What's RIGHT to learn from Duchamp?
|
|
What’s Left to Learn from Marcel Duchamp?
At the Museum of Modern Art, the artist’s enigmatic objects are interesting historical oddities, but it’s his engagement with masculinity that speaks to our time.
“You should wait 50 or a hundred years for your true public. That is the only public that interests me,” Marcel Duchamp declared in a 1956 interview. The Museum of Modern Art split the difference, almost, by organizing with the Philadelphia Museum of Art a survey of Duchamp’s inventive art 70 years later. Their institutional prominence, as well as Duchamp’s status as the artist many consider the most influential of the past century, assure that he has a wide audience and that his art has enduring appeal. The work is timeless, but is it also topical? Do his creations speak to current issues?
In the history of art, Duchamp is heralded for his inventive adoption of hardware store inventory, presented singly or juxtaposed, rarely embellished. Being three-dimensional, they could be categorized as “premade sculpture;” Duchamp termed them “readymades.” Placed in a gallery, drawing viewers’ scrutiny, his bottle rack, snow shovel or glass sphere of Paris air became “defamiliarized” and enigmatic art. For his Bicycle Wheel, Duchamp purchased it and its kitchen stool pedestal. Literalizing contemporaneous Italian Futurist painters’ and sculptors’ ardor for depicting movement, Duchamp did them better: his Wheel spins. By reorienting the act of artistic creation into maneuvers of choosing and handling the extant, Duchamp radically expanded what could be considered a work of art.
A century later, Duchamp’s procedure of presenting quotidian objects in inscrutable combinations or orientations, once confounding, today no more shocks the bourgeoisie or anyone else than do Joseph Cornell’s boxed altars of miscellanea, Robert Rauschenberg’s goat atop a painted canvas or Sarah Sze’s environmental conglomerations. In a time of Maurizio Cattelan’s provocative wall-taped banana garnering prominent attention both as art and as a $6 million-plus private acquisition, Duchamp’s historical exemplars of artistic upcycling appear not only quaint but faint.
Beyond material machinations, the aspect of Duchamp’s art that remains timely is not the expansive identity of art, but the malleability of personal identity. When his Bicycle Wheel is yanked into motion, its penetrable spokes shift into an impervious plane that one dare not poke. Below it, that vertical disk turns into a horizontal one, the stool’s seat. At the floor, the four legs make a square. The swirl has evolved into the stable, with inescapable associations. The upper curves, traditionally representing the expressive feminine, transition downward into geometric form, connoting masculinity.
Duchamp’s Fountain displays its sexual duality more overtly. A well-regarded avant-gardist yo-yoing between his native France and Manhattan, Duchamp was on the governing board of New York’s Society of Independent Artists. Avoiding personal advantage for the inaugural exhibition, and provocatively testing the waters, he submitted Fountain anonymously. It consists of a mass-produced utilitarian object, the plumbing fixture commonly found in public restrooms for men, a urinal. He had purchased it new and painted the signature “R. Mutt” and the year, 1917. The R stands for Richard, a word which when pronounced in French is slang for “moneybags,” a sly derision of art as merchandise. Viewers would have connected the surname Mutt to either the era’s popular comic strip “Mutt and Jeff” or the J.L. Mott Iron Works. Founded a century earlier in Mott Haven, in the Bronx, and with a Manhattan showroom, the Mott company was familiar as a dealer and manufacturer of plumbing and sanitary fixtures.
Duchamp’s presentation of gleaming enameled iron could be taken as an elevation of American manufacturing. His fellow board members did not look beyond its practical use and declared it vulgar and unrecognizable as art, suppressing its inclusion. But more important than the buzz around Fountain is again how shape generates meaning. In presenting it, Duchamp flipped the urinal on its back, pitching its curving bowl upright. In that position, its narrow arch over a broader one resembles the sloping curves of the head and shoulders of a woman. Within that outline, the urinal’s bowl calls up the old metonymy of female as vessel or womb, here penetrated by a phallic pipe. In effect, it is another “trans” sculpture, not Bicycle Wheel‘s female-to-male transition, but a male-to-female transition.
A more casual convergence of genders is Duchamp’s penciling a mustache and goatee on a postcard of the Mona Lisa. By graffitiing the Louvre’s most famous painting, Duchamp satirized the museum’s post-World War I grand reopening and honoring of the 400th anniversary of Leonardo’s death, the masculinization alluding to the Renaissance master’s ambiguous sexuality. But he equivocated by captioning it “L.H.O.O.Q;” the letters’ pronunciation in French translate to “She has a hot ass.” As a drag queen?
Duchamp himself was a straight guy with a queer eye; he had heterosexual love affairs, married twice, and maintained a tight bond with American artist Man Ray. In his breakthrough painting fusing Cubism and Futurism, Nude Descending a Staircase, the sex of the lanky figure—like his own—is not indicated. Desiring an alternate persona with which to sign and show work, and raised as a Roman Catholic, Duchamp initially sought a Jewish surname. Not finding a satisfactory one, he switched genders and contrived the name Rose Sélavy: a commonplace flower meets a homophone for “c’est la vie”—”that’s life.” The moniker had the additional benefit of containing a sound close to the common Jewish surname Levy.
Soon his spelling evolved into Rrose Sélavy, the double r pronounced “eros c’est la vie” and emphasizing sexuality. Ray collaborated on Duchamp’s costume as a well-to-do female and then photographed him, a performance that, like Cindy Sherman’s decades later, was restricted to the studio. By signing the sixth and final pose “Lovingly, Rrose Sélavy, alias Marcel Duchamp,” he made his gender switching unambiguous. But even without that admission, his recognizable long nose and face, cosmetically enhanced and bewitchingly posed but still homely, makes it less a picture of a dame than a man in drag.
Duchamp’s art demonstrates that neither the identity of art nor of the self are stable entities. His frolicking with gender was enlightened volition, but it replays the cross-dressing imposed in his childhood. His birth came seven months after the death of his parents’ three-year-old daughter, their first after two boys. As a male, he was not the replacement daughter his grieving mother desired. Nevertheless, she attempted a resurrection: Duchamp’s biographer Calvin Tomkins describes that “A photograph of Marcel at three years shows him in a frilly white dress, his hair cut in bangs and worn long at the sides.” Duchamp’s painting Portrait of a Young Boy of the Candel Family in a bouffant skirt evokes his own past, but Tomkins states, “in [young Duchamp’s] case the look is more feminine than the norm.” This biographical impetus has not been recognized; tellingly, Duchamp’s portrait was not included in the display of his paintings.
Duchamp’s first presentation as Rose Sélavy parallels that history more directly. A carpenter constructed a tabletop version of French doors (making it an “assisted” readymade). Duchamp covered its eight windowpanes with black leather, preventing sight in the hue of mourning. In printing his clever title Fresh Widow and “copyright Rose Sélavy 1920” on the windowsill, Duchamp’s mashup of female sorrow after a death and his female persona repeats his childhood mixup.
Duchamp’s play with blended gender models and a self unconfined by convention is contrary to the current promotion of narrow terms of identity. Beyond rancorous political antinomies, ours is a period of regression to essentialist views of the sexes, a binary embodied by the buxom breeding tradwife and he-man breadwinner. These formerly outdated stereotypes couple in the context of the denial of women’s and transgender people’s rights over their bodies and undertows seeking to bring down gay marriage—basically a coarse “us” vs. “them.” Into those constrictions comes MoMA’s presentation of Duchamp, whose historical expressions of gender fluidity implicitly refute reductive bifurcations—and whose renown shows that he didn’t have to choose.
“Marcel Duchamp” is on view at the Museum of Modern Art in New York through August 22, 2026. The Philadelphia Museum of Art will host the exhibition from October 10, 2026, through January 31, 2027.
More in Artists
- Mia Westerlund Roosen’s Ongoing Material Inquiry
- Jessica Taylor Bellamy’s Captured Realities Are Never Fully What They Seem
- In Venice, Andreas Angelidakis Is Queering the Idea of a National Pavilion
- The Louche, Romantic, Feral World of Sébastien Tellier
- In L.A., Christina Quarles Confronts the Tension Between Body, Space and Identity
- Gabriel De La Mora’s Meditations On Matter and the Monochrome
