:: Article

Pissing in Duchamp’s Fountain

By Paul Ingram.

  Fountain photographed by Alfred Stieglitz in 1917[1] 

In the last decade of the twentieth century, Marcel Duchamp’s Fountain [1917] was the subject of a series of interventions by artists who each attempted, more or less successfully, to urinate in it: Brian Eno at the Museum of Modern Art in New York in 1990; Kendell Geers at the Palazzo Grassi in Venice in 1993; Pierre Pinocelli at the Carré d’Art in Nîmes in 1993; Björn Kjelltoft at the Moderna Museet in Stockholm in 1999; and Cai Yuan and Jian Jun Xi at the Tate Modern in London in 2000. Their iconoclasm was actually directed against authorized replicas of the original sculpture, which had disappeared shortly after being refused exhibition space by the American Society of Independent Artists in 1917. These acts of vandalism, almost constituting a tradition, might be imagined as an accompaniment to the unending stream of critical commentary on this work of art, to which the following case study makes its own contribution. The facts of the individual cases will be recounted below, as one way of approaching the object, which is not directly accessible to us.

 Brian Eno lecturing at MoMA in 1990[2]

In his autobiographical sketch A Year with Swollen Appendices: Brian Eno’s Diary [1996], Brian Eno describes how he urinated on a replica of Fountain at the Museum of Modern Art in New York, exhibited as part of “High and Low: Modern Art and Popular Culture”, which ran from 7 October 1990 to 15 January 1991.[3]  On 23 October, Eno was due to deliver a talk in the programme of performances accompanying the show.[4]  He claims that he constructed a pipette-like contraption out of plastic tubing and galvanized wire, fed it through a gap between the planes of the glass display case, and transferred a few drops of pre-prepared urine onto the sculpture. This intervention formed the basis of his lecture in the evening. The idea was apparently to return the urinal to the realm of the everyday, restoring what he believed to be its radically democratic potential, the implication that anything can be art, and that therefore anyone can be an artist. However, Eno misconstrued the import of the readymade, which is not a positive message of creative liberation. Rather, Fountain forces us to focus critically on the institutional mechanisms that confer recognition on works of art as such, of which the category of the artist is one, caricatured through the signature “R. Mutt”. The assertion of non-art as art necessarily draws attention to the cultural field into which it is inserted, and which either accepts or rejects its claim to legitimacy. With the readymade, Duchamp made this procedure the substantive content of the work of art. He was not merely highlighting the aesthetic qualities of functional items, irrespective of the context in which they are encountered, as the desire to return the urinal to the realm of the everyday assumes. By submitting an object that had not been constituted aesthetically to the Independents, Duchamp instead sought to reveal the policing of aesthetic value that was still operative within the supposedly radically democratic selection process adopted by that organization. The society, of which he was a director, was founded on a principle of imposing no restrictions on the right to exhibit, other than the payment of a nominal membership fee. As head of the hanging committee, Duchamp proposed showing all of the contributions in alphabetical order.[5]  Fountain has since been placed at the top of a hierarchy of influential works of modern art, voted for by a group of five hundred experts in 2004.[6]  A Year with Swollen Appendices critiques the consecrated status granted to the sculpture by official culture, while drawing legitimacy from it, albeit somewhat playfully: “I’ve always wanted to urinate on that piece of art, to leave my small mark on art history.”[7]


Fuckface (Kendell Geers) [2007] and Homage to Alfred Jarry [2006][8]

 

The 1993 Venice Biennale admitted exhibits from South Africa, for the first time since the protests at the festival in 1968.[9] Kendell Geers, a white artist who had been active in the anti-apartheid struggle, responded by changing the birth date on his identity papers to 1968.[10]  As well as its wider historical associations, 1968 was also the year of the death of Duchamp. At the major retrospective “Marcel Duchamp”, held at the Palazzo Grassi from 3 April to 16 July 1993, Geers reportedly urinated on a replica of Fountain.[11]  His contemporaneous work demonstrates a sustained engagement with the readymade form, for example the found objects Untitled (1976) [1993], T.W. (Flatwrap) [1993] and Self-Portrait [1995]; and the photograph of oxygen being administered to a victim of a terrorist attack presented alongside an art-book caption for Duchamp’s Air of Paris [1919] in 1996.[12]  He has continued to use the readymades as an intertext in recent years: Homage to Alfred Jarry [2006] remodelled the urinal itself; Rack [2009] restocked the bottle-rack with broken beer bottles; and In advance of a broken arm [2010] replaced the snow-shovel with a set of sculpted arms hanging by a chain from a wall.[13]  In such works, Geers simultaneously invokes and attacks the legacy of Duchamp, as with the addition of bullet holes to a pane of glass in Fresh Widow [2009], referencing The Bride Stripped Bare by her Bachelors, Even [1915-1923].[14]  His iconoclastic impulse is often overtly political, or at least directly confrontational, in a way that is not true of Duchamp. The explicit violence that permeates his oeuvre also sets him apart from his interlocutor, whose importance for him is nevertheless obvious from the frequency with which he has returned to this source over the course of his career. Geers arguably echoed the critical intention of the original sculpture, to the extent that his intervention pointed to the institutional complex enframing Fountain in Venice in 1993. In New York in 1917, the Independents rejected the claim to legitimacy made for this provocatively banal object, leading to the resignation of Duchamp, purportedly in solidarity with Mutt.[15]  The sculpture effectively staged its own exclusion from the institution of art as a spectacle. The recuperation of the readymade, now installed in the gallery system, and thoroughly assimilated to official culture, was the real target of the act of vandalism perpetrated at the Palazzo Grassi. The renown retrospectively accorded to this work of art undoubtedly modifies its meaning, given that this consists essentially in its relation to the cultural field, treated performatively and self-reflexively. However, Geers’ physical assault on the replica left its consecrated status intact, and even reinforced it by renewing the relevance of the urinal as a site of artistic practice.

 Pierre Pinocelli with his own version of Fountain in 2012[16]

On 8 May 1993, the Carré d’Art in Nîmes opened with an inaugural exhibition entitled “The Exhilaration of the Real”, including a replica of Fountain, on loan from the Centre Georges Pompidou in Paris.[17]  On 24 August, Pierre Pinocelli struck the sculpture with a hammer, and deposited some liquid in it, either urine as he claimed, or tea according to the director of the museum. Pinocelli was an underground artist influenced by the situationists, whose previous performances had included extorting ten francs from a bank with a sawn-off shotgun, and smashing toys outside a department store while dressed as Santa Claus. He opposed the decision to reproduce the readymade, arguing in court that the piece he had attacked was practically worthless, and if anything he had added to its value and should be remunerated. He also put forward the defence that the “invitation to urinate is offered ipso facto by the object”, refusing its consecrated status and instead disingenuously treating it as a wholly functional item. He was given a one-month suspended sentence for the “voluntary degradation of a monument or an object of public utility”, as if the court were itself prevaricating over whether to designate it a work of art or a convenience. On 4 January 2006 in Paris, Pinocelli once again took a hammer to the sculpture, and this time was fined €200,000 for “moral damages” and €14,352 for “material damages”.[18]  The uneven quantification of value in moral and material terms articulates the ambiguous boundary between art and non-art, the transgression of which was integral to the first Fountain. The legal proceedings ensuing from these acts of vandalism therefore suggest the same question posed by the sculpture in 1917: What makes this urinal a work of art? The power to confer such legitimacy, invested in the network of institutions, discourses and practices that constitutes the cultural field, is ultimately backed by the State. Before the court in 1993, Pincocelli questioned the consecrated status of the object specifically as a replica, disqualifying the reproductions authorized in the fifties and sixties, by appealing to notions of authenticity and originality. This appeal seems somewhat counterintuitive, as these are the categories that are most obviously problematized by the assertion of non-art as art. Nevertheless, Duchamp’s gesture did not entirely repudiate authorial ownership, even if the sculpture was submitted under an assumed name. There were a limited number of initiates aware of the true identity of the creator at the time, and the informed audience of the spectacle of its exclusion from the institution of art has increased substantially over the last hundred years, coterminous to its incorporation into the canon. The circulation of replicas, and the insistence on their authorization, dependent on the approval of the artist, accelerated this process. Pincocelli sought to reinstate the resistance of the object to official culture, but in a sense this is only visible retrospectively, as a consequence of its recuperation.

 Björn Kjelltoft urinating in an authorized replica of Fountain in 1999[19]

Björn Kjelltoft, a student at Konstfack University College of Arts, Crafts and Design in Stockholm, announced that he had urinated on a replica of Fountain, part of the permanent collection of the Moderna Museet, on 7 May 1999. The director of the museum initially denied that there was any evidence to substantiate his claim. However, Aftonbladet, a tabloid newspaper, published a photograph of him engaging in the act, and quoted him as saying: “I wanted to have a dialogue with Duchamp. He raised an everyday object to a work of art and I’m turning it back again into an everyday object.”[20]  Kjelltoft was perhaps alluding to the idea of the reciprocal readymade formulated by Duchamp: “[U]se a Rembrandt as an ironing board!”[21] Duchamp’s proposal might appear to be realized by the act of urinating in the urinal, but the capacity for transforming a work of art into an everyday object remains the privilege of an artist, and draws its significance from its parasitic relation to the history of art. Indeed, Kjelltoft’s intervention could be argued to have annexed some of the status accorded to the sculpture for a student establishing his career, exploiting its fame to create a scandal and generate publicity. This tactic of enlisting the popular press is typically used by emerging avant-gardes in their struggle to enter the discursive economy of the aesthetic sphere, as with the coverage that resulted from the resignation of Duchamp from the Independents. He was sufficiently well-known on the art scene in New York, principally for his Nude Descending a Staircase, No. 2 [1912], for this incident to be reported in the newspapers.[22] For the most part, Fountain’s position-taking within the cultural field relied on the minor institutions that generally sustain emerging avant-gardes, the network of patrons, galleries and little magazines: Walter Arensberg, a patron of artists in the circle around Duchamp, and a fellow director of the Independents, who was apparently aware of the real provenance of Fountain, along with a few others such as Henri Pierre Roché, Beatrice Wood and Louise Norton; the 291 Gallery, where the sculpture was briefly installed after it was rejected by the Independents, and where it was photographed by Alfred Stieglitz; and Blindman, the little magazine produced by Roché, Wood and Duchamp, which published this elaborately composed image of the work, and the anonymous statement justifying its claim to legitimacy, as well as a longer article by Norton.[23]  The recuperation of the readymade does not consist in the assimilation of an object outside of the institution of art, but rather in its transition from the sub-field of the emerging avant-garde to that of the consecrated avant-garde. Kjelltoft ignored this context in his naïve attempt to initiate a direct dialogue with Duchamp.

Two Artists Piss on Duchamp’s Urinal [2000][24]

Similarly to the Museum of Modern Art in New York, the Tate Modern’s Fountain was exhibited encased in a clear perspex box, from the opening of the gallery on 11 May 2000. Without Eno’s ingenuity but with considerably more aplomb, Cai Yuan and Jian Jun Xi, known collectively as Mad For Real, simply urinated onto the vitrine instead, were applauded by onlookers, and walked out without being challenged, on 21 May.[25]  Mad for Real had gained some notoriety the previous October, when they had stripped to their underwear and jumped up and down on My Bed [1998] by Tracey Emin at the Tate Gallery. On that occasion they were arrested but subsequently released without charge at the request of the artist and the gallery.[26]  Tate responded to their second intervention less generously, announcing with a hint of triumphalism that the perpetrators had in fact failed to urinate on the sculpture itself, while banning them from its premises for threatening works of art and members of staff.[27]  Mad for Real hoped to “celebrate the spirit of modern art”, specifically by recreating the controversy surrounding the original work, and by forcing the audience to reevaluate what constitutes art and non-art.[28]  It is doubtful whether their intervention could have prompted any such reevaluation among a public that has largely internalized the platitude that anything can be art. The spectators who witnessed it certainly took it to be a performance, as indicated by their spontaneous applause. The act of vandalism was also explicitly signposted as a creative work by being given a title, Two Artists Piss on Duchamp’s Urinal. Furthermore, Mad for Real released a film of the incident shot by an accomplice, now on YouTube.[29]  In Blindman, Stieglitz’s photograph of Fountain is presented alongside a caption: “THE EXHIBIT REFUSED BY THE INDEPENDENTS”. The exhibition tag of the rejected sculpture is visible in the bottom-left corner of the image, and the text on the following pages likewise dramatizes the exclusion of the object from the institution of art.[30]  This spectacle itself relies on institutional mechanisms to function, as stated above: Duchamp critiqued the cultural field from within, mobilizing the resources of the micro-community of the emerging avant-garde in New York in 1917. Fountain nevertheless disappeared into obscurity for thirty-five years, before its physical reproduction in the fifties and sixties, and its extensive discursive reproduction since then.[31]  The wealth of critical commentary concerned with the sculpture, and its widespread dissemination in popular consciousness, emerged out of a different set of institutional mechanisms, originating within the sub-field of the consecrated avant-garde. Although they received a certain amount of attention from the media in 2000, Mad For Real did not really succeed in scandalizing the aesthetic sphere much beyond the predictable denial from the responsible authorities that is characteristic in these cases, perhaps partly because by that stage the gesture of urinating in the urinal had become a familiar one.

Catalogue for “Contemporary Art”, Sotheby’s, New York, 1999[32]

The 1917 Fountain’s disappearance is a contested topic, with some reports that it was purposefully destroyed, and others that it was simply mislaid after being recovered from the Independents and moved to the 291. There are also more fanciful claims that the sculpture was either stolen or hidden.[33]  Between 1935 and 1941, Duchamp created miniature versions of Fountain for his Box in a Valise. In 1950, “Challenge and Defy”, at the Sidney Janis Gallery in New York, presented the first full-size replica to the public, a urinal that had been purchased by Janis and signed by Duchamp. The 1950 Fountain is now part of the permanent collection of the Philadelphia Museum of Modern Art. Another replica was allegedly produced for sale at auction in Paris in 1953, according to Arturo Schwarz’s The Complete Works of Marcel Duchamp [1969].[34]  There is no reference to this version of the sculpture in any other primary sources, and its current whereabouts are unknown. The next verifiable replica is a urinal purchased by Ulf Linde in Stockholm in 1963 and signed by Duchamp in Milan in 1964. It had already been exhibited in both cities with a printed signature by this point. The Moderna Museet in Stockholm still holds the 1963 Fountain. Also in Milan in 1964, Schwarz oversaw the creation of a set of eight replicas, of which six are now in the possession of public galleries. These comprise the Fountain in the Tate Modern in London; the Fountain in the Musée Maillol in Paris; the Fountain in the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art; the Fountain in the Indiana University Art Museum in Bloomington; the Fountain in the National Gallery of Canada in Ottawa; and the Fountain in the National Museum of Modern Art in Kyoto. The remaining pieces are owned by private collectors. In addition to dramatically increasing the production of replicas of Fountain, Schwarz introduced a new form of standardization to the process, actually manufacturing the urinals himself, modelled as far as possible on the photograph by Stieglitz. This artisanal activity appears at odds with the concept of the readymade, as does the fetishization of the original work. There are five further known reproductions in circulation, consisting of prototypes, proofs and additional versions created alongside the limited edition of eight, including the Fountain in the Centre Pompidou in Paris; the Fountain in the Galleria Nazionale d’Arte Moderna in Rome; and the Fountain in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem. The other two pieces are once more owned by private collectors.[35]  In 2010, Schwarz claimed that there were three more unsigned urinals in existence, which were not completed due to perceived imperfections. The Estate of Duchamp has vigorously denied their validity.[36]  This dispute again highlights how the category of authenticity, as well as that of originality, is reinstated through the reproduction of Fountain. The proliferation of replicas also reversed the spectacle of the exclusion of the sculpture from the institution of art, facilitating its circulation within the discursive economy of the aesthetic sphere, among networks of galleries and museums, and on the commercial market for cultural artefacts. In 1985, Sotheby’s in London conducted the first public auction of a replica of Fountain. The auction house failed to find a buyer, and when it was eventually sold, it was at a price considerably below the estimate, perhaps indicating that the work retained some of its resistant character, challenging institutions to justify paying a significant sum of money for a urinal. In 1999, Sotheby’s in New York invested greater resources in promoting the work, placing it on the front of their catalogue for an auction of contemporary art.[37]  The press release gave it equivalent prominence: “Sotheby’s Fall sale of Contemporary Art on the evening of Wednesday, November 17, 1999, will include Marcel Duchamp’s Fountain, the radical icon of the 20th Century, and important works by Mark Rothko, Lucian Freud, Andy Warhol, Cy Twombly, Alexander Calder, Jeff Koons, Robert Gober, Charles Ray and Eva Hesse.”[38]  The knowledge of recent private sales also contributed to a record figure for a piece by the artist being secured: $1,762,500. Collector Dimitri Daskalopoulos justified the high price he had paid in terms that undermined the anti-art thrust of the sculpture, which is fundamentally negative, by making it generative: “[F]or me, it represents the origins of contemporary art.”[39]  The recuperation of the readymade, articulated with varying levels of sophistication, is the common target of the physical attacks on it between 1990 and 2000. These acts of vandalism should themselves be considered as discursive manoeuvres, each mobilizing a particular interpretation of the work, and contributing to the elaboration of its meaning, which is intimately bound up with the context of its reception. The typical presentation of the replicas in galleries and museums, especially when exhibited under glass or perspex, services to reinforce the symbolism of the iconoclastic gesture, but the assaults on the sculpture in fact confirm its consecrated status. Nevertheless, Fountain continues to point to the institutional complex enframing it, even as its position in the cultural field, and the configuration of the field as a whole, are transformed over time.
__________________________________________________________________________

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Paul Ingram is studying for a PhD at Birkbeck College, University of London. He is writing his doctoral thesis on ‘Philistinism, Adorno and Dada.’
__________________________________________________________________________

FOOTNOTES


1Marcel Duchamp’s Fountain, by Alfred Stieglitz, New York, 1917 (Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York / ADAGP, Paris / Succession Marcel Duchamp), http://arthistory.about.com/od/dada/ig/DadaatMoMANewYork/dada_newyork_07.htm [accessed 05/04/14].

2Brian Eno, New York, 1990, cited in “What Makes Art Art?”, Carter Gillies, http://cartergilliespottery.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/brian-eno-lecturing-at-the-moma-1990.jpg [accessed 01/03/2014].

3A Year with Swollen Appendicies: Brian Eno’s Diary [1996], Brian Eno (London: Faber and Faber, 1996), pp.325-26; and “Press Release: High and Low: Modern Art and Popular Culture” (New York: Museum of Modern Art, October 1990), http://www.moma.org/pdfs/docs/press_archives/6826/releases/MOMA_1990_0077_80.pdf?2010 [accessed 01/03/2014].

4“Press Release: “Six Evenings of Performance” to be Presented as Part of the “High and Low” Exhibition at the Museum of Modern Art” (New York: Museum of Modern Art, October 1990), http://www.moma.org/pdfs/docs/press_archives/6827/releases/MOMA_1990_0078_81.pdf?2010 [accessed 01/03/2014].

5“Marcel Duchamp’s Fountain: Its History and Aesthetics in the Context of 1917”, William A Camfield, in Marcel Duchamp: Artist of the Century [1989], ed. Rudolf Kuenzli and Francis M Naumann (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1989), pp.66-67.

6“Duchamp’s Urinal Tops Art Survey”, BBC News, 1 December 2004, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4059997.stm [accessed 15/03/14].

7A Year with Swollen Appendicies, Eno, p.325.

8Fuckface (Kendell Geers) [2007], Kendell Geers, http://kendellgeers.com/library/works/87 [accessed 05/04/14]; and Homage to Alfred Jarry [2006], Kendell Geers, http://search.it.online.fr/covers/?m=1917 [accessed 17/03/14].

9“South African Artists on Show at the Biennale”, Alan Cowell, New York Times, 26 June 1993, http://www.nytimes.com/1993/06/26/arts/south-african-artists-on-show-at-the-biennale.html [accessed 17/03/14]; and “Political Unrest of ’68 Still Reverberates”, Alice Rawsthorn, New York Times, 26 May 2013 [accessed 17/03/14].

10“Kendell Geers: The Internal Experience, From Breaking In to Breaking Out”, Christine Marcel,  http://kendellgeers.com/library/texts/210 [accessed 17/03/14].

11Reported in various sources, including http://www.onepeople.com/archive/html/geers2.html [accessed 17/03/14].

12Untitled (1976) [1993], Kendell Geers, http://kendellgeers.com/library/works/170 [accessed 17/03/14]; T.W. (Flatwrap) [1993], Kendell Geers, http://kendellgeers.com/library/works/159 [accessed 17/03/14]; Self-Portrait [1995], Kendell Geers, http://kendellgeers.com/library/works/145 [accessed 17/03/14]; and “Art in Review: “Simunye” (“We are One”), Adelson Galleries, the Mark Hotel 25 East 77th Street, Manhattan, Through July 1”, Holland Cutter, New York Times, 21 June 1996, http://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/21/arts/art-in-review-030821.html [accessed 17/03/14].

13Homage to Alfred Jarry [2006], Kendell Geers, cited in “Covers and Citations: Art About Art”, http://search.it.online.fr/covers/?m=1917 [accessed 17/03/14]; Rack [2009], Kendell Geers, cited in “Kendell Geers, Stephen Friedman Gallery, 25-28 Old Burlington Street, November 27-January 16” [2009], Artforum, Sinviana Ravini, http://artforum.com/picks/id=24581&view=print [accessed 17/03/14]; and In advance of a broken arm [2010], Kendell Geers, http://kendellgeers.com/library/works/91 [accessed 17/03/14].

14Fresh Widow [2009], Kendell Geers, http://kendellgeers.com/library/works/440 [accessed 17/03/14].

15“Marcel Duchamp’s Fountain”, Camfield, p.71.

16Pierre Pinocelli, by Sébastien Cacioppo, Saint-Rémy-de-Provence, 2012 (Wikipedia Commons), http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pierre_Pinoncelli,_photographi%C3%A9_par_S%C3%A9bastien_Cacioppo,_le_23_juin_2012_%C3%A0_Saint-R%C3%A9my-de-Provence.JPG [accessed 05/04/14].

17“The Building”, http://www.carreartmusee.com/en/museum/the-building/ [accessed 17/03/14]; The Destruction of Art: Iconoclasm and Vandalism since the French Revolution, Dario Gamboni (London: Reaktion Books, 1997), p.279; and “An Overview of the Seventeen Known Versions of Fountain”, in Cabinet 27 [Fall 2007], http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/27/duchamp.php [accessed 17/03/14].

18“Readymade Remade”, Leland de la Durantaye, in Cabinet 27 [Fall 2007], http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/27/durantaye.php [accessed 17/03/14]; and The Destruction of Art, Gamboni, pp.279-280.

19Bjorn Kjelltoft, Stockholm, 1999, cited in “Urineren in Kunst – Duchamp’s Fontein”, Jdebaaij, http://kunstvensters.com/2011/12/11/urineren-in-kunst-duchamps-fontein/ [accessed 05/04/14].

20“Björn Kjelltoft: 2008 Swing Space Resident, 120 Broadway”, http://www.lmcc.net/artists/swingspace/bjoern_kjelltoft [accessed 17/03/14]; “An Overview of the Seventeen Known Versions of Fountain”, http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/27/duchamp.php [accessed 17/03/14]; and “Stockholm Museum Mystery Over Duchamp’s Urinal”, Reuters, 20 May 1999, cited in Museum Security Mailinglist Reports, Museum Security Network, http://www.museum-security.org/99/019.html [accessed 17/03/14].

21Dada: Art and Anti-Art, Hans Richter, trans. David Britt (London: Thames and Hudson, 2007), p.89.

22“Marcel Duchamp’s Fountain”, Camfield, pp.67-68.

23Ibid., pp.66-68, p.72, p.74 and p.76.

24Two Artists Piss on Duchamp’s Urinal [2000], Mad for Real (Cai Yuan and Juan Jun Xi), http://www.madforreal.org/piss.html [accessed 17/03/14].

25“Guerilla Artists Make a Splash at Tate Modern”, Maurice Mcleod, The Guardian, 22 May 2000, http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2000/may/22/artsfeatures5 [accessed 17/03/14].

26“Performance Artists Strike Again”, BBC News, 21 May 2000, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/758315.stm [accessed 17/03/14].

27““It’s a New Cultural Revolution””, Nick Paton Walsh, The Observer, 11 June 2000, http://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2000/jun/11/features.review37 [accessed 17/03/14].

28“Guerilla Artists Make a Splash at Tate Modern”, Mcleod, http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2000/may/22/artsfeatures5 [accessed 17/03/14].

29Two Artists Piss on Duchamp’s Urinal [2000], YouTube, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ojbegua2yKw [accessed 17/03/14].

30Blindman 2 [May 1917], ed. Marcel Duchamp, Henri Pierre Roché and Beatrice Wood, in the International Dada Archive, University of Iowa, http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/dada/blindman/2/index.htm [accessed 17/03/14].

31“Marcel Duchamp’s Fountain”, Camfield, p.86.

32“Contemporary Art”, Sotheby’s New York, 1999, cited in “Marcel Duchamp: Money is No Object: The Art of Defying the Art Market”, Francis M Naumann, Tout-Fait 2:5, April 2003, http://www.toutfait.com/issues/volume2/issue_5/news/naumann/naumann1.htm#N_1_top [accessed 05/04/14].

33“Marcel Duchamp’s Fountain”, Camfield, p.64.

34The Complete Works of Marcel Duchamp [1969] (Rev.), Arturo Schwarz (New York: Harry N Abrams, 1970), p.466.

35“An Overview of the Seventeen Known Versions of Fountain”, http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/27/duchamp.php [accessed 17/03/14].

36“Rogue Urinals: Has the Art Market Gone Dada?”, The Economist, 24 March 2010, http://www.economist.com/node/15766467 [accessed 17/10/14].

37“Marcel Duchamp: Money is No Object: The Art of Defying the Art Market”, Naumann, http://www.toutfait.com/issues/volume2/issue_5/news/naumann/naumann1.htm#N_1_top [accessed 05/04/14].

38“Press Release: “Sotheby’s November 17 Contemporary Art Sale Includes Marcel Duchamp’s Fountain and Important Works by Rothko, Freud, Warhol, Gober, Twombly and Calder (New York: Sotheby’s, November 1999), http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/BID/0x0x102889/7a65f9ec-5a82-44a9-a456-be96e4fa936f/19991026-11608.pdf [accessed 05/04/14].

39“Marcel Duchamp: Money is No Object: The Art of Defying the Art Market”, Naumann, http://www.toutfait.com/issues/volume2/issue_5/news/naumann/naumann1.htm#N_1_top [accessed 05/04/14].
__________________________________________________________________________

First published in 3:AM Magazine: Monday, June 23rd, 2014.