Drawing on Marcel : theatrics of the large glass...tentative

Abstract

The primary aim of this paper is an attempt to bridge the abyss between art and architecture. Marcel Duchamp, a key artist in the Dada and Surrealist movement, has often been toted as the artist of the twentieth century. His art, or anti-art, has defined a generation of post-war artistic production, and spawned the following Conceptual and Installation art movements. The Large Glass, his readymades, notably, has had material written about it to fill a library. Yet, in the field of architecture, little is focused on the Large Glass. It is interesting to note, thus, that the first article on the Large Glass appeared in the 1937 May issue of Architectural Record. Morever, its author was Frederick J. Kiesler, friend of Duchamp, and reknowned artist /architect of the time. Art Nouveau has Gaudi; Constructivism has simultaneous artistic and architectural works; yet the Surreal and Dada movement died before it defined its architectural visage. Kurt Schwitters, of Hanover Dada, produced the Merz-column, yet it has been marginalized architecturally. The last Surreal forays were organized architectural tours in Paris, but only one was conducted. The question that arises is why Surrealism and Dada. whose key artistic concern was the tapping of the unconscious, has been overlooked in architecture. Should not the inclusion of the human, mind and body, be of key concern to architecture? In discussing Duchamp's works in this paper, there are many descriptive sections on the work of art itself. It is, in part, a reaction to a problem that I encountered early in my research. Most of the in-depth analysis assume prior knowledge of the work, something which I did not have. Therefore, the bibliography that resulted ranged from the most basic to the densest of material. In writing this research, I have assumed that the reader has no prior knowledge of the works, in an attempt to alleviate the frustration that I had felt. Duchamp has often set out to subvert conventions of art. He asks questions regarding the production of art by scrutinizing the method of production, He refuses to call the Large Glass a picture, instead, he terms it a delay. Here the link to architecture appears, in the scrutiny of conventional architectural representation, something which is used daily in the production of architecture without questioning. Perhaps a re-visiting of these conventions of 'norm' may open up new avenues in architectural thought. In the vein of Duchamp's line of thought, the possibilities are entirely up to the spectator /reader.