Quote:
Originally Posted by CDSmith
Agreed.
But had you continued reading down to posts 9 and 13 you'd have had the clearer indication of my meaning you were looking for.  |
Duchamp's Fountain actually is a pretty good example of what I was talking about. To understand and appreciate it, you have to know the context. But once you are fully aware of the context, calling it "crap" becomes impossible, ridiculous even.
I hate that thing with a passion, but "crap" is a term which doesn't fit. Had it been made 20 years ago instead of 90 years ago, the term might have been a fitting one. Had others done similar things before Duchamp, again, the term might have been a fitting one.
As it is, though, it's possibly the most influential piece of art of the 20th century. Looking back now and saying "meh, it's crap" takes its influence for granted, and measures it against a standard which did not exist when it was created.
You have to take the historical context into account to appreciate it. In order to do that, you need to know the historical context.
Just like you need historical context in order to, say, appreciate medieval paintings which lack proper perspective.