喷泉的故事:硬的事实和软的猜测

Q3 Arts and Humanities
Thierry de Duve
{"title":"喷泉的故事:硬的事实和软的猜测","authors":"Thierry de Duve","doi":"10.7146/NJA.V28I57-58.114857","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n \nThierry de Duve’s essay is anchored to the one and perhaps only hard fact that we possess regarding the story of Fountain: its photo in The Blind Man No. 2, triply captioned “Fountain by R. Mutt,” “Photograph by Alfred Stieglitz,” and “THE EXHIBIT REFUSED BY THE INDEPENDENTS,” and the editorial on the facing page, titled “The Richard Mutt Case.” He examines what kind of agency is involved in that triple “by,” and revisits Duchamp’s intentions and motivations when he created the fictitious R. Mutt, manipulated Stieglitz, and set a trap to the Independents. De Duve concludes with an invitation to art historians to abandon the “by” questions (attribution, etc.) and to focus on the “from” questions that arise when Fountain is not seen as a work of art so much as the bearer of the news that the art world has radically changed. \n \n \n","PeriodicalId":38858,"journal":{"name":"Nordic Journal of Aesthetics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"THE STORY OF FOUNTAIN: HARD FACTS AND SOFT SPECULATION\",\"authors\":\"Thierry de Duve\",\"doi\":\"10.7146/NJA.V28I57-58.114857\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n \\n \\nThierry de Duve’s essay is anchored to the one and perhaps only hard fact that we possess regarding the story of Fountain: its photo in The Blind Man No. 2, triply captioned “Fountain by R. Mutt,” “Photograph by Alfred Stieglitz,” and “THE EXHIBIT REFUSED BY THE INDEPENDENTS,” and the editorial on the facing page, titled “The Richard Mutt Case.” He examines what kind of agency is involved in that triple “by,” and revisits Duchamp’s intentions and motivations when he created the fictitious R. Mutt, manipulated Stieglitz, and set a trap to the Independents. De Duve concludes with an invitation to art historians to abandon the “by” questions (attribution, etc.) and to focus on the “from” questions that arise when Fountain is not seen as a work of art so much as the bearer of the news that the art world has radically changed. \\n \\n \\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":38858,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nordic Journal of Aesthetics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-06-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nordic Journal of Aesthetics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7146/NJA.V28I57-58.114857\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nordic Journal of Aesthetics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7146/NJA.V28I57-58.114857","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

蒂埃里·德·迪夫的文章与喷泉的故事有关,这可能是我们所拥有的唯一确凿的事实:它的照片刊登在《盲人》第2期,上面有三个标题:“r·穆特的喷泉”、“阿尔弗雷德·斯蒂格利茨的照片”和“独立派拒绝的展览”,还有正面一页的社论,标题是“理查德·穆特案”。他研究了这三个“by”中涉及的是什么样的机构,并重新审视了杜尚在创造虚构的R. Mutt、操纵斯蒂格利茨和为独立党设下陷阱时的意图和动机。德·迪夫最后邀请艺术史学家们放弃“通过”的问题(归属等),而把注意力集中在“来自”的问题上,当《喷泉》不再被视为一件艺术作品,而是被视为艺术界发生了根本性变化的消息的传播者时,就会出现这种问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
THE STORY OF FOUNTAIN: HARD FACTS AND SOFT SPECULATION
Thierry de Duve’s essay is anchored to the one and perhaps only hard fact that we possess regarding the story of Fountain: its photo in The Blind Man No. 2, triply captioned “Fountain by R. Mutt,” “Photograph by Alfred Stieglitz,” and “THE EXHIBIT REFUSED BY THE INDEPENDENTS,” and the editorial on the facing page, titled “The Richard Mutt Case.” He examines what kind of agency is involved in that triple “by,” and revisits Duchamp’s intentions and motivations when he created the fictitious R. Mutt, manipulated Stieglitz, and set a trap to the Independents. De Duve concludes with an invitation to art historians to abandon the “by” questions (attribution, etc.) and to focus on the “from” questions that arise when Fountain is not seen as a work of art so much as the bearer of the news that the art world has radically changed.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Nordic Journal of Aesthetics
Nordic Journal of Aesthetics Arts and Humanities-Visual Arts and Performing Arts
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信