Comments on: The Duchamp market http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/04/04/the-duchamp-market/ A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: HBC http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/04/04/the-duchamp-market/comment-page-1/#comment-13141 Mon, 05 Apr 2010 21:05:28 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=3205#comment-13141 Well, one can never be quite sure about these things but Duchamp himself is supposed to have said, “I don’t believe in art. I believe in artists.” He’s also said to have been more interested in ideas than commodities.

What Marcel might’ve had in mind for certain art business professionals could be, “Let them eat urinal cake.”

It was just an idea, but they did it anyway.

]]>
By: seanmatthews http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/04/04/the-duchamp-market/comment-page-1/#comment-13140 Mon, 05 Apr 2010 21:05:23 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=3205#comment-13140 I remember reading this article, and finding it amusing for all sorts of reasons that Dormant probably didn’t intend. Art that is nothing more than a speech act (which is really what Dormant’s article is about), may still be ‘art’, but it is difficult to see how it can be very interesting art (except among senior undergraduates contemplating a term paper in philosophical aesthetics, and their supervisors). More ‘importantly’, given that the explicit issue is monetary value, it is not likely to be very enduring (Duchamp not withstanding – even in his case, it is only a hundred years, so far, when he is making some real distance with Raphael and Titian we can talk).

]]>
By: fresnodan http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/04/04/the-duchamp-market/comment-page-1/#comment-13129 Mon, 05 Apr 2010 14:03:38 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=3205#comment-13129 What I get from the post is further evidence that the rational man theory of economics is on shaky ground. Let’s take Warhols soup can. What is the difference between a soup can I copy and Warhol’s soup can??? Millions of dollars in the market. But in reality, they would be indistinguishable.
Authenticity is no more than the fact that a real dollar is worth a dollar, while a counterfeit is worth nothing.

]]>
By: Franklin010 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/04/04/the-duchamp-market/comment-page-1/#comment-13124 Mon, 05 Apr 2010 02:54:51 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=3205#comment-13124 I agree with BarryKelly.

The single most important thing about a work of art is whether the art connects with an audience — not who created the work of art.

A different set of considerations come into play in art collecting as an investment activity. Art historians have some basis for examining the authenticity question too. However, these questions are unrelated to questions of quality.

Orson Welles has a great discussion of this topic in his film “F for Fake”.

]]>
By: BarryKelly http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/04/04/the-duchamp-market/comment-page-1/#comment-13123 Mon, 05 Apr 2010 02:19:59 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/?p=3205#comment-13123 “The single most important thing you can say about a work of art is […] that the artist to whom it is attributed made it. ” – what utter nonsense.

The only way that statement makes sense is for people who are buying a physical token associated with a reputation. Art as a brand, art as marketing, the artist as the product.

Art’s value lies in the effect it has on those who experience it; that effect is the product of what is intrinsic in the art, and what the experiencer brings to it. The label, presumed intent, authorship, framing, etc., are all part of the work, but to elevate any one of these above all else, to be paramount, is ignorant.

Authorship as paramount matters most only to dealers and the marks they sell to, the philistines who wish to peacock their wallet, to purchase a share in a fashionable bubble.

]]>