A ‘WASTE’ OF TIME?
Marcel Duchamp’s Fountain, ‘created’ in 1917, consisted of the display of a urinal bought at a hardware store at a 90-degree angle instead of its normal position. This is considered as one of the most influential pieces of 20th century art. The original was lost, but about eight replicas of the same signed by the artist in the 1960s are displayed in important museums all over the world.
It is also one of the most un-displayable works of art. At least two significant and well-publicised attempts, successful and otherwise, have been made to actually urinate into the sculpture. What does one do with a sculptural piece such as this? Can one have it as a trophy to be displayed over the mantelpiece in the living room or a formal dining room?
In the late 20th century in Europe and lately in India scatological art focusing on bodily releases in the form of hair, excreta, semen, urine and blood, human and animal have made it to museums and even private collections. The Metropolitan Museum of
Modern Art has a difficult donation in form of the work of James Riddle containing
his urine. George Maciunas’ famous installation Excreta Fluxorum made up of flux-boxes contains animal excretions.
In India too, actual cow dung has now become affixed to canvas and is routinely part of installations. At least, cow dung is culturally acceptable and part of rural life cycles, but its display quotient in private spaces remains questionable.
There are art pieces, paintings and sculptures that despite being well known, fancy-shmancy, and with big labels are very difficult to hang because of the subject, the material or size.
Without going into what constitutes art and the relationship between art and aesthetics, an important question confronting institutional and private buyers is whether what they seek to possess is art that can be displayed.
— Dr Seema Bawa is an art historian, curator and critic
Post new comment