The Legacy of Marcel Duchamp.

Minneapolis
Author(s): Francis M. Naumann
Source: The Burlington Magazine, Vol. 137, No. 1103 (Feb., 1995), pp. 137-139
Published by: The Burlington Magazine Publications, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/886492
Accessed: 17/02/2010 11:38

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bmpl.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Burlington Magazine Publications, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to The Burlington Magazine.

http://www.jstor.org

of new perspectival alleys cut in the wooded
Tiergarten (a design of 1835), were juxta-
posed with an unexecuted project for a hip-
podrome of trees in the gardens of the
Charlottenhof at Sanssouci. These in turn
are hung as pendants with two of Schinkel's
very late designs for Orianda palace in the
Crimea and for an ideal princely residence
for an unspecified site, stylistically quite dif-
ferent, but remarkably related in their spa-
tial structure and their manipulation of both
architecture and nature as reciprocally
frame and subject of experience. The often
discussed dichotomy between Schinkel's
actual commissions and his late 'fantasy'
designs for palaces, so troubling to art histor-
ians, is dissolved as easily as the threshold be-
tween the stage designs and the public career
had been traversed several pairs earlier.
By making Schinkel's inventions in the
representation of architecture the very sub-
ject of the exhibition, Forster has tackled
head-on the eternal paradox of architecture
in the museum. Schinkel's travel sketches,
set designs, perspective-optical pictures,
and presentations of architecture (Fig.88)
are seen not as so many stand-ins for his
architecture but as media for exploring a
new conception of architectural space and
spectatorship. Just how Schinkel explored
these theatrical relationships in three-
dimensional architecture is scarcely
broached, except in Forster's subtly argued
catalogue essay. Although photographs of
Schinkel's buildings in their urban settings
are available on text panels, the curators
have resisted any attempt to simulate
Schinkel's architecture in models, and virtu-
ally no plans of executed' buildings are
included. So little traditional documenta-
tion of Schinkel's buildings is included that
anyone not already familiar with them will
surely fail to recognise the rather arch allu-
sions to the interiors of the Altes Museum
and the Schauspielhaus in Tigerman's exhi-
bition decor. Unfortunately, at least in the
view of this reviewer, the installation, in
Chicago at least, is at odds with the exhibi-
tion. It does more to foster a superficial
reading of Schinkel's architecture as - in the
words of several visitors I talked to - 'very
dramatic', than it does to reinforce the com-
plex curatorial argument about Schinkel's
EXHIBITION REVIEWS
exploration of dramatically new spatial
relationships and framing devices. Tiger-
man could not resist the cheap thrill of clos-
ing the exhibition with an evocation of two
Nazi interiors inspired by Schinkel's classi-
cism: Mies van der Rohe's 1936 design for
the textile industry exhibition (from which
Tigerman owns two torcheres which frame
the exit), and Albert Speer's project for the
Reich's Chancellery. Schinkel's design of
the Prussian Iron Cross and the Neo-classi-
cal rendering of the Prussian eagle stencilled
at the entrance to the gallery are replaced
with stencils of their Nazi renderings at the
exit. This curiously irrelevant coda and its
hackneyed alliance of the romantic period
with the rise of fascism over a century later
also infects the text panels. These make lit-
tle attempt to guide the uninitiated towards
exploring the challenging themes and juxta-
positions of the show's provocative hanging;
rather they quickly degenerate into dis-
cussions of Schinkel's lasting influence and
give way to self-congratulatory references to
the installation and even to the corporate
sponsors, whose Schinkel-inspired office
furnitureis displayed in the final gallerywhere
visitors can consult the catalogue.
Regrettably the catalogue makes no at-
tempt to record the insights of the hanging
plan, although it includes a full presentation
and explanation of Tigerman's drawings for
the installation. The list of drawings exhib-
ited does not reproduce the order of the
exhibition and there are no catalogue
entries to discuss the issues of representation
and theatrically in each of the exquisitely
selected images. A collection of loosely-
related essays ranges from a penetrating
overview of the theme of theatrically and
romantic subjectively by Forster and the
presentation of illuminating new research
on Schinkel's perspective optical pictures by
Birgit Verwiebe, to adept reviews of the rise
of the theatre as a building type by Mitchell
Schwartzer and of Schinkel's landscape de-
signs in Potsdam by Christoph Martin Vog-
therr. Unrelated to the exhibition's theme
are a stimulating essay on Schinkel's critical
fortune by Wolfgang Pehnt and a curiously
inconclusive essay on Schinkel's brief en-
counter with the French architect and histo-
rian Jean-Nicolas Huyot by David van
II ; Magazine) was that works by Duchamp
IlsS
ii_ _
~/!Fl~? ~ 88. Interiorperspective
viewof theproposed
Getraudenkirche,
Berlin,
by Karl Friedrich
Schinkel. 1819. Pen,
ink, water-colour and
wash, 22 by 28 cm.
(Kupferstichkabinett,
Berlin; exh. Art
Institute of Chicago).
Zanten. Hopefully the hanging plan, as pro-
vocative for its interpretation of the archi-
tect as for its grappling with the perennial
difficulty of exhibiting architecture, will be
reproduced in the exhibition's later venues.
BARRY BERGDOLL
Columbia New
University, rCork
'Further - possiblyKarlsruhe
venuesin Germany and
Berlin- are under negotiation.
'KarlSchinkel,
1781-1841: TheDramaofArchitecture,edit-
ed byJohn Zukowsky.176 pp. incl. numerousb. & w.
ills. (ErnstWasmithVerlag, Berlin,and The Art Insti-
tute of Chicago, 1994), $60 (HB);$29.95 (PB).ISBN
0-86559-105-9.
Minneapolis
The legacy of Marcel Duchamp
Recently asked what criteria he used in
selecting artists for his gallery, Leo Castelli
began his response with the words: 'Marcel
Duchamp', going on to name a number of
individuals whose work, he thought, reflect-
ed Duchamp's inventive power -JasperJohns,
Robert Rauschenberg,Joseph Kosuth, Robert
Morris, Bruce Nauman - and pointing out
that Duchamp was a frequent visitor to the
Castelli Gallery in the years before his death
in 1968.1 While few would question the sin-
cerity of Castelli's remarks, it may be doubt-
ed whether he consciously sought out artists
whose work revealed Duchamp's influence,
any more than the artists themselves system-
atically strove to emulate the Frenchman's
ideas (indeed, if Duchamp were Castelli's
only guide, his choice of artists such as
Frank Stella and Ellsworth Kelly would be
hard to explain). Castelli may have come to
realise Duchamp's prime importance only
in retrospect. Since Duchamp's death, art
historians and critics have increasingly
recognised his influence, and curators -
both in America and in Europe - have
attempted in recent years to illustrate the
point in several exhibitions.2 The first major
show of this kind, held five years ago at the
Museum Ludwig in Cologne, was an ambi-
tious undertaking involving the work of
sixty artists, designed to trace the impact of
Duchamp's work since 1950. The main
objection to it (expressed byjill Lloyd in this
were juxtaposed with works by contempo-
rary artists on the basis of visual - rather
than conceptual - similarities.3 Irresistible
as some of these comparisons may be, they
establish a series of false cognates, serving
only to becloud our reading of the contem-
porary work. This same fault recurs in parts
of the wittily titled Duchamp'sLeg, an exhibi-
tion organised by Elizabeth Armstrong for
the Walker Art Center in Minneapolis
to 26th March.4
Since the pun in the title is not explained,
the visitor's bemusement may be enhanced
by finding Robert Gober's 1990 wax sculp-
ture of a clothed fragment of a human leg
(Fig.89) shown next to an early drawing by
Duchamp of a Peasant'sleg (Fig.90), as if to
imply that the one had something to do with
the other. Of course Gober does in general
137
 0_
t4
,1;,i _ X a7 i l
r_fft
-;Aa, fit N,S
| 299.7;ffiTw
11: iis
[1 0- w , -,r
iS.g
_0:t
SE'g'g't.Xt't0 1 cm._eeny
spoon,
1__0115sS Minneapolis).
(Walker
and v 228.8
lEl*
0 by
arcel/r
Sity
g ^: 0uwE
S: 0 --....
-i oE ffi
_ l. g
g. BI S I X iz
or . ] x TT r

EXHIBITION REVIEWS

preoccupiedwith the concept of replication

89. Untitledleg,by Robert Gober. 1990. Wax, cotton,
wood, leather and human hair, 31.8 by 14.6 by 49.5
cm. (PaulaCooper Gallery;exh. WalkerArt Center,
Minneapolis).
find inspiration in Duchamp (witness the
sinksand drain also includedin this exhibi-
tion), but his Untitledlegis perhapscloser in
concept to French and Belgian Surrealism
(a bettercomparisonmight be to Magritte's
fime transfixed).
Nonetheless,Duchamfi's legis a commend-
able undertaking,put togetherby the Walk-
er with remarkablespeed in less than eight
months. This was possible,in part, because
many works in the permanent collection
reflect Duchampian origins. An interestin
the artist and his work began in the mid-
1960s, at which time the Walkerwas one of
severalAmericaninstitutionsto host a small
Duchamp retrospective;the artist'smemo-
rable visit to the opening is recorded in a
series of photographsdisplayedin the cur-
rent exhibition.5
The show is divided into three roughly
chronological parts: the first traces Du-
champ'sinfluenceon the so-calledneo-Dada
or Pop generation of the 1950s and early
60s, the second displaysthe work of artists
0':1_
BBw
and the productionof multiples(bestexem-
plified by Fluxus), and the third features
young painters and sculptorsof the 1980s
and 90s, many of whom have consciously
drawnon Duchamp'sexample.
Visitorsare greetedin the firstsectionby
an example of Duchamp's snow shovel, In
advance ofa broken arm(1915/64) selectedand
inscribed by the artist shortly after he
arrived in New York for the first time in
1915. This is the firstAmericanreadymade
and its title matches well with that of the
exhibition.It is worth recallingthat when it
was shown at anothermuseumin Minneso-
ta just over fiftyyears ago, it was re-appro-
priated by a janitor to clear a snowdrift
outsidethe museum!6
Throughoutthe exhibitionselectedpieces
by Duchamp are provocativelyjuxtaposed
with works by other artists.In some cases
the rationalefor comparisonis obvious; in
others,the visitoris left to workout the par-
allels,which can requiresome thought.Jim
Dine's A blackshovel,number 2, 1962, a dirt-
digger's shovel mounted horizontallyonto
a canvas coveredwith thick blackpigment,
is hung within easy viewing distance of
Duchamp's Snozushovel,while a print of
90. Peasant'sleg,by Marcel Duchamp. 190F05.
Duchamp'sinfamous,moustachioedMona Conte crayon, 21 by 13 cm. (RobertRauschenberg
Lisa, L.H.O.O.Q, hangs alongside Robert collection;exh. WalkerArt Center, Minneapolis).
Rauschenberg'sErasedde Kooningdrawing.
Both workssharethe theme of desecration-
Duchamp defacing a renaissance master-
piece, Rauschenbergreducinga contempo- panel shares a rather loose formal rapport
rarydrawingto a tabularasa. with the Largeglass, which Rauschenberg
Rauschenbergcould on occasion apply had seen for the firsttime a few yearsearlier
the same principles to his own work. In on a visit withJasperJohnsto the Philadel-
1960, he disassembledhis seven-panelWhite phia Museum of Art. Rauschenberg'stech-
paintingof 1951 and used it as material to nique of combiningimages (and sometimes
constructa largepaintedhomage to Marcel real objects)with expressivegesturesof pig-
Duchamp and his wife Alexina (knownto ment against large sections of either white
friendsas Teeny). Trophy II bforBeeny&9Mar- paint or unprimedcanvas,resultsin a series
celDuchamp), in the Walker'scollectionsince of pictorial elements that appear to float
1970 (Fig.91), is the second in a series of in suspension, not unlike the imagery in
five paintings Rauschenberg dedicated to Duchamp'sLargeglass.As if to reinforcethis
friends.Inscriptionson the back of the can- reading,Rauschenbergaffixeda long wood
vas have recently revealed that the artist strip horizontallyacross the central panel,
had intendedthe left wing of this triptychto dividing it into two distinct sections; once
representTeeny and the right to represent this detail is comparedto the Largeglass,it is
Marcel, but no one, to my knowledge,has anyone's guess which elements within the
noticed that in its generalformatthe central composition Rauschenberg might have
intended as uniquely male (bachelor)and
female (bride) references (only the tie is
obvious).Knowing that the flankingpanels
F Xl r NF iVf: representDuchamp (the perennial bache-
_i

j
i |
|

>.,0 0 |
1
l

>
E ;
0 0 0

0 0::
iB f B
lor) and Teeny (his bride of six years), one
B '' z a "- :
might easilyconcludethat the composition-
:

_F'
F
X D :j.,
5':
g w-S
al similaritiesare more than mere visual
. * 1
_':'/ i: gS

f &W comclclence.
i ::R B7
_to
-_
B:
I
} :
0 iE 'S'
i
0
j
: _
_aC L
Selectedworksby other artistsassociated
. i A+,
:d:
>S >
' F ''
_
0 !*

.
*7 . ............
t

5
t
with neo-Dada and Pop are includedin this
part of the exhibitionbecause of their spe-
i 00.,> i i E .
cial relevance to Duchamp: Robert Mor-
S

:
i

iN,$ i t
: S u

*
,
E
I S
.,
__
=
-r
-7yr
ris's Litanies,twenty-seven keys hanging
__ p00000 liw ! Y1. l roWny ll yor from a lead-covered box, each stamped
with a word taken from Duchamp's notes
F 9|4T40 4 Duchamp), by Robert for the Largeglass,were accompaniedby his
equallyDuchampianStatement ofesthetic
with-
a t 2 2 0i1, charcoal,paper, drawal;prints by JasperJohns were shown
after his painting Accordingto what,which
containsnumerousreferencesto Duchamp;
0321 t | . | glass,metalchairand Claes Oldenburg's Softtoiletis a drooping
vinyl homage to Duchamp's Fountain.Per-
- -i_ __
_ _ ArtCenter, haps the most directly relevant work is
Warhol's three-minute ScreenBest:Marcel

138
 EXHIBITION REVIEWS
disavowed such allegiance. For example,
Joseph Beuys's silkscreen sign of 1973
(based on a performance of 1964), boldly
proclaims: 'Das SchweigenvonMarcelDuchamp
wird iiberbewertet(The silence of Marcel
Duchamp is overrated)'. This statement has
often been interpreted as a criticism of
Duchamp and his work, whereas it may
have been intended to rebut claims that
Duchamp was inactive in these years (under-
mined by the valise shown in the exhibi-
tion). A far more acerbic statement may
have been intended in Hans Haacke's Bro-
kenR.M., a shovel with a broken handle, the
surface of which is gilded, implying that the
mixture of art and wealth can sometimes
produce destructive consequences; this
reading is reinforced by the inscription on
an accompanying enamel plaque (itself
punning on the title of another work by
Duchamp): 'ART & ARGENT a tous les
etages'.
The last and largest gallery in the exhibi-
tion displays the work of about a dozen con-
temporary artists, many of whom, over the
last decade, have consciously and systemat-
ically incorporated references to Duchamp
in their work. Their approach, however,
differs distinctly from that of their predeces-
sors; whereas Duchamp's art and ideas con-
tinue to serve as beacons of influence, now
specific references to the artist and his work
are used to form the basis of a personal
iconography. To put it another way, the
precedence of Duchamp is openly acknowl-
edged as a given, a sort of readymade in its
own right, something that can be appropri-
ated intact or slightly manipulated in ways
Walk92. Chimer
Art Center that still reveal Duchampian origins.Just as
Jasper Johns once told an interviewer that
he would not be embarrassed by any rela-
collection; exh.
of 1966: ikenthe style
brDuchamp of his own tionship that could be established between
infamously
boherringtwenty-four-hour movies, his work and Duchamp,7 young artists are
is captured with Minneapolis).
199Duchamp minimal move- anxious, some even proud to acknowledge
his influence.
celebrities
- Warhol has here caught the
essential aspects of Duchamp's character No artist better exemplifies these sensitiv-
his penetrating inte colligence, his non;xchalant ities than Sherrie Levine, whose bronze uri-
infamously boring
attitude towards alltwenty-four-hour movies,
things artistic. It Centis a per- nal of 1991 is placed alongside Duchamp's
porcelain Fountainof 1917 (here represented
ment, although - as in his portraits of by an example from the edition of 1964).
fectly of 1966
appropriate
pointhamp in the
style ofhibition to When Duchamp authorised a handcrafted
edition of his readymades - based on blue-
be reminded of Duchamp's
his penetrating intelligence, his physical pres-
nonchalant prints made from photographs of the (some-
ence on though art scene durin his portraitsand
times lost) originals - he certainly realised
he provided to some youngartists caughtwasthas that the process of replication would change
crissential
as the examcts of
Duchamp's character, their status from commonplace, manufac-
ence on the art scene during the 1950s and tured objects back to the realm of tradition-
attitude
next section of things is
It
artistic.devoted toper- al
1960s,
fecta
for the supportand encouragement sculpture. Such implications are seized on
display
appropriate
he provided oite en valise, the
exhibition
to some young artists was as toable
by Levine, whose Fountainis cast in a pre-
critical as the which
earlier work example of his work.
Duchamp's physignedinpres- cious material and polished to a Brancusi-
The next section of the show is devoted to like shine.
the early for190s, but assembledpport and sold
iencouragement
a display of the Boite en valise, the portable A more recent work by Levine in the
museum made
museum made fromfrom reproductions
reproductions of his his exhibition raises a number of equally
earlier work which Duchamp designed in
provocative issues. In a second-hand furni-
the early 1940s, but assembled and sold in ture store, she discovered twelve wooden leg
slightly variant editions throughout the splints designed in the early 1940s by
remaining years of his life. The box is dis- Charles Eames. Admiring their moulded
played open and its contents spread out to plywood surface and graceful line she
fill a room constructed within a larger room, mounted them on board, encased them in
the latter containing the work of highly
plexiglass boxes, and assigned them the title
diverse artists, all in one way or another Chimera:after a brokenleg (Fig.92), which
influenced by Duchamp. It is here that
refers both to a collage by Max Ernst
Fluxus's debt to the ephemeral side of Dada (depicting a girl's body encased by a leg
and the packaging talents of Duchamp is brace) and to Duchamp's snow shovel. The
displayed, although a number of artists who initial aesthetic judgment, the elevation of
participated in this movement might have the objects to a precious commodity, and
the poetic appropriateness of the title, could
all be considered in some way antithetical to
Duchamp's method. But it is clearly not
Levine's task to reconcile these differences;
indeed, it could be argued that it is an inher-
ent feature of her work - as for a number of
artists included in this last section of the
exhibition - simply to present them.
It is here that Duchamp's historical posi-
tion as progenitor of the modern appears to
be confirmed. David Ireland creates a
wedge-shaped enclosure that mimics the
narrow slice of space Duchamp occupied in
a famous photograph by Irving Penn;
Rachel Lachowisz is represented by three
plastic urinals coloured by a layer of deep
red lipstick; Millie Wilson fills an entire
room with a collection of fetishistic objects
referring to different works by Duchamp;
Yasumasa Morimura takes the pose of
Rrose Selavy and creates his own version of
Duchamp's alter ego. After viewing this
exhibition, a young artist might well wonder
if any form of art with a conceptual basis
could be made without acknowledging
Duchamp's pre-eminence. The French
artist Ben Vautier perhaps expressed these
sentiments best in words he painted around
the rim of a water-filled bathtub (a work
from 1991, also included in the Walker Art
Center exhibition): 'Since Marcel Duchamp
all the avant-garde is soaking in the same
water of the same bathtub.'
FRANCISM.NAUMANN
'Interviewbetween Leo Castelli and Robert Rosen-
blum, sponsored by New York University School of
Continuing Education, Bobst Library, 19th October
1994.
2Anothershow based on a closely related theme, but
confining itself to the late 1950s and early 60s, was
independently conceived and organised by Susan
Hapgood for the Scottsdale Center for the Arts. It
opened, coincidentally,on the same day at the Walker
Art Center exhibition: see the catalogue/book, Neo-
Dada:Redefining Art1958-62, by Susan Hapgood, with
essaysby MauriceBergerandJillJohnston (American
Federation of Arts, Universe Publishing,New York,
1994).
3JILLLLOYD:'Cologne: Duchamp and his legacy', THE
BURLINGTON MAGAZINE, CXXX [1988], pp.485-86.
See the catalogue Ubrigens sterben immer dieanderen:Mar-
celDuchamp unddieAvantgarde seit1950, exh. cat., Muse-
um Ludwig,Cologne, 1988.
4Armstrongactuallyderived her title from 'Suzanne's
Leg', the name given to a dance performanceby Twyla
Tharp held at the Walker Art Center in the 1970s.
There was no catalogue published for Duchamp's Leg
but a specialissue of the magazine October
(no. 70, Fall
1994) was devoted to the subjectof Duchamp's influ-
ence. In additionto a numberof interestingarticles,the
journal contains a series of importantinterviewswith
artists by Benjamin Buchloh (Oldenburg, Warhol,
Morris), Elizabeth Armstrong (Bruce Conner) and
Martha Buskirk(SherrieLevine, Louise Lawler and
Fred Wilson) on the relevance of Duchamp to their
work.
5The exhibitionwas a tour of the Mary Sisler Collec-
tion, which was held at the WalkerArt Center from
18th October to 21st November 1965.
6Asreportedby G.H.HAMILTON: 'In Advance of Whose
BrokenArm?',ArtandArtists, 1, no.4 [July1966], p.29.
7Asrecordedin the filmPainters Painting,1972 (andpub-
lished in E. DEANTONIO
and M.TUCHMAN:
PaintersPaint-
ing,New York [1984], p. 102).
139