Marcel Duchamp once said: “I don’t believe in art. I believe in artists”
And somewhere else he said: “It’s the viewer that makes the work.”
But despite he didn’t believe in art, artist, and his own words, saying: “I try to contradict myself for not to conform to my own taste”, What he conformed to and what he didn’t are usually against what he said he did and he did not. Someone who conformed to his persistent urge for criticism, provocation, and the factor of shock to an obsessive extent. These factors that consistently showed up in his works and words, were nothing but the resonations of a unique Self.

Duchamp was a highly decorated figure in his field, Criticism. known particularly for his ability to provoke through criticism.
What elevated both his reputation and his works to their deserving fame was his impulsive, naked, way of expressing his self contradicting ideas, and the perfect fruit full timing factor of his reactions to different intellectual art related arguments and issues.

Contradiction, as the element of shock he always adored, was another tool for grabbing attention. Attention, which he repeatedly mentioned as his top asset.

He said what he felt at the moment, conforming to the alphabet of criticism instead of going along with the mainstream movements. Since his most famous pieces, functioned as critiques, not artworks, Objects that are consistently accompanied by his words, and actions. How can one say it was art when even Duchamp himself says it is not. His pictures were mostly very different. There is abstraction, and therefore a contrast in ideas exists, along with a noticeable amount of layers and depth.

But what we know Duchamp for is the furthest point he stands from conformity to individualistic art—the art that is independent from society and what it dictates, art with elements of abstraction, and art as a child of the artist, carrying only his genetics. These are the qualities he strongly rejected. With that being said, ready-mades are the point where Duchamp was most himself.
Therefore, this essay, along with the material used for my analysis, focuses primarily on his ready-mades.
As Duchamp famously said, “The only thing that is not art is inattention.”
Above all, he sought attention; Using shock and Provocation to gain attention. Because most probably, Without attention, his words would not have spread as widely as they did.
“A painting that doesn’t shock isn’t worth painting,” Duchamp said.
In a demolished forest of aesthetics, where abstraction and variety of perspectives and resolutions are cut down and burned.

“Destruction is also creation.” Said Duchamp.
Obviously, Another thing that he never contradicted was his thirst to destruct.
An urge to demolish all there is.
“I don’t care about the word ‘art’ because it has been so discredited. So I want to get rid of it. There is an unnecessary adoration of ‘art’ today.” Said Duchamp.
Can we say that this iconic art critic, along with his actions, who had enough guts to dismantle the agenda of traditional artists of his time and successfully win the fight against institutional artists, is the grim reaper of art and culture who promised rebirth through the promise of death? Destroying and rejecting the art itself.

As the devoted Dadaist, being also known as a Dadaist Anarchist, we can’t wonder about him advocating for the lack of self and individuality in his ideology as a tool in his hand to get away with his own hypocrisy.

Marcel Duchamp, also known as the father of conceptual art, which later developed into various sub-categories with different techniques and styles, was not only unsatisfied with attaching his character, interviews, and linguistic games to his works but also started a genre in art where he could write his words on his works.

Just like a king, a monarch who used art to immortalize his essence and glory. He created a pyramid for his nihilistic ideas to immortalize them in a series of tombs called his works. No matter how we try to see it from another perspective, it only carries one message and one perspective: Duchamp’s. The message we can read in his actions, not his words: the dodgy, quick-witted, nihilist critic who thirsted for immortality and gained it in art history, whose name will live as long as art lives. Art, which he said is meaningless and should be destroyed.

Yet he believes in the “art” whose only function is carrying ideological messages. This is a clear reference to the art that promotes the agenda, or the group, or the person behind it. The person as the monarch who needs art to serve him.

This is the intersection of his works with propaganda art. A look through American, Soviet, and Chinese propaganda art, and comparing a propaganda poster with a painting by, say, Goya, will accurately show us what that message does to art and what it takes out of it—its soul. The more we add promotion to artwork, the more we sterilize it, until finally it gets degrafed to a flyer as the manifesto of a worldview or ideology.
(link to: American, Chinese, Russian propaganda)

Taking out the element of abstraction and contrast served variety from form. charging the work with a monopolistic dominant message, therefore shrinking its capacity for layers, depth, and various resolutions. What else do we need to sterilize an artwork with?

So where did his accomplishment happen if not in his works?
It partially happened in winning the ideological and philosophical arguments against other artists and movements in hope of extracting an emotionally effective weapon out of this win, to convince, and to successfully reject all the traditions.

Example:
The Society of Independent Artists prided themselves on being as democratic as possible. This governing principle was demonstrated by their total absence of a selection criteria or jury to censor artworks, and their decision to hang all the works alphabetically to prevent a bias. However, Duchamp knew that this well known artistic democracy would only go so far, so he submitted “Fountain” under a false name to test its lengths. When it was refused, Duchamp’s attempt to expose the hypocrisy of the system was successful.*

But his contribution to the world of art was something beyond this. It was something of value. A valuable outcome emerged from mocking his fans and audiences, artists, and art.

“I thought to discourage aesthetics… I threw the bottlerack and the urinal in their faces and now they admire them for their aesthetic beauty,” said Duchamp.

Marcel Duchamp, a painter and sculptor, was raised in an artist family. His father had enough income to provide a monthly allowance to all six of his children after they left the family home. Duchamp, once a mad former artist, became a provocateur.

It’s also fair to say that grabbing attention was one of the few things he never contradicted with his words and works. What we can speculate about forever is the answer to: Where did the hate he had towards art and artists come from? Was the motive simply a rejection by the art community?

Can we find the reason for this chaotic, angry, bitter, self-contradicting rebellion somewhere other than Dadaism, Nihilism, Anarchism—ideologies planted in the ground of the 18th century, surfacing in post-revolution France, breathing and giving fruits in that air?
Ideologies that more or less share the same core values, promoting the dumping of individualism and self in art as non-social and therefore useless functions. All this after announcing their devotion to structure concerned goal of their God father ideology, which is destruction. It’s crucial to know that he believed in what he called non-emotional art that could be mass-produced, in opposition to the Futurists’ stance. He authorized the creation and sale of several replicas of “Fountain.” Considering his works, or better to say his ideas, as anger-driven laughter, neither lacked emotion nor removed the viewer from the center of the artwork and its creation process. Yes, another hypocrisy.

How much of a father can “Everything that exists deserves to perish” be to them? A proper soil for them to feed from and grow in.

Will we find evidence in Duchamp’s personal emotional life to explain why he was the way he was? Who knows? I think we don’t need to dig further. I’m afraid there will be a big nothing behind it, like most people who know him can guess it. A big nothing of a trickster.

Regardless of who Duchamp was, how he hated art and artists, and how he tried to prove that art is a urinal into which we empty our ideas, or museums are restrooms, he said what he felt he needed to say, loudly and fearlessly, without any consideration. He wasn’t an artist, but his courage, boldness, and non-conformist interaction with mainstream waves and the market are the remarkable qualities that separate avant-garde artists from the fearful, brush-hesitant amateurs and/or high-selling commercial artists who mostly repeat themselves, being controlled by the temptation of a roughly six-figure annual income.

It’s true that he was supported by his father and that financial freedom helped him a lot for being who he was as a backbone of his incomprehensible wild expression. Of course, for many artists who rely solely on their art sales, balancing conformity and radicalism is a matter of survival. It’s not fair to blame the lack of perfect freedom in their work process, but the history of art has always shown us that with proper timing of the publication of artworks, With an eye always watching movements and their changes, With perfect adjustment of the form, and attention to proper market strategies, artists can get their most non-conforming radical works through the filters of unwritten market rules while retaining enough freedom and power of choice to be satisfied with the art’s quality.
Picasso is always there as an example of this intelligent genuineness.

Though the lack of awareness about who Duchamp was, what he did, and ignorance about history of art can make his name a validation source to qualify anything done by anyone as artwork, and a license, confirming the lack of expertise in the hands of amateurs who don’t consider the minimum needed skills, knowledge, and history of art as important, I believe he unintentionally or intentionally emboldened the border between authenticity/dedication to the essence of art and the belief that “anyone can be an artist” more than ever in the history of art.

This is what makes him a highly influential figure that our era deeply called for, with the sharp-edged comedy that his works are known for. His works call into question the authenticity of what is accepted as art by museums, and the very principles on which art museums are based, such as the cultural value of particular objects and their careful protection as privileged artifacts.*

From *Fountain*, a replica he gave to the Philadelphia Museum of Art, of which he also made many other replicas, to the rest of his ready-mades. It is worth to mention that the more he moved away from the works similar to *Nude Descending a Staircase*, the more he dove into his conflict with everything including himself.

Matthew Affron, curator of modern art at the Philadelphia Museum of Art, was one of the people who felt challenged by “Fountain.”

Affron said the PMA has collected work by several artists who undermine institutionalized museum practices.  Duchamp! A critic whose essays are embedded in the body of painting and in volume formations, which cannot be fully understood without knowing who he was, without hearing his words, and without understanding his expression and market strategy in relation to the times he lived in and the conflicts he engaged in with others.

Ultimately, neither labeling him a hypocrite charlatan who didn’t believe in his own words and works, nor praising him as a famous figure whose actions spread necessary awareness, will enable us to replicate another Marcel Duchamp.

What an artist with an urge to add new values to the horizons of art can learn from a non-artist critic like Duchamp is, to never be a Marcel Duchamp.

It is only through this avoidance that we can pay tribute to his positive accomplishment, which was the shock he inflicted on the art world—encouraging us to be more thoughtful about what we validate and conform to. Not to bow to traditions and conditions. To learn that self-censorship for gaining social or temporary market validation is not a path to artistic growth; it is simply just another naive trait of an ordinary creator. Avant-garde art is nourishment for the soul; human society needs it regardless, and it will find its way to the audience, one way or another.
I will close with this:
Where the lullaby is heard during the day, we shouldn’t hesitate to play some trumpet, Referring to the sentiment of Ahmad Shamlou, the Persian contemporary poet.

Sources:

The Bachelor Stripped Bare: A Biography
by Alice Goldfarb Marquis and Marcel Duchamp

Notes Mass Market Paperback – 27 May 1999
by Duchamp Marcel (Author)

‘Fountain’ springs eternal as joke on art world
by peter Crimmins

Did Marcel Duchamp’s “Fountain” come Completely out of left field?
By Kelly Dunning

The DADA Reader: A Critical Anthology: Ades, Dawn

The Gods That Failed.
By Miklos Legrady