DUCHAMP'S READYMADES:

ART AND ANTI-ART

P. N. Humble
I INTRODUCTION

Downloaded from http://bjaesthetics.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on August 20, 2015

The question whether Duchamp's Readymades should be treated as art or
anti-art has recently been aired by T. J. DifFey. Diffey suggests that the
Readymades may not belong to art, and that they 'may better be seen as
challenges to art'. He also makes the important point that to 'think of anti-art
as merely some more recent form of art is to nullify its significance'.1
These suggestions seem to me to be valuable, and they tie in with what I
wish to say concerning some, but not all, of Duchamp's Readymades. I
shall argue in section (3) that some Readymades, e.g., Fountain (1917) and
Comb (1916) cannot be 'claimed for art' since Duchamp used diem to attack
the very institution of art. However, I shall show that, few as they are,
the Readymades do not constitute a homogeneous group uor do they exhibit
a common intention. A closer study of them will reveal how various they
are and how confused Duchamp's intentions were regarding them, although
there are good grounds for thinking that Duchamp 'assisted' (to use his term)
certain Readymades with the intention of rewarding anyone contemplating
them aesthetically. The Readymades are interesting, then, not simply
because some of diem resist classification as art and instead constitute the
earliest examples of anti-art, but also because some do rightfully belong to
art. I have in mind here, for instance, Bicycle Wheel (1913) and Why Not
Sneeze Rose Silavy? (1921), bodi of which, I shall argue in section (4), are
better seen as attempts to create art.
At diis point I might explain my use of the term 'anti-art'. I shall speak
of something as 'anti-art' if it was produced or presented primarily widi
the intention of forestalling or disrewarding aesthetic contemplation.1
I shall also describe as 'anti-art' any object which even if it exhibits value-
features or aesthetic qualities exhibits those whose presence in die object
is not due nor partly due to an artist, and which 'has been presented in the
institutional setting of the artworld' widi die sole intention of baffling and
disconcerting die spectator. Hence anti-art is die antithesis of art, i.e., die
antidiesis of somediing created primarily widi die intention of rewarding
aesdietic contemplation. Anti-art reflects and embodies die intention to
produce somediing diat does not, and could not, satisfy die criteria we
employ in classifying things as art.
53
 P. N. HUMBLE 53

2 AN AMBIGUOUS QUESTION

One key to understanding the Readymades is to be found in a question

Dnrhamp put to himself in 1913, the year in which he underwent a major
artistic crisis and virtually abandoned all conventional forms of drawing and
painting. That question was, 'Can one make works that are not works of
art?' There are a number of remarks I wish to make regarding this singular
question.
To begin with I would remark that the question is ambiguous and can be
understood in two different senses. They are: (1) Is it possible to make works

Downloaded from http://bjaesthetics.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on August 20, 2015

that cannot be classified as art, no matter how broadly art is defined? and
(2) Is it possible to make works that are not 'retinal' art works (in a sense
to be explained below) but that embody a broader, richer conception of art?
Sometimes Duchamp understood the question in the first way, and the
question thus understood would be likely to propel him in the direction of
anti-art. And the fact that Duchamp asked himself whether it is possible to
make things which cannot be brought under the concept of art strongly
suggests that he wished to make such things in order to negate art,3
But sometimes Duchamp seems to have understood the question in its
second sense and this would not point the artist in the direction of and- art.
To appreciate fully why it would not do so we need to understand
Duchamp's term 'retinal' art.
Duchamp used the term 'retinal' art to refer disparagingly to avant-garde
painting. As William Rubin has fully discussed Duchamp's hostility to
'pure painting' in his Dada and Surrealist Art I need say little here. What I
would emphasize is that Duchamp believed that the modern artist had
become far too preoccupied with delighting the eye and with exploring what
Meyer Shapiro has called 'the possibilities of paint', and too little con-
cerned with engaging the mind. Duchamp, as he put it, 'wanted to put
painting once again at the service of the mind'.4
Hence Duchamp deplored and throughout his life bitterly attacked what
he took to be modern art's narrow and impoverished aesthetic. Now clearly
one can reject a particular aesthetic, no matter how influential, without
thereby rejecting art. Thus (2) above would not, as I have said, encourage
the artist to produce anti-art. On the contrary it would encourage him
to produce work that would enlarge and enrich the existing realm of art.
(And consider here Duchamp's Bride Stripped Bare By Her Bachelors, Even
(1915-23) which by any criteria must be considered art.)
Unfortunately Duchamp never seems to have grasped the ambiguous
nature of his question. His failure to perceive its ambiguity had several
harmful repercussions, some on a practical level and some on a reflective one.
As regards the latter he never seems to have clearly or sharply distinguished
works of art such as Large Glass from works of anti-art such as Rendezvous
of Sunday (1916). The latter consists of a typewritten text on four postcards;
54 DUCHAMP'S READYMADES: ART AND ANTI-ART

the text contains only meaningless sentences. Duchamp has made it clear
that in writing this his sole object was to produce something utterly meaning-
less and without 'any echo of the physical world'.8 Great care has to be
taken in sorting out and interpreting Duchamp's conflicting remarks
regarding the status of his various works and especially the Readymades.
Moreover his work often betrays a confusion of purpose and this is true
certainly of the Readymades. Indeed these puzzling, often provocative,
objects may be said to exemplify his ambivalence towards art.
In our discussion of the Readymades, therefore, we need to bear in mind
that Duchamp invented the notion of the Readymade from a mixture of

Downloaded from http://bjaesthetics.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on August 20, 2015

motives, often conflicting ones. On one hand he wished through this
invention to make works of art diat would be recognizably different from
'retinal' art, while on the other hand he employed Readymades to attack
the very thing, art, to which he devoted a large part of his life. Hence we
must keep in mind both the creative and nihilistic impulses which governed
his work. To ignore his nihilism or treat it as an amusing idiosyncrasy
would be a great mistake Let us, then, begin our examination of selected
Readymades with ones which seem to express Duchamp's aesthetic nihilism,
that is, ones created under a nihilistic impulse.

3 READYMADES AS ANTI-ART
Diffey has suggested that Duchamp may have chosen Fountain (a urinal
signed 'R. Mutt', and dated 1917) on the grounds that it was 'aesthetically
nondescript'. With this in mind read Duchamp's account: '[Fountain]
sprang from the idea of making an experiment concerned with taste:
choose the object which has least chance of being liked. A urinal—very few
people think there is anything wonderful about a urinal. The danger to be
avoided lies in aesthetic delectation (my italics).8 This makes it dear that
Duchamp wished to avoid rewarding aesthetic contemplation, though from
the passage just quoted it is not immediately clear how he proposed to do
this.
One possibility, as Diffey suggests, is that Duchamp believed that no
'aesthetic delectation' could be wrung from such a supposedly nondescript
object as a urinaL
Of course aesthetic qualities, even pleasing ones, have been claimed
recently for Fountain. It is true, no doubt, that urinals in common with
most other objects one cares to name possess aesthetic qualities. It is clearly
possible to scrutinize and appraise a urinal's form, shiny surface, etc., from
an aesthetic point of view (even though some people may find this difficult
to do because of a urinal's associations).
What this shows is that Duchamp may not have completely succeeded
in averting the 'danger of aesdietic delectation' with Fountain since it may
have aesthetic qualities, and mey may be pleasing ones.
 P. N. HUMBLE 55
None the less, if we suppose that Duchamp exhibited Fountain primarily
with the intention of forestalling aesthetic contemplation we would be
fully justified in classifying Fountain as anti-art.7
A second possibility is diat Duchamp exhibited Fountain because he
thought the spectator (certainly in 1917) would find a urinal's presence in
the art gallery deeply objectionable and unpleasant regardless of whatever
aesthetic qualities it happened to have. Duchamp, then, may have presented
the Readymade mainly with the intention of disrewarding aesthetic contem-
plation. This of course would also provide sufficient grounds for classifying
Fountain as anti-art,8

Downloaded from http://bjaesthetics.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on August 20, 2015

We may contrast Fountain, which may have aesthetic qualities, with a
Readymade Duchamp undoubtedly chose for what he considered to be its
complete lack of aesthetic qualities, praiseworthy or dispraiseworthy, and
that Readymade is Comb. This small iron comb bears, besides die date of
its finding, a nonsensical inscription which reads in translation: 'Three or
four drops of height have nothing to do with savagery'. Of this Readymade
Duchamp observed that: 'During the 48 years since it was chosen . . . this
little iron comb has kept the characteristics of a true readymade: no beauty,
no ugliness, nothing particularly aesthetic about it.'9
That Comb is 'aesthetically nondescript' can hardly be denied, diough it
is a moot point whether even it can entirely defeat die eye of the modern
aesthete accustomed as it is to the stringencies of Minimal art. It might be
claimed, for example, that when Comb's teeth are viewed from a certain
angle they make a pleasing pattern of light and dark. Or again it may be
said that Comb is dingy and this may be offered as an aesthetic judgement.
(And note diat critics do sometimes press into service terms such as smooth,
solid, pitted, etc., whose use is not typically aesthetic to make aesdietic
judgements.)
It is debatable, men, whedier Duchamp's Comb does altogether lack
aesdietic qualities.10 None die less, it is clear diat Duchamp believed diat
Comb was incapable of being aesdietically contemplated. Surely, dien,
he chose and later exhibited die Readymade widi die intention of fore-
stalling aesdietic contemplation. Given this, Comb belongs to anti-art.
I think diat Duchamp, in addition to attacking die institution of art by
(1) presenting things widi (supposedly) negative aesdietic value, and by
(2) presenting diings (supposedly) widiout any aesdietic qualities, used die
Readymade to attack art in yet anodier way. And it is diis diird form of
anti-art diat I wish to discuss now.
In his desire to find things diat would resist classification as art, no matter
how broadly art was defined, Duchamp turned to the commonplace, mass-
produced, utilitarian artefact because it was plainly not a work of art. No one
including Duchamp in die second decade of die twentiedi century supposed
diat a bottle-dryer (destined for a life of anonymity in die cellar), or a comb,
56 DUCHAMP'S READYMADES: ART AND ANTI-ART

or a snow shovel were, or could be seen as, works of art. Such things had
clearly been made primarily with the intention of satisfying utilitarian ends,
and not primarily with the intention of rewarding aesthetic contemplation
(which is not to say that aesthetic considerations played no part in their
design). And because such household objects would not be mistaken for
art works Duchamp could use them to attack art by the simple expedient of
displaying them (in exactly the same state as he found diem) in an art
gallery where they plainly did not belong.
Hence Duchamp used his 'unassisted Readymades'—Bottle-Dryer (1914)
and Hat-Rack (1917)—to bait and baffle the spectator. In a parody of the act

Downloaded from http://bjaesthetics.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on August 20, 2015

of artistic creation he bought, signed, and exhibited a bottle-dryer and hat-
rack as i/they were unique precious sculptures.
In making such an anti-art gesture Duchamp has quite correctly pre-
supposed that we have a propensity to speak of something as art in propor-
tion to the responsibility an artist bears for the presence of the aesthetic
qualities in that thing. And because we do have such a propensity we do not,
for example, count as art every object that displays praiseworthy value-
features. Thus we distinguish, for instance, between Henry Moore's
sculptures which belong to art, and the natural objets trouvis in his studio
which do not. And we make this distinction even though many of those
flints, bones, shells and stones strongly influenced his sculpture and often
bear a very close resemblance to the sculptures themselves, i.e., have many
value-features in common. Similarly, we do not, as I have remarked, classify
as art even artefacts capable of rewarding aesthetic contemplation if those
artefacts were made primarily with the intention of satisfying utilitarian
requirements.11 And the reason why we refrain from classifying such things
as art is because art is an intentional concept.
Duchamp has exploited this state of affairs for anti-artistic ends, then, in
the following way. He has used the 'unassisted Readymade' to attack the
institution of art by (3) presenting somediing which if it exhibits value-features
exhibits those whose presence in the object is not due nor partly due to an
artist.
That art is an intentional concept is something which is in danger of being
forgotten, or so it would appear. Ironically, Duchamp's Readymades may
well have helped to bring about this state of affairs. For when the Readymades
were, so to speak, rediscovered by a later generation of artists they were all
praised indiscriminately as art. Indeed one of the artists concerned—Robert
Motherwell—claimed that Bottle-Dryer had a more beautiful form than
anything made as sculpture in 1914. Moreover, he claimed that Duchamp
had conferred the status of sculpture upon the Readymade.11
This miraculous transformation of mass-produced utilitarian artefact
into art work was variously explained. Duchamp, according to one of his
admirers, 'has only to bestow his seal on the objects he has chosen for them
 P. N. HUMBLE 57
to become his work, thanks to this unique laying on of hands' (his italics).u
In this colourful way the Readymades' present status as holy relics and
Duchamp's status as shaman were firmly established despite Duchamp's
modest disclaimers.
It is also ironic that the 'unassisted Readymades' together with Fountain,
Comb, and L.H.O.O.Q. are to be found in various art museums where they
are displayed seemingly as art. Moreover, most of die art museums concerned
do not even display the genuine mass-produced Readymade but instead
proudly display replicas of those vanished glories, facsimiles which have
been fashioned by craftsmen and issued in signed limited editions.1*

Downloaded from http://bjaesthetics.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on August 20, 2015

This surely indicates how conceptually muddled members of the artworld
presently are. Not only has there been a marked loss of confidence among
critics and the like regarding what counts as good art, but in addition a
profound confusion now exists as to what does, and what does not, count
as art. And I would remark that this widespread confusion is hardly surprising
when anti-art is not distinguished from art.
It is this growing confusion about the criteria used in classifying things
as art that has prompted Harold Osborne to make the following appeal: 'it
is for the aestheticians at diis crisis to overhaul traditional concepts and lay
the foundations for rational principles of discrimination' (my italics). And
he adds: 'We must be able within wide limits to say: This is art but that is
not.'18
Osborne is right—as aestheticians we should take a lead in unravelling
conceptual confusion and in restating the criteria which should be employed
in classifying diings as art. We might make a beginning here, I suggest, by
attempting to correct the misunderstanding to which Dada and especially
the Readymades have given rise. And to do that we need to interpret
Duchamp's gestures in an art-historical context, give full weight to his
nihilism and distinguish Dada anti-art from Dada art. Moreover we must
stress that anti-art is die antithesis of art and not some bizarre form of art.
Hence Readymades such as Fountain, Comb and Bottle-Dryer cannot be
claimed for art since they belong to anti-art and anti-art is anti-art.
But as important as all diis undoubtedly is, it is nevertheless not enough
in itself. If we wish to put an end to die erroneous conclusions which many,
including certain aesdieticians, have drawn from the Readymades we need
to explain how also Duchamp used die Readymade in an attempt to create
art. That is to say, we need to show why, and under what circumstances,
it would be appropriate to call certain objets trouvis, including certain Ready-
mades, works of art. To this task I now turn.

4 READYMADES AS ART
If we are to 'save any Readymades for art' then we must, I suggest, show at
the very least (i) diat Duchamp 'assisted' certain Readymades primarily
58 DUCHAMP'S READYMADES: ART AND ANTI-ART

with the intention of securing rewards for aesthetic contemplation, and (2)
that such Readymades exhibit value-features whose presence in the object
is due or partly due to Duchamp. Let us, then, consider whether any Ready-
mades satisfy these conditions. I shall deal first with Readymades such as
Bicycle Wheel and then with examples of what I have called 'pictorial speech
acts' which raise special difficulties.
To begin with let us note a remark of Duchamp's which suggests that he
sometimes used the Readymade in an attempt to create art. He claimed that
the Readymade had enabled him to '. . . reduce the idea of aesthetic con-
siderations to the choice of the mind, not to the ability or the cleverness of

Downloaded from http://bjaesthetics.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on August 20, 2015

the hand which I objected to in many paintings of my generation'.1* This
very much suggests, then, that Duchamp did sometimes use the Readymade
in an attempt to create art without artifice, without, that is, exercising or
displaying any of the technical skills traditionally associated with art.
I would suggest that Bicycle Wheel and Why Not Sneeze ? are good examples
of Readymades that show such a concern for aesthetic considerations.
In the case of Bicycle Wheel Duchamp has, by simply fixing a bicycle
wheel upside down to a kitchen stool in such a way that it is left free to turn,
created an amusing, inventive precursor of Kinetic art. And the structure
itself is both well balanced and elegant.
Aesthetic considerations have also surely played a part in the 'assistance'
Duchamp rendered Why Not Sneeze?, a more surrealistic piece. This
Readymade consists of a small metal bird-cage containing wooden perches,
a cuttle-fish, a thermometer, and what appear to be sugar-lumps. The latter
in fact have been cut from marble making the cage disconcertingly heavy
to lift. Everything has been painted white. Thus Duchamp has by juxta-
posing these objtts trouvis created something unfamiliar and intriguing. And
his invention displays a certain wit,
I would claim, then, that Why Not Sneeze? together with Bicycle Wheel
were 'assisted' primarily with the intention of rewarding aesthetic con-
templation and therefore satisfy the first condition stated above.
Perhaps some will doubt whether these or any Readymades can be said
to satisfy the second condition. That is to say, it may be felt that Duchamp
is not even partly responsible for the presence of the value-features in the
Readymades Bicycle Wheel and Why Not Sneeze? Such doubts might be
articulated thus: Duchamp, it may be said, has not made e.g. Bicycle Wheel
in the sense in which, for instance, Brancusi made the series of sculptures
entitled Bird. That is to say, Duchamp has not fashioned the object from some
raw material. Nor, it may be added, has he displayed any skill in 'assisting'
the pre-existing objects. Hence it may be objected that DuGhamp has not
done enough, and that what little he has done hardly constitutes a creative
artistic act. In short doubts may be expressed as to whether it is possible to
create art without artifice or at any rate to do so by using pre-existing objects.
 P. N. HUMBLE 59

Although I can understand how these Readymades may cause such

puzzlement (for after all Duchamp used the Readymade to attack such
notions) I think that it is important not to lose sight of the crucial question
here. The important question is surely whether Duchamp is or is not respons-
ible for the presence of the value-features in these Readymades. And this
question should not be confused with the separate question whether the artist
has displayed much skill in making the piece or has done a lot of what
Wollheim calls 'constructive work'.
As regards the main question I would remark first that Duchamp has

Downloaded from http://bjaesthetics.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on August 20, 2015

made Bicycle Wheel and Why Not Sneeze? even though he has not made their
component parts. Thus if Bicycle Wheel, for example, was praised for having
an elegant, well balanced form the credit for this would have to go to
Duchamp (at least in large part) as he made the structure. Similarly, if we
deemed the Readymade to be amusing and inventive it is to Duchamp that
the wit and originality must be attributed.
Perhaps Picasso's Readymade, BulFs Head, would serve to make the point
clear. Picasso has depicted a bull's head simply by hanging a bicycle saddle
(long and pointed) from a pair of upturned handle bars. This is a witty
representation outstanding for its elegance and economy since the Ready-
made does have the look of a lugubrious bull with its lean pointed head.
Now clearly Picasso has used these commonplace objects to depict a bull
and the wit is unmistakably his own.
Similarly, the very different wit and inventiveness which the whimsical
Why Not Sneeze? displays reflect Duchamp's mind.
In my view both of Duchamp's Readymades (and of course Picasso's)
satisfy the above conditions. They may not be brilliant nor profound art
works, but art works they are.
Let us look now at another class of Readymades: those which have what
I shall call a 'pictorial meaning'.

5 READYMADES AS PICTORIAL SPEECH ACTS

The importance of this aspect of the Readymades has sometimes been

overlooked despite Duchamp's having pointed out that: 'One important
characteristic was the short sentence which I occasionally inscribed on the
"readymade". That sentence, instead of describing the object like a title,
was meant to carry the mind of the spectator towards other regions, more
verbal' (my italics). Duchamp described this sentence in a felicitous phrase as
adding 'verbal colour'. And Hans Richter remarked that Duchamp stressed
'again and again' that the Readymades were 'the results of discursive rather
than sensory insights' (my italics).17
Arthur Danto also holds the view that works of art have the capacity to
make comments and statements and so forth. 'Art is a language of sorts', he
observes, 'in the sense at least that an artwork says something.'18
60 DUCHAMP'S READYMADES: ART AND ANTI-ART

The tenor of these various remarks is clear. A work of art, it is being

suggested, can possess the capacity to make comments, assertions, jokes,
protests, etc., etc. In short it is being proposed that an artist can use a picture
or sculpture to do some of the things we normally employ language to do.
Since an artist may wish to make a statement, etc., by employing pictorial
means or pictorial means and words I shall use the term 'pictorial meaning'
to refer to this aspect of his w o r t Alternatively, I shall refer to the act which
an artist performs in saying something through using pictorial means as a
'pictorial speech act'. In the past painters have of course performed such
acts. Consider, for example, Diirer's Last Supper (1523) in which a picture is

Downloaded from http://bjaesthetics.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on August 20, 2015

used to proclaim Christ's 'new commandment' of love (and support for
Luther's theology); and Michelangelo's Last Judgement (1534-41) in which a
picture is used to warn that all will finally come to judgement (and in which
Michelangelo seems to make a more personal confession of guilt and
unworthiness); and David's Death of Socrates (1787) in which a picture is used
to extol the virtues of rationalism and stoical self-sacrifice.19 Let us look
now at the Readymades, Trap (1917) and Fresh Widow (1920), which also
have a pictorial meaning.
Duchamp's inordinate fondness or weakness for puns is well illustrated by
both Readymades. In the case of Trap or rather Tribuchet he has used a coat-
rack plus title to make a pun on tribucher. Tribucher of course means to
stumble or trip, while tribuchet is a chess term which is used when a player
offers his opponent a pawn in the hope that he will take it and thereby
weaken his position, i.e., stumble over it. To make the pun complete
Duchamp specified that Trap should be displayed by being fastened to the
gallery floor in such a way that the pegs rose from the floor like snakes un-
coiling ready to trip the unwary art-lover.
Fresh Widow is a miniature French window whose panes have been
covered by polished black leather panels; the Readymade is inscribed 'Fresh
Widow, Copyright Rose Silavy, 1920'. (Rose Selavy was one of Duchamp's
more colourful personas.) 'Fresh Widow' is of course a pun on 'French
Window'. (Although Fresh Widow is not a true Readymade since Duchamp
had it made for him it is usually classified as one.)
Now that I have shown how both Readymades are pictorial speech acts
I wish to make some observations concerning this sort of act.
First, pictorial speech acts must be interpreted in the context in which they
were performed. Wittgenstein has pointed out of acts generally that dieir
interpretation needs a context. He writes:

Suppose I sit in my room and hope that N.N. will come and bring me some money,
and suppose one minute of this state could be isolated, cut out of its context; would
what happened in it not be hope? Think for example of the words which you utter
in that space of time. They are no longer pan of thir4anguage. And in different
surroundings the institution of money does not exist either.
 P. N. HUMBLE 61
A coronation is a picture of pomp and dignity. Cut one minute of this proceeding
out of its surroundings: the crown is being placed on the head of the King in his
coronation robes, but in different surroundings gold is the cheapest of metals, its gleam
is thought vulgar. The fabric of the robe is cheap to produce. A crown is a parody of
a respectable hat and so on.*0

What is true of acts generally will mutatis mutandis be true of speech acts in
particular and, by the same token of course, pictorial speech acts. Contextual
considerations, then, are most important in the interpretation of pictorial
speech acts. This is why those who have ignored such considerations have so
persistently misunderstood Fountain.

Downloaded from http://bjaesthetics.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on August 20, 2015

The second observation I wish to make concerns the connection between
X's being a pictorial speech act and X's being a work of art, a connection
which may otherwise be misunderstood. For X to be rightly called art it
would have to be shown, as I said earlier, that X was performed primarily
with the intention of rewarding aesthetic contemplation, and in addition
that X has value-features whose presence is at least partly due to an artist.
On the other hand Arthur Danto seems to think that any theoretical state-
ment about art possesses art-status.11 But this is wrong. The reason why
Magfitte's painting, The Human Condition (1933), belongs to art is not so
much that it comments on the view that art essentially involves Ulusionism
but rather that Magritte has employed pictorial means to make a witty,
perceptive comment, and has painted the picture (which also has interesting
visual qualities) with the intention of rewarding aesthetic contemplation.
Magritte's picture should also serve to illustrate the fact that pictorial speech
acts may exhibit features which can be appreciated from an aesthetic point
of view. Thus we may use such terms as the following to evaluate pictorial
speech acts: witty, perceptive, vulgar, original, banal, profound, eloquent, preten-
tious, insensitive. This aspea of visual art works is one to which aestheticians
seem to have paid insufficient attention.
We should now be in a position to tackle the problem which Trap and
Fresh Widow raise. The problem may be stated thus. Given that Duchamp
attached much importance to putting visual art 'once again at the service
of the mind', and given that he wished certain Readymades to 'carry the
mind of the spectator towards other regions, more verbal', did he endow
such Readymades with a pictorial force primarily with the intention of
rewarding aesthetic contemplation? And, if he did do so, can he be held
responsible for any value-features which such Readymades exhibit?
In many ways I think that the most serious difficulties Trap and Fresh
Widow raise have little to do with the fact that they are Readymades and
far more to do with the fact that they are apparently no more than the
equivalent of verbal puns or one-line jokes.
Although as puns and jokes they have been made with the intention of
amusing an audience I suspect that we do not treat them as having been
made with the intention of rewarding aesthetic contemplation as such.
6a DUCHAMP'S READYMADES: ART AND ANTI-ART
In other words I doubt whether we would describe a pun or joke, no
matter how brilliant, as an art work Thus I doubt whether we would treat
the witticisms anthologized from Punch and other sources as art works, or
for that matter treat Duchamp's book of puns and spoonerisms—Foils et
coups de pied en tous genres ('Hairs and Kicks in all genres')—as a literary
work of art. (This is not to deny that an art work may be rich in puns, etc.,
and that these may contribute to its aesthetic effect. It is to say that the puns,
etc., are not themselves art but at most a value-feature of art.)
If I am right in dunking that we do not treat puns and jokes as belonging
to art, then we may be reluctant to treat Trap and Fresh Widow as art works

Downloaded from http://bjaesthetics.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on August 20, 2015

in so far as we diink of them as being simply puns (no matter how skilful
or amusing we may think the puns are). That is to say, we may hesitate to
treat these Readymades as visual art works just as we would, if I am right,
hesitate to treat Poils et coups de pied en tous genres as a literary work of art.
And our hesitation would have nothing to do widi whether the puns in
question lacked humour. It would have more to do with die fact that mere
was no other more complex structure having an overall aesdietic effect to
which the puns contributed.
Of course it may be objected, that Trap and Fresh Widow are not merely
puns. It may be said, for exam'ple, that it is possible to contemplate such
things as the Trap's and Fresh'Widow's form. I would not wish to dispute
that it is possible to make aesdietic judgements about the Readymades'
visual features. I am not convinced, however, that anydiing would be
accomplished in evaluating Trap in this way, diough perhaps Fresh Widow
constitutes a special case. Certainly in view of the need to meet die second
condition I have mentioned it is not enough for Trap and Fresh Widow to
have (visual) aesdietic features—these features have to be due to die artist
and it is difficult to see what features Trap, at any rate, has diat fall into diis
category (aldiough it may be said diat Duchamp has made some sort of
contribution by positioning die coat-rack in an unusual way).
This objection does not apply so strongly to Fresh Widow since Duchamp
had it made for him and may well have designed it. He certainly added die
black polished panels. Hence diis 'Readymade' constitutes a special case as
it might be argued diat die pun does contribute to some more complex
structure having an overall aesdietic effect, and diat Duchamp helped to
create this structure in order to reward aesdietic contemplation.
Hence it is not dear to me how we should treat diese particular speech
acts nor whedier diey can be said to satisfy die first condition above. I shall
leave diis as an open question. I would remark, however, diat if it could be
shown diat these Readymades satisfy die first condition (and diat die
difficulties I have referred to are not serious), dien it should be a simple
matter to show diat diey also satisfy die second condition. Since Duchamp
performed the pictorial speech acts in question he must be responsible for die
value-features which diey as pictorial speech acts exhibit.
 P. N. HUMBLE 63

Although it is difficult to decide whether Trap and Fresh Widow can be

'saved for art' it is clear that at least some 'assisted Readymades' can be so
saved. Moreover, Readymades such as Bicycle Wheel and Why Not Sneeze?
can be 'saved for art' without having to attempt, as it were, to re-write the
rules which govern discourse about art and without elaborating new theories
of art. The Readymades are, nevertheless, important for art theory. Duchamp
has obliged aestheticians to reflect upon the criteria used in speaking of art
by using the Readymade on one hand to negate art, and on the other to create
art but in such a way as to dispense with the 'cleverness of the hand'. In
using this device to create art without artifice, Duchamp must count as one

Downloaded from http://bjaesthetics.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on August 20, 2015

of the earliest modem artists conspicuously to reject the notion that art
should, so to speak, celebrate the artist's mastery of medium and his sheer
virtuosity. Despite the fart that many other artists have explored and exploited
the objet trouvi it would be wrong, I think, to suppose that it offers unlimited
or even wide scope to the artist. On the contrary it surely imposes considerable
limitations. But therein may lie part of its charm. The artist is obliged to
create art using the very simplest and apparently unpromising means (hence
Picasso's Buffs Head becomes an impressive example partly because it docs
the difficult so elegantly). As spectators we can surely applaud the wit and
inventiveness with which artists so often, and in a seemingly artless way,
make familiar objects appear as if they were not familiar.

REFERENCES
1
T. J. Diffey, 'On Defining Art', British
Journal ofAestheticsWoL 19, No. 1 (Winter,
1979), p. 22.
• If the anti-artiit wishes to disreward
aesthetic contemplation he will attempt
to produce something with wholly
negative aesthetic value. In other words he
will attempt to ensure that the object
displays only dispraiseworthy value-
features, and is, e.g., wholly and irre-
deemably repulsive. If, on the other hand,
he wishes toforestalland frustrate aesthetic
contemplation he will attempt to find or
produce something which lacks aesthetic
qualities of any kind, praiseworthy or
dispraiseworthy, and which, therefore,
cannot be contemplated aesthetically.
' It is possible also that Duchamp wished to
produce things wholly unconnected with
art or anti-art; the latter of course is
parasitic upon art. He did speak of a desire
to be what he called an 'anartist' who
would have nothing to do with art or
anti-art (JCC Arturo Schwarz, The Com-
plete Works of Marcel Duchamp (Thame*
and Hudson, 1969), p. 33).
* See William Rubin, Dada and Surrealist
Art (Thames and Hudson, 1969), p. 15.
* See Schwarz, Complete Works, p. 4.57.
' Ibid., p. 466.
' I recommend that we should adopt the
same principle here that operates in those
cases where an artist has railed to achieve
or fully achieve his intention to reward
aesthetic contemplation. We commonly
and correctly describe an artist's imsiiofrsv-
ful paintings as art if they were produced
with the appropriate intention. (Sec
George Dickie, Art and the Aesthetic:
An Institutional Analysis (Cornell, 1974).
For a different view see Cyril Barrett,
'Are Bad Works of Art "Works of Art"?*
Royal Institute of Phibsophy Lectures 6
(Macmillan, 1973). By the same token we
 DUCHAMP'S READYMADES: ART AND ANTI-ART
should classify even an anti-artist's 'un- contemplation, for there is a grey area
successful' works as anti-art given that he where applied and fine arts mingle. We
produced them primarily with the inten- should not, however, allow such border-
tion of forestalling or disrewarding line cases to obscure the importance of
aesthetic contemplation. this criterion.
• Duchamp chose the urinal specifically for "Robert Mothcrwell (ed.), The Dada
the Society of Independent Artists' exhibi- Painters and Poets (Wittenbom Inc., 1951),
tion of 1917, an exhibition which he p. rvii. In a letter to Richter, Duchamp
expected to feature 'retinal' art. In view of makes his disgust with Motherwell and
this I would suggest that Duchamp has others plain, and describes Bottle-Dryer as
employed Fountain as a vehicle for a challenge which he threw into their
expressing his contempt for 'retinal' art faces (see Richtcr, Dada, pp. 207-8).

Downloaded from http://bjaesthetics.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Sussex on August 20, 2015

and has performed what I «nall later <~J1I 11 Robert Lebel, Marcel Duchamp (Trianon
a 'pictorial speech act'. Hence Fountain Press, 1959), pp. 35-6.
says 'Rethud art is a trick' (cf. Hans 14
Thirteen Readymades were issued in
Richter, Dada: Art and Anti-Art (Thames
limited editions of eight in 1964. For the
and Hudson, 1965), p. 90.
most part I ignore this complication and
• A. d'Harnoncourt and K. McShine (eds.), especially in my later discussion of Bicycle
Mattel Duchamp (Museum of Modem Wheel and Why Not Sneeze?
Art, 1973), p. 279.
u " Harold Osbome, 'Aesthetic Implications
I use the terms 'aesthetic qualities' and of Conceptual Art, Happenings, etc',
'value-features' to refer to those features of British Journal ofAesthetics VoL 20, No. 1
art works which we use aesthetic terms (Winter, 1980), p. 11.
(e^., tragic, unified, graceless, perceptive,
"See A. d'Harnoncourt (ed.), Moral
banal) to characterize and evaluate. For
Duchamp, p. 275.
more on aesthetic qualities see Frank 17
Sibley, 'Aesthetic Concepts' in Cyril H. Richter, Dada, p. 89 and p. 92.
Barrett (ed.), Collected Papers on Aesthetics " Arthur Danto, 'Artworks and Real
(Blackwefl, IO6J); Colin Lyas, 'Aesthetic Things', Theoria 39 (1973), p. 15.
and Personal Qualities', Proceedings Aris- " For more on The Last Supper's meaning
totelian Society (197a); Monroe Beardsley, see Erwin Panofsky, Albrecht Direr
'What Is an Aesthetic Quality?", Theoria (Princeton University, 1948).
39 (i973). " Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical hwes-
u
Clearly, borderline cases may arise where tigations (BlackweD, 1968), p. 153c
1 11
we have difficulty in (in** mining whether A. Danto, ibid. Certain ConceptuaBsts,
or not an artefact was created mainly e.g., the Art Language group, also seem
with the intention of rewarding aesthetic to have rnaAf this ^