 |
 |
But of course it matters Jim - especially if you are a woman. You have no idea what it is like to have so much of your legacy 'disappeared' and when something like this comes along it is of immense importance as it exposes how the art world (or let's just say the world) works. If the Baroness Elsa is indeed R. Mutt. as Duchamp suggests in the letter then we have all been talking about the wrong person for years - and if it had gone down in history as being invented by a woman then it wouldn't be the iconic art piece all - women have been allowed to be imitators but not innovators. It matters and it is not comparable to who did what in the artists studio - having assistants is standard art practice throughout the ages and is a different matter altogether than a work having your work stolen from you -if that indeed was the case. It's certainly of interest. Thanks for posting Jesse. Subject: Re: The Urinal that was never his--Duchamp and the Baroness doesn’t matter. it’s like the issue of whether warhol did some of the collages or whether his friends did them. it may be of interest to the appraisers, but it is of little interest or relevance to everyone else. ja http://vispo.com > On Nov 12, 2014, at 5:35 PM, jesse <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > It appears that Duchamp’s much admired read-made FOUNTAIN signed by R. > Mutt was first made ready by the Baroness Elsa Von Freytag-Loringhoven. > The scoop is out there: this jimmy from the Huffington Post: > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-chafin/duchamps-urinal_b_1472735.html > > If that’s scrubbed out just search and ye shall find it.