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 rm-2014.com 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.