Re:Sao Paulo: A city with no outdoor advertisements (2013)
by soapdog on Wednesday July 05, 2023 @12:08PM
(#36602449)
Good lord, there is so much more to Duchamp than that urinal. Also, it misses then point of my comment in its entirety. It is about what intention is behind the work, not about the piece themself (a bit more complex than that but that is enough for a small comment).
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Sao Paulo: A city with no outdoor advertisements (2013)
by mcpackieh on Wednesday July 05, 2023 @01:34PM
(#36603836)
I don't care what the intention behind ugly art is, because ugly art isn't something I want to see regardless of the intention.
Re:Sao Paulo: A city with no outdoor advertisements (2013)
by soapdog on Wednesday July 05, 2023 @02:03PM
(#36604440)
well, as long as you understand that ugly is not an absolute and that what you find ugly might actually be awesome for someone else.
Re:Sao Paulo: A city with no outdoor advertisements (2013)
by robocat on Wednesday July 05, 2023 @03:49PM
(#36606106)
So what was the intent behind the Urinal?
Your choice to smush intent and Duchamp is weird.
What intent is in a stolen piece of work presented fraudulently throughout Duchamp's life as his own, and still widely treated as iconic and used as an example of a movement. What value the criticism built upon a lie? There is plenty of unintentional art in this story!