Marcel Duchamp: The Creative Act (1957)

https://www.brainpickings.org/2012/08/23/the-creative-act-marcel-duchamp-1957/

Ways in which Duchamp’s view challenged conventional perspectives on the significance of the artist.

In the 19th Century the academic argument was that art should be this or that, dictating to the artist what they should create and how.  Duchamp pushed hard against that convention, believing that the artist can be the person who sees or chooses something and says “this is art”.  While ‘The Fountain’ is the most infamous example of him illustrating this belief, Duchamp had previously produced and championed making art from ‘readymade’ objects [see ‘Bicycle Wheel, 1913], re-contextualising them and, while initially shocking people, paved the way for younger artists to explore very different opportunities, particularly in conceptual art.

Marcel Duchamp: Bicycle Wheel (1913)

 Interestingly, he had already provided some provocation to the Cubists who, despite having innovated and pushed boundaries themselves, took exception to Duchamp’s ‘Nude Descending a Staircase’  an oil painting executed in 1912. Although innovative artists themselves, they adopted their own dogma, feeling that nudes should be horizontal and passive, not vertical and mobile.  Best perhaps to leave that thought where it is for the purposes of this blog!   [Reference:  The Essential Duchamp: an exotic radical who rejected the establishment; The Conversation Trust (UK) Ltd]

Marcel Duchamp; Nude Descending a Staircase (1912)

In ‘The Creative Act’, Duchamp discusses this convention, where the virtues of an artwork have been decided by the viewer or ‘spectator’ and there has been no requirement for the artist to provide any rationalisation or explanation.  He says ‘even if the artist shouts from the rooftops that he is a genius’, he or she will still have to wait for the verdict of those that view the work, both contemporarily and, potentially, in the future. 

However, as he then points out, that then begs the question that if the artist plays no part in judging their own work - provides no rationalisation for or personal reaction to it - how can you explain why there is a reaction from the viewer?  How can that happen?  Does it mean that the viewer is absorbing what he sees in the artwork and that it is that inert matter which is doing the job of transferring some understanding or perspective from the artist and therefore dictating the virtues of his or her work?

If that is the case - and often of course it is - Duchamp argues that there needs to be some explanation or description of the ‘gap’ or difference between what the artist meant to realise (create) and what was actually realised (created).  Similarly, there is a gap between unintended outcomes and what is ultimately expressed or realised.  He describes this gap or difference as the ‘art coefficient’; coefficient being a word used in maths and physics where there is a requirement for a constant measure or quantity.  

Duchamp’s ‘art coefficient’ becomes the constant for describing a missing link that relates to the realised art in a raw state and needs a spectator, viewer or audience to refine and determine its impact. Through this the viewers, in effect, add their own contribution to the ‘creative act’.

 Art Critic, Richard Cork on BBC Radio 4 'Front Row' discusses how readymade art first shocked and then opened a world of artistic possibilities

How his view fits with my understanding of the roles of artist and audience.

Contemporary artists probably have more freedom to express their ideas and thoughts through art than at any time in the past.  The work of young artists through the latter part of the 20th Century and the role of galleries such as White Cube have ensured that there is creativity, diversity and innovation in the art world.  If there are constraints, they are dictated mostly by huge competition for exhibiting work and the role of monetary value.

So artists are able to produce work - utilising a wide range of materials and processes - and say, with confidence, ‘this is art’.  Whilst that ‘art coefficient’ has not necessarily gone away, discussions about ways of seeing and looking at art - from both the artist’s and viewer’s perspective -  have opened up the subject and, possibly, made it easier for there to be an acceptance of the role each party plays.  Artists have approached the creation of their art with a clear intention to depict something important to them, be it, for example, deeply personal, political, or social.  In their turn, viewers may have their own personal response and, influenced by their own personal history, gender, class, ethnicity etc, they may well look at the subject rather differently to how the artist intended they should, but can say ‘this is what it means to me’.

 [Reference:  Tate Papers: Contemporary Art and the Role of Interpretation; Helen Charman and Michaela Ross, 2004] 

How this argument might impact on the ways in which artists (including myself) make their work

From a practical point of view, artists have a great deal of freedom to choose how and with what they make their art.  They can use traditional artistic and draughting skills or, as did Duchamp, utilise readymade objects, adding also, found objects or natural elements.  Choice of medium, materials or objects can, in themselves , become part of the artist’s statement and be used to convey meaning.

It also means that artists can choose to make their art communicate meaning in a straightforward way, making it relatively easy for the viewer to understand the reactions required of him or her.  Or they can take a much more ambiguous approach, requiring the viewer to work harder at finding a meaning, perhaps exploring metaphors or needing to use imagination.  I don’t think this means that either may be any more or less provocative or more likely to leave the viewer indecisive about how they should react or what they should think.

Rebecca Horn; Concert for Anarchy (1990)

For me, the ‘best’ art - the art I most like to view and, I suppose would most like to make - is work that at first sight is visually exciting or aesthetically pleasing but which then invites exploration and deeper thinking about what the artist is saying or intending you to contemplate or react to in the work.  That reaction can simply be an excited or pleasurable response to colour and form put together with wonderful skill or it can be one of shock, upset or anger; an emotional response that stays with you long after you’ve walked away from the artwork.  In either case, the artist must be considered to have had considerable significance in relation to your experience as the audience.

Link to Glossary