|
Marcel Duchamp - Spring, 1911 - Where it All Begins
|
|
by
Kurt Godwin
|
|
Published: 10/2009 |
Print Post Your Comments
Tell a friend
-->
|
Updated : 11/27/12 |
Like toutfait on Facebook,
Follow us on Twitter
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published: 09/28/09 |
Print Post Your Comments |
Updated : 11/27/12 |
Like toutfait on Facebook,
Follow us on Twitter
|
|
|
|
|
|
Readers' Comments |
Many thanks to Kurt Godwin for this richly textured comparative study of the subtly repeating formal motifs in M. Duchamp's imagery. I can't help but believe an artist who mines the sensual and critical issues of another for their own expressive growth and shared affinities will be the most facile at delving most deeply, and exquisitely, into such possibilities. |
By Deborah McLeod |
10/16/09
|
|
We've got to synchronize our "Springs."
I've never seen this painting, so I don't really know what it looks like, and don't, therefore, really know how to choose which of its published versions best represents it. (duh) I do know, however, that the differences in the several iterations are significant, and I think they may account for at least some of the differences in commentary.
Your version of "Spring," for instance, as I am able to download and print it, is a garish Barbie pink and Cheeto (sp?) orange affair (in which the up-raised arms and the no-longer-brown-but-pink tree limbs close the open arcs of the heart.) I couldn't reconcile this with the image from which I'd learned the painting--Schwartz, 2nd ed, 1970. I chose the Schwartz, not the downloads, with which to read your paper, and that turned out to matter.
To wit:
I see the figure you describe in the heart's center circle, but I also see three other figures you don't describe. They call to mind the Matisse "Dance 1" and "2" (pink nudes on blue). One of them--to the immediate left of your figure--is strikingly similar to your figure, the legs are almost exactly the same. If one anticipates "tant...," the second does also I would think. There is no discernible Mercurius in this version, but I can see some bulk on the left that with a certain tweak of two might become a centaur or maybe the lion of Venice. And finally, your "yellow linear device" does not exist in this image.
So what to conclude? Nothing more insightful that that you probably didn't use the Schwartz, 2nd ed; Seigel and Marquis probably did; Schwartz himself probably did not, nor did he use your source (he may actually have used the painting). Deciphering blobs is an inexact science. Where it is totally dependent on the quirks of technology, I think it is both futile and meaningless.
I'm not disputing your larger point that the young work is the incipient mature work. I'd like to see more of this, but I'm not persuaded that the evidence is in for it to begin with "Spring." Then again, as I mentioned, I've not seen the painting.
|
By Runcible |
10/22/09
|
|
Dear Kurt:
Right off the bat, your language for academic writing is beautiful and the first three paragraphs state clearly and convincingly, your assumptions, delimitations and projections. But best, the statement of your intentions in this investigation, given the frame of your approach as a visual artist, delights the heart of this phenomenologist! And you have mastered the art of thick description! Did you write a serious master's paper?
Other sideways remarks:
1) In the third paragraph, you contrast the model of Duchamp's creative process one which you offer to be linear, with any one piece just a point along a trajectory (which one assumes to be linear). If I were writing that, I would embed those two contrasting models in a cross-cultural frame which, in the shortest possible summary I have ever attempted, would offer the Duchampian model as one based in the artist's ability to tap sources and dynamics unique to that artist's own psyche, internally driven, and the linear model representing culture-based conventions, externals, for the construction of an image, accepted in the collective awareness of the culture, such as the prevailing spiritual tradition(s) of that culture.
2) Duchamp was deep in that uber-potent mix of art and psychology, all the talk and rage in the Paris cafes between the two world wars, that was aware of (and many artists actually knew) Jung and Freud.
But equally influential was a psychoalnalyst and alchemist, the Viennese Herbert Silberer. His work was known by all the Surrealists and was the first solid introduction to the embedments in the world of Western symbols. Given this historical background, more can be made of the symbolism in the piece(s) you analyze.
3) Small point: In the 31st paragraph, "Schwartz and Cabanne share the opinion...", Suzanne needs to be re-introduced because she has not been established the reader's memory and it is necessary to scroll back to find out who she is.
4) The last paragraph ("Granted...") could be taken further in to the phenomenology of the period between the two world wars...see Wilson's analytical model in her psychoanalysis of Giacometti...
I have a focus on that period because it represents the first time in the history of art that an internally driven model of the creative process emerged in Homo Aestheticus. That model immigrated to the US between the wars and is the model we used in writing the four non-traditional approach to teaching the visual arts at the Corcoran. That model was also ASSUMED, but not consciously taught, at Cooper and within 3 years, I was into research trying to find the reasons for the predictable attrition in three groups of students: Native Americans; Hispanics from the American SW and Japanese. That study led to my dissertation which I wrote for teachers in American art education who are teaching in the diversity that characterizes us and drives our philosophy of education. |
By Rosemary Wright |
07/12/10
|
|
Early in 1911, at the age of 24, Marcel Duchamp painted a relatively small painting (25 7/8 by 19 3/4 inches, oil on canvas) he called Young Man and Girl in Spring. 1 This painting is also identified as Spring, which is how the painting is referred to throughout this paper. A larger version (58 5/8 x 19 3/4 inches, oil on canvas) followed. This second version was exhibited at the 1911 Salon d’Automne in Paris.2 Although no photograph of the entire second painting is known to exist, part of it is visible—now repositioned horizontally—as the background of Duchamp’s Network of Stoppages of 1914.
What follows is an analysis of the first version of Spring and its role in Duchamp’s larger creative output. Some of my ideas, as well as my interpretations and conclusions, draw on the large and ever-growing body of scholarly literature on Duchamp. However, my observations and ideas are shaped by my perspective as a practicing artist. Quite intentionally, I have tried to follow the logic of Duchamp’s creative process and his artistic decision-making strategies from the standpoint of his being a visual artist. I offer what follows in that spirit.
In this paper, I explore the possibility that Spring contains pre-figurative elements of Duchamp’s final magnum opus, Étant donnés (Given: 1º The Waterfall, 2º The Illuminating Gas), created between 1946 and 1966. That a small, sketchy painting made thirty-five years earlier could be seen as a study for the confounding, elaborate installation that is Étant donnés may strike readers as somewhat improbable. Nevertheless, through careful scrutiny of Duchamp’s artwork and the many notes he made, it is my opinion that very early on—Duchamp planned and prepared for the major works he would eventually produce. I acknowledge that this process is highly unusual, that most artists develop their styles over a period of time, with any one piece or style representing a point on a trajectory of development and maturation. It is well known Marcel Duchamp used ideas he had formulated years before their actual implementation. As Michael Taylor observes: “The pseudoscientific title of Etant donnes has its source in a note first published in 1934 known as the Green Box: “Etant donnes 1° la chute d’eau / 2° legaz d’eclairage.”3
Part I
Although it is uncharacteristically rough in execution, Spring is a fully realized composition(Fig. 1).
click to enlarge
|
|
Figure 1
|
Spring (Young Man and Girl in Spring), 1911. Oil on canvas, 25 7/8 x 19 3/4 in. (65.7 x 50.2 cm.). Israel Museum of Art, Jerusalem |
|
The artist apparently deemed this painting important enough to offer it as a wedding present to his favorite sister, Suzanne, who married a Rouen pharmacist, Charles Desmares, on August 24, 1911. On the back of the canvas Duchamp wrote, “A toi ma chere Suzanne —Marcel” (“To my dear Suzanne —Marcel”).4
Perhaps due to the painting’s uncharacteristically loose, expressionistic execution, some scholars assert that Spring is merely a loose study. However, the existence of an India ink and charcoal study for the female figure of Spring,
also dated 1911 and titled Standing Nude (Fig. 2), adds weight to the argument that Spring is an autonomous work, not a preliminary sketch. 5
click to enlarge
|
|
Figure 2
|
Standing Nude, 1911. India ink and charcoal on paper 24 5/8 x 18 7/8 in. (62.5 x 47.8 cm.). Collection of Silvia Schwarz Linder and Dennis Linder, Milan |
|
The two versions of Spring can be seen as the final symbolic allegorical group of works that Duchamp began painting in April 1910 with Portrait of Dr. Dumouchel. The others in this group include The Bush (1910), Paradise (December 1910–January 1911), The Baptism (1911), and Draft on the Japanese Apple Tree (1911).
Spring is an allegorical painting set in a landscape of tree forms. Most prominent in the composition are the two elongated, up-reaching figures, which occupy the frontal plane and extend from the lower to upper margins of the painting on both sides.
Both figures are delineated by black contour lines. On the left is a female nude; on the right is a male whose genitals are obscured by a thong-like covering. The back of the female’s head is visible as a cap of dark hair; except for her chin, her face is blocked by the closer arm, which, like her other arm, is thrust upward toward a canopy of leaves. Both of the female’s arms are rendered twice (Fig. 3), visually suggesting waving limbs. This depiction of sequential positions in space essentially constitutes Duchamp’s original attempts to paint a figure in motion a year before his two versions of Nude Descending a Staircase, of 1912.
click to enlarge
|
|
Figure 3
|
Detail of fig. 1, Spring: arms of female figure, marked to indicate “waving” motion |
|
The male figure extends his right arm into the tree leaves. His other arm is bent above his faceless head, the hand in a fist. The feet are roughed i