Response to "The Creative Act" by Marcel Duchamp

If I'm going to be honest, I have to admit that I am not Marcel Duchamp's biggest fan. While I appreciate his innovation and desire to change what we consider art and how we view it, I still have never been particularly drawn to any of his own artistic works. That being said, I also have to admit that I was genuinely impressed by his article, "The Creative Act." There were many comments or remarks that stuck out to me, and I like the way he viewed the art surrounding him.

His main argument is that there are two factors in the creation of a work of art: the artist, who actually creates it, and the spectator, who decides if the piece is worthy of more attention and renown. I loved this quotation:

"Millions of artists create; only a few thousands are discussed or accepted by the spectator and many less are consecrated by posterity... the artist may shout from the rooftops that he is a genius: he will have to wait for the verdict of the spectator... [to see if] posterity includes him in the primers of Artist History."

This is a true statement that has haunted me about art history for years. It seems like such a game of luck as to which artists actually become famous and which are lost to the shadows of history forever. Which artists can be guaranteed to be found in Art History 101 textbooks, and which are buried somewhere in the pages of an obscure book in an even obscurer library?

 My favorite artistic time period is the Renaissance, and I can't help but wonder just how many geniuses went unnoticed due to lack of opportunity or appreciation. What about those artists who are too well-mannered to "shout from the rooftops" that they are geniuses? Van Gogh comes to mind as one who never forced his art on anyone, and died alone, miserable, and poor. Yet a few decades later, his work is in the highest demand. What changed? It seems like such a risky game to play with your life, allowing the "spectator" to literally decide your fate by proclaiming your work as "genius" or excoriating it as trash. 

It is nearly impossible to perceive how a work of art will be perceived by viewers. Different patrons and different audiences may provide completely opposite reviews. The process of "esthetic osmosis" (my new favorite phrase) is unique to the individual spectator. Without the symbiotic (and possibly sometimes parasitic) relationship between the artist and his spectator, there would be no new art. For good or ill, that partnership is necessary for us to continue to designate masterpieces, and to see who will never achieve posterity and thus will be lost forever. Still, if we are to listen to Duchamp, at the end of the day "bad art is still art in the same way that a bad emotion is still an emotion."

Marcel Duchamp, "The Creative Act, " 1957.

Maria Lewis, "Art Minimal & Conception Only," 1999.