Francis
M. Naumann
responds to |
||||||||||
|
[The following letter was written to the editor of Natural History in response to the article "Boats & Deckchairs" by Stephen Jay Gould and Rhonda Roland Shearer, which was published simultaneously in Tout-Fait 1, no. 1 (December 1999) and Natural History 108, no. 10 (December 1999 - January 2000): 32-44.]
To the Editor: In their
essay on a note by Marcel Duchamp about the fourth dimension (Natural
History, 12/99-1/00), Stephen Jay Gould and Rhonda Roland Shearer
emphasize the fact that no other previous Duchamp scholar has ever noticed
that the text of this particular note relates to the image of three
boats in a landscape that appears on its verso. Although they go on
to explain that there are various reasons for why this observation had
not been made before — without explanation — they specifically single
out my writings as an example of a Duchamp scholar who missed this very
point. This
is a perfect example of biased and prejudicial scholarship. Since it
was employed by a Darwinian like Gould, it is difficult to resist comparing
his actions to that of natural selection, one that, in this case, functions
within the ongoing evolution of his and his wife's indomitable quest
to find hidden meanings in the work of Marcel Duchamp. If these writers
were really going to be fair in assessing my powers of observation,
after having cited my description of this note, they would have gone
on to quote the very next sentence of my writings: "Although it has
been assumed that these paper fragments were selected arbitrarily and
that they bear no relationship to the subject of the notes themselves,
at least one note referring to the 'legs of the [Chocolate] Grinder'
appears, appropriately, on the verso of a torn fragment of candy wrapping
advertising the town of 'Hershey, PA.'" (The Mary and William Sisler
Collection, Museum of Modern Art, New York, 1984, p. 143). In the
note discussed by Gould and Shearer, I did not notice a relationship
between the subject of the fourth dimension and the image appearing
on its verso for one very specific reason: I am not wholly convinced
that there is one (not when I wrote about these notes over fifteen years
ago, nor even now after having read their elaborate argument). First
of all, these authors claim that "Duchamp's object is not, in fact,
a commercially produced postcard but an original painting, almost surely
by Duchamp himself." This is a perfectly reckless assertion, particularly
since it is made without a single shred of supporting evidence. Stylistically,
the image bears no relationship whatsoever to any other work by Duchamp
from this period, unless, of course, Duchamp feigned an artistic style
totally foreign to his own artistic sensitivities (even if this were
the case, then we are presented with no reasonable explanation for why
Duchamp would have employed such a strategy). The authors then point
out that on the verso of this image, "a vertical line in the middle
and four horizontal lines to the right" were "inked in by hand" to "mimic
the address guides of a normal postcard." These lines would prove critical,
for according to the authors, they provide a clue that the image on
the other side must be rotated in order to be understood for its fourth
dimensional message. But even here, how can we be sure that Duchamp
drew these lines? I — for one — doubt very much that he did. I share
the belief that Duchamp's note was written on a "pseudo-postcard," that
is to say, a watercolor executed on a relatively thick piece of drawing
paper and cut to resemble the size and format of an ordinary, commercially-produced
postcard. But it is hardly necessary to prove that Duchamp himself physically
rendered this image; simulated, one-of-a-kind postcards of this type
can still be purchased on the streets of Montmartre to this very day,
affording tourists the option of sending their correspondents relatively
inexpensive original works of art. In order to make the function of
their product clear, it is usually the artist who draws the address
lines on the verso of the image as well as. It is,
of course, entirely possible that Duchamp might have noticed a casual
resemblance between the three rather poorly-executed boats on the facing
side of this card and an overhead view of deckchairs, causing him to
muse on the subject of the fourth dimension (just as I had earlier noticed
that an advertisement for Hershey's Chocolate inspired Duchamp to write
about the leg of the Chocolate Grinder). But I do not — for a
moment — believe that he drew this image to serve as an illustration
of his ideas. The boats on this card bear a resemblance to one another
not because their proportionate sizes were meant to illustrate
a concept of the fourth dimension, but simply because after having drawn
literally hundreds of similar boats, for the sake of convenience and
expediency, the Montmartre artist repeated the same pattern that — by
then — had been engrained in his visual memory. Lastly, I find it preposterous that in such a highly respected publication devoted to the sciences, the authors are allowed to refer to their relatively-minor observation as a "discovery." Indeed, the following claim is highlighted in the text: "Shearer discovered the key as we indulged in our favorite pastime: playing mental chess with Duchampian puzzles." If these authors see only puzzles in Duchamp, then I am afraid they shall remain forever blinded to his most important message. In my opinion, they would be better guided by following the advice contained in one of his most memorable statements: "There is no solution because there is no problem."
Francis
M. Naumann
|
||||||||||
