Duchamp Duchamp

The Large Glass, otherwise known as The Bride Stripped Bare by Her Bachelors, Even, as become one of the most well known mixed media, three-dimensional works of art to come from the hands of Marcel Duchamp. He began planning for the project in 1913 with a series of notes and sketches. Then he published those preliminary studies as The Green Box and sold many copies. He began work in 1915 and carefully constructed the work from two glass panels, lead foil, fuse wire, and dust and finally finished in 1923. His work not only involved laborious craftsmanship but fortunate mistakes. The glass was broken in 1926 and Duchamp decided that he preferred to leave the glass that way after carefully repairing most of the damage. As time passed on and it’s popularity grew, Duchamp sanctioned replicas. The first was for an exhibition at Maderna Museet in Stockholm and another in 1966 for the Tate Gallery in London.
The most popular interpretation for The Large Glass is that it’s an exploration of female and male desire and the complication that arise. It’s a “love Machine” or more appropriately, “a machine of suffering” according to Janis Mink. “The lower and upper realms are forever separated by the horizon designated as the ‘bride’s clothes’.” The bachelors below are subjected to only being able to experience “the possibility of churning, agonized masturbation.” [Mink]. Andrew Stafford, author of Making Sense of Marcel Duchamp, claims that the title the characteristic ironic humor that many of us know Duchamp’s art for, arguing that “ the Bride bares herself, physically or psychically to incite her suitors’ libidos. Personally, I have never had a taste for Duchamp’s work. While I appreciate his intuitive sense of creativity, his disdain and prickly manner in which he centers his work around has always annoyed me. I have an interest in how he created the work, because I have always found mix media fascinating. But when it comes to the concept behind the work, I take the time to learn what it is, but then I move on. There are other ideas that I prefer to delve into.

sources:
Mink, Janis: Marcel Duchamp, 1887-1968: Art as Anti-Art as reproduced at artchive.com.

Stafford, Andrew: Making Sense of Marcel Duchamp website.

Kills Museums Dead

Our assignment was to analyze the similarities between the two articles on the future of museums and answer the questions that would help us explore the issue further. However, I cannot proceed without pointing out the differences as well because these two articles, while addressing very similar subjects, are oriented on two slightly different paths. Joel Garreau’s Is There a Future for Old-Fashioned Museums is an intriguing article that takes an overall view on how all museums are changing and how the internet it changing how things work. It addressing the question of “Well… what exactly constitutes a museum? A Webster’s dictionary definition of what a museum actually is.” It focuses on what makes a trip to a museum so satisfactory and in others opinion, why the Internet is a better choice. Garreau finished his article with the gist that the Internet may be more convenient, but something about human nature and the desire to explore will continue to bring tourists to museums.
Blake Gopnik has a more specific focus in his article, Art Museum Expansion: A constructive Trend? He starts off as though he’s perched himself up on a soapbox, but his cliché beginning suddenly changes into irresistible humor. Gopnik studies wholly how museums today are expanding and how it can be damaging the whole museum experience while Garreau explored this issue only briefly. He claims that by adding on more wings, the quality of the art shows are lowered. What was once a place of quiet reflection is now a business focus mainly on how many people passed through the doors and how many cappuccinos where sold in the museum’s café.
I agree with both articles completely. Throughout the 21st century museums have been a place of exploration and human interaction. Personally, I think that technology is a wonderful tool, but we’re seriously treading a thin line. Where are museums a commercial monster and where are they a personal place that makes the visitor welcome but at the same time manage to support itself. We have to be careful to not lose the human element of interaction.