Duchamp's "Fountain" vandalized

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060106/lf_afp/afplifestylefranceart_060106144405

I know it's sort of a Dadaist thing to do, but really, this is worse than when that German dude slashed the Barnett Newman painting

― Morley Timmons (Donna Brown), Friday, 6 January 2006 19:04 (nineteen years ago)

Did he piss in it first like he did back in 1993?

― account settings (account), Friday, 6 January 2006 19:09 (nineteen years ago)

what is that old dude's problem with that piece of art?

― kyle (akmonday), Friday, 6 January 2006 19:11 (nineteen years ago)

http://www-sigproc.eng.cam.ac.uk/~ad2/scream.gif

― detoxyDancer (sexyDancer), Friday, 6 January 2006 19:12 (nineteen years ago)

this is worse than when that German dude slashed the Barnett Newman painting

Why? Was it the only example of that model of urinal left in the world?

― Chris F. (servoret), Friday, 6 January 2006 19:26 (nineteen years ago)

http://renewal.va.com.au/artcrime/images/duchamp.jpg

― account settings (account), Friday, 6 January 2006 19:27 (nineteen years ago)

I thought it was the only one. Are you saying there were multiples of "Who's Afraid of Red, Yellow and Blue"?

― Morley Timmons (Donna Brown), Friday, 6 January 2006 20:14 (nineteen years ago)

I am Duchamp's greatest readymade creation (he found me in a rubbish heap).

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 6 January 2006 20:15 (nineteen years ago)

i'd really like to know what the old guy has against it! i bet he's interesting.

― mark p (Mark P), Friday, 6 January 2006 20:19 (nineteen years ago)

Why? Was it the only example of that model of urinal left in the world?

-- Chris F. (nieman...), January 6th, 2006.

that is a loaded question! is the actual object unimportant/un-valuable in this case?

― don't start a RYE-OTT! (plsmith), Friday, 6 January 2006 20:25 (nineteen years ago)

ARE THE PRODUCTS OF PRIMARILY CONCEPTUAL ARTWORKS IMPORTANT? ARE THEY REPLACEABLE WITH NO LOSS?

(we can also argue over whether "fountain" is primarily conceptual - thats fine)

― don't start a RYE-OTT! (plsmith), Friday, 6 January 2006 20:28 (nineteen years ago)

i'd really like to know what the old guy has against it! i bet he's interesting.

i wonder, too, since it's older than he is.

xpost - the fountain is not conceptual.

― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 6 January 2006 20:28 (nineteen years ago)

so then it's definitely no more replaceable than the b.newman painting?

― don't start a RYE-OTT! (plsmith), Friday, 6 January 2006 20:36 (nineteen years ago)

The fountain vandalised was not older than artist Pierre Pinoncelly (or Pinoncelli), who attacked it in 1993 in Nimes and again on Wednesday. In fact, the original urinal from 1917 is lost. Duchamp bought several identical urinals in 1964, and the French government bought one of these for the Pompidou Centre in 1986.

Pinoncelly, on trial for his 1993 "action", in which he first pissed in the urinal then attacked it with a hammer, claimed to be completing Duchamp's action. "The appeal to urine is in fact, ipso facto, built into this work," he said, "-- it's built into the concept. Urine is part of the materials of the work. One should be able to use a Rembrandt as an ironing board."

source

― Momus (Momus), Friday, 6 January 2006 20:44 (nineteen years ago)

that's in french!

― don't start a RYE-OTT! (plsmith), Friday, 6 January 2006 20:47 (nineteen years ago)

ah, that's right, i forgot the original was replaced. thanks, momus.

― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 6 January 2006 20:55 (nineteen years ago)

eh. thats not even the real fountain. now if someone took a swing at the liberty bell... oh. right.

― maria tessa sciarrino (theoreticalgirl), Friday, 6 January 2006 21:03 (nineteen years ago)

is this like the young fluxus guy who vandalized yoko ono's paintings?

(interesting dirt on tony shafrazi here)

― vahid (vahid), Friday, 6 January 2006 23:50 (nineteen years ago)

"Dadaer than thou!"

― The Vintner's Lipogram (OleM), Saturday, 7 January 2006 00:14 (nineteen years ago)

how art brut. should go in the Lausanne, wait a sec...

― no bones, Saturday, 7 January 2006 00:20 (nineteen years ago)

Maybe he attacks it because he loves it. If you leave it alone, it just sits in its case and, having been stripped of its original context, fails to mean much. Smack it with a hammer though, and all the questions it posed in the first place come rushing back again.

― JimD (JimD), Saturday, 7 January 2006 03:18 (nineteen years ago)

Oh, um, I've just read vahid's second link, and the Pinoncelli quotes in there make my post a bit redundant. Hmm.

― JimD (JimD), Saturday, 7 January 2006 03:30 (nineteen years ago)

"So you want to destroy art for everyone?" the neo-Dadaist Robert Rauschenberg asked his hero Marcel Duchamp in the fifties. Rauschenberg's own 1953 Erased de Kooning Drawing, the blank piece of paper left after he persuaded Willem de Kooning to give him a drawing - "one he would miss" - then erased it, is another example of a modern artist not just theorising about anti-art but doing it.

Haha, I want to read more about this. Was de Kooning pissed? Was he in on the deal?

― Erick Dampier is better than Shaq (miloaukerman), Saturday, 7 January 2006 03:35 (nineteen years ago)

he was in on the deal, and went back several times, to find a perfect one, a messy one, one with many lines, one that rauschenberg said "would be hard to replace", if you look at it, the traces, the lines, the eraser marks, are all visible, he managed to make an aethestic object infused with authroial intent, even in a neo dadaist context... (and its so opedial, even more opedial/freudian then the connections of pollock and piss (ie peggy guggenhiem)

who pisses me off in that link is onos galleriest, b/c w/i fluxos talked of literal reaction, people working against each other, and the peice was literal, the red paint was in context of that...of the artists and the movements intents.

i dont really care about the fountain.

― anthony easton (anthony), Saturday, 7 January 2006 03:55 (nineteen years ago)

Police said it was the second time the old man had brutalized "Fountain". In 1993, he attacked it while it was part of an exhibition in Nimes, southern France.

fuck sake, revoke his museum pass already.

― HAKKEBOFFER (eman), Saturday, 7 January 2006 04:15 (nineteen years ago)

the "questions" posed? the fountain is pretty. and a reproduction is just as pretty. and damaging a pretty thing is mean. modern art gets all this "meaning" thrown at it and next thing you know ppl don't respect it and thing they're making some sort of statement by fucking with it.

duchamp was an artist. this guy's not.

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Saturday, 7 January 2006 07:57 (nineteen years ago)

I sometimes wonder (and maybe I miss the point) if Duchamp would hate the idea that work is now worth so much, being as it was that it was meant to be anti-art, deliberately valueless, like the bicycle wheel on the stool, with lots of copies etc.

― Trayce (trayce), Saturday, 7 January 2006 08:07 (nineteen years ago)

I happen to be drinking wine from Nimes...am I guilty too?

The old guy's probably crazy, homosexual, senile or all three. It's sad to see a Duchamp fucked with, I respect Duchamp's work immensely. But yet humanity will live on.

Of course I prefer Magritte, but never mind.

― Tomato Voyeur (Bimble...), Saturday, 7 January 2006 08:11 (nineteen years ago)

Magritte is great, as is Tanguy, two of my favourites.

― Trayce (trayce), Saturday, 7 January 2006 08:25 (nineteen years ago)

Are you drinking tonight Trayce? Just curious.

― Tomato Voyeur (Bimble...), Saturday, 7 January 2006 08:40 (nineteen years ago)

Erm I just started like half an hour ago and have had half a wine... dare I ask why?

― Trayce (trayce), Saturday, 7 January 2006 08:43 (nineteen years ago)

I thought it was the only one. Are you saying there were multiples of "Who's Afraid of Red, Yellow and Blue"?

I was saying the opposite, actually. Not only is that "Fountain" one of eight(?) in a series, but the urinal itself is a mass-produced object (and how important is it that the "signature" be exactly duplicated?)-- whereas the painting was presumably a one of a kind handmade creation, even if it was "reproduced" in other media. I was sort of curious why this would be worse than the other object being damaged, especially presuming that both were unique-- because Duchamp was a cooler artist? Then there is the question of how necessary the continued existence of a physical example of "Fountain" is now that the anti-art joke it conveys has been photographed and widely disseminated, especially given that the original has already been destroyed. (Not that I'm advocating the destruction of anything on some wacky Dadaist grounds of "purity". Sterling's rebuttal to the question is a point well taken, but it mostly just introduces more questions about aesthetics, doesn't it? "Damaging a pretty thing is mean"? Only if you're an aesthete and believe in some sort of absolute valuation and standard of "beauty". And was that only supposed to apply to man-made objects?)

modern art gets all this "meaning" thrown at it and next thing you know ppl don't respect it and thing they're making some sort of statement by fucking with it.

Yeah, but isn't one of the possible anti-art readings of "Fountain" as a dismissal of the automatic valuation of all created art objects as "art" worth valorizing? For a while now I've read it more as a nasty dig against mediocrity in art, not as an attack on the criteria for accounting an object as "art" in a more general sense. (Not that I'm impressed by the crazy guy's egotistical and mediocre "performance"/attention whoring.)

― Chris F. (servoret), Saturday, 7 January 2006 12:49 (nineteen years ago)

but chris, only man made things are pretty.

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Saturday, 7 January 2006 13:23 (nineteen years ago)

I agree with Sterling. Reagrdless of the various readings of the meaning of the piece, vandalising it just seems like a shit's trick & an obnoxious piece of self-publicism on the part of the vandal.

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Saturday, 7 January 2006 13:30 (nineteen years ago)

HI everbody,

It is pretty simple in fact, the logic behind Pierre Pinoncelli's act. We invited him to our performance art festival www.infraction.info. He's one of France's most important performance artists. To piss in "La Fontaine" and then hit it with a hammer, brings it back to its original purpose. It is a industrial readymade object that was named a work of art by Duchamp, Pierre Pinoncelli, just does the opposite, he urinates in it, hits it with the hammer and just reverses its travel as a metaphor back to one of an industrial ready-made. Hitting it with the hammer is a symbolical act of finishing up with its aura of being an art object. Well, there are a lot more of course but that will take a book to write. Today Le Monde has an article on Pinoncelli and his act. In fact he is just following the logic of Duchamp, and what he interprets was Duchamps will. Not the artsystems.

Jonas Stampe

― Jonas Stampe, Saturday, 7 January 2006 13:32 (nineteen years ago)

So that's agreeing with Pashmina, then?

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Saturday, 7 January 2006 13:47 (nineteen years ago)

No not at all. It's not a act of vandalism, this time Pierre Pinoncelli, wrote the word DADA on it and hit it with the hammer. It's an act of bringing the work back to its conceptual origin. The vandalism of the work of Duchamp is rather that it is worth 3 million Euros.
Jonas Stampe

― Jonas Stampe, Saturday, 7 January 2006 13:51 (nineteen years ago)

I suspect if someone used that argument after attacking you with a hammer you would be less than completely persuaded. And rightly so.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Saturday, 7 January 2006 14:13 (nineteen years ago)

He's one of France's most important performance artists. To piss in "La Fontaine" and then hit it with a hammer, brings it back to its original purpose.

Wouldn't have been more dada, more punk rock to just leave the Fountain alone? Doesn't "bringing the work back to its conceptual origin" or honoring "Duchamp's logic," whatever it was, smell of the museum?

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Saturday, 7 January 2006 14:22 (nineteen years ago)

In fact he is just following the logic of Duchamp,

Unless Duchamp himself specifically stated so to the "performance artist", this sounds more to me like the self-justifying bs of an exhibitionist w/a hammer in one hand and his dick in the other.

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Saturday, 7 January 2006 14:44 (nineteen years ago)

Well, it wasn't a human being that was hit with a hammer, OK ? And secondly why not just buy a new one and replace it, there are plenty out there. It is important to understand the wok of Duchamp first, I mean it is not a painting, or an original work, it is even a replica of a ready-made, edited by Arturo Schwarz and Duchamp in 1966 I believe it was. No it wouldn't have been Dada to leave it alone… according to my mind.

Jonas Stampe

― Jonas Stampe, Saturday, 7 January 2006 14:47 (nineteen years ago)

Ha ha ha. Duchamp definitely was a genius -- whether you venerate as a priceless object d'art or try to smash it in reactionary obedience to "original spirit of the artwork," the joke's on you.

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Saturday, 7 January 2006 14:50 (nineteen years ago)

(Hmm...replace "reactionary" with the somewhat less inflammatory "uncritical.")

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Saturday, 7 January 2006 14:53 (nineteen years ago)

Other artists have done the same thing to the long-suffering "Fountain", which has become to our age what the Mona Lisa was to the Surrealists.

Chinese artists Yuan Cai and Jian Jun Xi ianjun pissed in the "Fountain" in 2000 (they'd earlier attacked Tracey Emin's "My Bed"). Even Brian Eno claims to have inserted his own urine into the sculpture, though rather more discreetly than the others:

"Eno, who is an admirer of Duchamp, went to see a retrospective of the artist in a museum in which the famous urinal called "Fountain" was exposed. But Eno had a quite strange idea in mind. He actually wanted to make the urinal to return to its primary function. Of course, eno could'nt come to the exhibit and simply piss in the fountain. So he imagined an ingenious system to accomplish his crazy plan. He came back to the museum with a plastic bag filled with his own urine; the bag was hidden under his coat; and with the help of a thin tube attached to the bag, he succeeded in pouring his fluid inside duchamp's piece of art, making the "urinal" become again an urinal. Eno related this episode in an interview that he gave to a french tv channel."

Microsound

If you want to piss in the founding work of conceptual art, I'm afraid you're going to have to queue behind all these other gentlemen.

― Momus (Momus), Saturday, 7 January 2006 16:12 (nineteen years ago)

Michael's right - there is nothing added, no refreshing or making strange or anything like that, by doing any of these supposedly daring actions because they're all there in the work already, and were in the first place, and even more so when a replica took its place. These interventions are about as useful and interesting as someone standing in the gallery saying loudly "Do you people not realise it's a urinal?" The distinction is the nasty, petty attitude and the self-publicising drive.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Saturday, 7 January 2006 16:16 (nineteen years ago)

I don't know what M. Pinoncelli's motivations were. I wouldn't presume to guess. His actions seem like valid works of art to me. What I find nasty and petty is the $3 million+ valuation placed on Duchamp's work. I think Marcel would be cool with the whole hammer thing.

― Excelsior Syndrum (noodle vague), Saturday, 7 January 2006 17:24 (nineteen years ago)

Well it's nice that you presume to know Duchamp's mind, anyway. You might be right. It might be that any given dead artist might happily have their work vandalised (though certainly Duchamp is a much better bet than most), but that seems a pretty crap excuse. I'm not sure why the urinal being valuable is nasty, but disagreeing with a valuation isn't much of a reason for vandalism either. Is this an objection to art values generally or this one in particular? And in what way is taking a hammer to the work addressing that? If I claim that smashing up a local telephone box is a comment on the fetishisation of instant communication in the modern word, does that make it okay? I don't understand any of this. I think someone desperate to make a name for himself has chosen one of the rare famous works where there is enough slack to claim some sort of art-action motive, but none of the explanations go anywhere beyond what was there when Duchamp first exhibited his readymades.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Saturday, 7 January 2006 17:40 (nineteen years ago)

Extra note: do we know anything about any other less high-profile actions/interventions by this Pinoncelli guy?

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Saturday, 7 January 2006 17:45 (nineteen years ago)

At 73 or whatever I doubt Pinoncelli is desperate to make a name for himself. Yeah, I shouldn't presume to know Duchamp's mind either, but I know more about him and prob'ly feel entitled to a guess at his way of thinking. Attacking the Fountain is a Dadaist gesture, surely? And if the guy wanted to destroy it, he could've gone about it more efficiently. What he's done seems to me a precise and measured use of the original work. The fact that this and a bunch of other discussions are taking place today seems to indicate that he has revivified the Fountain in some small way. I'm not saying that makes his action original or great art, but I don't think originality is an essential

The fact that the Fountain has a financial value I find disgusting because it represents the Art Establishment recouping Duchamp's original idea - that art is a quality of looking, not of making - and absorbing it into the whole Holy Relics of Great Price schtick that Galleries live by.

― Excelsior Syndrum (noodle vague), Saturday, 7 January 2006 17:54 (nineteen years ago)

"essential attribute of Art" I meant to say.

― Excelsior Syndrum (noodle vague), Saturday, 7 January 2006 17:57 (nineteen years ago)

How did galleries get hold of it? (And the other readymades.) Did Duchamp not sell these works in the first place? It seems to me that you are asking for them to be given a special reverence and treatment distinct from other works. Isn't this just shifting the focus of the Holy Relic approach a touch, but completely perpetuating the thinking behind it?

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Saturday, 7 January 2006 17:59 (nineteen years ago)

I see what you mean but it isn't the fact that Duchamp's works are in galleries that bugs me, it's the fact that galleries still exist.

― Excelsior Syndrum (noodle vague), Saturday, 7 January 2006 18:01 (nineteen years ago)

ARTTT

― RJG (RJG), Saturday, 7 January 2006 18:02 (nineteen years ago)

Before the more publicised and better known attack on Duchamp's urinal by Chinese artists Yuan Cai and Jian Jun Xi ianjun, there was another by the 69 year old Frenchman Pierre Pinoncelli. During an exhibition at the Carré des Arts in Nimes, southern France Pinoncelli, a performance artist pissed in the fountain and then hit it with a hammer. He claimed that the pissing was "to restore to it its real value" and the hammer blow was to protest "the art market going to the dogs."
He was imprisoned two days later after being found guilty of willfully damaging a monument or an object of public utility 2. Five years later he was ordered by the court to pay 250,000 francs to an insurance company, 20,000 francs to the state (in the person of Culture Minister Catherine Trautmann), 16,336 francs for repairs and 10,000 francs in costs. Many viewed this amount to be quite excessive and a thinly veiled retaliation for his attack in 1969 on the then Cultural Minister André Malraux. During a Chagall exhibition opening in Nice, Pinoncelli, armed with a water pistol squirted the Cultural Minister with red paint.

Pinoncelli, whose other performances include setting fire to his own clothes during a street action, attempting to hold up a bank with a sawn off rifle loaded with blanks and being thrown into the port of Nice in a tied bag laden with weights in homage to Monte Cristo was later to come to international attention via one of his performances.

Conclusion: This dude rocks.

― Excelsior Syndrum (noodle vague), Saturday, 7 January 2006 18:08 (nineteen years ago)

Well, to get back to Pinoncelli, he is really a great performance artists… but of course considering his actions less known. He once made a hold up in a bank in Nice, as a reaction to Nice becoming a twin city with CapeTown, during apartheid, he started out with spraying the then French minister of culture with red coloured water in 1969 I believe it was, well he has been doing a lot of works… and his a nice guy who really is not doing all this for attention or publicity, he just want to bring the urinoire back to its original use, and to give it back its dignity" In fact he stated in 1993 that he wanted to give "it back its dignity as an object, being a victim of a "detournement" of its use, or of its personnality. In fact he sees it as a charitable gesture to the object. Well, if this interests you… which it does for me… he action in Paris last Wednesday inscribing the word DADA on La Fontaine was just to bring back the attitude of dada to the present, so we just don't see it as something belonging to history, but something very contemporary.

― Jonas Stampe, Saturday, 7 January 2006 18:14 (nineteen years ago)

I'm with ya, Jonas.

― Excelsior Syndrum (noodle vague), Saturday, 7 January 2006 18:15 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah, I know the guy, he certainly rocks and he's very intelligent and good hearted

― jonas Stampe, Saturday, 7 January 2006 18:17 (nineteen years ago)

Thanks excelsior, I phoned him earlier today when I first heard about it and he will stand trial on January 24.

― Jonas Stampe, Saturday, 7 January 2006 18:20 (nineteen years ago)

Erm I just started like half an hour ago and have had half a wine... dare I ask why?

Oh only because I've gotten the feeling before that you and I are more or less slipping into alcoholism at the same slow rate. No offense meant.

― Tomato Voyeur (Bimble...), Saturday, 7 January 2006 23:58 (nineteen years ago)

Well, fair enough, but I have no idea why you'd ask this in a Duchamp thread where I'd not even mentioned drinking (and hadnt been drinking anyway). Oh well.

― Trayce (trayce), Sunday, 8 January 2006 00:08 (nineteen years ago)

Attacking the Fountain is a Dadaist gesture, surely?

it would have been a dadaist gesture in 1919, that doesn't mean it's still one!

― J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Sunday, 8 January 2006 00:11 (nineteen years ago)

should we scribble some footnotes in leonardo da vinci's original journals pointing out all the scientific advances that have been made since he wrote them? i'm sure it's what he would've wanted!

― J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Sunday, 8 January 2006 00:11 (nineteen years ago)

The true dada statement would probably be to sneak into the museum, switch the urinal with a replica and then cunningly install it in the men's room.

(btw I too think the original dada folx would approve of m. pinoncelli)

― The Vintner's Lipogram (OleM), Sunday, 8 January 2006 00:14 (nineteen years ago)

I also said I wasn't making a claim for the value of Pinoncelli's action. Fuck value. You know what isn't Dada? Treating a Ready-Made like a sacred relic, killing Art and mounting it in a mausoleum called a Gallery.

― Excelsior Syndrum (noodle vague), Sunday, 8 January 2006 00:16 (nineteen years ago)

xx post

I think that somebody who thought that what was valuable about Da Vinci's journals were the physical originals, or that Da Vinci ought to only be replied too in tones of hushed reverence, would be labouring under a huge misapprehension.

― Excelsior Syndrum (noodle vague), Sunday, 8 January 2006 00:19 (nineteen years ago)

why does anyone need the actual mona lisa when i have a perfectly good postcard of it on my fridge? burn that fucker!

― J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Sunday, 8 January 2006 00:21 (nineteen years ago)

Noodle, SALUT!

Hehe junge Mann, Dada ist keine Kunstrichtung!

― The Vintner's Lipogram (OleM), Sunday, 8 January 2006 00:22 (nineteen years ago)

http://french.chass.utoronto.ca/fcs195/photos/DuchampLHOOQ.jpg

― Excelsior Syndrum (noodle vague), Sunday, 8 January 2006 00:26 (nineteen years ago)

elle a chaud au cul.

― miss michel legrand (Jody Beth Rosen), Sunday, 8 January 2006 00:29 (nineteen years ago)

xxxxpost

Well I'm with Jonas/Noodle/Vintner's here except for one thing: where would you have Art be but in galleries, Noodle?

― Tomato Voyeur (Bimble...), Sunday, 8 January 2006 00:29 (nineteen years ago)

heh jbr used lhooq as screenname last year I believe? :)

Deutsche Männerschönheit -- Wer ist der schönste??!

― The Vintner's Lipogram (OleM), Sunday, 8 January 2006 00:30 (nineteen years ago)

yeah, that was after someone said a pic of me looked like the mona lisa.

― miss michel legrand (Jody Beth Rosen), Sunday, 8 January 2006 00:31 (nineteen years ago)

I fucking need a copy, or facsimile, of that rag. Its title was the name of my quiz team for years. Don't suppose anyone has it? (yes yes now I suddenly go all artifact whore)

― The Vintner's Lipogram (OleM), Sunday, 8 January 2006 00:33 (nineteen years ago)

oh hi jbr I didn't bother with the xposts!

― The Vintner's Lipogram (OleM), Sunday, 8 January 2006 00:33 (nineteen years ago)

multi x post to Bimble

Let the Art be free. Galleries are built to keep people out.

― Excelsior Syndrum (noodle vague), Sunday, 8 January 2006 00:35 (nineteen years ago)

i thought galleries were built as tax write-offs for philanthropists!

― miss michel legrand (Jody Beth Rosen), Sunday, 8 January 2006 00:36 (nineteen years ago)

That too. But that's why they don't want grubby proles in them devaluing their investments.

xx post

Make your own LHOOQ Print from teh Internets!

― Excelsior Syndrum (noodle vague), Sunday, 8 January 2006 00:37 (nineteen years ago)

Homer: What do you mean by `suggested donation'?
Clerk: Pay any amount you wish, sir.
Homer: And uh, what if I wish to pay ... zero?
Clerk: That is up to you.
Homer: Ooh, so it's up to me, is it?
Clerk: Yes.
Homer: I see. And you think that people are going to pay you $4.50 even though they don't have to? Just out of the goodness of their... (laughs) Well, anything you say! Good luck, lady, you're gonna need it!

― miss michel legrand (Jody Beth Rosen), Sunday, 8 January 2006 00:39 (nineteen years ago)

xpost to Noodle

Hmm. I see. Thanks. :)

― Tomato Voyeur (Bimble...), Sunday, 8 January 2006 00:39 (nineteen years ago)

haha "$4.50"

― miss michel legrand (Jody Beth Rosen), Sunday, 8 January 2006 00:40 (nineteen years ago)

multiple xpost I mean argh

― Tomato Voyeur (Bimble...), Sunday, 8 January 2006 00:40 (nineteen years ago)

"When Duchamp did it first, he did it last," as somebody said- his biographer, I think.

― monsieur michel lonsdale (Ken L), Sunday, 8 January 2006 00:42 (nineteen years ago)

Maybe we could get homeless people shelter in galleries.

― Tomato Voyeur (Bimble...), Sunday, 8 January 2006 00:43 (nineteen years ago)

As somebody who visits my city's (free) art gallery quite a lot, there's a more complicated answer I need to draw out. But it's past midnight and I'm knackered so I'm going to go sleep on it.

― Excelsior Syndrum (noodle vague), Sunday, 8 January 2006 00:44 (nineteen years ago)

A bunch of people sleeping rough amongst an exhibition of Henry Moore's pictures of people using the London Underground as an air-raid shelter would be great.

― Excelsior Syndrum (noodle vague), Sunday, 8 January 2006 00:45 (nineteen years ago)

Must. Go. Bed. Now.

― Excelsior Syndrum (noodle vague), Sunday, 8 January 2006 00:45 (nineteen years ago)

I just happen to work in an area of the city where there are a lot of art galleries and a lot of homeless people.

Night night.

― Tomato Voyeur (Bimble...), Sunday, 8 January 2006 00:46 (nineteen years ago)

When a museum displays a replica of an object, does that make the replica in question a "holy relic" or a museum exhibit? And why are museums bad things in principle? Wouldn't "letting the art be free" mean that nobody except very rich collectors would see the good old stuff?

― Chris F. (servoret), Sunday, 8 January 2006 23:05 (nineteen years ago)

next time invite costes.

― hstencil (hstencil), Monday, 9 January 2006 15:43 (nineteen years ago)

five years pass...

Win:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/294714_10150304882962547_547767546_8558329_1755490832_n.jpg

― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 29 September 2011 15:18 (fourteen years ago)

He heard us talking about him over on the Ada thread.

― Pollabo Bryson (James Redd and the Blecchs), Thursday, 29 September 2011 15:27 (fourteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.