tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7192227531617038362.post5678184639035054656..comments2024-03-18T13:21:38.338+00:00Comments on A Place Called Space: FountainEirenehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05350820845130506117noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7192227531617038362.post-79156533869705213822016-05-23T20:46:32.470+01:002016-05-23T20:46:32.470+01:00Have fun.Have fun.glynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13783317847177851010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7192227531617038362.post-385800348529266492016-03-13T09:45:18.936+00:002016-03-13T09:45:18.936+00:00Glyn, thank you for your thought-provoking comment...Glyn, thank you for your thought-provoking comment. Very interesting indeed. I will now try and get hold of your book on the subject as I would like to investigate this further. Thank you.Eirenehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05350820845130506117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7192227531617038362.post-29717068618611901092016-03-13T07:53:47.455+00:002016-03-13T07:53:47.455+00:00In a recent review of Grayson’s Perry’s ‘Playing t...In a recent review of Grayson’s Perry’s ‘Playing to the Gallery’ Nicholas Lezard quotes Grayson Perry's observation that "had it not been put in a gallery" Duchamp's urinal "would not have been art, " and "if you see it" (the "original," presumably) "in a gallery today it's actually a replica, hand crafted by a potter." Unfortunately for Mr Perry, the facts are as follows. Firstly, "Duchamp's" urinal was never exhibited, in a gallery, or anywhere else, meaning that, according to Mr Perry's 'reasoning,' it wasn't art. Secondly, two of the fourteen replicas, some of which are on display in galleries around the world, were manufactured items sourced, (in the first case) from a flea market in Paris, in 1950, and the second from a public toilet in Stockholm, in 1963. Since these were manufactured industrially they were not hand made, as a potter such as Mr Perry might be expected to know. The remaining twelve were all made in 1964 by a Roman manufacturer. But none were replicas in the normal sense of the word, since they all deviate in significant detail from the original, as do Sherrie Levine’s: the original appears in the iconic photograph taken by Alfred Stieglitz on 13 April 1917. As was the practice at the time, this item was assembled by craft methods, by craftsmen, working for the Trenton Potteries Company, Trenton, New Jersey, in 1917. This confirms other evidence that proves that Duchamp could not have been responsible for its submission to the Independents in 1917. That other evidence includes a surviving example of the urinal that Stieglitz photographed still attached to a wall in a building the United States. The only accurate account of the history of 'Duchamp's' urinal is related is my own slim volume, titled Duchamp's Urinal? The Facts behind the Facade (Wild Pansy Press, 2015.)glynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13783317847177851010noreply@blogger.com