MARCEL DUCHAMP DECRYPTED

MARCEL DUCHAMP
MATERIALIZED PHILOSOPHY
WITH “READYMADE” WORKS OF ART

• • •
•
— —

The following essay provides descriptions, explanations and quotations regarding works of Art called “readymades” that Marcel Duchamp created to materialize philosophical concepts.

Descriptions of the philosophical concepts are also provided below.

With respect to the philosophical concepts one would do best to have some familiarity with the theory called “seeing-as.” It is an important theory addressed in the “philosophy of perception,” which is a part of the field of philosophy called “epistemology” that addresses how we acquire knowledge and justify our beliefs about the world through our senses. A considerable amount of attention is given in the following text and in a number of the quotations that appear below to provide explanations of the theory “seeing-as.”

Marcel Duchamp was known for his intellectual curiosity, that extended far beyond Art, into various fields like mathematics, physics, and philosophy. He engaged with a diverse range of texts, including works such as Max Stirner’s 1844 philosophical book The Ego and Its Own, which promotes thinking free from accepted conventions, in particular seeing the world without being bound by conventional categorization; with the individual being the ultimate measure of value and meaning. In 1913 Duchamp worked as a librarian at the Bibliothèque Sainte-Geneviève where he studied math and physics, and was interested in Henri Poincare’s ideas about the nature of scientific laws and their relationship to the human mind. Duchamp was also influenced by the work of Raymond Roussel, in particular Roussel’s 1910 novel Impressions d’Afriquea which some believe to have provided Duchamp with inspiration to create a work of art on which he worked for eight years called The Bride Stripped Bare by Her Bachelors, Even (also known as The Large Glass.) Accordingly, Duchamp’s focus on philosophical, scientific, and literary works that challenged conventional ideas and meaning, certainly influenced his artistic practice, providing the depth of knowledge and basis for the philosophical concepts that he materialized in his works of Art.

With respect to Art historians (as well as Art curators, critics, gallerists, collectors and other Art enthusiasts) it should be noted that the following interpretations of readymades are in large part outside the scope of their generally accepted, professional, and historical narratives. Philosophers on the other hand, such as those who have gone deep into the epistemological weeds (regarding the nature of knowledge, seeing, and thinking), who are likely to be familiar with the philosophical works of luminaries such as Fred Dretske, Hilary Putnam, Jerry Fodor, Gilbert Ryle, Gottlob Frege and Saul Kripke, may object to some of the explanations or to the application of philosophical concepts that are set forth below because from their learned perspective they may appear to be pedestrian or superficial.

Be that as it may, the following explanations and interpretations are provided in hopes that notwithstanding the somewhat esoteric nature of the philosophical concepts addressed by Duchamp they provide a clear explanation of some of the most creative works of Art of the twentieth century—the readymades of Marcel Duchamp.

Note that not all of Duchamp’s readymades are discussed below. Not all of the concepts that were materialized by Duchamp with readymades are addressed below. And what follows does not address all of the ideas and motivations that Duchamp had in creating the readymades that are referred to below. Duchamp hardly ever explained his Art, and when he did say something about it what he said was generally, (and in the light of his high intellect it was most likely intentionally) cryptic at best. He let his Art do the talking. Nonetheless, what the following does address is one highly important, and what appears to be the deepest and most important (but unfortunately the almost universally overlooked) aspect of his readymades: the fact that with readymades Marcel Duchamp materialized philosophy.

Duchamp’s readymades are works of conceptual Art that materialize philosophical concepts. They were made to be, and they are in fact, very different from what may be called “traditional” works of Art that have been made throughout history. So-called traditional works of Art are created to provide, and they do provide, their observers with a visual image, so that they see a picture or sculpture that looks more or less like objects, people and/or places that the artist has seen and/or imagined. Traditional Art of that kind has been referred to by Marcel Duchamp as “retinal art.”

Many of Duchamp’s readymades (as well as his painting entitled Nude Descending a Staircase, No. 2, which is described below) were primarily created to do, and in fact they do, something different from “retinal art.” Readymades were created to, and they can, and do in fact, communicate and materialize (that is, they embody and instantiate) one or more philosophical concepts regarding how we think about the things that we see; that is, how we identify, categorize, understand and thereby think about the physical objects that we see. In philosophy, those concepts are often referred to as “seeing-as.” In other words, Duchamp created readymades to illustrate and communicate in material form the fact that, and various ways in which, people have previously existing (already made) concepts that they learned and use to identify, categorize and understand (that is, how people think about and attribute meaning to) the objects that they see. The fact that Marcel Duchamp in fact did so is just one of the reasons why he has made significant contributions to modern Art and is widely regarded to be one of the most inventive and important artists of the twentieth century. Moreover, in a spectacularly creative manner, by means of his creation of readymades, Marcel Duchamp transformed a work of Art into a direct philosophical proposition, or vehicle for philosophical inquiry, thereby materializing and instantiating abstract philosophical concepts within the realm of artistic expression; in effect materially integrating the fields of Fine Art and Philosophy.

Why, one may ask, did Duchamp devote so much attention to “seeing-as.” The answer is because “seeing-as” is a profoundly important philosophical concept. “Seeing-as” enables our minds to interpret and categorize the world around us. When we “see-as” we are applying a conceptual framework to our sensory experience. That allows us to understand what we perceive and interact with reality. “Seeing-as” is therefore not just a philosophical curiosity, but it is a foundational element of human thought and our ability to construct a coherent understanding of reality. Without the ability to “see-as” we would be unable to form meaningful distinctions, identify objects, or even grasp abstract ideas like “good” or “bad;” and we would be unable to think about countless subjects relating to ethics (morality), aesthetics (beauty), epistemology (knowledge), metaphysics (reality), politics, religion, axiology (value), and logic. To borrow a well-known phrase of the great philosopher William James, without “seeing-as” our experience of the world would be “one great blooming, buzzing confusion,” like the initial undifferentiated sensory experience of an infant.

Accordingly, the concept of “seeing-as” in everyday thinking is extremely significant. “Seeing-as” is not merely about observing something, but about interpreting it through a particular lens, which shapes our subsequent thoughts, feelings, and actions. “Seeing-as” also highlights how our perception and understanding of objects, situations, and information are influenced by our existing knowledge and experiences. Accordingly, “seeing-as” is fundamental to how humans make sense of the world, categorize information, and respond to stimuli. It is therefore a most important topic, that was addressed at length by a most important artist, Marcel Duchamp, by his readymade works of conceptual Art.

It bears mentioning that notwithstanding the fact that for more than one hundred years Marcel Duchamp has been widely regarded as one of the leading and most celebrated artists of the twentieth century, both he and his works of Art have suffered from what may be called the “Einstein Syndrome.” That is, as is the case with Albert Einstein and the scientific theories that Einstein created, Marcel Duchamp and the body of work called readymades that Duchamp created are famous throughout the world, have for over a century been considered by countless learned individuals to be important and ingenious, have been the subject of innumerable publications, media presentations and discussions, have been studied, addressed and exhibited in leading universities and museum around the world: and despite all that, hardly any individuals,museums or other organizations have understood and explained why that is so.

It is therefore relevant to address how Art historians, critics, collectors, and other Art afficionados have often interpreted (and all too often, superficially and/or erroneously interpreted) Marcel Duchamp and his readymades; that is, what they see-them-as. It has often been said that the readymades of Marcel Duchamp “Raise philosophical questions concerning the traditional definition of Art and the role of the artist.” Those questions, however, merely address the age-old, ultimately and definitively unanswerable (but nonetheless interesting) questions regarding: (1) what qualities something must have to make it a work of Art (that is, a work of Art that is more precisely called “Fine Art”;)and (2) what qualities a person must demonstrate (such as outstanding skill) to be considered to be an artist (that is, someone who has produced “Fine Art”.) Some have said that readymades are ideational works of Art (that is, works of Art created to express an idea,) where the intellectual content and underlying message are prioritized over traditional aesthetic qualities or craftsmanship; howeve the individuals who have said so have almost never said what any of those conceptual, philosophic ideas are or might be. Some have said that by exhibiting in art galleries or museums readymades that are in large part ordinary objects (such as those that are found or purchased,) Duchamp showed that it is merely the “context” (that is, how and/or where something is exhibited,) rather than the content (that is,what is outstanding about the object and/or the skill of the artist that made it) that determines what, and whether something, is a work of Fine Art. Some have stated that Duchamp’s mere “act of selection” of everyday objects that he often chose and presented as readymades is itself a creative act which redefined Art. Some have said that Duchamp was iconoclastic— merely rebelling against the standards of traditional Fine Art. A few have entirely dismissed readymades, stating that they are not works of Fine Art. And some have said that Duchamp was just being whimsical, that he was merely joking; or merely making fun of the institution of Art itself (the so called “Art World”.) However, although such explanations and interpretations are sometimes somewhat appropriate and relevant with respect to some of Duchamp’s readymades,at best they represent a partial view, a rather superficial, limited explanation and interpretation, of the genius of Duchamp and his readymades. And that is so because as described in detail below, what Duchamp expressed, illustrated and materialized with his readymades (as well as with some of his other works of Art) was how and what we thinkabout absolutely everything that we see; that is, how we typically conceptualize, identify, classify and categorize the objects that we see, and thereby establish what we think that they are—whereas the commonly expressed, too often superficial, interpretations of readymades referred to above in this paragraph at best merely relate to how and what we sometimes identify, classify and think about only two things: Art and artists. What follows describes how and why those commonly expressed interpretations fail to recognize and appreciate the most important and creative aspects of readymades: the fact that, and the manner in which, they materialized philosophical concepts, and thereby brilliantly integrated the fields of Fine Art and Philosophy.

It should be noted that it is not unlikely that some highly intelligent, knowledgeable Art experts have always known, and do now in fact know that Marcel Duchamp’s readymades were created to, and do illustrate and materialized philosophical concepts, and they understand how they do so; but have kept that knowledge private, shared only among themselves, and not with the public at large. And one reason why that might be so is described in the following quotation.

Any effort in philosophy to make the obscure obvious is likely to be unappealing,
for the penalty for failure is confusion
while the reward of success is banality.
An answer, once found, is dull,
and the only remaining interest lies in a further effort
to render equally dull what is still obscure enough to be interesting.
[Nelson Goodman (1906 – 1998)]

And since it is not unlikely that banality would often be the result of Art “experts” making deep, esoteric knowledge regarding Duchamp’s Art public, they may be motivated to keep it secret among themselves because they realize that it would be a disservice to the Art World to trivialize achievements as brilliant as those achieved by Marcel Duchamp with his readymades and other works of Fine Art.

An additional preliminary matter must be addressed. An unfortunate consequence of the philosophic, conceptual, and often recondite nature of Duchamp’s readymades (as well as a result of his cryptic statements about, and his reticence to publicly explain, his Art) is that that has led more than a few individuals to assert the preposterous proposition that something is Art (with a capital A, as if it is good, great, or what may best be called “Fine Art”) just because some person had the idea to select and/or make (by just about any means), and/or exhibit (in some way and someplace), something or other (just about anything), regardless of whether by doing so that person has or has not demonstrated any exceptionably outstanding and fine abilities or achievements. The unfortunate consequence of which silliness is that all sorts of things made by amateurs and beginners as arts and crafts, and a considerable amount of kitsch without significant artistic merit that people select, make and exhibit, although it may be their “Art”, is too often accepted by others as if it were Fine Art, and as if its maker and/or exhibitor is an artist who has created a work of Fine Art. All of which silliness has merely contributed to a great many people foolishly dispensing with and disparaging exceptionalism and a meritocracy.

In 1912, prior to creating his first readymade, Marcel Duchamp created the painting Nude Descending a Staircase No. 2, shown below, which illustrates and materializes the philosophical concept “seeing-as” by depicting how people think about a moving object as if it occupies successive fixed locations (stopping points) along its path as it moves, when in fact there are no such stoppages, as an object in the flux of movement is never at rest.

About ten years before Duchamp created Nude Descending a Staircase, No. 2, the readymade concept that people have when they think of objects in motion as if they have stoppages along their path, was brilliantly addressed in great detail in a well-known 1903 essay, first published in French as Introduction à la Métaphysique (an English translation of which is An Introduction to Metaphysics,) written by Duchamp’s contemporary, the celebrated French philosopher Henri Bergson. During the decade from the publication of An Introduction to Metaphysics to the creation of Nude Descending a Staircase, No. 2, Henri Bergson and Marcel Duchamp were both widely known celebrities in the avant-garde world of the Arts in France. Duchamp was certainly aware of the concept of readymades described in Bergson’s essay when he created Nude Descending a Staircase, No. 2. The expression “tout faits” (the English translation of which is in fact “readymade”) appears in Bergson’s essay nine times, and “stoppages” are referred to in the essay twelve times; in each case with respect to the philosophical concept of seeing-as that is referred to above. Note that the English translation by T. E. Hulme of the essay An Introduction to Metaphysics, (G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1912,) which was authorized and revised by Henri Bergson, does in fact translate “tout-faits” as “readymade”.

The following quotation, from the Hulme translation of An Introduction to Metaphysics regarding “readymade concepts” and “stoppages” is pertinent with respect to Duchamp’s philosophical basis and motivation for his creation of Nude Descending a Staircase, No. 2.

Consider, for example, the variability which is nearest to homogeneity, that of movement in space. Along the whole of this movement we can imagine possible stoppages; these are what we call the positions of the moving body, or the points by which it passes. But with these positions, even with an infinite number of them, we shall never make movement. They are not parts of the movement, they are so many snapshots of it; they are, one might say, only supposed stopping-places. The moving body is never really in any of the points; the most we can say is that it passes through them. But passage, which is movement, has nothing in common with stoppage, which is immobility. A movement cannot be superposed on an immobility, or it would then coincide with it, which would be a contradiction. The points are not in the movement, as parts, nor even beneath it, as positions occupied by the moving body. They are simply projected by us under the movement, as so many places where a moving body, which by hypothesis does not stop, would be if it were to stop. They are not, therefore, properly speaking, positions, but “suppositions,” aspects, or points of view of the mind. [Hulme translation of An Introduction to Metaphysics (supra), at pages 48 – 49.]

The item that is generally classified as being Duchamp’s first readymade, which he created in 1913, is shown in the photograph below. It is an assemblage he created from a bicycle’s wheel and fork, and a wooden stool, which construction is known as Bicycle Wheel. It illustrated the philosophical concept seeing-as, by the stationary spokes and the tire materializing stoppages when at rest, and materializing the flux of motion that is without stoppage when they are spinning.

Duchamp has said that he did not create Bicycle Wheel as a work of Art—that he just liked looking at it. Nonetheless, with respect to Duchamp having materialized the same concept of seeing-as with both Nude Descending a Staircase No. 2 and Bicycle Wheel, it is interesting to note the 1952 photograph shown below of Marcel Duchamp with a bicycle wheel and staircase prominently displayed, by the renowned (and obviously insightful) French photographer Henri Cartier-Bresson.

In 1914 Marcel Duchamp created a complex readymade entitled 3 Standard Stoppages that materialized seeing-as with three threads that he stretched straight and dropped from a height of one meter, each of which assumed a fixed, curved shape at a “stoppage” when it landed on a piece of canvas, which he then covered and stabilized with a piece of glass. Duchamp preserved each of those so called stoppages by using the thread, canvas and glass to cut the edge of three flat pieces of wood, each with the shape of the “stoppage” that one of the threads had upon landing. Possibly in an effort to act as-if one could in fact preserve a stoppage of a moving object, Duchamp saved the pieces of wood and the threads and other materials that he used to create them in a wooden box that he made for that purpose, despite knowing that in fact such so-called stoppages are merely mental constructs, fictions of human imagination that do not exist outside of the mind.

A readymade that embodies the philosophical concept seeing-as, which readymade is often considered by Art historians and other Art professionals to be a major landmark in 20^th century Art, consists of a (so-called) “urinal” signed “R. Mutt 1917” which readymade is commonly referred to as Fountain. A photograph of Fountain taken by Duchamp’s contemporary, the famous photographer Alfred Stieglitz, appears below. With Fountain Duchamp illustrated a concept in the philosophy of perception which holds that seeing-as regarding an object is a consequence of having previously seen and/or used, or learned, about something resembling it in some way and thereby having categorized objects of that sort. On a deeper level, Fountain also illustrated that a person who had not previously categorized (some would say “classified”) the object, for example by learning what that form of object is used for, would not categorize, classify or see-it-as being any particular type of thing at all; not until that person thereafter categorized it and interpreted it into a meaningful object, for example by creating or learning some use for that type of object.

Duchamp’s intent to illustrate and materialize the concept seeing-as with Fountain is clearly stated in the Dada Art journal The Blind Man, Volume 2, of May, 1917, that was organized and edited by Marcel Duchamp together with two of his well-known friends in the avant-garde world of Art, the writer and art critic Henri-Pierre Roché, and the publisher of The Blind Man, the artist Beatrice Wood. In The Blind Man Duchamp’s friend, the writer, editor and translator of French literature Louise Norton, states in her article entitled “Buddha of the Bathroom” that when Marcel Duchamp created Fountain:

He took an ordinary Article of life, placed it so that its useful significance disappeared under the new title and point of view—created a new thought for that object. [Emphasis added, Ed.]

With respect to the fact that Fountain was rejected by The Society of Independent Artists and not exhibited at its 1917 “First Annual Exhibition” in New York City Louise Norton states in her article in The Blind Man:

When the jurors of The Society of Independent Artists fairly rushed to remove the bit of sculpture called Fountain sent in by Richard Mutt, because the object was irrevocably associated [with prior conceptions] in their atavistic minds with a certain natural function of a secretive sort. [The definition of “atavistic” is having a prior conception; and in the foregoing quotation Louise Norton is explaining that the jurors rejected Fountain because they “saw-it-as” a urinal, Ed.]

Incidentally, Ms. Norton clearly indicated her disdain for the jurors of The Society of Independent Artists at its 1917 “First Annual Exhibition” when she stated in her article that “Like Mr. Mutt, many of us had quite an exhorbitant notion of the independence of the Independents. It was a sad surprise to learn of a Board of Censors sitting upon the ambiguous question, What is ART?”

The fact that Ms. Norton’s article in The Blind Man relating to Fountain is entitled “Buddha of the Bathroom” is explained by her statement in the article that: “Yet to any ‘innocent’ eye how pleasant is its chaste simplicity of line and color! Someone said, ‘Like a lovely Buddha’. . . .” Whether Louise Norton did or did not actually hear someone say that, by saying so she nonetheless clearly explained that the title of her article was based on the fact that the outline of Fountain if observed by an “innocent” eye (the eye of one who had no knowledge or concept of a so-called urinal) could see it not as a urinal but merely as an object in the shape of the sitting Buddha. That was just another way in which Louise Norton expressed how Duchamp illustrated and addressed the concept seeing-as with his readymade Fountain.

In “Buddha of the Bathroom” Ms. Norton also explains the concept of seeing-as that was materialized by Fountain, by stating as examples that: “. . . . although a man marry he can never be only a husband. Besides being a money making device . . . to his employees he is nothing but their ‘Boss,’ to his children only their ‘Father,’ and to himself certainly something more complex.”

The objection that some have to classifying Fountain as a work of Art that was made by Marcel Duchamp is addressed in Ms. Norton’s article in the Blind Man as follows:

To those who say that Mr. Mutt’s exhibit may be Art, but is it the Art of Mr. Mutt since a plumber made it? I reply simply that the Fountain was not made by a plumber but by the force of an imagination . . . .

Prior to addressing several of the other philosophical concepts that Duchamp materialized with readymades, set forth below are just a few of the many quotations by luminaries in various fields who have addressed the concept “seeing-as.”

What a man sees depends both upon what he looks at and also upon what his previous visual-conceptual experience has taught him to see.
[Thomas Kuhn, 1922 — 1996]

I look at a…stove…. I am comparing this experience with previous experiences. When I say to myself…stove… l am making a little theory to account for the look of it.”
[Charles Sanders Peirce, 1839 — 1914]

All things are strange. One can always sense the strangeness of a thing once it ceases to play any part; when we do not try to find something resembling it and we concentrate on its basic stuff, its intrinsicality.”
[Paul Valéry, 1871 –1945]

I believe that nothing can be more abstract, more unreal, than what we actually see. We know that all that we can see of the objective world, as human beings, never really exists as we see and understand it. Matter exists, of course, but has no intrinsic meaning of its own, such as the meanings that we attach to it. Only we can know that a cup is a cup, that a tree is a tree.
[Georgio Morandi, 1890 – 1964]

Concepts…have the disadvantage of being in reality symbols substituted for the object they symbolize…. We inquire up to what point the object we seek to know is this or that, to what known class it belongs, and what kind of action, bearing, or attitude it should suggest to us. These different possible actions and attitudes are so many conceptual directions of our thought, determined once for all; it remains only to follow them: in that precisely consists the application of concepts to things. To try to fit a concept on an object is simply to ask what we can do with the object, and what it can do for us…. This is why it happens that our knowledge of the same object may face several successive directions and may be taken from various points of view.”
[Henri Bergson, 1859 – 1941, in An Introduction to Metaphysics, supra.]

With respect to individuals who are not familiar with the concept “seeing-as” it may also be explained, illustrated and clarified by the following example. Imagine that a highly intelligent adult native who had always lived in the wilderness, without contact of any sort with anyone or anything outside of his isolated primitive world, one day finds the white porcelain object (Duchamp’s Fountain) that is shown in the image above. What would he think that the object was? What would he think that it should be used for? He might see it as being a rare, beautiful object, in which to display precious ornaments. He might see it as being a mysterious, sacred object, to be worshipped by the members of his tribe. It is more likely that he would see it in one of those ways or as something else, but not as a urinal. The point of the foregoing example being that the object shown in the image above is not necessarily seen as a urinal; because in fact, essentially it is not a urinal; because meaning is not inherent in things. It is merely whatever a person has learned to use, name, identify and classify that object as. And the use, name, identity and classification that a person has, or learns or creates for an object is what that person sees that object to be; in other words; that is what the person sees it as. That is the philosophical concept seeing-as that Marcel Duchamp addressed, illustrated and materialized with Fountain; as well as with numerous other readymades.

Duchamp was not only interested in the concept of seeing-as. He was also aware of and interested in living in accordance with, an objective world-view based on “not-seeing-as.” That is, a world-view that we can refer to as “Non-Conceptual-Perception” (which some call “simply-seeing” or “non-epistemic seeing.”) Duchamp indicated his interest in the philosophical concept of “not-seeing-as” in a note in the 1934 boxed collection that he created of 94 documents, entitled The Bride Stripped Bare by her Bachelors Even, which is called The Green Box, in which Duchamp stated: “To lose the possibility of recognizing 2 similar objects—2 colors, 2 laces, 2 hats, 2 forms whatsoever. To arrive at the Impossibility of sufficient visual memory, to transfer from one like object to another the memory imprint.”

With respect to the foregoing statement by Duchamp, the following quotation from Heaven and Hell (Harper and Brothers, 1956) by the prominent English writer and philosopher Aldous Huxley addresses the same idea.

[O]ur perceptions of the external world are habitually clouded by the verbal notions in terms of which we do our thinking. We are forever attempting to convert things into signs for the more intelligible abstractions of our own invention. But in doing so, we rob these things of a great deal of their native thinghood.
At the antipodes [that is, the non-verbal, non-conceptual aspects] of the mind, we are more or less completely free of language, outside the system of conceptual thought. Consequently our perception of visionary objects possesses all the freshness, all the naked intensity, of experiences which have never been verbalized, never assimilated to lifeless abstractions…. unsophisticated by language or the scientific, philosophical, and utilitarian notions, by means of which we ordinarily re-create the given world…. The self-luminous objects which we see in the mind’s antipodes possess a meaning,… identical with being; for at the mind’s antipodes, objects do not stand for anything but themselves…. and exist in their own right. And their meaning consists precisely in this, that they are intensely themselves…. Everything is novel and amazing. Almost never does the visionary see anything that reminds him of his own past. He is not remembering scenes, persons or objects, and he is not inventing them; he is looking on at a new creation.

The relationship between Marcel Duchamp’s readymades and “Not-Seeing-As” was well stated in the following excerpt from an article written by the French writer, linguist and Art historian Mark Décimo entitled “A Sentimental Conversation: Marcel Duchamp and Lydie Sarazin-Levassor”, which appears in Lydie Fischer Sarazin-Levassor, A Marriage in Check, The Heart of the Bride Stripped Bare by Her Bachelor, Even (published by les presses du reel, 2007).

A readymade induces the viewer to discover the world anew. Instead of letting habit determine what is seen—what is no longer seen—the object must once more become an object of experience. And so, with nostalgia for the pre-verbal state that characterises the infans (he who does not speak), Marcel Duchamp would appear to have been able to re-experience the sensations procured in infancy by inert objects, living things, words and situations that were all still unfixed. Readymades recreate that ineffable moment in life, the pre-linguistic stage, during which the child is at the mercy of the other and of the world, and must develop his cognitive powers when confronted with animate and inanimate objects, all of them exotic, all of them just hanging suspended in the air. Around 1917/1918, Duchamp took a urinal, a hat rack, a snow shovel and bits of rubber and hung them up from the ceiling of his New York studio, making them strange again. Once put into such an arrangement, the objects conspired to recreate a state that exists before naming, when nothing in the world is completely laid down nor completely finalised,when nothing is built, and when everything has yet to be experienced. Duchamp’s quest is to search for these first sensations, which means always beginning again. Everything has to be thought through again, at every moment.

Accordingly, Marcel Duchamp’s readymades not only illustrate various concepts of seeing-as, they also illustrate the philosophical concept that things in and of themselves have no inherent meaning—that without ready-made (already made) concepts we do not identify, categorized or think about an object as a particular type of thing; we do not initially see-them-as anything in particular at all. Essentially, that is “not-seeing-as,” or what we have called “Non-Conceptual-Perception.”

Look at the following photograph of a 1964 replica of a readymade that Duchamp made in 1914. What do you see it as? If you see it as a bottle rack you are a rare exception—most everyone else today would be unable to classify and identify it—they would not initially see-it-as a bottle rack or as any particular type of thing at all. And that is precisely the concept “not-seeing-as” that Duchamp intended to and did illustrate with his readymade called Bottle Rack.

Similarly, look at the following photographs of a 1917 readymade by Duchamp. The first photograph below shows the 1917 original that he hung from the ceiling of his studio; the photograph beneath it shows a 1964 replica. What do you see it as? If you see it as a hat rack you are a rare exception—most everyone else today would be unable to classify and identify it—they would not initially see it as a hat rack or as anything in particular at all. And “not-seeing-as” is precisely the concept that Duchamp intended to and did illustrate with this readymade called Hat Rack.

If you find it difficult to accept that Bottle Rack and Hat Rack are important works of Fine Art, consider the fact that replicas of Bottle Rack and Hat Rack have been acquired and displayed in many prominent collections of Fine Art; including, as just a few examples, the Museum of Modern Art in New York City, the Philadelphia Museum of Art, the Centre Pompidou in Paris, the Art Gallery of New South Wales in Australia, and the Tate Modern in London. Note that these replicas, often produced in editions under Duchamp’s supervision, were considered legitimate works of Art by Duchamp, as the concept behind the readymade was of paramount importance to him, rather than the uniqueness of the physical object itself.

A rather complex version of “not-seeing-as” is illustrated and materialized by Duchamp’s 1916 readymade called With Hidden Noise, shown below. Notwithstanding the fact that each of the visible individual objects with which this readymade was constructed are common and identifiable, one does not see it as a whole as being anything in particular, or as serving any apparent function. The fact that when shaken it makes a sound from some hidden thing moving in its interior, and that the writing on the top and bottom plates have no apparent meaning, is obviously intentional and perfectly appropriate for an object which overall one sees as nothing in particular, serves no apparent purpose, and overall has no discernable meaning.

Duchamp made With Hidden Noise with help from his friend the prominent art collector Walter Arensberg who, at the request of Duchamp, put an object inside the ball of twine without telling either Duchamp or apparently anyone else what it was. What is known, is that during a 1956 interview at the Philadelphia Museum of Art conducted by James Johnson Sweeney who had been director of the Guggenheim Museum, Duchamp said with respect to With Hidden Noise:

Before I finished it Arensberg put something inside the ball of twine, and never told me what it was, and I didn’t want to know. It was a sort of secret between us, and it makes noise, so we called this a Ready-made with a hidden noise. Listen to it. I don’t know; I will never know whether it is a diamond or a coin.

With respect to the rattling object inside the ball of twine it is interesting to note that Duchamp had Arensberg create something (just as Duchamp had done with the entirety of With Hidden Noise) that no one else, even though they can perceive it, can know what to see-it-as.

A readymade that illustrates Duchamp seeing an object in a new light; of not seeing it as what it was originally seen as, but as something else, having a different use, is Duchamp’s 1957 readymade called The Locking Spoon. It consists of a (so-called) “spoon” that Duchamp affixed to the door of his Manhattan apartment in the late 1950s, a photograph of which appears below. With respect to this readymade it may be said (as his Artist-friend Louise Norton stated above with respect to Duchamp’s Fountain); Duchamp “created a new thought for that object.”

An earlier instance of a readymade illustrating Duchamp coming to see a common object in a new light (as something other than what it was made for, and other than what he presumably acquired it to be use for,) is illustrated by his 1917 readymade called “Trap;” a coat rack that Duchamp left on the floor of his studio. He apparently left it on the floor for an inordinate period of time, after which he eventually found that it took on a life of its own, and saw it as something other than an object on which to hang coats. With respect to Trap Duchamp is quoted as having said that he “would kick it every minute, every time I went out—I got crazy about it and I said the Hell with it, if it wants to stay there and bore me I’ll nail it down.” Photographs of Trap nailed to the floor of Duchamp’s studio appear below, one taken at a distance, and the other close-up.

A famous Duchamp readymade that illustrates an aspect of the philosophical concept “seeing-as” that is somewhat different than those described above, is his work of conceptual Art (referred to in the quotation by Mark Décimo above) known as In Advance of the Broken Arm. It consists of a snow shovel that Duchamp purchased and hung from the ceiling of his studio, on the handle of which is written “from Marcel Duchamp 1915”. A photograph representing the original in Duchamp’s studio appears below, followed by a photograph of a 1964 replica that is displayed in the Museum of Modern Art in New York.

The ready-made concept of “seeing-as” that Duchamp illustrated with his snow shovel, is that an observer of an object sees-it-as, identifies and categorizes it, as a result of what the observer knows (that is, what the observer has learned) can be done with it, or what it can do to the observer. That philosophical concept, which we may call “Functional-Seeing-As”, has been addressed by many philosophers, including the following.

Henri Bergson in An Introduction to Metaphysics (supra,) stated:

To know a reality, in the usual sense of the word “know,” is to take ready-made concepts. . . . [I]n that precisely consists the application of concepts to things. To try to fit a concept on an object is simply to ask what we can do with the object and what it can do for us.

Charles S. Peirce, in his Article How to Make Our Ideas Clear, in the issue of Popular Science Monthly of January 1903, stated:

[T]he rule for attaining clearness of apprehension [of an object] is as follows: consider what effects…we conceive the object of our conception to have. Then, our conception of these effects is the whole of out conception of the object.

William James, in his 1907 book Pragmatism (a New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking), Lecture II: What Pragmatism Means, stated:

A glance at the history of the idea [of pragmatism] will show you still better what pragmatism means…. It was first introduced by Mr. Charles Peirce in 1878…. Mr. Peirce…stated that…[t]o attain perfect clearness in our thoughts of an object, then, we need only consider what conceivable effects of a practical kind the object may involve – what sensations we are to expect from it, and what reactions we much prepare. Our conception of these effects, whether immediate or remote, is then for us the whole of our conception of the object. . . .

In the light of the philosophical concept regarding seeing-as described in the foregoing three quotations, it is apparent how philosophically aware and appropriate it was for Duchamp’s to give his readymade snow shovel the title In Advance of The Broken Arm.

Several aspects of the philosophical concept “seeing-as” were illustrated and materialized by Duchamp with his well-known readymade of 1919 shown below, which consists of a postcard reproduction of Leonardo da Vinci‘s painting Mona Lisa, on which Duchamp drew a moustache and a goatee in pencil, and which bears the title L.H.O.O.Q.

With his readymade L.H.O.O.Q. Duchamp illustrated the concept of androgyny, which is the state of a person (an androgyn) being seen-as (that is, appearing to be) neither distinctively feminine nor masculine, or a combination of both. And viewed from a different perspective, Duchamp also illustrated the concept of “agenderism” (by which we mean seeing as being without gender.) Duchamp did so by adding what are typically seen as male features to the subject of Leonardo’s Mona Lisa. The person depicted in the original of the painting, who is commonly seen as an enigmatic woman, was thereby not only transformed by Duchamp into an androgyn, but also illustrated agenderism by causing the classification of a person based on gender to be eliminated. By doing so Duchamp materialized the underlying and fundamental fact that essentially man and woman are and should be seen-as being the same—because essentially they are the same; essentially they are and should be seen-as being human beings. For clarity, note that the prefix “a” in “agenderism” (which prefix is called an “alpha privative”) indicates “absence” or “negation” and, therefore, we use the word “agenderism” to reflect the condition of seeing a person objectively, and essentially, “without” gender.

Duchamp took his materialization of concepts regarding seeing-as several levels deep by creating various versions of his readymade L.H.O.O.Q. During the period from 1935 until about 1941 Duchamp made reproductions of L.H.O.O.Q., and enclosed one in each of various editions that he made of a creation he called The Box in a Valise which is a mixed media assemblage consisting of a box that contains numerous reproductions of Duchamp’s works of Art. A photograph of one such box and some of its contents appears below. Note that when a person familiar with the art of Duchamp sees the reproduction of L.H.O.O.Q. in this boxed collection it is essentially seen-as a reproduction of a readymade work of Art by Duchamp, not as a work of Art by da Vinci.

Duchamp went deeper still regarding seeing-as with L.H.O.O.Q. when in 1965 he created the readymade called L.H.O.O.Q. Shaved, a photograph of which is shown below. It consists of the cover of a dinner invitation on which Duchamp mounted a color reproduction of Leonardo da Vinci’s Mona Lisa in its original form (without Duchamp’s mustache or goatee,) below which is written “rasée” (which in French means “shaved”), and below that appears Duchamp’s signature. Note that when a person familiar with the Art of Duchamp examines L.H.O.O.Q. Shaved, one is inclined to see-it as being an altered version of Duchamp’s readymade L.H.O.O.Q. without the whiskers, and not essentially as merely a reproduction of a painting by da Vinci.

It is interesting that an observer of the original version of L.H.O.O.Q. (an observer who was familiar with da Vinci’s painting Mona Lisa) would be inclined to see L.H.O.O.Q. as an altered version of a work of Art by Leonardo da Vinci. An observer of a reproduction of L.H.O.O.Q. in Duchamp’s The Box in a Valise would be inclined to see it as a reproduction of a readymade work of Art by Marcel Duchamp. And an observer of Duchamp’s dinner invitation L.H.O.O.Q. Shaved would be inclined to see it as an altered version (made by Marcel Duchamp) of a readymade work of Art by Duchamp.

With respect to the concept agenderism Duchamp appears to have materialized that concept with his 1921 readymade called Laundress’ Aprons which consists of two potholders that were purchased by Duchamp and altered by another person at his direction so that one potholder appeared to be male and the other female, as shown in the photograph below. The potholders materialize agenderism by illustrating that notwithstanding the obvious physical differences that the two objects have, essentially they are the same; because they are essentially the same—they are both essentially potholders. Of course, it is also possible that by identifying both items of this readymade as being aprons of females (as Laundress’ Aprons) Duchamp may also have intended to materialize the fact that the concept of gender, which is based on a one’s “persona,” enables a person to be seen-as being a member of either sex. In any event, with respect to this readymade, as is the case with respect to the inability to identify the object that rattles in his readymade called With Hidden Noise, it is possible that Duchamp intended that we never know what to see-it-as.

Duchamp also illustrated and materialized seeing-as with his 1921 readymade entitled Belle Haleine, shown below. It consists of a Rigaud perfume company bottle that Duchamp altered in collaboration with his friend the renowned America artist May Ray, who took the photograph that appears on the bottle, of Marcel Duchamp outfitted as Duchamp’s feminine alter ego who Duchamp named Rrose Sélavy. A larger photograph of Duchamp, taken by Man Ray, of Duchamp attired as his alter ego Rrose Sélavy, also appears below.

Duchamp’s illustration of his alter ego Rrose Sélavy makes clear that irrespective of one’s immutable biological sex Duchamp was aware that a person’s persona (one’s gender) is not necessarily, and need not be, entirely or immutably feminine or masculine; that one can be seen-as being either masculine or feminine. As is the case with many of Duchamp’s readymades, there are other interesting facts regarding this readymade. One is that Rrose Sélavy sounds like “Eros c’est la vie,” which is a play on a French phrase that means “Love, that’s life.” Another is that in 2009 the readymade Belle Haleine sold at auction at Christie’s in Paris for $11,500,000.

A complex readymade created by Duchamp in 1921 that addresses multiple concepts of seeing-as is called Why Not Sneeze, Rose Sélavy? It is comprised, among other things, of a birdcage that has numerous small white cubes and a medical thermometer inside, and a cuttlebone protruding through its frame.

The white cubes are commonly seen-as sugar cubes, when in fact they are something very different—they are made of marble. Duchamp thereby created this illustration of the concept seeing-as by going so far as to present objects whose material composition, weight and hardness, and their conceivable uses, are all very different from what he knew that they would commonly be seen-as.

The juxtaposition of the cuttlebone in the birdcage, and the location of a medical thermometer in a birdcage, were obviously intentionally done, and somewhat boggle the viewer’s mind; possibly to make common things that merely appear out of place cause an observer to be unsure of what they are used for and, therefore, unsure of how to categorize them, and unsure of what to see-them-as.

A readymade that Duchamp created to illustrate and make tangible an important philosophical concept regarding seeing-as is his readymade of 1927 called Door, 11 rue Larrey, a photograph of which appears below.

This readymade, constructed with one door, that is hinged to two doorway openings, such that opening one doorway necessarily closes the other, illustrates in tangible form, a concept of seeing-as regarding “duality.” Duchamp thereby illustrated a philosophical concept that antonyms (opposites) entail each other, by materializing the fact that one cannot have the concept “open” unless one necessarily also has the concept “closed.” That is the same concept of duality that is, for example, true with respect to “good” and “bad”; “heavy” and “light”; “large” and “small”; “right” and “wrong;” etc. And that, incidentally, relates to the concept of “indifference” which was repeatedly referred to by Duchamp when explaining how he felt about the (already made) objects that he obtained and used in his readymades. What he was saying is that when he selected those objects he did not do so because he saw them as being a member of any particular class or category of objects, or because he saw them as good or bad, beautiful or ugly, or useful for this or for that purpose; but that he did so with “indifference.” And with respect to the word “indifference” it is important to note that the prefix “in” means “without.” Therefore Duchamp was aware that he sometimes selected objects for his readymades in a frame of mind that did not see them as being anything in particular (he selected them without seeing-them-as being different from or the same as anything else;) but saw and selected them as unclassified, previously unidentified, undifferentiated, unnamed things. And that deep, insightful, philosophical concept relating to duality (and also to not-seeing-as) has ancient lineage, having been addressed throughout history, in particular by luminaries of Eastern Philosophy.

The ancient (fifth century BCE) Chinese philosopher Lao Tsu, who is credited with founding the philosophical system of Taoism, in his Tao Te Ching (aka, The Classic Book of the Way) says:

When the world knows beauty as beauty, ugliness arises
When it knows good as good, evil arises
Thus being and non-being produce each other
Difficult and easy bring about each other
Long and short reveal each other
High and low support each other
Music and voice harmonize each other
Front and back follow each other

The Third Chinese Chán (Zen) Patriarch, Seng-ts’an, in the following excepts from his sixth century poem Hsin Ming (a.k.a., Faith in Mind,) which is one of the earliest and most influential Zen writings, states:

Do not hold to dualistic views, avoid such habits carefully.
If there is even a trace of this and that or right and wrong, the mind is lost in confusion.
. . . .

When all things are seen without differentiation,
Your timeless Self-essence is achieved and is One with the Way of the universe as it is.
No explanations, comparisons or analogies are possible in this causeless, relationless state.
. . . .

In this world of “Suchness” as It intrinsically is, there is neither self nor other.
To come directly into harmony with such reality, only express non-duality.
When doubt arises say “Not two.”

In this non-duality nothing is separate, nothing is excluded.
The enlightened at all times and places personally enter and realize this Truth.

. . . .

To live this faith in trusting mind of non-duality,
Is to be One with the Way.

It should be noted with respect to the validity of the foregoing interpretation of Duchamp’s readymade Door, 11 rue Larrey that it is of little or no consequence whether Duchamp did or did not have any knowledge of ancient Chinese philosophy. He was aware of and understood the ideas that he materialized with readymades that relate to how human beings structure their understanding of the world, categorize phenomena and derive meaning. For a person to be aware of and understand the fact that antonyms (opposites) necessarily exist and entail each other, forming a fundamental duality (such as good and bad, beautiful and ugly, liking and disliking) a person need not be aware of or versed in any of the technical philosophical topics or concepts in epistemology that are addressed by philosophers with which they explain that such duality is primarily explored through the concept of “binary opposition” which originates in linguistics and semiotics.

The following are two additional brilliant but overlooked aspects of Duchamp’s creativity regarding his readymades. One is the fact that although the titles that Duchamp often gave to his readymades are cryptic at best, and sometimes incomprehensible or nonsensical, it was appropriate and ingenious for him to intentionally do so—because a title that has no inherent meaning is perfectly appropriate for a readymade that illustrates the fact that objects have no inherent meaning. With respect to Duchamp intentionally doing so, Duchamp’s good friend, the artist Louise Norton, in her 1972 Article “Marcel Duchamp at Play”, when speaking about a readymade that Duchamp gave to her (which she stated she regrets having lost), says that what Duchamp wrote on it was “. . . a designation like all his others, aimed to be as Alice-in-Wonderland nonsensical as possible.”

The second (and possibly even more) ingenious but overlooked and underappreciated aspect of Duchamp’s readymades relates to the fact that the originals of his readymades were often given away by Duchamp, disposed of, lost or destroyed; and that Duchamp did not consider that to be a problem, and did not have any objection to reproductions or replicas of them (many of which he made himself) standing in place of the original, and being considered of equal importance to the original. And that was so even if the “copy” was merely a photograph of the original, or a replica of it that was made with different materials, or was of a different size, or exhibited in a different manner; and even if the copy was made by someone else. And that was perfectly reasonable and appropriate of Duchamp; in fact it represents a transcendent, deep insight by Duchamp. He recognized that it was the idea, the thought, (that is, the philosophical concept) that is engendered and materialized by the readymade that is important, not merely how, or by whom, or with what materials, it was made, or the manner in which it was displayed; because he understood that the concept, the idea, that was illustrated and materialized by the readymade (which was the primary reason for the creation of the readymade,) survives the loss of the original. When Duchamp made reproductions of his readymades (and he did make many) he knew that when the original of a readymade was “lost” the idea that was illustrated and materialized by the original was illustrated and materialized just as well by its reproductions and replicas.

The following quotation by the English writer, philosopher and Art critic John Ruskin in his book Modern Painters (published in 1843) may best encapsulate the essence of what justifies Marcel Duchamp’s reputation as a luminary in the world of Fine Art: “He [meaning any particular Artist] is the greatest Artist who has embodied, in the sum of his works, the greatest number of the greatest ideas.” [Emphasis added, Ed.]

John Ruskin, with the following statement in his book Modern Painters, may have also best articulated a reason why many individuals misinterpret or disparage Duchamp’s readymades, and fail to appreciate their nature and scope as great works of Fine Art:

The highest Art, being based on sensations of peculiar minds, sensations occurring to them only at particular times, and to a plurality of mankind perhaps never, and being expressive of thoughts which could only rise out of a mass of the most extended knowledge, and of dispositions modified in a thousand ways by peculiarity of intellect – can only be met and understood by persons having some sort of sympathy with the high and solitary minds which produce it – sympathy only to be felt by minds in some degree high and solitary themselves.

All told, the numerous instances and ways in which the readymades described above materialize philosophical concepts, when considered in the light of the statements that were made by Duchamp, by his friends and contemporaries, and by the other artists, philosophers and luminaries throughout history who are quoted above, establish that Duchamp created readymades to materialize, and that he and they did in fact materialize, philosophical concepts regarding how we think about the objects that we see, and what we see-them-as.

Nonetheless, one would do well to be aware of what Elaine Lobl Konigsburg illustrated in her 1967 book From The Mixed-Up Files of Mrs. Basil E. Frankweiler: No amount of evidence is sufficient to convince some individuals of the truth of facts relating to a work of Fine Art.

Be that as it may, it is safe to say that Marcel Duchamp and his readymades have passed what may well be the most critical test for determining the importance of works of Fine Art: That they have “stood the test of time.” For more than a century Marcel Duchamp’s readymades have been recognized world-wide as ground-breaking, highly creative works of Fine Art. From the early twentieth century to date, Marcel Duchamp has been widely recognized as a luminary in the world of Fine Art, and one of the most ingenious and influential artists of the twentieth century. During his lifetime and to the present, Marcel Duchamp, his Art overall, and his readymades in particular, have been recognized as great artistic achievements, and have been illustrated and discussed at great length in innumerable books, articles, art classes, seminars, video presentations, conferences, and in every form of media, worldwide. Readymades have been, and continue to be, prominently exhibited in the permanent collections of museums throughout the world. Entire rooms in some of the most highly regarded museums of Fine Art (including the Museum of Modern Art in New York and the Philadelphia Museum of Art) have been devoted to the display of readymades and other works of Art by Marcel Duchamp. During his lifetime Duchamp was a leading figure among avant-garde artists in France and the United States. Among Duchamp’s friends who held him in the highest regard were Constantin Brancusi, Man Ray, John Cage, Andy Warhol, Diane Arbus, Alfred Stieglitz, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Mary Reynolds, Francis Picabia, Beatrice Wood, Salvador Dali, Peggy Guggenheim, Walter Arensberg, André Breton, and Alexander Calder. All that, together with Duchamp’s great achievement of having brilliantly integrated the fields of Fine Art and Philosophy with his readymades, bears testament to the creative genius of Marcel Duchamp and his readymades in the world of Fine Art.

. . .
.
— —