Duchamp

In 1916, there rose a movement in Europe that became to be known as Dadaism. Several artists became attached to the movement, a notable of which was a French artist by the name of Marcel Duchamp. Duchamp produced several works of art inspired by Dada, two of which were the "Bicycle Wheel" and "L.H.O.O.Q.". Let us now discuss the relevance of these two particular works, detail the basis behind the Dadaist movement, and conduct a comparison of Duchamp's work to those of more contemporary examples.

To understand the ideas behind Duchamp's works, it is important first to understand the Dadaist movement that inspired the artist. During the time of 1916, Europe was a place of chaos and violence. World War I had taken grip of the continent, and many artists were left to ponder just what could drive humanity to the levels of insanity that took place in the trenches of the battlefields all over Europe. Many would blame the values of nationalism, militarism, traditional philosophy, and even art as factors that would contribute to the horrors of a brutal war. As a result, many took to protesting the culture that had produced the madness of World War I. Poetry and artwork created by Dadaists often portrayed nihilistic views that contradicted what society considered as the "norm" in those days. The reception to these works of art was of shock and controversy, quite natural considering this was in effect an assault on tradition. Especially important to the Dadaist movement were the works of one man, Marcel Duchamp.

The works of Duchamp are strange, bizarre, and at the same time, fascinating and very much relevant to the history of art. With "Bicycle Wheel", we are introduced to one of Duchamp's "readymades", a term used for simple objects that are turned into works of art by simply changing the context by which they are presented. "Bicycle Wheel" is simply a bicycle wheel mounted upside down on a kitchen stool. One quite possibly might question the validity of such an object as being a work of art. Such were the questions raised by the concepts of Dadaism; this was a revolutionary concept of the time, and was a result of Duchamp's desire for his work to be viewed intellectually, as well as visually. He wanted to challenge one's preconceived notions of aesthetics. By breaking the rules and constructing his own, he accomplished this. Duchamp further challenged the limits of acceptance with his infamous "L.H.O.O.Q.", a mockery of the historic Leonardo painting, the "Mona Lisa", by which he drew a mustache and goatee upon it. Some might would perceive this a form of vandalism against the great Leonardo work of art, until one delved deeper into what Duchamp perhaps truly meant. In my opinion, "L.H.O.O.Q." isn't a slander against the great Leonardo, but instead against the society that have evolved from such great works, a society that marveled at the beauty of "Mona Lisa", yet committed itself to the ugliness of war. Perhaps Duchamp theorizes that what humanity truly needs is to marvel at "ugly" art, therefore producing "beautiful" deeds.

This brings us to the question of whether or not these works of Duchamp are appealing and beautiful, and whether or not art should be appealing and beautiful. While this may seem a straightforward question, the answer will be anything but. Personally, I do not find the particular works of Duchamp to be appealing, or in a sense, beautiful. But I also believe that Duchamp had no intentions of them being regarded as such! Again, one must consider the train of thought of the artist, Duchamp. He considered the intellectual aspect of the piece of art to be just as important as the visual aspect. Also remember the age old adage, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". One person's view of the undesirable may be another person's "Mona Lisa", so to speak. Art isn't simply viewed and taken for what it is, according to Duchamp. It is up to the viewer to extract from the painting a more complex meaning, from which an inference can be made of the artist's true intentions. This doesn't solely apply to Duchamp's works, but to all forms of artistry. Art should not be judged solely on its aesthetic value, but also by the ideas and messages that it is attempting to convey. By merely judging the visual of the art, one is limiting his or her experience of art and missing the whole point by which the artist intended. By limiting art to only those works that are perceived as appealing and beautiful would be a most shallow thing to do. Imagine if one were to say that only the beautiful and appealing people of the world were productive members of society. Who would have the right to make such a subjective