaktimprovisasjon har gjort, og undersøker forbindelser mellom Duchamp og post-moderne improvisasjonsdanstradisjoner, og på hvilke måter bevissthet om slike forbindelser kan ha betydning for tradisjonenes utøvere. Forfatteren anvender Lindholm og Gadamers (1900–2002) tradisjonsbegrep som analytisk blikk og fortolkningsperspektiv, og får fram hvordan deler av Duchamps tankegods som kan forstås som overlevert via John Cage, Merce Cunningham og Robert Rauschenberg til dansekunstnere som var ansvarlig for oppstarten av postmoderne dans, og som i dag kan forstås som inkorporert i danseimprovisasjon og kontaktimprovisasjon. Tradisjonsperspektivet bidrar videre til å belyse hvordan utøvere kan få en økt forståelse av hva det innebærer å tilhøre en tradisjon, og hvilken betydningen det har å kjenne tradisjonen man tilhører best mulig. I tillegg synliggjøres hvordan postmoderne improvisasjonsdanstradisjoner ved Duchamp har europeiske røtter i tillegg til de amerikanske, og dette gir et utvidet perspektiv og bidrar til et mer komplekst bilde av tradisjonene både innholdsmessig og geografisk.

Texto investiga as Notas sobre o Infra-mince do artista Marcel Duchamp (1887-1968), redigidas em torno de 1935 e publicadas após sua morte por Paul Matisse, assinalando como foco de estudo as de número 01, 06, 16, 02, 46 e 03, nesta ordem. O Infra-mince é um enunciado de Marcel Duchamp na forma de um conjunto de notas, evocando aspectos sensoriais e envolvendo percepções da ordem do sensível, da sensação, da linguagem e da complexidade dos jogos de palavra. Duchamp, partindo sempre do devir imperceptível da sensação, legou-nos pelas notas do Infra-mince aquilo que considero o seu maior segredo. Esse conceito — Infra-mince — contém toda a potência de seu trabalho e induz a pensarmos em seu caráter plástico, teórico e mesmo histórico. Nas notas, observamos uma confluência entre o jogo, a palavra, a sensação e o erotismo. Destacamos a experiência sensorial como meio para a percepção do caráter lábil e flexível destas notas.

<p>El presente estudio pone en cuestión la explicación geométrica dada por Ulf Linde a dos de las obras de Marcel Duchamp (1887-1968), La Mariée (1912) y el Grand Verre (1915-1923), en 1977. En el análisis de la primera de ellas, Linde acierta en el diagnóstico de que la obra responde a unas proporciones áureas, aunque con expresiones matemáticas incorrectas, y en la segunda realiza un análisis poco riguroso, dado que no proporciona las medidas de las que parte para realizarlo. Debido a ello, y como comprobación, realizo el mismo análisis de Linde aplicado al Grand Verre, pero partiendo de las medidas dadas por Duchamp, encontrando que a pesar de ser muy aproximado, no corresponde exactamente a la proporción áurea.</p>

Literary history can be viewed alternately in a perspective of continuities or discontinuities. In the former perspective, what I perversely call postmodernism is simply an extension of modernism [which is], as everyone knows, a development of symbolism, which … is itself a specialisation of romanticismand who is there to say that the romantic concept of man does not find its origin in the great European Enlightenment? Etc. In the latter perspective, however, continuities [which are] maintained on a certain level of narrative abstraction (i.e., history [or aesthetic description]) are resisted in the interests of the quiddity and discreteness of art, the space that each work or action creates around itself. – Ihab Hassan Ihab Hassan’s words, published in 1975, continue to resonate today. How should we approach art? Can an artwork ever really fully be described by its critical review, or does its description only lead to an ever multiplying succession of terms? Michel Foucault spoke of the construction of modern sexuality as being seen as the hidden, irresolvable “truth” of our subjectivity, as that secret which we must constantly speak about, and hence as an “incitement to discourse” (Foucault, History of Sexuality). Since the Romantic period, the appreciation of aesthetics has been tied to the subjectivity of the individual and to the degree an art work appeals to the individual’s sense of self: to one’s personal refinement, emotions and so on. Art might be considered part of the truth of our subjectivity which we seem to be endlessly talking about – without, however, actually ever resolving the issue of what a great art work really is (anymore than we have resolved the issue of what natural sexuality is). It is not my aim to explicate the relationship between art and sex but to re-inject a strategic understanding of discourse, as Foucault understood it, back into commonplace, contemporary aesthetic criticism. The problems in rendering into words subjective, emotional experiences and formal aesthetic criteria continue to dog criticism today. The chief hindrances to contemporary criticism remain such institutional factors as the economic function of newspapers. Given their primary function as tools for the selling of advertising space, newspapers are inherently unsuited to sustaining detailed, informed dialogue on any topic – be it international politics or aesthetics. As it is, reviews remain short, quickly written pieces squeezed into already overloaded arts pages. This does not prevent skilled, caring writers and their editorial supporters from ensuring that fine reviews are published. In the meantime, we muddle through as best we can. I argue that criticism, like art, should operate self-consciously as an incitement to discourse, to engagement, and so to further discussion, poetry, et cetera. The possibility of an endless recession of theoretical terms and subjective responses should not dissuade us. Rather, one should provisionally accept the instrumentality of aesthetic discourse provided one is able always to bear in mind the nominalism which is required to prevent the description of art from becoming an instrument of repression. This is to say, aesthetic criticism is clearly authored in order to demonstrate something: to argue a point, to make a fruitful comparison, and so on. This does not mean that criticism should be composed so as to dictate aesthetic taste to the reader. Instead, it should act as an invitation to further responses – much as the art work itself does. Foucault has described discourse – language, terminologies, metaphorical conceits and those logical and poetic structures which underpin them – as a form of technology (Foucault, Archaeology of Knowledge and History of Sexuality). Different discursive forces arise in response to different cultural needs and contexts, including, indeed, those formulated not only by artists, but also by reviewers. As Hassan intimates, what is or is not “postmodernism”, for example, depends less on the art work itself – it is less a matter of an art work’s specific “quiddity” and its internal qualities – but is, rather, fundamentally dependent upon what one is trying to say about the piece. If one is trying to describe something novel in a work, something which relates it to a series of new or unusual forms which have become dominant within society since World War Two, then the term “postmodernism” most usefully applies. This, then, would entail breaking down the “the space that each work … creates around itself” in order to emphasise horizontal “continuities”. If, on the other hand, the critic wishes to describe the work from the perspective of historical developments, so as to trace the common features of various art works across a genealogical pattern running from Romanticism to the present day, one must de-emphasise the quiddity of the work in favour of vertical continuities. In both cases, however, the identification of common themes across various art works so as to aid in the description of wider historical or aesthetic conditions requires a certain “abstraction” of the qualities of the aesthetic works in question. The “postmodernism”, or any other quality, of a single art work thus remains in the eye of the beholder. No art work is definitively “postmodern” as such. It is only “postmodern” inasmuch as this description aids one in understanding a certain aspect of the piece and its relationship to other objects of analysis. In short, the more either an art work or its critical review elides full descriptive explication, the more useful reflections which might be voiced in its wake. What then is the instrumental purpose of the arts review as a genre of writing? For liberal humanist critics such as Matthew Arnold, F.R. Leavis and Harold Bloom, the role of the critic is straight forward and authoritative. Great art is said to be imbued with the spirit of humanity; with the very essence of our common subjectivity itself. Critics in this mode seek the truth of art and once it has been found, they generally construct it as unified, cohesive and of great value to all of humanity. The authors of the various avant-garde manifestoes which arose in Europe from the fin de siècle period onwards significantly complicated this ideal of universal value by arguing that such aesthetic values were necessarily abstract and so were not immediately visible within the content of the work per se. Such values were rather often present in the art work’s form and expression. Surrealism, Futurism, Supremacism, the Bauhaus and the other movements were founded upon the contention that these avant-garde art works revealed fundamental truths about the essence of human subjectivity: the imperious power of the dream at the heart of our emotional and psychic life, the geometric principles of colour and shape which provide the language for all experience of the sublime, and so on. The critic was still obliged to identify greatness and to isolate and disseminate those pieces of art which revealed the hidden truth of our shared human experience. Few influential art movements did not, in fact, have a chief theoretician to promote their ideals to the world, be it Ezra Pound and Leavis as the explicators of the works of T.S. Eliot, Martin Esslin for Beckett, or the artist her or himself, such as choreographers Martha Graham or Merce Cunningham, both of whom described in considerable detail their own methodologies to various scribes. The great challenge presented in the writings of Foucault, Derrida, Hassan and others, however, is to abandon such a sense of universal aesthetic and philosophical value. Like their fellow travellers within the New Left and soixante huit-ièmes (the agitators and cultural critics of 1968 Paris), these critics contend that the idea of a universal human subjectivity is problematic at best, if not a discursive fiction, which has been used to justify repression, colonialism, the unequal institutional hierarchies of bourgeois democratic systems, and so on. Art does not therefore speak of universal human truths. It is rather – like aesthetic criticism itself – a discursive product whose value should be considered instrumentally. The kind of a critical relationship which I am proposing here might provisionally be classified as discursive or archaeological criticism (in the Foucauldian sense of tracing discursive relationships and their distribution within any given cross-section or strata of cultural life). The role of the critic in such a situation is not one of acknowledging great art. Rather, the critic’s function becomes highly strategic, with interpretations and opinions regarding art works acting as invitations to engagement, consideration and, hence, also to rejection. From the point of view of the audience, too, the critic’s role is one of utility. If a critical description prompts useful, interesting or pleasurable reflections in the reader, then the review has been effective. If it has not, it has no role to play. The response to criticism thus becomes as subjective as the response to the art work itself. Similarly, just as Marcel Duchamp’s act of inverting a urinal and calling it art showed that anyone could be an artist provided they adopted a suitably creative vision of the objects which surrounded them, so anyone and everyone is a legitimate critic of any art work addressed to him or her as an audience. The institutional power accorded to critics by merit of the publications to which they are attached should not obfuscate the fact that anyone has the moral right to venture a critical judgement. It is not actually logically possible to be “right” or “wrong” in attributing qualities to an art work (although I have had artists assert the contrary to me). I like noise art, for example, and find much to stimulate my intellect and my affect in the chaotic feedback characteristic of the work of Merzbow and others. Many others however simply find such sounds to constitute unpleasant noise. Neither commentator is “right”. Both views co-exist. What is important is how these ideas are expressed, what propositions are marshalled to support either position, and how internally cohesive are the arguments supplied by supporters of either proposition. The merit of any particular critical intervention is therefore strictly formal or expressive, lying in its rhetorical construction, rather than in the subjective content of the criticism itself, per se. Clearly, such discursive criticism is of little value in describing works devised according to either an unequivocally liberal humanist or modernist avant-garde perspective. Aesthetic criticism authored in this spirit will not identify the universal, timeless truths of the work, nor will it act as an authoritative barometer of aesthetic value. By the same token though, a recognition of pluralism and instrumentality does not necessarily entail the rejection of categories of value altogether. Such a technique of aesthetic analysis functions primarily in the realm of superficial discursive qualities and formal features, rather than subterranean essences. It is in this sense both anti-Romantic and anti-Platonic. Discursive analysis has its own categories of truth and evaluation. Similarities between works, influences amongst artists and generic or affective precedents become the primary objects of analysis. Such a form of criticism is, in this sense, directly in accord with a similarly self-reflexive, historicised approach to art making itself. Where artists are consciously seeking to engage with their predecessors or peers, to find ways of situating their own work through the development of ideas visible in other cultural objects and historic aesthetic works, then the creation of art becomes itself a form of practical criticism or praxis. The distinction between criticism and its object is, therefore, one of formal expression, not one of nature or essence. Both practices engage with similar materials through a process of reflection (Marshall, “Vertigo”). Having described in philosophical and critical terms what constitutes an unfettered, democratic and strategic model of discursive criticism, it is perhaps useful to close with a more pragmatic description of how I myself attempt to proceed in authoring such criticism and, so, offer at least one possible (and, by definition, subjective) model for discursive criticism. Given that discursive analysis itself developed out of linguistic theory and Saussure’s discussion of the structural nature of signification, it is no surprise that the primary methodology underlying discursive analysis remains that of semiotics: namely how systems of representation and meaning mutually reinforce and support each other, and how they fail to do so. As a critic viewing an art work, it is, therefore, always my first goal to attempt to identify what it is that the artist appears to be trying to do in mounting a production. Is the art work intended as a cultural critique, a political protest, an avant-garde statement, a work of pure escapism, or some other kind of project – and hence one which can be judged according to the generic forms and values associated with such a style in comparison with those by other artists who work in this field? Having determined or intuited this, several related but nominally distinct critical reflections follow. Firstly, how effectively is this intent underpinning the art work achieved, how internally consistent are the tools, forms and themes utilised within the production, and do the affective and historic resonances evoked by the materials employed therein cohere into a logical (or a deliberately fragmented) whole? Secondly, how valid or aesthetically interesting is such a project in the first place, irrespective of whether it was successfully achieved or not? In short, how does the artist’s work compare with its own apparent generic rules, precedents and peers, and is the idea behind the work a contextually valid one or not? The questions of value which inevitably come into these judgements must be weighed according to explicit arguments regarding context, history and genre. It is the discursive transparency of the critique which enables readers to mentally contest the author. Implicitly transcendental models of universal emotional or aesthetic responses should not be invoked. Works of art should, therefore, be judged according to their own manifest terms, and, so, according to the values which appear to govern the relationships which organise materials within the art work. They should also, however, be viewed from a position definitively outside the work, placing the overall concept and its implicit, underlying theses within the context of other precedents, cultural values, political considerations and so on. In other words, one should attempt to heed Hassan’s caution that all art works may be seen both from the perspective of historico-genealogical continuities, as well as according to their own unique, self-defining characteristics and intentions. At the same time, the critical framework of the review itself – while remaining potentially dense and complex – should be as apparent to the reader as possible. The kind of criticism which I author is, therefore, based on a combination of art-historical, generic and socio-cultural comparisons. Critics are clearly able to elaborate more parallels between various artistic and cultural activities than many of their peers in the audience simply because it is the profession of the former to be as familiar with as wide a range of art-historical, cultural and political materials as is possible. This does not, however, make the opinions of the critic “correct”, it merely makes them more potentially dense. Other audiences nevertheless make their own connections, while spectators remain free to state that the particular parallels identified by the critic were not, to their minds, as significant as the critic would contend. The quantity of knowledge from which the critic can select does not verify the accuracy of his or her observations. It rather enables the potential richness of the description. In short, it is high time critics gave up all pretensions to closing off discourse by describing aesthetic works. On the contrary, arts reviewing, like arts production itself, should be seen as an invitation to further discourse, as a gift offered to those who might want it, rather than a Leavisite or Bloom-esque bludgeon to instruct the insensitive masses as to what is supposed to subjectively enlighten and uplift them. It is this sense of engagement – between critic, artist and audience – which provides the truly poetic quality to arts criticism, allowing readers to think creatively in their own right through their own interaction with a collaborative process of rumination on aesthetics and culture. In this way, artists, audiences and critics come to occupy the same terrain, exchanging views and constructing a community of shared ideas, debate and ever-multiplying discursive forms. Ideally, written criticism would come to occupy the same level of authority as an argument between an audience member and a critic at the bar following the staging of a production. I admit myself that even my best written compositions rarely achieve the level of playful interaction which such an environment often provokes. I nevertheless continue to strive for such a form of discursive exchange and bibulous poetry. References Apollonio, Umbro, ed. Futurist Manifestos. London: Thames and Hudson, 1973. Arnold, Matthew. Essays in Criticism. London: Macmillan, 1903-27, published as 2 series. Barthes, Roland. Mythologies. Trans. by Annette Lavers. London: Vintage, 1993. Bloom, Harold. Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human. New York: Riverhead, 1998. Benjamin, Walter. Reflections: Essays, Aphorisms, Autobiographical Writings. Trans. by Edmund Jephcott. New York: Harcourt, 1978. Breton, André. Manifestoes of Surrealism. Trans. by Richard Seaver and Helen Lane. Ann Arbor: Michigan UP, 1972. Eliot, T.S. Collected Poems 1909-1962. London: Faber, 1963. Esslin, Martin. Theatre of the Absurd. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1968. Foucault, Michel. The Archaeology of Knowledge. Trans. by A.M. Sheridan Smith. London: Tavistock, 1972. ———. The History of Sexuality: Volume I: An Introduction. Trans. by Robert Hurley. London: Penguin, 1990. Fukuyama, Francis. The End of History and the Last Man. London: Penguin, 1992. Graham, Martha. Blood Memory. New York: Doubleday, 1991. Hassan, Ihab. “Joyce, Beckett and the Postmodern Imagination.” Triquarterly 32.4 (1975): 192ff. Jameson, Fredric. “Postmodernism, or the Cultural Dominant of Late Capitalism,” New Left Review 146 (1984): 53-92. Leavis, F.R. F.R. Leavis: Essays and Documents. Eds. Ian MacKillop and Richard Storer. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. Malevich, Kazimir. In Penny Guggenheim, ed. Art of This Century – Drawings – Photographs – Sculpture – Collages. New York: Art Aid, 1942. Marshall, Jonathan. “Documents in Australian Postmodern Dance: Two Interviews with Lucy Guerin,” in Adrian Kiernander, ed. Dance and Physical Theatre, special edition of Australasian Drama Studies 41 (October 2002): 102-33. ———. “Operatic Tradition and Ambivalence in Chamber Made Opera’s Recital (Chesworth, Horton, Noonan),” in Keith Gallasch and Laura Ginters, eds. Music Theatre in Australia, special edition of Australasian Drama Studies 45 (October 2004): 72-96. ———. “Vertigo: Between the Word and the Act,” Independent Performance Forums, series of essays commissioned by Not Yet It’s Difficult theatre company and published in RealTime Australia 35 (2000): 10. Merzbow. Venereology. Audio recording. USA: Relapse, 1994. Richards, Alison, Geoffrey Milne, et al., eds. Pearls before Swine: Australian Theatre Criticism, special edition of Meajin 53.3 (Spring 1994). Tzara, Tristan. Seven Dada Manifestos and Lampisteries. Trans. by Barbara Wright. London: Calder, 1992. Vaughan, David. Merce Cunningham: Fifty Years. Ed. Melissa Harris. New York: Aperture, 1997. Citation reference for this article MLA Style Marshall, Jonathan. "Inciting Reflection: A Short Manifesto for and Introduction to the Discursive Reviewing of the Arts." M/C Journal 8.5 (2005). echo date('d M. Y'); ?> <http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0510/08-marshall.php>. APA Style Marshall, J. (Oct. 2005) "Inciting Reflection: A Short Manifesto for and Introduction to the Discursive Reviewing of the Arts," M/C Journal, 8(5). Retrieved echo date('d M. Y'); ?> from <http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0510/08-marshall.php>.

Cette thèse porte sur la relation étroite de l’œuvre de Marcel Duchamp avec la notion de l’Androgyne, la coexistence des principes mâle et femelle, hérités des mythes anciens de la création; elle porte également sur les idées platoniciennes, les pensées gnostique et hermétique, et les croyances alchimiques telles qu’elles se trouvent exprimées dans le corpus de l’œuvre de Duchamp. La première partie, présente le rôle et la signification de l’Androgyne dans les mythes anciens de la création, chez les philosophes grecs, dans la gnose, la philosophie hermétique des alchimistes et la cabale. La deuxième partie, traite l’œuvre de Marcel Duchamp d’un point de vue « androgyne ». En particulier, nous analysons de façon détaillée les deux grandes œuvres de Duchamp, La Mariée mise a nu par ses célibataires même et Etant donnés: 1º la chute d’eau, 2º le gaz d’éclairage, en nous attachant à l’étude de leurs caractéristiques androgynes telles qu’elles ont été définies dans la première partie
The present thesis illustrates the close relation of Marcel Duchamp’s work to Androgyny; the harmonious coexistence of the male and female principles, as we inherited them from the ancient myths of creation, the Platonic ideas, the Gnostic and Hermetic thoughts, the Alchemical beliefs and the way they are expressed in the corpus of Duchamp’s work. Part I, “L’ Androgyne”, presents the use and meaning of Androgyny in Ancient Myths of Creation, Classical Antiquity, Ancient Greek Philosophy and specifically Plato’s Symposium, Gnosticism, the Hermetic Philosophy of the Alchemists and Kabala. Part II, “Marcel Duchamp - L’ Artiste Androgyne” examines the work of Marcel Duchamp seen from an androgynous perspective in order to offer a different insight to his work. In particular it examines and extensively analyzes the two major works of Duchamp: Le Grand Verre and Étant Donnés and focuses on the androgynous characteristics of the works as they have been set in Part I

Personnage tutélaire de la modernité, Marcel Duchamp nous laisse une œuvre à partir de laquelle les exégètes rivalisent d'inventions pour tenter de la nommer (" avant-gardiste ", " nouvelle ", " hors du temps ", " innovatrice "). Paradoxalement, elle n'est connue que sous le nom de Ready-made. L'intérêt que l'iconoclaste a très vite manifesté à l'égard de la musique reste encore ignoré d'une large majorité du public et de la sphère universitaire. Duchamp offre plusieurs compositions musicales, écrites pour la plupart en 1913 : Erratum Musical pour trois voix, La Mariée mise à nu par ses célibataires même/Erratum Musical, pour clavier et une Sculpture Musicale " qui dure ". Elles sont suivies par des ready-mades " sonores " (À bruit secret, 1916). Pour comprendre la sonosphère de Marcel Duchamp et ses répercussions sur toute une production d'artistes (dépassant de loin les seuls arts plastiques), quatre approches sont présentées : permissive, performative, perceptive et perditive. Sous ces catégories se dessinent en même temps les propres influences du nouveau compositeur, son " horizon d'attente ". Des premières expériences européennes et américaines à la musique électronique, de la poésie sonore au multimédia, de l'indétermination à l'improvisation, de l'installation sonore à la musique d'ambiance, du minimalisme au maximalisme musical de masse, cette thèse permet d'explorer les frontières, désormais neutralisées, entre la tradition musicale " savante " et la transmission " orale ". Elle met également en lumière les contextes historique, philosophique, sociologique et artistique qui ont vu naître les conceptions acoustiques de Marcel Duchamp, membre à part entière d'un siècle de turbulences musicales et sonores
On the forefront of modernity, Marcel Duchamp leaves us a work for which analysts are quite creative to name it (“avant-gardist”, “new”, “out of time”, “innovator”). Paradoxically, it is only known as Readymade. Yet, Duchamp's early interest for music and related matters has been widely ignored by a vast majority of the public and the University microcosm so far. His exploration of the sound sphere offers several musical compositions. Most of them were written in 1913 : Musical Erratum, for three voices, The Bride Stripped Bare By Her Bachelors Even/Erratum Musical, for keyboard, and the Musical Sculpture “that lasts”. They are followed by some “sonorous” Readymades (With Hidden Noise, 1916). In order to understand Marcel Duchamp's sonosphere and its implications on the work of other artists (exceeding Plastic-Arts by far), four methods are proposed : “permissive”, “performative”, “perceptual” and “perditive”. The new composer's own influences, his “horizon of waiting”, can be distinguished within these categories. From the first European and American experiments to Electronical Music, from Sound Poetry to Multimedia, from the Indeterminacy to Improvisation, from Audio Installation to Ambient Music, from Minimalism to Mass Musical Maximalism, this essay explores boundaries, now neutralized, between the “Musique Savante” and the “Oral” tradition. It also clarifies the historical, philosophical, political, sociological and artistic contexts through which concerns the acoustic or acousmatic conceptions of Marcel Duchamp, one century full member of musical instabilities

En quoi le discours duchampien est-il maniériste ? L'étude iconographique des peintures et dessins exécutés entre 1910 et 1912 (principalement Jeune homme et jeune fille dans le printemps, Dulcinée, Nu descendant un escalier, Portrait de joueurs d'échecs, Le Roi et la reine entourés de nus vites, Le Passage de la vierge à la mariée, Mariée) convoque une multitude d'œuvres artistiques (Bosch, Léonard, Bellange, Arcimboldo, Vélasquez, Goya, Hogarth, Bartholdi, Gutfreund) ou littéraires (Laforgue, Jarry, Villiers de l'Isle-Adam, Goethe, Ossian, Mallarmé) qui surgissent comme autant de fragments savamment recomposés. Duchamp, comme les maniéristes du XVIe siècle à l'égard des grands maîtres de la Renaissance, soumet ces sources à une narration complexe qui trouve son aboutissement dans le Grand Verre. La "mise à nu" de la peinture a pour corollaire la thématique du port du vêtement, contrainte (et source d'aliénation) exercée sur le corps par les rituels profanes d'une société ayant pour fondement mythologique l'épisode biblique de la Remise du vêtement. De la critique du "temps social" naît une autre tension, la confrontation du classicisme et du baroque : un maniérisme désenchanté, arcimboldesque, qui élève les œuvres au rang d'allégorie de la peinture
In what the Duchamp's word is mannerist? The iconographic study of paintings and drawings made in between 1910 and 1912 (principally Young Man and Girl in Spring, Yvonne and Magdeleine Torn in Tatters, Dulcinea, Sonata, Nude Descending a Staircase, Portrait of Chess Players, The King and Queen Surrounded by Swift Nudes, The Passage from Virgin to Bride, Bride) convenes a multitude of artistic and literary works (Bosch, Leonardo, Bellange, Arcimboldo, Vélasquez, Goya, Hogarth, Bartholdi, Gutfreund and also Laforgue, Jarry, Villiers de l'Isle-Adam, Goethe, Ossian, Mallarmé) which emerge as many fragments wisely recomposed. Duchamp, like the mannerists of the 16th century towards the great masters of the Renaissance, submits his sources into a complex narration which finds its result in The Large Glass. The "stripping bare" of the painting has as a corollary the subject of the garment, compulsion and source of alienation exercised on the body by the profane rituals of a society having as a mythological base the biblical episode of the Giving of the garment. Critic of "social time" gives birth to another tension, the confrontation of the Classicism and the Baroque : a disillusioned mannerism which brings his works in level of allegory of painting

Observant les concepts de "clinamen" epicurien, de "principe d'equivalence", d'"(h)umour", ainsi que leur mise en pratique dans certains travaux de jarry et duchamp (entre autres), cette etude propose tout d'abord d'expliciter les notions essentielles sur lesquelles se peut fonder une possible definition de la "science" 'pataphysique. Machine et langage paraissent ensuite deux objets esxemplaires des stragegies pataphysiques mises en place par jarry et duchamp face au "reel". Sont alors etudies : -a) tant jarryques que duchampiennes, diverses machines: "a peindre", "celibataire", a explorer le temps"; -b) de mallarme a l'oulipo, le parcours logique qui passe par les "polyedres d'idees" de l'ecriture de jarry, la recherche, par duchamp, des "mots premiers" et les sentences de rrose selavy.

La prise de conscience de la langue dans l'œuvre de Marcel Duchamp prend comme point de départ l'objet artistique pour une analyse de son texte. Dans le premier chapitre de la première partie nous divisons la peinture de Duchamp en trois périodes chronologiques : d'abord celle qui ne comporte pas de titre inscrit, puis celle qui en comporte un au verso de la toile et enfin celle qui en comporte un au recto. Le chapitre deux élaboré comment le grand verre signifie par renvoyer le spectateur a une lecture de la boite verte. C'est ainsi que Duchamp enlève une grande partie du cote "rétinien" du verre, but qu'il recherche depuis un titre qui est en tension avec le tableau. Et ainsi crée-t-il une vraie lecture du verre. La deuxième partie de la thèse analyse à travers trois chapitres la création du readymade au moyen du partage de l'intention créatrice de Duchamp, partage forcement verbal. Le chapitre trois introduit le texte implicite à la création du readymade: le document du partage de l'intention créatrice. Le chapitre quatre étudie le texte à travers l'objet artistique, c'est-à-dire un texte et un objet inséparables. Le dernier chapitre analyse la traduction et le bilinguisme politique de Duchamp dans une œuvre "transatlantique" : française et américaine. Dans sa nouveauté créatrice - le partage de l'intention créatrice de Duchamp - et existentielle, le readymade n'a qu'un but : se déclarer œuvre d'art. Le readymade ne veut que cette appellation. "readymade" veut dire "œuvre d'art".

Le but de cette thèse est de réinterpréter l'objet duchampien. Par une nouvelle lecture de l'art et de la pensée de Marcel Duchamp, nous approfondissons l'étude de l'objet duchampien suivant deux voies : celle de l'esthétique et celle de la méthode. L'objet chez Duchamp n'est pas synonyme de chose ni de matière, mais est un concept artistique. L'objet duchampien fait disparaitre la signification habituelle d'une chose quotidienne sous un nouveau titre. Sur la base de cette définition de l'objet duchampien, nous développons trois hypothèses : l'objet ou le mensonge pictural, ce qui n'est pas l'objet ou la chose elle-même, et l'idée de l'objet duchampien ou la chose indirecte. À travers l'esthétique et la méthode de Duchamp, nous en venons à conclure que l'objet duchampien est mensonge pictural et chose indirecte. Car Duchamp profite du mensonge, au sens de Platon, qui ne se réalise que dans l'art, et il présente méthodologiquement la chose quotidienne comme chose indirecte.

Considérant l'objet banal comme matière intermédiaire selon la pensée extrême orientale, nous analysons les variations de l'objet banal en fonction de l'évolution de la société à travers les œuvres choisies : le ready-made de Marcel Duchamp et la télévision de Nam June Paik
Considering the ordinary object as intermediary material like the extreme oriental thoughts, we analyse the variations of the ordinary object according to the evolutions of society through the works of art choosed : the ready-made of Marcel Duchamp and the television of Nam June Paik

The purpose of this study was to determine whether The Large Glass was a negation of women for Marcel Duchamp. The thesis is composed of five chapters. Chapter I is the introduction to the thesis. CHapter II includes a synopsis of the major interpretations of The Large Glass. Duchamp's statements in regard to The Large Glass are also included in Chapter II. Chapter III explains how The Large Glass works through the use of Duchamp's notes. Chapter IV investigates Duchamp's negation of women statement in several ways. His personal relationships with relatives including his wives and other women, and his early paintings of women were examined. His idea of indifference was seen within the context of the Dandy and his alter ego, Rrose Selavy as a Femme Fatale. His machine paintings are also seen as a part of his idea of detachment and negation of women. Detachment as an intellectual pursuit was probed with his life-long interest in chess. The Large Glass was then seen as not only showing inconographically a negation of women but also as being an intrinsic component of his life and his work.