Warning: This worst work of art really stinks!

The Fountain is a comical representation of contemporary sculpture. The fact that the sculpture has been replicated speaks volumes about how minimal skill is necessary to divulge this piece. What is the point? Why would an artist conceal their identity? These two questions are explicitly linked. Marcel Duchamp chose to conceal his identity to push critics’ boundaries and broaden the horizon of what is considered acceptable art.

Fountain was first created in 1917 and replicated in 1964. Marcel Duchamp vandalized an outdated urinal comprised of porcelain-like material. The only apparent manipulations of the urinal are the scuff marks at the front of the bowl and the date of the work alongside the artist's signature. The sculpture places the viewer in the imagery of the subject because of the typical interaction with the everyday object. Through the usage of Panofsky and Fry’s theories, the work will be examined, highlighting the ineptitude of this work. Fountain relates parody to contemporary sculpture through the ridiculous notion of depth, lack of skill displayed, and the absence of manipulation. 

The absurdity of qualifying Fountain as an artistic expression is a challenge that invites the viewer to engage in a deeper understanding of the work. The piece’s name hints at a beautiful, serene, and calming relationship between the audience and the artwork. However, upon a cursory glance at the sculpture, the viewer can deduce the joking nature of the artist. The dialogue between the sculpture and the viewer involuntarily evokes an air of comedy. The toilet user creates the theoretical fountain’s “water” dispersal point. Is this the point of the sculpture? The viewer's interpretation is a crucial part of the artistic experience, adding depth and complexity to the work.

 

The skill set apparent in creating Fountain requires little advanced talent. A wrench and black paint seem to be all needed to recreate the unprovoking piece. Iconological analysis proves futile in the face of a urinal. To use Panofsky’s three-point system, one would first establish on the primary level that the subject is a urinal. Beyond that, there is an abrupt halt in analyzing the subject matter on the conventional level due to the lack of imagery to inspect. If the subject matter is, in fact, the viewer, and the iconology to be observed is the interaction between the viewer and urinal, then perhaps the calming name hints at the peace of mind obtained when unleashing one's bodily fluids in private. Therefore, the intrinsic meaning relies heavily on the cultural attitude surrounding bathroom culture. 

Fountain is limited in areas of manipulation of the sculpture. Within this context, we can utilize Fry’s five elements of emotional design. Aside from the cleanliness of the urinal, the only alteration of the piece is the artist’s signature. Here his rhythm of line is deliberate and is compartmentalized into the lower section of the urinal.  This resembles the signage on a painting, adding a comical touch to the delicate placement. Additionally, it must be observed that the signature is not of the artist's name, Marcel Duchamp, but instead signed “R. MUTT 1917”. Why would Duchamp conceal his identity? 

Mass is relevant to continuing to delve into Fry’s five emotional design elements. Because the encounter with a urinal is a typical everyday occurrence for those of the adhering gender, mass is relevant to overall significance. There are numerously diverse toilets composed of various materials. The viewer may deduce that the urinal's shine is most likely porcelain. From this, it can be concluded that the toilet is of substantial mass but substantial enough to be enshrined in history? Apparently. 

Furthermore, the porcelain-like material organically pushes forward, encapsulating space throughout the bowl of the sculpture. Directionally, the Fountain seeks to be viewed in a relief style, allowing the material to illuminate against the dark backdrop. Its scuffs reveal a chrome color underneath, presenting authentic wear of the everyday item. I appreciate not the brightness of the color as much as the choice to abstain from a grotesque display of functionality.