The International JOURNALof the ARTS IN SOCIETY

Volume 3, Number 5

Fountain Mediated: Marcel Duchamp’s Artwork and its Adapting Material Content

Yannis Zavoleas

www.arts-journal.com

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE ARTS IN SOCIETY http://www.arts-journal.com

First published in 2009 in Melbourne, Australia by Common Ground Publishing Pty Ltd www.CommonGroundPublishing.com.

© 2009 (individual papers), the author(s) © 2009 (selection and editorial matter) Common Ground

Authors are responsible for the accuracy of citations, quotations, diagrams, tables and maps.

All rights reserved. Apart from fair use for the purposes of study, research, criticism or review as permitted under the Copyright Act (Australia), no part of this work may be reproduced without written permission from the publisher. For permissions and other inquiries, please contact .

ISSN: 1833-1866 Publisher Site: http://www.Arts-Journal.com

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE ARTS IN SOCIETY is peer-reviewed, supported by rigorous processes of criterion-referenced article ranking and qualitative commentary, ensuring that only intellectual work of the greatest substance and highest significance is published.

Typeset in Common Ground Markup Language using CGCreator multichannel typesetting system http://www.commongroundpublishing.com/software/ Fountain Mediated: Marcel Duchamp’s Artwork and its Adapting Material Content Yannis Zavoleas, University of Patras, Greece

Abstract: The paper draws upon the relationship between artistic documentation and content over Marcel Duchamp’s sculpture work Fountain. The original Fountain was lost soon after it was created in 1917. Since then, Fountain has been reproduced in various media formats, such as photographs, descriptions and replicas. It may be argued that the mediated Fountains were treated as artworks of their own, meanwhile holding and aiding to increase the artistic aura of the original. Fountain is a special case for the following reasons: starting from 1917, it has triggered critical questions related to au- thenticity of artistic creation, such as whether an object of manufacture could be attributed artistic value, also whether re- productions of original artworks may be treated as artworks, too. Even so, Fountain’s artistic significance has been radically different over time. Rather surprisingly, a comparative examination of the mediated Fountains shows substantial differences in the objective information they present, to such an extent that artistic characterizations to which artwork is tied in prin- cipal, become questionable. A reverse relationship among the mediated Fountains and the original may be weaved, so that in documenting the artwork, its material content would even have to be modified in order to comply with the concurrent artistic standards.

Keywords: Fountain, Marcel Duchamp, Duchamp, Stieglitz, Artistic Documentation, Authenticity, Originality, Original/Copy, Artistic Reproduction

duce Fountain, as the elements composing it are “In Milan I have just made a contract with clearly distinguishable and also present in the artwork Schwarz, authorizing him to make an edition with minor or no manipulation by the artist; a remark (8 replicas) of all my few ready-mades. … But upon which Fountain’s classification as a ready- signature or no signature, your find has the made is essentially based.2 same ‘metaphysical’ value as any other ready- However, a close examination of Fountain’s doc- made, [it] even has the advantage to have no umentations raises dilemmas in regards to the ele- 1 commercial value.” ments artwork is composed of. The present inquiry (Marcel Duchamp, response to Douglas compares Fountain’s various appearances, descrip- Gorseline, July 28 1964) tions and references, in order to highlight significant differences among them. Consequently, direct pre- ARCEL DUCHAMP’S Fountain is a sumptions of artwork’s material content are debated; symbolic artwork of Modernity. The ori- moreover, a thread is weaved connecting the forma- Mginal was made in 1917 and it was lost tion of artistic beliefs to the driving forces of artistic soon after it was created; consequently, activity in general, such as artistic production and references about Fountain are applied upon its repro- promotion, also criticism, descriptions, interpreta- ductions, a fact that emphasizes even more artwork’s tions and evaluations of art. pioneering role in addressing critical issues about art, such as artistic creation, originality, authenticity, Fountain Described, Photographed, copy and mass production. It is assumed that Foun- Drawn, Sketched and Replicated tain’s material content is transferred essentially un- changed through its various documentations. Such Over time, Fountain appeared in various media a belief is further supported by the mere observation formats, including descriptions, photographs, draw- that technically it is very simple to execute and repro- ings, sketches and replicas. Firstly, Fountain was

1 Naumann, Francis M. Marcel Duchamp: The Art of Making Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. Amsterdam: Ludion Press & New York: Abrams Books, 2002, p.245. 2 The ready-made is a “commonplace prefabricated object, which – with or without alteration – is isolated from its functional context and elevated to the status of art by the mere act of the artist’s selection.” Ibid., p.299. In principle, a ready-made would be intentionally contro- versial, as it deals indiscriminately with both mass-produced, industrially manufactured, objects and the unique works by individual artists made specifically to question the presumed artistic and commercial value of both. Ades, Dawn & Cox, Neil & Hopkins, David. Marcel Duchamp. London: Thames & Hudson, 1999, p.152.

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE ARTS IN SOCIETY, VOLUME 3, NUMBER 5, 2009 http://www.arts-journal.com, ISSN 1833-1866 © Common Ground, Yannis Zavoleas, All Rights Reserved, Permissions: [email protected] 78 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE ARTS IN SOCIETY, VOLUME 3

submitted as a sculptural work in front of the Society those made in 1964, when Duchamp created eight of Independent Artists’ board of directors,3 to be replicas for the scholar/collector Arturo Schwarz, in shown at the art exhibition The Big Show in New order to be displayed along with other ready-made York, in April 1917. Duchamp submitted the work replicas of his work at the Schwarz gallery in Milan. using the pseudonym “Richard Mutt” in order to hide his involvement as Fountain’s creator, also given Artwork’s Composing Elements that he was one of the founding members of the So- ciety and among the organizers/directors of The Big Fountain’s Early Documentation in 1917 Show. Despite the democratic principals of the Soci- ety and the “no jury” policy that would not allow the In search of Fountain’s composing elements, the Show organizers to evaluate submissions, Fountain present inquiry compares artwork’s documenting was refused for display.4 The submitted work was evidence of various occasions. Starting from The lost and there is no photographic evidence of it. Big Show in 1917, the information about the submit- Thereafter, Duchamp made a series of reproductions ted work is quite ambiguous. In one source is de- for various occasions, such as art exhibitions and scribed: “a white porcelain urinal appeared on a black 5 publications. He created the first copy of Fountain pedestal in the storeroom.” Another source notes as a sculptural piece a few days later and while The that Fountain was delivered by a female friend of 6 Big Show was still open, in order to exhibit it to a Duchamp, probably Louise Norton. In another ver- private art show at the “291” gallery, in the studio sion, “this object [the urinal] was delivered to the of photographer Alfred Stieglitz in New York. That Grand Central Palace, together with an envelope piece was photographed and the “Stieglitz photo- bearing the fictitious Mr. Mutt’s six-dollar member- 7 graph” was presented in the main theme of The Blind ship and entry fee and the work’s title: “Fountain.” Man art magazine second issue of May 1917. The Wood also described “walking into one of the exhib- editors of The Blind Man were Duchamp, Beatrice ition’s storerooms and finding two members of the Wood and Henri-Pierre Roché. Blind Man’s first is- board of directors of the Society, Walter Arensberg sue of April 1917 coincided with the opening of The and George Bellows, in the midst of a furious argu- Big Show. The second edition of May was devoted ment, with the ‘glistening white object’ on the floor 8 to Fountain’s defense, presenting the Stieglitz pho- between them.” Based on related descriptions, it is tograph along with two related articles, “The Richard generally accepted that the submitted artwork was Mutt Case” and “Buddha of the Bathroom.” Copies mainly composed of a standard porcelain lavatory of the Stieglitz photograph and of The Blind Man urinal coming directly from J. L. Mott Iron Works second issue still exist. Fountain’s subsequent docu- Company, a manufacturer of plumbing equipment, mentation includes two photographs of the interior signed and dated as “R. Mutt 1917.” of Duchamp’s studio taken sometime between 1917 For some time after The Big Show it was not and 1918, showing artwork hanging from the lintel known what happened to the submitted work, as for of a doorway together with other ready-mades. Later years it was believed that it disappeared or that it on, Duchamp reproduced or supervised copies of was destroyed. Duchamp’s later interview to Pierre Fountain several times in the size of the original, as Cabanne in 1966 shortly before his death (he died well as in miniature scale. In 1938 a large number in 1968) illuminates the facts: “the Fountain was of three-dimensional miniature copies were made simply placed behind a partition and, for the duration for Duchamp’s artwork The Box in a Valise of 1941. of the exhibition, I didn’t know where it was. … Later series of copies, drawings, sketches and photo- After the exhibition, we found the Fountain again, graphs were presented, with most important ones

3 The Society of Independent Artists was a group of American and European artists founded in December 1916. They charged nominal exhibition fees and established a mandate to “afford American and foreign artists an opportunity to exhibit their work independent of a jury.” The general philosophy of the Society was to establish a new politics of artistic individualism and independence in the United States persistently identified with “anarchy” and “revolution.” Naumann, Francis M. & Venn, Beth. Making Mischief: Dada Invades New York. New York: Whitney Museum of American Art, 1996, pp.210-1. Also Naumann, Francis M. New York Invades Dada 1915-23. New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1994, p.176. 4 In his interview to Pierre Cabanne in 1966, Duchamp debated Fountain’s fate in The Big Show: “Cabanne: You were also among the founding members of the Société des Indépendants, and at the first exhibition you presented a porcelain urinal called ‘Fountain,’ signed by R. Mutt, which was rejected. Duchamp: No, not rejected. A work can’t be rejected by the Indépendents. Cabanne: Let’s say just that it wasn’t admitted. Duchamp: It was simply suppressed.” See Cabanne, Pierre. Dialogues with Marcel Duchamp: With an Appreciation by Jasper Johns, trans. Ron Padgett. London: Da Capo Press / Thames & Hudson, 1971, p.54. Also Ades, Dawn & Cox, Neil & Hopkins, David. Marcel Duchamp, p.128. 5 Ades, Dawn & Cox, Neil & Hopkins, David. Marcel Duchamp, p.126. 6 Naumann, Francis M. Marcel Duchamp: The Art of Making Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, p.72. 7 Tomkins, Calvin. Duchamp: a Biography. New York: Henry Holt & Company, 1996, p.181. 8 Ibid. In a different version of the events George Bellows is replaced by Rockwell Kent. De Duve, Thierry. Kant after Duchamp. Cambridge MA & London: October / The MIT Press, 1996, pp.90-1. YANNIS ZAVOLEAS 79

behind a partition, and I retrieved it!”9 As for the ably artist Man Ray, Duchamp’s friend, who took two photographs showing a urinal hanging from the “the only two photographs of the urinal besides lintel of a doorway (fig.1) in Duchamp’s studio, the Stieglitz’s that we have, and in which we see it exact time when these were taken must have been hanging in Duchamp’s studio.”11 These two photo- either after Duchamp got the original Fountain back, graphs are among the first photographic testimonies after May 1917, or even later, as in 1918, as Roché of Fountain; meanwhile, they are rather informal indicated in his diary that he personally “photo- snapshots showing artwork vaguely and they may graphed all the corners of Marcel’s studio”10 just only be used as comparative referents to more accred- before Duchamp departed to Buenos Aires. In a dif- ited documentation. ferent version, Thierry de Duve notes that it is prob-

Fig. 1: One of the Two Photographs taken at Duchamp’s Studio Sometime in 1917-18, Showing the Urinal Object Hanging, Together with Other Ready-Mades

Fountain’s mostly known early photographic evid- took great pains with the lighting;”14 however, ence is the Stieglitz photograph. It was probably Wood’s memory on these kinds of details was not taken while The Big Show was still open (it ended always precise and when she wrote her autobio- in May 6), certainly before The Blind Man issue of graphy, she allowed herself to embellish a story May 1917 was released, as it was published there; slightly, especially if it made the narrative more in- sometime between 13 and 19 of April 1917.12 teresting.15 On the other hand, de Duve notes, Stieglitz must have agreed to photograph Fountain Duchamp was not on such good terms with Stieglitz upon Duchamp and Wood’s request. It is probable and from his circle only Picabia was a close friend that Stieglitz did not know that Duchamp was behind of the photographer. Most likely, Stieglitz was led the artist “Richard Mutt” at the time when the work to think that the urinal had been submitted by a was exhibited and photographed in his studio. As art young woman at the instigation of Duchamp; he was historian Francis Naumann suggests, Duchamp and greatly amused and felt it was important to fight Wood would only have told Stieglitz that they bigotry in America. As de Duve continues, “one can planned to use the photograph for a publication de- be certain that if Duchamp addressed Stieglitz, it was voted to a defense of Richard Mutt’s rejected submis- not just to obtain a photograph. The photograph had sion.13 Moreover, it is not known for sure whether to be signed, and what better signature than that of Duchamp himself contributed in arranging the pho- Stieglitz, the artist, the maker of American avant- tographic setting. As Wood recalls, “he [Duchamp] garde, the former honorary vice-president of the Ar-

9 Cabanne, Pierre. Dialogues with Marcel Duchamp: With an Appreciation by Jasper Johns, p.55. 10 This information is given by personal communication with art historian and Duchamp specialist Francis Naumann. For the same matter see also Naumann, Francis. M. Marcel Duchamp: The Art of Making Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, pp.68, 74-5. 11 De Duve, Thierry. Kant after Duchamp, p.118. 12 As Beatrice Wood noted in her diary, on April 13, 1917 she had gone with Duchamp to “see Stieglitz about ‘Fountain’” and six days later, on April 19, Stieglitz sent a letter to the noted art critic Henry McBride, inviting him to stop by the gallery and see his photograph of the piece. Naumann, Francis M. “The Blind Man: Alfred Stieglitz Photograph of R. Mutt’s Fountain.” In New York et L'art Moderne - Alfred Stieglitz et Son Cercle (1905-1930) (exhibition catalogue), eds. Francoise Heilbrun & Danielle Tilkin. Paris: RMN / Musée d’ Orsay, 2004. 13 Ibid. See also de Duve, Thierry. Kant after Duchamp, p.116. 14 Tomkins, Calvin. Duchamp: a Biography, p.183. 15 This comment belongs to Naumann and it was given to me in personal correspondence. 80 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE ARTS IN SOCIETY, VOLUME 3

mory Show, the prestigious and irascible guru of Overall, the Stieglitz photograph gives important 291…?”16 In any case, Duchamp chose to bring information about Fountain; it contributed signific- Fountain to Stieglitz and persuade him to have it antly in establishing artwork’s reputation, being photographed, thereby passing this controversial ar- widely used as its reference for the years to follow, tifact – and the many questions the photograph forces including the defense in The Blind Man, as well as its viewers to ask – through the lens of the most its later reproductions. Then, the Stieglitz photograph venerated spokesman of Modernism in the United deserves a key role in the present inquiry: next, the States. information that it carries about Fountain will be Before proceeding in evaluating the Stieglitz analysed, also in regards to any artistic intension of photograph, there are considerable concerns whether the photographic composition, in order to be com- it actually shows the same Fountain that was submit- pared to The Big Show and other references of the ted for The Big Show, or a remake of it. In his inter- artwork. view to Cabanne, Duchamp claimed that he found In the Stieglitz photograph (fig.2), Fountain is the piece after The Big Show was over. Thus, if his placed against the background of Marsden Hartley’s recollection of the events was still accurate after al- painting The Warriors (1913). There are also metic- most fifty years, then the Fountain of the Stieglitz ulously elaborated lighting effects, reflections and photograph was different from the one of The Big shadows. Since Fountain was supposed to be placed Show; unless of course Duchamp did not disclose in the exhibition setting of The Big Show, the back- the truth to Cabanne. Considering the facts, such a drop painting and the lighting effects would not have claim remains possible: Fountain disappeared during been considered to accompany the artwork there. The Big Show, the same time a Fountain appeared Instead, they were used as supporting elements for in Stieglitz’s studio and Duchamp said that he found the photograph and possibly the installation for the the original work again after the Show was over. exhibition at Stieglitz’s studio. The background and Therefore, for the purpose of the Stieglitz photo- lighting are especially manipulated in order to pro- graph, either Duchamp installed the same piece that duce an aesthetic effect. The use of the painting as was sent for The Big Show, or he made an exact a background for a sculpture work creates a thematic copy of it, with similar elements.17 relationship between the two pieces. Additionally, Regarding the Stieglitz photograph, it is important the urinal casts a smooth shadow onto the pedestal, keeping in mind that the composition was clearly set looking like a veil or an anthropomorphic profile.18 up for a two-dimensional medium. The information The curves of the urinal are intensified with their a photograph is able to convey is far more different shadow duplicates, being also compared to those of than viewing directly the actual three-dimensional the painting, as in some way the urinal appears to object, as the viewer would be able to move around stem out of the background. As a result, the painting, it spatially, “re-composing” any information intellec- the urinal and the shadows are organically connected. tually. In consequence, many of the questions that The specific manipulation of the background and the two-dimensional photographic representation lighting also emphasizes the aesthetic character of raises result to a large degree from the medium’s the urinal’s shape and, in turn, the urinal acquires inherent characteristics; ones that Stieglitz and metaphorical and metaphysical significance; that is, Duchamp were aware of to the most and also chal- artistic. The backdrop painting and the anthropo- lenged with that photograph. Thus, an analysis of morphic shadows are elements widely recognizable the Stieglitz photograph would inevitably implicate as artistic. Juxtaposing Fountain with artistic ele- issues that are also reflective of the medium’s ability ments encourages viewers to include artwork within to convey information under subjective filtering. In an artistic gaze. Moreover, the left and right margins the case of Fountain and since the work is overloaded of Fountain are equal in the photograph. The urinal with information that is prone to subjective and is symmetrically placed in the photographic compos- equivocal interpretations, any attempt to decipher ition and is shown in an almost frontal position with meaning is challenging and enriching for the experi- a minor rotation to the left; a natural placement, still ence of looking directly at the Stieglitz photograph remaining frontal. From these basic observations it in different ways, as also of looking indirectly at becomes clear that the Stieglitz photograph is not a Fountain through that photograph, even though such random snapshot, but a meticulously staged one re- attempts might not necessarily lead to clear-cut inter- sembling that of a portrait, where Fountain is given pretations about the artistic significance of either artistic charm, so to speak. Fountain, or the photograph of it.

16 De Duve, Thierry. Kant after Duchamp, pp.116,118-9. 17 For the same matter, Duchamp’s biographer Calvin Tomkin claims that the Stieglitz photograph was taken probably a week after The Big Show. Tomkins, Calvin. Duchamp: a Biography, p.183. 18 Dawn, Ades & Cox, Neil & Hopkins, David. Marcel Duchamp, p.129. YANNIS ZAVOLEAS 81

Fig. 2: The Stieglitz Photograph, 1917

It is worth pointing out that later interpretations of artistic feel of the Stieglitz photograph. Fountain’s Fountain acknowledged the general artistic feel of positioning in front of the painting suggests that these the Stieglitz photograph in terms of its staging and, two elements are related. Since the painting is an in turn, applied it to the presented artwork. An ex- abstract one, then the photograph invokes Fountain’s ample is the “Buddha of the Bathroom” article; connection to abstract art. Furthermore, the smooth Fountain’s first published interpretation in the second anthropomorphic shadows invoke a relationship to edition of The Blind Man, in which the Stieglitz artistic photography, especially those with generally photograph appears slightly cropped from top and nude subjects. In fact, “Buddha of the Bathroom” bottom (fig.3). The article notes: “the smooth white was influenced by that photograph to the point that curves of Fountain’s shadows form like a simplified it connected Fountain to abstract and erotic art. Thus, nude but with visual references to both the Buddha the Stieglitz photograph was essentially a rhetorical and the Virgin Mary.”19 The description of Fountain act testifying for Fountain’s artistic significance even in the article clearly resonates with the general since 1917, the year of its creation.

Fig. 3: The Blind Man 2nd Issue May 1917, Devoted to Fountain’s Defense

Apart from the lighting effects and the background inscription bears the title “Fountain,” the pseudonym painting, the photograph shows the urinal, the signa- “Richard Mutt” and an address, most likely a fake ture “R. Mutt 1917” applied onto it, a white box/pedestal the urinal is placed on and an art inscrip- tion hanging from its left handle. The urinal is rotated ninety degrees from its functional position. The art

19 For more on the subject, read Louise Norton’s article “Buddha of the Bathroom” that accompanied the picture of the reconstructed Fountain for The Blind Man. Also see Ades, Dawn & Cox, Neil & Hopkins, David. Marcel Duchamp, p.130. 82 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE ARTS IN SOCIETY, VOLUME 3

one; this is the only legible information on the art By evaluating the information of the Stieglitz inscription from the photograph.20 photograph, the following may be summarized: the By looking at the Stieglitz photograph and at those urinal, the “R. Mutt 1917” signature, the pedestal, taken at Duchamp’s studio showing Fountain the art inscription, the background painting and the hanging from above, it is evident that in the two oc- lighting effects are intentionally manipulated. The casions the artwork is supported differently. Descrip- urinal and the signature are elements of Fountain. tions about Fountain’s submission to The Big Show The background, the lighting, the pedestal and the say that the artwork was sent onto a black pedestal. art inscription are treated as elements of art’s install- Possibly, in staging the Stieglitz photograph, a white ation. It may also be emphasized that the pedestal pedestal was chosen instead of a black one so that and the art inscription are functionally subordinate the urinal’s shadow would be crispier; apparently, to the sculptural work, lending direct support to its the color difference was not important. However, it artistic presentation. Moreover, the background and should be noted, the urinal is placed off-centered lighting lend support to Fountain’s defense as a work onto the pedestal. The off-centered placement was of art. These two elements rather have a particular probably chosen in order to capture a better shadow medial status: they belong exclusively to the express- of the urinal. Still, this is very different to the way ive domain of the photograph, to which may also be any artwork would be normally placed onto a pedes- attributed the almost frontal portrayal of the urinal tal; that is, centered and symmetrical, in order to and its symmetrical positioning in the photographic maintain stability. The observation that a rather nar- composition; they are medium-specific elements and row tall orthogonal column is used as a pedestal they do not belong in any essential way to the art- further contradicts to its function, as the sustaining work. As for the pedestal and the art inscription, of the urinal becomes almost problematic. there are descriptions saying that the Fountain that Additionally, the art inscription shown in the was submitted for The Big Show was accompanied Stieglitz photograph hanging from the left handle of by similar elements. Meanwhile, as it is shown in the urinal is ambivalent: it resembles more of a tem- the photographs taken at Duchamp’s studio, Duch- porary tag as for submissions to art exhibitions – in- amp also intended hanging the urinal. Further com- voking of an object-in-transition towards the art menting on the presence of the pedestal and of the world21 – or of a price tag;22 certainly not of a art inscription, it is worth noting that when Duchamp proper identification label that would appear in an used elements of naming and support, he would in- art exhibition setting. Such a placement is very clude them in the artwork. By comparing Fountain’s common in cases when artworks are submitted for early photographic evidence and the information approval to art exhibitions. If a submitted work is about artwork’s submission to The Big Show, it re- accepted, then the temporary tag is taken away and mains possible that the pedestal and the art inscrip- replaced by a formal art inscription, which gives in- tion are parts of Fountain’s core composition. formation about the artwork and is properly placed Admittedly, such a claim has not been given atten- in more clear view either onto the pedestal, or close tion by later representations, analyses and reproduc- to the artwork, probably somewhere on a background tions of Fountain after 1917;23 not even by Duchamp wall, or onto a separate stand. The art inscription is himself, when he created, or supervised any of the rather similar to the one with which Fountain was replicas and the miniatures. Thus, it may be argued submitted to The Big Show, as it bears all the neces- that the pedestal and the art inscription were not sary information. Then, Duchamp either included considered to belong to Fountain and that they were the art inscription for the Stieglitz photograph by artwork’s separate sustaining elements; in other intentionally remaking it – if he used a different ur- words, that the artwork could be installed in various inal – or he still thought it was something significant ways depending on the occasion – either roughly to keep – if he used the same urinal as the one for placed onto a pedestal, or hanging, with its art inscrip- The Big Show. Thus, the presence of the pedestal tion either attached to its handle, or placed some- and the art inscription and their equal manipulations where else close. The matter will be investigated seem as deliberate acts, either by Stieglitz, or Duch- specifically by analyzing how Fountain was repro- amp, or by both. duced, copied, sketched, drawn and presented in

20 De Duve assures that the signature name “Richard Mutt” is visible in the photograph, being written in full on the art inscription attached to the urinal. From the art inscription the fictitious artist’s name was known to all the insiders of The Big Show who had seen Fountain. De Duve, Thierry. Kant after Duchamp, pp.108-9, note 32. 21 This issue was raised in discussion with MIT professor Caroline Jones. 22 This was indicated by MIT scholar Stephanie Davenport. 23 De Duve includes in his book a photograph of a Fountain replica of artist Elaine Sturtevant, made in 1973, named as Duchamp Fontaine. It is marked as “readymade (urinal turned upside down).” In that photograph, a urinal signed as “R. Mutt 1917” is placed off-centered on top of a white pedestal, clearly imitating Fountain’s placement of the Stieglitz photograph, also of the shadows. De Duve, Thierry. Kant after Duchamp, p.88. YANNIS ZAVOLEAS 83

various media formats, especially when Duchamp important reproductions, the eight replicas made for was personally involved in the related actions. The the Schwarz gallery in Milan in 1964. inquiry will eventually focus on Fountain’s most

Fig. 4: 1964 Replica for the Schwarz Gallery in Milan

The eight replicas of 1964 for the Schwarz exhibition Fountain’s Later Documentations (fig.4) are Fountain’s most important reproductions: they perpetuated Fountain’s fame as crucial artistic The reproductions made after the Stieglitz photo- intervention in the birth of Modernism; an argument graph include the miniatures of 1938, the three copies and an artwork, all in one. Its fame as a case (stimu- in the same scale as the original made in 1950, 1953 lated by Duchamp and his allies) symbolized all that and 1963, and the eight replicas made in 1964 for was new and radical about a new generation of art. the Schwarz gallery. With the exception of the scale The information of these eight replicas as well as of difference of the miniatures, all the copies are vari- the exhibition catalogue will be examined, especially ations of the same urinal inscribed as “R. Mutt 1917.” the working drawings and sketches.

Fig. 5: The Cover Jacket Setup for the Schwarz Exhibition Catalogue, Made in 1964 84 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE ARTS IN SOCIETY, VOLUME 3

Fig. 6: Drawings Made in 1964 for the Schwarz Replicas

Fig. 7: Detail Showing the Signing and Naming of the Drawings

The front cover jacket of the Schwarz exhibition submitted for The Big Show were omitted; (3) catalogue (fig.5) depicts a mirrored sketch of the ur- Duchamp signed the urinal on the cover sketch with inal of the Stieglitz photograph. The sketch was his initials “M.D.” and not as “R. Mutt 1917” as ex- drawn along with the titles in the opposite side of a pected; (4) the word “Fountain” as the title that was tracing paper, as a negative mold for the cover.24 A written in the art inscription is generally absent from comparison of this sketch to the Stieglitz photograph the cover jacket, also the drawings of the exhibition shows a difference: Duchamp signed the sketch as catalogue and the urinal. The pedestal and the art “M.D.” (his initials) instead of “R. Mutt 1917” in inscription are in debate; the inquiry will focus on the same spot onto the urinal. On the same cover the the difference of the signatures and on the absence following titles appear. On the top: (U)N of the title “Fountain.” (R)OB(I)(N)ET (O)R(I)GINAL (R)EVOLUTION- As Duchamp signed the urinals, he roughly had NAIRE / “RENVOI MIRIORIQUE”?25 and at the the following options: to sign with his name as bottom: (U)N (R)OB(I)(N)(E)T QUI S’ARRETE “Marcel Duchamp,” to sign as “R. Mutt 1917,” to DE COULER QUAND ON NE L’ECOUTE PAS.” sign with a different name, or not to sign at all. Had The letters in parentheses were printed in red and he signed with his name, the replicas would not the other ones in black. The top title means, in Eng- match to the work of 1917. Still, he did something lish: AN ORIGINAL REVOLUTIONARY quite similar by signing the cover sketch with his FAUCET: “MIRRORICAL RETURN”? The bottom initials. As for the other options, signing with an one means: A FAUCET THAT STOPS DRIPPING unknown name or not signing at all would make a WHEN NOBODY IS LISTENING TO IT. The red very noticeable difference to the Fountain of 1917. letters pop up as the words “URINOIR” at the top Thus, he signed the urinals with “R. Mutt 1917,” so and “URINE” at the bottom. The word “URINAL” that no doubt would be raised. It may be noted is also mentioned as the title of the plan, front view however that signing with a name that in 1964 was and section drawings,26 all signed as “OK Marcel already recognized as Duchamp’s pseudonym was Duchamp” (figs.6, 7). not the same as in 1917; when Fountain was submit- The replicas of 1964, also the front sketch and the ted for The Big Show, Marcel Duchamp and Richard drawings of the catalogue were supervised by Mutt were virtually two different artists for the board Duchamp himself. A comparative evaluation of them of directors. Then, given Duchamp’s fame in 1964, may be summarized in the following: (1) the assump- the artistic significance of the “Richard Mutt” tion was that the artwork is composed of a urinal pseudonym that was already certified as his, was object, signed and dated as “R. Mutt 1917;” (2) the immensely more important than in 1917, when Mutt art inscription and the pedestal of the Stieglitz photo- was an unknown artist. Additionally, the absence of graph, also accompanying the Fountain that was the word “Fountain” from the cover jacket and the

24 Schwarz, Arturo. The Complete Works of Marcel Duchamp, p.840. 25 Presumably Duchamp made a mistake in the ordering of the letters in the word “MIRIORIQUE” instead of writing “MIRRIORIQUE,” that was corrected by the publisher directly on the front cover of the catalogue. Ibid., p.840. 26 Ibid., pp.838-9. YANNIS ZAVOLEAS 85

drawings is rather provocative, given that Duchamp famous artists would invoke reforming the artistic used the title phrase “a faucet that stops dripping standards, as the art establishment would be trans- when nobody is listening to it,” also letting the words formed in order to embrace them; in other words, URINOIR and URINE pop out of the titles. Such that the established reputation of the artist as well as remarks would preserve suspicions that the produced of artwork, essentially acts as guide for the artistic replicas might have been reproductions of either a context and justification of artistic production, further urinal, or a faucet, but not of the Fountain of 1917. assuring artwork’s artistic significance and value as Instead, the eight replicas of 1964 were presumed an investment, the engine that drives institutionalized to be exact copies of the original Fountain. As it is artistic activity into capitalist cultures. noted, the Fountain of The Big Show was lost and With the issues mentioned above, the mediated its copies have acquired significance as works of art, Fountains may factually be viewed as interpretations further influencing their commercial value as invest- of the artwork. Behind each of them underlies the ments. Fountain’s replicas and the related documents genius of Marcel Duchamp, who carefully designed may equally be viewed as Duchamp’s artistic acts, his actions, used the mechanisms of artistic produc- to which the following scenario may be drawn: in tion, reproduction, presentation, representation and 1964, as he did back in 1917, Duchamp would re- promotion, also restored and introduced artwork each spond to critical issues about art. In 1964, Duchamp time differently to its establishing. Meanwhile, might claim that the replicas were unquestionably Duchamp cultivated and preserved dilemmas over considered to be identical to the early Fountain, Fountain’s material content, also its status as an arti- despite the absence of the pedestal, the art inscription fact and its artistic significance being attributed by and their artistic manipulations shown in the Stieglitz him, as well as by others; even more, Fountain keeps photograph, being arguably a different artwork. raising primary concerns about the causes of artistic It is possible that Duchamp was testing again, after creation, the processes of artistic evaluation and cri- almost fifty years, whether the famous inscription ticism, the role of the artist and the general function- “R. Mutt 1917” that belonged to him and the fact ing of the art establishment. A thorough attempt to that he inscribed it on the urinal would be adequate respond to such concerns would require reconstruct- to lend artistic significance to the replicas. Such a ing the different social and artistic contexts around question may be extended to the general concern that the Fountains and the various ways artwork was de- works are often attributed artistic significance unques- scribed, represented, characterized and evaluated tionably as long as they bear the signature of a fam- over time, in order to present the artistic qualities ous artist; also that the name of a famous artist is appointed to the artwork in response to the concur- essentially surrounded by an artistic context in which rent artistic standards. For such a task, the Fountain all of his artworks are instantaneously granted case needs further investigation. artistic significance; finally, that artworks made by

References Ades, Dawn & Cox, Neil & Hopkins, David. Marcel Duchamp. London: Thames & Hudson, 1999. Cabanne, Pierre. Dialogues with Marcel Duchamp: With an Appreciation by Jasper Johns, trans. Ron Padgett. London: Da Capo Press/Thames & Hudson, 1971. De Duve, Thierry. Kant after Duchamp. Cambridge MA & London: October / The MIT Press, 1996. Naumann, Francis M. Marcel Duchamp: The Art of Making Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. Amsterdam: Ludion Press & New York: Abrams Books, 2002. ———. New York Invades Dada 1915-23. New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1994. ———. “The Blind Man: Alfred Stieglitz Photograph of R. Mutt’s Fountain.” In New York et L’art Moderne - Alfred Stieglitz et Son Cercle (1905-1930) (exhibition catalogue), eds. Francoise Heilbrun & Danielle Tilkin. Paris: RMN/Musée d’ Orsay, 2004. Naumann, Francis M. & Venn, Beth. Making Mischief: Dada Invades New York. New York: Whitney Museum of American Art, 1996. Schwarz, Arturo. The Complete Works of Marcel Duchamp. New York: Delano Greenidge Editions, 2000. Tomkins, Calvin. Duchamp: a Biography. New York: Henry Holt & Company, 1996.

EDITORS Mary Kalantzis, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA. Bill Cope , University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA.

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD Robyn Archer , Australia. Mark Bauerlein , National Endowment for the Arts. Tressa Berman , BorderZone Arts, Inc., San Francisco and Melbourne, University of Technology, Sydney (UTS), Australia and San Francisco Art Institute, USA. Judy Chicago , New Mexico, USA. Nina Czegledy , University of Toronto and Concordia University, Montreal, Canada. James Early, Smithsonian Institution, Anacostia Museum Center for African American History, USA. Mehdi Faridzadeh , International Society for Iranian Culture (ISIC), New York and Tehran, Iran. Jennifer Herd , Queensland College of Art, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia. Fred Ho , New York, USA. Andrew Jacubowicz , University of Technology, Sydney, Australia. Gerald McMaster , Toronto, Art Gallery of Ontario, Canada. Mario Minichiello , Loughborough University School of Art and Design, UK. Fred Myers , Department of Anthropology, New York University, USA. Darcy Nicholas , Porirua City Council, Pataka Museum of Arts and Cultures, Aotearoa/New Zealand. Daniela Reimann , University of Art and Industrial Design, Linz, Austria. Arthur Sabatini , Arizona State University, USA. Cima Sedigh , Global Education and Health Alliance, Sacred Heart University in Fairfield, Connecticut, USA. Peter Sellars , World Cultures Program, University of California, Los Angeles, USA. Ella Shohat , Departments of Art & Public Policy, Middle Eastern & Islamic Studies, New York University, USA. Judy Spokes , Arts Victoria, Australia. Tonel (Antonio Eligio) , University of British Columbia, Canada, and Havana, Cuba. Marianne Wagner-Simon , Berlin, Germany.

Please visit the Journal website at http://www.Arts-Journal.com for further information about the Journal or to subscribe. THE UNIVERSITY PRESS JOURNALS

International Journal of the Arts in Society Creates a space for dialogue on innovative theories and practices in the arts, and their inter-relationships with society. ISSN: 1833-1866 http://www.Arts-Journal.com International Journal of the Book Explores the past, present and future of books, publishing, libraries, information, literacy and learning in the information society. ISSN: 1447-9567 http://www.Book-Journal.com Design Principles and Practices: An International Journal Examines the meaning and purpose of ‘design’ while also speaking in grounded ways about the task of design and the use of designed artefacts and processes. ISSN: 1833-1874 http://www.Design-Journal.com International Journal of Diversity in Organisations, Communities and Nations Provides a forum for discussion and builds a body of knowledge on the forms and dynamics of difference and diversity. ISSN: 1447-9583 http://www.Diversity-Journal.com International Journal of Environmental, Cultural, Economic and Social Sustainability Draws from the various fields and perspectives through which we can address fundamental questions of sustainability. ISSN: 1832-2077 http://www.Sustainability-Journal.com Global Studies Journal Maps and interprets new trends and patterns in globalization. ISSN 1835-4432 http://www.GlobalStudiesJournal.com International Journal of the Humanities Discusses the role of the humanities in contemplating the future and the human, in an era otherwise dominated by scientific, technical and economic rationalisms. ISSN: 1447-9559 http://www.Humanities-Journal.com International Journal of the Inclusive Museum Addresses the key question: How can the institution of the museum become more inclusive? ISSN 1835-2014 http://www.Museum-Journal.com International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences Discusses disciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches to knowledge creation within and across the various social sciences and between the social, natural and applied sciences. ISSN: 1833-1882 http://www.Socialsciences-Journal.com International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change Management Creates a space for discussion of the nature and future of organisations, in all their forms and manifestations. ISSN: 1447-9575 http://www.Management-Journal.com International Journal of Learning Sets out to foster inquiry, invite dialogue and build a body of knowledge on the nature and future of learning. ISSN: 1447-9540 http://www.Learning-Journal.com International Journal of Technology, Knowledge and Society Focuses on a range of critically important themes in the various fields that address the complex and subtle relationships between technology, knowledge and society. ISSN: 1832-3669 http://www.Technology-Journal.com Journal of the World Universities Forum Explores the meaning and purpose of the academy in times of striking social transformation. ISSN 1835-2030 http://www.Universities-Journal.com

FOR SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT [email protected]