Blogs and Stories

Rachel Wolff

Marcel Duchamp's Secret Masterpiece

For two decades, Marcel Duchamp fooled the world into thinking he had retired, while quietly creating his last great work. Rachel Wolff on the multiple love affairs that inspired it.

Tucked away in a dark nook of the Philadelphia Museum of Art’s modern and contemporary wing lies one of the most confounding works of art of all time. It is perverse, bizarre, funny, poignant, sad, scary, revealing, literal, and symbolic all at once. And as one might expect, photographs have never done it justice.

Click Image to View Our Gallery

HP Main - Wolff Duchamp

Marcel Duchamp’s Étant donnés is radically different from the 20th-century provocateur’s previous work (urinal-as-sculpture, a bicycle wheel fastened to the top of a stool, Nude Descending a Staircase). The piece begins with a wooden barn door pierced with two inconspicuous peepholes. For the uninformed or uncurious, that’s where it ends (it’s not hard to imagine the inner dialogue: “It’s just a door? How ‘Duchampian’”).

Peer through the holes, however, and you’re immediately captivated by the sculptural tableau beyond—a naked woman seen from the neck down, lying on a bed of twigs with a campy pastoral scene and waterfall visible in the background. The figure’s skin is pale but life-like; her legs are splayed, and her bare labia are front and center. There is something that seems victim-like about the figure, her body limp and exposed. However, the woman’s left hand suggests something else entirely. It is active, steadily holding up a gas lamp and illuminating the scene.

Working in secret for 20 years, Duchamp constructed much of Étant donnés in his diminutive studio on West 14th Street in New York, confiding only in three women (two lovers, one wife, to be exact) and, in the work’s later stages, artist/collector William Nelson Copley. By the 1940s, Duchamp had gone “underground” with his art, claiming to have given it up entirely for chess. “Nobody had any interest in what he was doing because nobody, including myself, knew he was doing anything,” Copley once said. “This gave him all the freedom in the world.”

Duchamp decided in the 1950s to will his pièce de résistance to the Philadelphia Museum of Art to join the largest collection of the artist’s work. Étant donnés was permanently installed at the museum in 1969, one year after Duchamp’s death. It has since beguiled artists, critics, and art historians alike with its uncharacteristic look and perceivably lewd message. Jasper Johns called it “the strangest work of art any museum has ever had in it”; visitors feigned shock, bemoaning the piece to the director and even, at times, to guards and staffers in the galleries; and in his New York Times review, John Canaday wrote: “For the first time, this cleverest of 20th-century masters looks a bit retardataire.” It became sort of an art world in-joke and there’s little existing scholarship on the piece. It seemed, for the longest time, that no one quite got it.

The Philadelphia Museum of Art hopes to change that with Marcel Duchamp: Étant donnés, a new exhibition on view through November 29th. The show gathers a fascinating array of photographs, documents, objects, and artworks related to Étant donnés and its conception. It also pays tribute to the museum’s late director Anne d’Harnoncourt, who helped with the original installation of the piece as a curatorial assistant.

“The show was 10 years in the making,” curator Michael R. Taylor explains, “and required lots of detective work.” Taylor and d’Harnoncourt tracked down 100 items, working closely with Duchamp’s heirs. An opening gallery reveals an early study and a series of Polaroids taken by the artist in an effort to document the piece as he relocated his studio to East 11th Street in 1965. The sizable space leading to the work itself permanently houses Duchamp’s similarly enigmatic “Large Glass,” or The Bride Stripped Bare By Her Bachelors, Even. Displayed around it are erotic trinkets in vitrines—objects Duchamp sent to friends (Johns, for one) and family as gifts. The photos, original plaster casts, Surrealist magazines, and studies that fill the walls and two more display cases reveal the artist’s process and visual stimuli (waterfalls photographed while vacationing in Bellevue, Switzerland; painter Paul Delvaux’s handling of the female form).

It’s a comprehensive retrospective, but many of the show’s conceptual underpinnings lay in a series of objects that aren’t on view: Duchamp’s letters the Brazilian sculptor Maria Martins, the artist’s lover for most of the 1940s, which Taylor admits, delayed the show for years. Never before published, the letters remained out of reach to Taylor and d’Harnoncourt until they were sold at auction in 2006 (reproductions of them appear in the exhibition catalogue).

Back to Top
August 28, 2009 | 12:10am
Facebook
|
Twitter
|
Digg
|
|
Emails
|
print
Comments ()

hockeydog

Duchamp, the father of Conceptual Art, has once again confounded and delighted. And once again, the chess master is six moves ahead of the art critics.

His work has, in essence always been more about the idea behind art rather than in the actual work itself. As Plato was to the world of the ancient Greeks, Duchamp is to the world of modern art.

To look closely at the rose, to see the drops of dew before the morning sun evaporates it from the rose's petals, to smell the fragrance is to experience the idea of "Rose'.

That Duchamp was able to bring his inestimable talents to bear in melding concepts with traditional structures of art, sets him apart, and above other great talents.

Both Picasso and Duchamp were masters, and to compare the two is like comparing apples and oranges. But, if we were to do so, Duchamp's concepts would rise, I think, to a greater level of understanding of the world.

While Picasso's cubism redefined the world of painting, Duchamp's conceptual approach redefines the world of perception.

Duchamp may be saying to the rest of us, "Look! Really look deeply through the peepholes of your world and find the treasures hidden within. But, if you don't take the time to look deeply, that's okay too. You can still admire the door itself."

|
|
Reply
8:16 am, Aug 28, 2009

Yentalicious

This must be one of those pretentious art moments beyond my comprehension-I'm pretty sure I could get a live image of this in any issue of "Penthouse". I have nothing against artistic nudes I'm just struggling to see how a headless, hairless nude women on display from the waist up is art...I suppose I'm not just that sophisticated.

|
|
Reply
|
9:08 am, Aug 28, 2009

Ahimsa

I recommend that you expand your angle of view about art.
Also, a work of art like this cannot be understood by seeing a picture on a website.
Acquaint yourself with the work of Duchamp and you will find a whole world that you are not currently able to see.
Pretentious...Educate yourself.

|
|
Reply
3:40 pm, Aug 29, 2009

External

I guess the author has never seen Gustave Courbet "Origin of the World"
http://www.artchive.com/artchive/C/courbet/origin.jpg.html

|
|
Reply
|
1:20 pm, Aug 28, 2009

Ahimsa

What makes you think that?

|
|
Reply
3:41 pm, Aug 29, 2009

rroseselavy00

actually, external, if you had done even the slightest bit of research you would have realized that there is no way that duchamp could be referencing courbet as no one saw "l'origine du monde" until it was sold at auction in 1955...ten years after duchamp cast his figure. and, yes, yentalicious, i suppose you are just not that sophisticated...because, as hockeydog attempted to explain, the work is not so much about the woman as it is about how she is perceived. i have a hard time believing any pictures in playboy offer that level conceptual perspective.

|
|
Reply
2:54 pm, Aug 28, 2009

pricklypear

Not something I would hang on my living room wall.

|
|
Reply
|
11:57 am, Aug 29, 2009

Ahimsa

Oh come on...
If you had been paying attention you would have noticed that this is not a painting.

|
|
Reply
3:39 pm, Aug 29, 2009

This user is no longer registered.

n--Y--untill
|
|
Reply
3:37 pm, Aug 29, 2009

Ahimsa

Duchamp's long term pieces had to do with an idea of "slowness" or pacing that pervaded his entire life. He was certainly not interested in making large sums of money or with making his art career an avenue for the acquisition of wealth. Since his early days he defied, even ridiculed the art establishment that could have made him rich, and produced art that was centered on substance, however long it would take. He even abandoned painting at the zenith of his career as a painter, once he had been accepted and his influence on practically every movement was undeniable. Duchamp only made enough money to get by, all his life. His large glass took over a decade to get "unfinished". He was the most mysterious artist of the XX C, that is for sure, and one of the most fascinating and defining. It is an adventure to learn about his thinking, a very enriching, mind-expanding experience. Not for the lazy-minded.

|
|
Reply
|
3:48 pm, Aug 29, 2009

TheOldSchool

Ahimsa,

I enjoy reading your comments. Duchamp's genius will continue to reveal itself, like a flower blooming in super slo-mo time lapse photography, for centuries to come.

|
|
Reply
3:10 pm, Sep 4, 2009

bumbershoot09

Mustache memorabilia:
She had everything a man could want:muscles,mustache and a
charge account at the Oak Bar.

|
|
Reply
11:19 am, Sep 2, 2009
Leave a comment

Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.

View Comments

Marcel Duchamp's Secret Masterpiece

by Rachel Wolff

Info
RSS
Rachel Wolff
Emails
|
print
Single Page
|
text
-
+
Facebook
 | 
Twitter
 | 
Digg
 |