Like almost all 'conceptual art' this piece flatters itself with the conceit that ritual and ambiguity are commensurate with deep and meaningful intellectual endeavor. It isn't. It is the shallow indulgence of lazy, and poorly read adolescents. A little thought experiment: after reading the descriptions and reviews (which are all mind numbingly similar) have you formed any insight or awareness that you did not previously posses?
Art is "fetishistic" to the degree that it does have the power of magic to transform, transport, and reinvent the world through shared experience rather than shared indulgence. Duchamp was a game player, but most of his games weren't very interesting. He lived outside of human experience and his contribution to it was parochial and provincial; he never ventured too far from the small salon of 'artistic' thinking. Most of the heavy lifting was done later by his apologists and critics. Sorry, Paul, this crap leaves me cold. And once again the emporer's state of sartorial neglect has been witnessed.
© 2013 The L Magazine
Website powered by Foundation