 |
 |
|
Rhonda Roland Shearer's reply to his "Duchamp's Veiled Intentions Regarding Draft Pistons Gauze" |
||||||||
|
Dear Tout-Fait,
With regard to the two extant Draft Piston photographs which are supposed to determine the shapes of the three openings in the Milky Way, it seems to me that Duchamp’s signature and dating of one of these photographs has authorized a certain orientation which has been accepted too uncritically. For a long time there was, I thought, something a bit peculiar about these two photographic prints (the way they were always reproduced). They didn’t read correctly. More visible in some reproductions than in others can be seen two spindly hooks attached to the gauze or netting. But - as reproduced - these hooks are at the base of the photographs. Also,
the lighting in the photographs didn’t seem to be right. If, as Duchamp
later recalled, these photographs were made at an open window (perhaps
in May 1915 on the top floor of 23, Rue St. Hippolyte?), then the
shadows and the way the natural light falls are all wrong - but not
if you turn the photographs upside-down. I believe Duchamp signed
and dated one of these photographs upside-down with intent, perhaps
inferring that the signature doesn’t necessarily orientate the work
- or rather, can perhaps authorize (as in authorizations of the Bride)
a certain dis-orientation (Discuss!).
Figs.
1, 2
|
