Duchamp’s Fountain versus a Florinal!
An artist essay turned into a little Q&A with Lida Sherafatmand.
A comparative study of the work of Sherafatmand and Duchamp
Florinal Immortalis
Our bodies from this earth,
Going back to this earth,
This fountain, this waterfall,
From nature’s body,
A call for our cleansing,
A call for our renewal,
A call for our respect
For the flower of life.Lida Sherafatmand
Q: Why do you think a Duchampian trend goes against Marcel Duchamp’s aims today?
A few months ago a good friend of mine who is a fan of contemporary art, for the thought stimulation that it creates, lent me his book “Marcel Duchamp, the Afternoon Interviews” (by Calvin Tomkins, Published by Badlands Unlimited, 2013). The interview words of Marcel Duchamp were produced in an unedited way in this book, so I could get into his very mind and heart. That is indeed when I realized that this whole Duchampian trend today actually goes against what Marcel himself intended to do! And I tell you how this is happening:
- Marcel Duchamp contested the ugly cruelties of World War I in his work, by reflecting that ugliness in a urinal which takes us pissing on something. This made sense for his time and place, and at the same time it has made a great contribution to our concept of aesthetics in art, as well as what can qualify as an object of art. However after a century taking the Duchampian trend in the mainstream 21st century, our eyes are being deprived of seeing beauty in the art world, and that practically is adding to the atmosphere of ugly cruelties around us.
- Marcel Duchamp tried to challenge the ‘ego-centred’ ‘individualist style’ approach by the use of ready-mades. But the paradoxical situation about taking the gesture of Duchamp and turning into a trend, is that today art pieces have taken on such a highly individualistic language, that often times for the general public it is hard to connect to them, or identify with them. Thus instead of breaking the individual-centred approach, the art language itself has become so individualistic that there are no common ‘codes’ for ‘getting’ them. So the breaking of self-centre approach is being reversed at this point in time.
- Duchamp tried to de-deify the artist by choosing ready-mades. He wanted to break the elite outlook on artists and their creations. He did succeed in that aim indeed. However now after a century one can see another side of the use of ready-mades as art objects: that all which is needed for a ready-made to be sold at a much (and much) higher price as art piece is the ‘signature’ of the artist on that object; so a ‘name signature’ is enough to change the value of a work done by someone else. All the artist has to do is put his signature and have a gallery exhibit it. This is indeed like saying: an artist is such a ‘god figure’ that if he chooses any object and signs his name on it as the chooser of that object, that object must be admired and be taken care of. Therefore at such moment, there is no longer a de-deifying, but the ‘name’ of the artist GOD on it is enough to go to auctions and have it sold at millions, that in its very self is a terribly ‘deifying’ phenomenon.
So that which was meant to contest the ugliness of war cruelties in the world, is at this point in time adding to the ugly atmosphere; what was to shift the ego-centricism of the artist to a more benign sense of the individual self, is now magnified into such highly individualistic language that it is often unintelligible to public audiences; and finally what was meant to de-deify the artist, is precisely deifying the artist today.
Q: Is your Florescencism an adversary to Duchampian trend or just another contemporary art expression?
Definitely not adversary. It is just another contemporary art expression, however it is creating some balance vis-a-vis the Duchampian trend I would say.
If the Duchampian trend reflects the ugliness of the ugly cruelties, florescencism reflects the beauty of gentle possibilities. If the Duchampian trend reflects ready-mades, florescencism reflects the dedicated labour of love of an artist towards society. If the Duchampian trend contests the self-centreness of the artist, florescencism focuses on the flourishing experience of the viewer. So it is not adversarial, but somewhat complementary almost.
In my graduate studies in International Relations, I learnt that an identity whose foundation is based on the opposition to another identity is indeed very weak in its core. This weakness is due to its dependence on the existence of that external opposite identity.
You know when an identity exhausts its life cycle in terms of its contribution to human growth and development, it dies out naturally on its own, almost like when some species evolve and go extinct. But of course we always record them as part of our history to cherish. Just like we record dinosaurs as part of our biological history for example!
Being originally from Iran, I had taken the Iranian national identity as my case study during my masters research…and one of the conclusions was that the parts of the national identity which are built (by the present regime) in direct opposition to the USA or the ‘West’, are the weak sides, while the parts which are built on the country’s own heritage are the strong ones, and the latter are actually the ones which do not need any convincing to win hearts of the citizens. The same phenomenon could be observed during the previous regime, when for example the Shah of Iran tried to reinforce the Persian character of Iran in an adversarial position towards the Arabic heritage of the country. That indeed back-lashed in the long run and did not win hearts.
When an identity has something to offer, it does not fear other identities to take over; however, when it is created on the basis of an opposition to another identity, then it is in constant state of antagonism, fear and tension in its existence.
So having learnt that lesson from my international relations studies, even as an artist I did not create florescencism to oppose the Duchampian trend. In fact I think it is important to appreciate the contributions that Marcel Duchamp has made to the art scene. However I created simply what I saw is missing in the mainstream: gentleness and warmth, a reconnection with our instinct for beauty, as well as the passing on of knowledge of the field of peace studies and conflict resolution to public (especially because general people do not necessarily have time to read specialized or academic books).
Q: Why did you create the painting “Florinal” on basis of Duchamp’s urinal the “Fountain”?
The waterfall in that painting is to recall the water of life which in the Fountain of Duchamp was the ‘urine’ connotation. I am bringing out the more positive aspect of that urine, which has to do with cleansing and renewal. The overall design of the painting is from an iris flower. The design of the iris flower — like most other flowers — may recall one of human organs…and I believe this is something nature may be teaching us to see at our bodies from a pure sacred aspect, and respect our sanctity in life.
Also in flower essence remedies, the iris flower unblocks stagnancy, evokes our creativity and takes us to heightened beauty and grace. It heals us when we feel dried up and moistens the hardened aspects of soul which are in stagnation. Duchamp contested the ugly wars, by showing a Urinal to reflect the wars are like men pissing on the world, I am contesting the ugly wars by showing an ALTERNATIVE possibility of warmth and respect for life.
The waterfall or fountain in my piece is also symbolic of our internal fountain of life in which our soul (or spirit — state of being — for those who do not believe in the word soul) can renew itself towards freshness and living. In fact the archetype of the iris flower is the rainbow goddess, like pouring creative rays of light, for us to dance and rejoice in the waters and eternal spring!
“So by this Florinal, I wanted to invite an alternative to us pissing on our world by wars! “— Lida Sherafatmand
I am also dealing with the issue of tensions about identity today. I feel sad for example when I see the tensions between Iran and the ‘West’, because frankly it is all useless tension in my view. Even inside the country, trying to suppress anything with a Western touch in Iran in order to have an anti-Western identity is non-sense, it is far too weak a position to maintain — which is indeed why armed forces have to be used to impose it on civilians! Such anti-identities are non-sense because every country and civilization has developed different parts of human potential. This development may be recognizable as an identity, however when this identity has something to offer, there is no need to fear an overtake from another. If for instance my florescencism has something to offer, there is no need for me to demonize or suppress Duchampian trend. I do criticize of course what I find problematic, but there is no need for me to demonize it as an ‘identity’ or ‘style’. That is a mistake which politicians make; I sure do not want to make the same mistake as a painter.
Things fall into a natural balance when we listen to our hearts in a state which is connected to others’ hearts. Even for this ‘Florinal’ piece, whether the readers believe me or not, I honestly did my best first to connect to Duchamp’s heart when he created the Fountain…because I wanted to make sure I honour his heart and hear his message behind this piece before I create my response to it. If I did not try to connect to his heart first, that would mean I am just ruthlessly blubbering like people who only want to talk and impose themselves while never listening to what others are trying to say too.
“I hope that this piece Florinal versus the Fountain can symbolize how one can create a balance without being in adversarial position which leads to useless tensions and hate-mongering.” — Lida Sherafatmand
