Because the idea behind it is good? You’re confusing art and craft. Why should anyone be interested in a urinal on a pedestal?
Also there’s literally zero people who would pay someone a commission to draw this piece. You’re not looking at lost work you’re looking at additional art. Without AI (if it is AI) it might have still existed but in stick figure form and that would be better because…? The idea has better expression as a chicken scratch? I don’t think so.
The toilet isn’t the interesting thing, the interesting thing is how there’s now authorised replicas in museums (the original is lost) signifying the discussion around art perception, not the art itself. Looking at one doesn’t give you more insight than reading “and he put a urinal on a pedestal” in a textbook. It’s a fucking urinal. The piece having no meaning onto itself was part of the point, it’s all in the context. Yet, somehow, the replicas are authorised. A true rebel museum would forego getting an authorised one and buy a random one off the shelf, then proclaim it to be original.
You can’t go into a room carrying a plucked chicken, proclaiming “behold, a human!” without there being Aristotelians around. Well you can but noone would talk about it millennia later.
Being profoundly offensive is the only way to do the work justice. To actually recreate it is not to recreate the original form, but the reaction it caused. The very point of the work includes that any urinal is just as good as any other, so why the pretence that this particular shape, the “R. Mutt” signature, has significance?
Looking at the replicas is like praying to ashes. I’m talking about passing on the fire.
so why the pretence that this particular shape, the “R. Mutt” signature, has significance?
Because reinterpretation is not an art historian’s job.
The original reaction is lost to time, dude. A modern audience is, broadly, already aware of the transgressive urinal, and so already more accepting of it. There is no recreating the piece. There is only recreating what it was.
Because the idea behind it is good? You’re confusing art and craft. Why should anyone be interested in a urinal on a pedestal?
Also there’s literally zero people who would pay someone a commission to draw this piece. You’re not looking at lost work you’re looking at additional art. Without AI (if it is AI) it might have still existed but in stick figure form and that would be better because…? The idea has better expression as a chicken scratch? I don’t think so.
It is incredible how jealous AI-hornies are of the toilet.
The toilet isn’t the interesting thing, the interesting thing is how there’s now authorised replicas in museums (the original is lost) signifying the discussion around art perception, not the art itself. Looking at one doesn’t give you more insight than reading “and he put a urinal on a pedestal” in a textbook. It’s a fucking urinal. The piece having no meaning onto itself was part of the point, it’s all in the context. Yet, somehow, the replicas are authorised. A true rebel museum would forego getting an authorised one and buy a random one off the shelf, then proclaim it to be original.
You can’t go into a room carrying a plucked chicken, proclaiming “behold, a human!” without there being Aristotelians around. Well you can but noone would talk about it millennia later.
This is profoundly offensive to art history, actually. A museum?
People go to great lengths to preserve CRT setups for old video games, but you’re like “nah, a TV is as good as any other.”
Dude, your contempt for art is insane. I’m telling you, you’re jealous that I respect the profane and “meaningless” urinal and not your AI toys.
Being profoundly offensive is the only way to do the work justice. To actually recreate it is not to recreate the original form, but the reaction it caused. The very point of the work includes that any urinal is just as good as any other, so why the pretence that this particular shape, the “R. Mutt” signature, has significance?
Looking at the replicas is like praying to ashes. I’m talking about passing on the fire.
Because reinterpretation is not an art historian’s job.
The original reaction is lost to time, dude. A modern audience is, broadly, already aware of the transgressive urinal, and so already more accepting of it. There is no recreating the piece. There is only recreating what it was.