I'll just go ahead and say Readymades aren't art and express my belief that the artistic community will survive the copyright loss of loosely arranged furniture so we can avoid justifying the current state of affairs with avante garde silliness. John Cage made a musical piece 4'33 which is 4 minutes and 33 seconds of silence which has as much to do with music as Readymades do with art.

His other works include curated noises such as buzzing blenders, falling objects, and street traffic. The only art is the act of convincing someone these things are art or deserving of copyright.

I've yet to find a better definition of art than that of Andy Warhol, who said "art is what you can get away with." Considering that both Duchamp and Cage got away with convincing the world that their work is art, it is.

To the degree that I've been able to verify, Warhol borrowed that one from Marshall McLuhan.

John Cage also wrote some genuinely beautiful music and was a sincere and thoughtful artist.

It just needs to said that he wasn't a merely a "gimmick" man.

I'm only familiar with those elements of his career so if you have so recommendations I'd be happy to explore his other work.

Try "A Room" for solo piano. It's akin to proto-minimalism with a bit more "spice".

His writing is apparently very good although I've never delved deep. His work was motivated by his interest in Zen and similar topics rather than any kind of high-concept modernism.

You mean to say he's a con artist?

I give the benefit of the doubt that Marchel Duchamp and others genuinely believed in the artistic merit of their works and their enthusiasm made it easier to persuade people to agree with their viewpoints. The brief history of these artforms suggests that in the absence of their champions they don't resonate with artists but they are still talked about because they stoke conversation about the nature of art. Maybe that was their original intent. I don't think these endeavors were profitable enough to suggest dishonesty over passion but if someone tries to sell you a moose head mounted over a toilet for 500k because it's "art" you may want to question their motives.

Good art typically stands on it's own and connects with people without the need to explain why it's significant. Salvador Dali's work is visually interesting even if you have no clue what any of it means. If I see a bunch of objects scattered around a room it looks like clutter. If I see a bunch of paint splattered to a canvas if looks like a mess. If someone has to explain why these things are "art" is it the art that's compelling or their argument? The exception to that would be optical illusions.

Apologies, I wasn't being serious - an attempt at wordplay.