Thierry de Duve’s Echoes of the Readymade: Critique of Pure Modernism and KatharineYoung’s Aesthetic Ecologies: Reflectionson What Makes Artifacts Art pose contesting viewpoints relating to the nature of art reflected in Readymade art-objects, with focus drawn to thenotion of aesthetics, and the conventions needed in order to establish an object as art. Such conventions relate to the institutional space, the axiological interpretation of the art object, the judgements imposed upon the work, as well as the dynamic between the object and the public.

Thierry De Duve is a curator, teacher and writer whose area of expertise is modern art (Web Archive, 2018). In his article, Echoes of the Readymade: Critique of Pure Modernism, he evaluates readymade art in the context of conceptual art, highlighting its highly flimsy and subjective nature by referencing well-renowned artists and art-historians, which often results in statements that contradict and conflict each other. De Duve attributes the emergence of Conceptual art to the rising popularity of the notion that an individual can be a legitimate artist without being a skilled expert in any previous art-related skills, such as painting, poetry, sculpting, etc. (1994, 63). De Duve further claims that art exists conceptually, claiming that an object is either “art or it’s nothing,”(1994, 64), and proceeds to contest Joseph Kosuth’s 1969 essay Artafter Philosophy. Kosuth claims that “…all art … is conceptual in nature,” (1973,80), inferring that the nature of conceptual art is to question art (1969, 79).

Instead, de Duve’s analysis focuses on the manner in which one may view anartwork in terms of its linguistic elements (1994, 65),reiterating that art operates by analysing artisticdiscourse. He further determines that in order to understand this, one must breakwith the generic paradigms, such as that imposed by language, logic, and pragmatism.The purpose of this is to enter an “enunciative paradigm”, which operatives inthe discursive field. In such a paradigm, “signs … are stated and not insofaras they signify,” (De Duve& Krauss, 1994, 65). Using a similar formula, Readymades are examined in the enunciative paradigm as works of conceptual art. They are upheld by conditions which enable them to exist as statements, allowing viewers to attach images or objects to those conditions (ibid). The conditions within the enunciative paradigm that must be in place for art to exist (1994, 70) depend upon an object, an author, a public and an institutional space – theamalgamation of which he dubs a priori.

Art is a rendezvous in that it is an exemplary instance in which the readymade is born of the encounter of an object and an author (De Duve& Krauss, 1994, 71). Subsequently, the notion off abrication arises, as the readymade’s nature is that it is already-made,therefore when viewing it in the context of art, the presumption that the author has made it with their own hands is eliminated. 

An object is only art in the confines of the encounter within an institutional space, “[art] exist[s] in relation to subjects… a group of authors and another called spectators,” (ibid.).

Katharine Young, who attained her Ph.D. from the Universityof Pennsylvania and specializes in aesthetics and the anthropology of art amongst other disciplines (Anthropology.sfsu.edu, 2018),also tackles the topic of readymade art in a modern context. However, rather than from the viewpoint of conceptual art, Young interrogates the topic by analysing modernity as an entity comprising of temporal and spatial aspects.

She begins by stating that various aspects of culture evolve at different speeds. In assessing the figuration of modernity against tradition, Young uses the concept of stability, claiming that “we occupy the present as instability and experience stability as the past,” (2014, 177). Stable things define themselves against “temporal and spatial relationships,” (Young, 2014, 178).

She dubs such a concept as the modern “chronotope”, in which “time thickens,”so that it is tangible, while “space becomes charged” in order to interact with the movements of the present (Young, 2014, 178). Subsequently, Young claims that “dust forms around the culturally hollow space of old that has been emptied of its indigenous meaning,” (2014, ibid.). Such an analogy refers tothe forgotten aspects of history and culture that has been repressed and lost (Seremetakis,1994, 224). Furthermore, stable things present themselves as stubborn anomalies, offering resistance, and are subsequently referred to as artefacts.

In this context, artefacts “set themselves against the flow of everyday life”(Young, 2014, 178). The aforementioned ‘dust’ is the preservation of otherness,and in objects, it becomes visible as viewers can passively register the hidden histories that they are unaware of (Young, 2014, 179). 

The philosopher John McDermott elaborates on such a concept using his notion of “aesthetic ecology”(1976, 82-98), in which he claims that order imposed on an object is a result of harmonious interactions that energies bear to each other. Young claims that art manifests its aesthetic value from either preserving or contradicting tradition (2014, 186). She states that the term ‘aesthetics’ is a derivative of the Greek notion of sense perception. As such, the term does not merely relate to the axiological values of an object, but with the phenomenology of pleasure and opulence (Young, 2014, 195). A further argument refers to Immanuel Kant,who claims that sensations produced when viewing a beautiful work do not directly cause aesthetic pleasure, but rather the taste of sense. Pleasure derives from the sensations stirred in the perceiver’s mind as they are exposed to the work (Young, 2014, 183).

Young writes of similar conventions to those of the enunciative paradigm in the context of aesthetic ecologies, which undertake an “anatomy of desire” (Young, 2014, 177), in that she affirms that aesthetics do not just comprise the axiological implications of a work. As such, an individual’s subjective values and assumptions are not the only factors to consider when attempting to understand how one may perceive the work, as their interpretations are equally related to sense perception – particularly pleasure and sensual experiences (Young, 2014, 177). 

Furthermore, the aesthetic experience can be a rudimentary one if it is authentically experienced (Young,2014, 180). Such a statement contemplates the aesthetics of an ordinary experience contrasted against the experience of things that are already set apart as art, and assert that when an object has fallen into the category of the aesthetic, it is automatically raised in axiological value space (Young,2014, 181). 

The aesthetics of the ordinary refers to the manner in which commonplace practices and objects, such as readymades, contain feeling and meaning (Young, 2014, 182), and are thus scrutinized due to their validity as art (2014, 193). This notion interrogates the concept of “art for art’s sake” by stripping an object of its functionality so as to decontextualize it,thereby privileging it as a work of art (Young, ibid.). This process of atrophying, exhibits the transcendentally human virtues of the artwork, and furthermore, portrays the manner in which the object conveys a humanistic element, which in turn conveys a generous sense of beauty.

Moreover, De Duve claims that “art and the aesthetic don’t just overlap, they coincide,” (1994, 97), while further stating that there is a conceptual connection between art and aesthetics, which isattained through the means of art, particularly the readymade (De Duve&Krauss, 1994, 64). This is due to the manner in which the readymade has already achieved the reduction of art to its sufficient, essential conventions. Such a theory notes that works of art are shown with the purpose of being judged. Young concurs with this notion to an extent, noting that art objects evoke questions as to their validity as art, whereas the status of works of art are not in serious question (2014, 182). The basis of aesthetic judgements is not founded purely on beauty, nor do they concretely reflect the value of the work. Instead, they position both the viewer and the object in an axiological space(Young, ibid.). Consequently, the aesthetic approach claims that an object will constitute art either because of inherent properties – specifically, due to the beauty present in the object – or because of the viewer’s perception that the object is art. Young summarizes this with the claim, “aesthetics of theordinary is to look twice” (Young, 2014, 189).

In contrast, De Duve states that inorder to enjoy a readymade, the viewer must ponder why it is in the institutional space (De Duve& Krauss, 1994, 90).Consequently, viewers are said to no longer view art for pleasure. Rather, they have turned into critics (De Duve& Krauss, 1994, 87). Art is an encounter between the object and public, and although the public only represents half of the matter, a masterpiece is determined when a viewer declares it as such (DeDuve& Krauss, 1994, 76). However, a unanimous consensus from the audienceis not necessary in order for the crowd to be a public (De Duve& Krauss,1994,80). The dynamic between the object and public creates“a dispersion of privacies”, wherein each viewer finds their own link to theobject (De Duve& Krauss, 1994, 81).

Both Thierry de Duve and Katharine Young approach the topic of readymade art, attempting to analyse the nature of art and its conventions. Although each viewpoint differs, they commonly state that the audience’s perception of the object – whether it be a rendezvous in theinstitutional space, or a sensuous experience of aesthetics – is quintessential.

‍

WorkCited:

Anthropology.sfsu.edu. (2018). Katharine Young | Department of Anthropology.[online] Available at:https://anthropology.sfsu.edu/people/faculty/katharine-young [Accessed 2 Aug.2018].

De Duve, T., & Krauss, R. (1994).Echoes of the Readymade: Critique of Pure Modernism. October, 70, 61-97. doi:10.2307/779054

Kosuth, J. (1973). Art after PhilosophyI and II: Studio International (Octoberand 1969), reprinted in Idea Art, ed. Gregory Battcock (New York: Dutton)

McDermott, J. (1976). 1987. “Deprivationand Celebration.” In The Culture ofExperience: Philosophical Essays in the American Grain, 82-98. Long Grove,IL: Waveland.

Seremetakis, N. (1994), The Memory ofthe Senses: Historical Perception, Commensal Exchange and Modernity. In Visual Theory, edited by Lucien Taylor,215-29. New York: Routledge.

Web.archive.org. (2018). Theirry de Duve Reference Page. [online]Available at:https://web.archive.org/web/20110606024923/http://home.netvigator.com/~jasperl/r%60tdd.htm#Brief%20Introduction[Accessed 2 Aug. 2018].

Young, K. (2014). Aesthetic Ecologies:Reflections on What Makes Artifacts Art. Journal of Folklore Research, 51(2), 177-198.doi:10.2979/jfolkrese.51.2.177

‍