16 Comments
User's avatar
Lyle Rexer's avatar

Oh come on CR, name the names. After all, without concrete examples this is just attitudinizing, no? And while we are on the subject, how about a discussion of talking dog art? We don't care what the dog says, the fact that it talks at all is the source of amazement. There is so much of it out there.

Expand full comment
Steven Siegel's avatar

Thank you Carter. Perfect.

Expand full comment
Carter Ratcliff's avatar

Thank you, Steven

Expand full comment
Michael Klein's avatar

great

Expand full comment
Carter Ratcliff's avatar

Thank you, Michael

Expand full comment
chris's avatar

I agree, it is dumb. If art is to represent the current Zeitgeist then "dumb" certainly fits. I recently read that only 2% of people are capable of critical thinking, I believe it! Everything is being dumbed down, why bother when you have a device in your hand that can tell you whatever you want to know? Why bother to activate those brain cells?

Expand full comment
John Weber's avatar

Thanks for this. The banana is indeed dumb (and wow, I saw the *real* one in Miami). But Catellan, as you note, is not: we're still talking about it. And then there's all that money. And I'm thinking about The Velvet Underground & Nico, and the guy who did the album cover.

Expand full comment
Judy Collischan's avatar

Presentation and promotion - cardinal features of most of today’s art. But progression - no.

Expand full comment
Carter Ratcliff's avatar

Yes, it does seem as if there is almost no space between the artworld and the art market.

Expand full comment
Alex Melamid's avatar

"The banana is dumb." Well, what about The Urinal? “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” (Voltaire)

Expand full comment
Carter Ratcliff's avatar

Or the Bottle Rack. All readymades sink to the same level.

Expand full comment
George's avatar

“Nobody’s perfect.” says it so well. Thanks for the great recollection and insight. Duchamp did seek to populate minds with concepts and intellectual debates. To him, it would have been 'perfect' to have no visual art at all-- kenisesisis would have been so much better. One can say, even conclude, that whatever talents Duchamp possessed, he lacked the ability to create Fine Art. Apparently, he could not sing, play violin, or write poetry, or he might have.

( compare Paul Klee who was also a fine Violinist, Mathematician and Teacher .)

It is fair to say that the tongue-in-cheek banter, sarcasms and quips of so many concept people, and the " bite the hand that feeds you " works of Koons or Mr banana, all are in the same situation: Just shows us all your ability to play piano, or paint or add some meaning to the general field of the Arts.

They cannot, of course. They are the couch potatoes of the Arts.

Sadly, the promoters and ad-men enable their vain empty gestures.

Thanks for the fine essay !

Expand full comment
Carter Ratcliff's avatar

Yes, Duchamp's talent was for finding objects that certain sensibilities would take for artworks.

Expand full comment
George's avatar

To follow up on your observations on Trecento multi-points of view in Duccio vs the quattrocento single place-disappearing point: compare the Parisian Orphic abstractions, such as Delaunay, and the single point of view in a Noland Chevron or Disc. It seems to be a cross century and style type of comparison to jar the mind of readers on Meanings and Variations in Fine Art.... thinking of your Master Theorem .

Expand full comment
Carol Bruns's avatar

So very much to the point. !!! appreciate.

Expand full comment
Carter Ratcliff's avatar

Thank you, Carol

Expand full comment