Derivative Works

Sorry, I meant Duchamp's work.

I suspect most of us knew that, too!

I wonder, how should we consider the close up photograph of misted rose?

Sorry, I meant Duchamp's work. And it is by definition derivative and original. A derivative work doesn't necessarily mean non-original. It's simply incorporating or appropriating (deriving) a former work into ones work for any number of reasons.

That is, as is evident, highly debatable.

Is a painting of a landscape derivative? Or that frosted apple mentioned above?

 

Da Vinci painted a portrait. Duchamp - with minimal effort - made a social comment.

Where are the similarities? What did Duchamp derive from da Vinci?

What did Duchamp derive from da Vinci?

Once again ... the portrait which helps make the social comment.

That is, as is evident, highly debatable.

It’s not evident. That one person chooses to argue an eccentric position doesn’t make something “evident[ly] highly debatable” anymore than a loser with orange hair and complexion arguing that the pandemic will disappear by Easter makes that a highly debatable point or a couple of fringe scientists arguing that climate change isn’t real makes climate change debatable.

What me worry?

 

I think there is a confusion about what we can see and what the work entails. Yes, Duchamps shows a work of da Vinci. But his work, his effort, is not derived from, nor intended to be, what da Vinci intended and did. Both did, and intended to do, completely different, unrelated things.

It is (a bit exagerated) as if my use of the word "the" is derivative of your use of the word, simply because you might have used it first. Or that some architecture is derived from other architecture simply because both use bricks, even though one may be a Gerorgian building and the other is Jungendstil. Far too simplistic.

 

But yes, if you claim the clear and definite use of the word "derivative" means no more than "is visible in" or "looks like", yes, Duchamp's work is derivative.

I still wouldn't agree to such a simplistic definition of what it means to derive something from something else. I would like to see the first art historian (or would i?) who would dare claim Duchamp's work and position in art is somehow derivative from da Vinci's art.

And, frankly, i find it a bit worrying that such an important thing is not acknowledged. But yes, what me worry!

Edited March 9, 2021 by q.g._de_bakker

P.S.

 

You did mean his person, didn't you?;)

Alfred E. Neuman

Both did, and intended to do, completely different, unrelated things.

They are not unrelated. DaVinci probably couldn’t have imagined where art would have progressed by Duchamp’s time but the relationship of the two works is necessary to Duchamp’s comment. It has to do with the poise and iconic nature of the portrait DaVinci has provided. It’s not merely the likeness Duchamp is deriving his statement from, it’s the very idea of what art was to DaVinci that gives Duchamp his raw materials. It’s the particular sensuality, softness, and countenance that Duchamp’s mustache mocks. It could not be any other work of art because it’s this one that has impressed the world (and the postcard maker), that provides room for the pun in the title, and that allows for the gender-bending so essential to the statement itself.

as if my use of the word "the" is derivative of your use of the word, simply because you might have used it first.

If my use of the word the had been meant to elevate someone (for instance, I might say, “Wow, he is the man” while hero-worshipping some football star) and you repeat the the mockingly in order to undermine my hero worship, your use of the would be very much derivative of mine.

And your choice of the is so apt because the Mona Lisa might just be the the of art, the definite article.

They are not unrelated. DaVinci probably couldn’t have imagined where art would have progressed by Duchamp’s time but the relationship of the two works is necessary to Duchamp’s comment. It has to do with the poise and iconic nature of the portrait DaVinci has provided. It’s not merely the likeness Duchamp is deriving his statement from, it’s the very idea of what art was to DaVinci that gives Duchamp his raw materials. It’s the particular sensuality, softness, and countenance that Duchamp’s mustache mocks. It could not be any other work of art because it’s this one that has impressed the world (and the postcard maker), that provides room for the pun in the title, and that allows for the gender-bending so essential to the statement itself.

 

If my use of the word the had been meant to elevate someone (for instance, I might say, “Wow, he is the man” while hero-worshipping some football star) and you repeat the the mockingly in order to undermine my hero worship, your use of the would be very much derivative of mine.

I do not agree. Without da Vinci, art today would not have been much different, if at all.

And Duchamp's work is not even about da Vinci, but about his contemporaries' attitude towards museum art.

Da Vinci was not necessary. Banksi did not use da Vinci to mock the attitude towards art, nor did da Vinci play a necessary role in today's attitude towards art.

Both Duchamp and Banksi could have chosen another work, by another artist, to make their points.

In short: da Vinci's Mona Liza was l'objet petit a, not a necessary condition, so there is no original and derived from relationship.

It is not a derivative work, even though da Vinci's work is most of what we see.

Edited March 9, 2021 by q.g._de_bakker

And your choice of the is so apt because the Mona Lisa might just be the the of art, the definite article.

That is just not true, and does a great injustice to any and all artists past and present.

And Duchamp's work is not even about da Vinci

You may not see it as being about da Vinci but I do. Imagine that!

Duchamp ... could have chosen another work

I'm not going to be distracted by the Banksy non sequitur, as if he and Duchamp were speaking with the same voice. Geez.

 

No, Duchamp couldn't have chosen another work ... any more than Van Gogh could have painted another chair.

does a great injustice to any and all artists past and present

I wouldn't take what I said about the Mona Lisa being the definite article so literally as to make you swoon to the point of breathless hyperbole.

Edited March 9, 2021 by samstevens

Sam, Duchamp's work was a comment on Bourgeois art appreciation. Banksy (with a y. I apologize) tried to do exactly the same, same comment, with the failed shredding at an auction.

He and Duchamp are not speaking with the same voice (whatever that means) but were saying the same thing.

What it shows is that you do not need a da Vinci painting to make that statement. That statement, their work, is not derived from da Vinci and Banksy, but is about how people venerate da Vinci and Banksy, for all the wrong reasons.

 

That Duchamp chose the Mona Lisa is accidental (in the philosophical sense). The fad at that time (it is still with us today) happened to be centered around the Mona Lisa. So the Mona Lisa, or rather a postcard of the Mona Lisa, it would be.

Nowadays there are far too many of such, and there is plenty to choose from would you want to make the same statement. Banksy needed to look no further than his own work. So he didn't. He too could have chosen the Mona Lisa. Then still it would not be about the particular work, nor would it be derivative work, but about people's fake infatuation with "Art".

 

If you really think Duchamp's work was about da Vinci, as you say you do, you do have to learn a bit more about Duchamp. Can't make anything else of that.

I think you’re limiting Duchamp to a single statement and missing some of the richness of his art. He would not be the memorable figure he is if his art boiled down merely to “a comment on Bourgeois art appreciation,” a somewhat superficial observation anyone with a google machine could learn in a 10-minute search. Same with Banksy, whose art can’t be reduced to a statement. Any artist deserves having his work looked at and felt, not just intellectualized about. So much is in the details, of how Banksy incorporates his art into the urban landscape, of the particular brand of satire, the gestures of his strokes. LOOK AT IT! I don’t think he can be mistaken for a Dadaist.

 

IMO, there’s no good reason to separate Duchamp from his earlier work, even if his later work had different aims and intentions. So, Nude Descending a Staircase, with its homage to Cubism, is a study in transitional change, sputtered motion of the nude heading down the stairs. That plays a role in the choice of da Vinci and in the choice of an iconic female portrait to transform with a symbol of masculinity. He was doing a lot more than flying in the face of the Bourgeois hold on art. Details. LOOK AT IT! It’s not just an attack. It’s a reinterpretation of the Mona Lisa.

 

Go back and look at da Vinci’s work in light of an ambiguity of gender, possible latent homosexuality, and the kind of androgyny that would lead scholars to wonder if, in fact, the person who La Giocanda’s face was fashioned after was actually one of da Vinci’s favored male models. Have a good look sometime at his John the Baptist next to Mona Lisa. Then consider why Duchamp chose this painting in particular and how much he was psychologically deconstructing it as much as he might have been socially commenting. It may turn out both Leo and Marcel were ahead of their times, Leo providing in the Mona Lisa a selfie of sorts and Duchamp providing a revised portrait not necessarily of Leo’s face but of his character along with a selfie of Duchamp, himself, to boot.

No, i'm not limiting Duchamp to anything. I'm explaining what this particular work of Duchamp is and what it is not.

 

I'm not missing much of anything about his art. You're the one who is, seeing what you have to say about this particular work.

 

You"re also putting far too much into this work, and in the position and role of da Vinci in art.

It is you who this work of Duchamp is aimed at, who it is about.

"You"re also putting far too much into this work,..."

I think you underestimate Duchamp. Part of his brilliance is in his ability to think & present multi dimensional work. The Mona Lisa was perfectly suited. No other piece could stand in it's place and have the same meanings. The readymade aspect, the title, the satire, the 4 century history, the status in the Art world, the gender play, the sound & meaning of the title when spoken involving /participation of the viewer, beauty standards, the easy recognition, and on.... another piece would not say the same thing unless you limit the comment he was making.

saying that this piece is "... a comment on Bourgeois art appreciation." It was & is so much more and can only be distilled to a comment by setting aside the many comments it presents.

Edited March 9, 2021 by inoneeye

It is you who this work of Duchamp is aimed at, who it is about.

Absolutely. Yes. Me. And in more ways than you seem capable of recognizing!

 

Your unwillingness or fear of looking at the fairly obvious and widely agreed-upon gender/sexuality connections leads to your lack of seeing much of the derivative nature of L.H.O.O.Q.

 

Your loss.

Any object in the art work has two aspects - the form and meaning. For the different genre these aspects bear different degree of potential "derivativeness".For instance, in surrealism the form has the highest degree of potential "derivativeness" - it's very personal to author, whereas the meaning is relatively banal (ask any psychoanalysts.) Because of that, I believe, it will be more productive to mention specific genre before presenting the own arguments so we'll avoid comparison apples to oranges. I also should mention that this potential "property" is not static and changes over time for given object, especially for famous one.

"You"re also putting far too much into this work,..."

I think you underestimate Duchamp. Part of his brilliance is in his ability to think & present multi dimensional work. The Mona Lisa was perfectly suited. No other piece could stand in it's place and have the same meanings. The readymade aspect, the title, the satire, the 4 century history, the status in the Art world, the gender play, the sound & meaning of the title when spoken involving /participation of the viewer, beauty standards, the easy recognition, and on.... another piece would not say the same thing unless you limit the comment he was making.

saying that this piece is "... a comment on Bourgeois art appreciation." It was & is so much more and can only be distilled to a comment by setting aside the many comments it presents.

No, i'm not underestimating Duchamp. That is what you suppose.

I'm explaining why this is not a derivative work.

 

Yes, the Mona Lisa was perfectly suited, as it was the emblematic work of what Duchamp's work is about. Would another work by another artist have taken that position, [etc.]

Edited March 10, 2021 by q.g._de_bakker

Absolutely. Yes. Me. And in more ways than you seem capable of recognizing!

 

Your unwillingness or fear of looking at the fairly obvious and widely agreed-upon gender/sexuality connections leads to your lack of seeing much of the derivative nature of L.H.O.O.Q.

 

Your loss.

Why do people tend to suppose that the people that hold opinions not in line with their own do so because they are dim and do not get the picture (pun intended)?

Any object in the art work has two aspects - the form and meaning. For the different genre these aspects bear different degree of potential "derivativeness".For instance, in surrealism the form has the highest degree of potential "derivativeness" - it's very personal to author, whereas the meaning is relatively banal (ask any psychoanalysts.) Because of that, I believe, it will be more productive to mention specific genre before presenting the own arguments so we'll avoid comparison apples to oranges. I also should mention that this potential "property" is not static and changes over time for given object, especially for famous one.

Good points, Pavel. Da Vinci and Duchamp aren't even apples and oranges, i'd argue, but apples and cauliflower.

Why do people tend to suppose that the people that hold opinions not in line with their own do so because they are dim and do not get the picture (pun intended)?

It’s not that your opinions differ from mine. It’s that the ideas you’re putting forward are dim and don’t convey a seeing or understanding of either of the pictures or the extent of their connections.

It’s not that your opinions differ from mine. It’s that the ideas you’re putting forward are dim and don’t convey a seeing or understanding of either of the pictures or the extent of their connections.

There we are. Ideas?

It is indeed that our opinions differ. You prefer to see that differently.

End of discussion.

Well, here we have ONE MORE thread that has been hijacked and derailed into a philosophical discussion worthy of MFA graduate students which has little to do with the original thrust of the intent of the post. There must be a hundred more like this in the Philosophy section. Congrats to FredG and Q.G. for their herculean efforts to confuscate the subject... :confused:

Edited March 10, 2021 by samstevens

I understand that Duchamp was not only making a statement about his view of art appreciation, but also a statement about institutions in general and the loss of faith his generation had in them because of the horrors of World War I. The modernist governments of the world and the faith in those governments were shattered. Still, his piece using the Mona Lisa wouldn't have been that piece or made the statement in quite that way without using that image in his work. And despite what Mr. De Bakker says, it is a derivative work, by definition and legally. "The most famous derivative work in the world has been said to be L.H.O.O.Q., also known as the Mona Lisa With a Moustache. ... Because of the parody's transformativeness, the Supreme Court found the derivative work a fair use." There are many people, that make critiques about the art world, that tension has always been a factor of so-called "modern art". But just stacking ideas together doesn't make an effective statement. L.H.O.O.Q. would not be the same piece or have the same impact if he'd use another image. It's obvious he's not trying to paint like Leonardo, but he did incorporate his image into his piece and apparently that is what makes the work derivative.