The Creative Act

by Marcel Duchamp

/
  • Streaming + Download

    Includes unlimited streaming via the free Bandcamp app, plus high-quality download in MP3, FLAC and more.
    Purchasable with gift card

      €6 EUR  or more

     

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

about

Read by Marcel Duchamp. A paper presented to the convention of the American Federation of Arts at Houston, Texas, April 1957

2. Some Texts From À L’Infinitif (1912-20) (4:04)
Read by Marcel Duchamp in New York 1967. Lecture in New York, shortly before his death

3. Musical Erratum - La Mariée Mise À Nu Par Ses Célibataires, Même (Score Drawn At Random) (1:40)
Long before John Cage, the first aleatory composition and the only piece which is never twice the same. Harmonium [Pedal] : Jean-Luc Fafchamps.

4. An Interview with Marcel Duchamp by George Heard Hamilton (11:06)
Recorded in New York, 1959

5. An Interview with Marcel Duchamp by Richard Hamilton (21:20)
Recorder in London, 959

6. Musical Erratum - A Score For Three Voices (From The Green Box) (1:39)
The only score
Lucy Grauman : Vocals [Magdeleine] –
Jean-Luc Pluvier : Vocals [Marcel
Marianne Pousseur : Vocals [Yvonne]

credits

released October 27, 2016

Edited by Marc Dachy, this first cd devoted exclusively to Marcel Duchamp brings forth some very rare documents of the '50s, all of which are crucial not only to understand Duchamp's work but also to gasp the rebellious, unconventional, anticonformist spirit that has always been there, but in the Zurich of 1919 took the absurd name of Dada. Including 12 pages booklet with an unpublished interview.

license

all rights reserved

tags

about

Sub Rosa Label Brussels, Belgium

Record and production company managed by Guy Marc Hinant and Fred Walheer - releasing records in Electronics/ Experimental/ Unclassical/ Drone/ Noise/ Concrete/ Spoken Words/ Rare recordings/ Rituals genres.

contact / help

Contact Sub Rosa Label

Streaming and
Download help

Shipping and returns

Report this album or account

Track Name: The Creative Act
THE CREATIVE ACT
by Marcel Duchamp

Let us consider two important factors, the two poles of the creation of art: the artist on the one hand, and on the other the spectator who later becomes the posterity.
To all appearances, the artist acts like a mediumistic being who, from the labyrinth beyond time and space, seeks his way out to a clearing. If we give the attributes of a medium to the artist, we must then deny him the state of consciousness on the esthetic plane about what he is doing or why he is doing it. All his decisions in the artistic execution of the work rest with pure intuition and cannot be translated into a self-analysis, spoken or written, or even thought out.
T.S. Eliot, in his essay on "Tradition and Individual Talent", writes: "The more perfect the artist, the more completely separate in him will be the man who suffers and the mind which creates; the more perfectly will the mind digest and transmute the passions which are its material."
Millions of artists create; only a few thousands are discussed or accepted by the spectator and many less again are consecrated by posterity.
In the last analysis, the artist may shout from all the rooftops that he is a genius: he will have to wait for the verdict of the spectator in order that his declarations take a social value and that, finally, posterity includes him in the primers of Artist History.
I know that this statement will not meet with the approval of many artists who refuse this mediumistic role and insist on the validity of their awareness in the creative act - yet, art history has consistently decided upon the virtues of a work of art through considerations completely divorced from the rationalized explanations of the artist.
If the artist, as a human being, full of the best intentions toward himself and the whole world, plays no role at all in the judgment of his own work, how can one describe the phenomenon which prompts the spectator to react critically to the work of art? In other words, how does this reaction come about?
This phenomenon is comparable to a transference from the artist to the spectator in the form of an esthetic osmosis taking place through the inert matter, such as pigment, piano or marble.
But before we go further, I want to clarify our understanding of the word 'art' - to be sure, without any attempt at a definition.
What I have in mind is that art may be bad, good or indifferent, but, whatever adjective is used, we must call it art, and bad art is still art in the same way that a bad emotion is still an emotion.
Therefore, when I refer to 'art coefficient', it will be understood that I refer not only to great art, but I am trying to describe the subjective mechanism which produces art in the raw state - à l'état brut - bad, good or indifferent.
In the creative act, the artist goes from intention to realization through a chain of totally subjective reactions. His struggle toward the realization is a series of efforts, pains, satisfaction, refusals, decisions, which also cannot and must not be fully self-conscious, at least on the esthetic plane.
The result of this struggle is a difference between the intention and its realization, a difference which the artist is not aware of.
Consequently, in the chain of reactions accompanying the creative act, a link is missing. This gap, representing the inability of the artist to express fully his intention, this difference between what he intended to realize and did realize, is the personal 'art coefficient' contained in the work.
In other words, the personal 'art coefficient' is like an arithmetical relation between the unexpressed but intended and the unintentionally expressed.
To avoid a misunderstanding, we must remember that this 'art coefficient' is a personal expression of art à l'état brut, that is, still in a raw state, which must be 'refined' as pure sugar from molasses by the spectator; the digit of this coefficient has no bearing whatsoever on his verdict. The creative act takes another aspect when the spectator experiences the phenomenon of transmutation: through the change from inert matter into a work of art, an actual transubtantiation has taken place, and the role of the spectator is to determine the weight of the work on the esthetic scale.
All in all, the creative act is not performed by the artist alone; the spectator brings the work in contact with the external world by deciphering and interpreting its inner qualification and thus adds his contribution to the creative act. This becomes even more obvious when posterity gives a final verdict and sometimes rehabilitates forgotten artists.