Being profoundly offensive is the only way to do the work justice. To actually recreate it is not to recreate the original form, but the reaction it caused. The very point of the work includes that any urinal is just as good as any other, so why the pretence that this particular shape, the "R. Mutt" signature, has significance?

Looking at the replicas is like praying to ashes. I'm talking about passing on the fire.

[–] petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

so why the pretence that this particular shape, the "R. Mutt" signature, has significance?

Because reinterpretation is not an art historian's job.

The original reaction is lost to time, dude. A modern audience is, broadly, already aware of the transgressive urinal, and so already more accepting of it. There is no recreating the piece. There is only recreating what it was.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

I'm not talking about reinterpretation, I'm talking about faithful recreation. Archaeologists do that kind of thing, and it's valuable, why not art historians?

And judging by your reaction my suggestion indeed is the right kind of transgression to recreate the thing.

If you want it a bit more pedestrian, just in case you happen to be a museum director: Ask the janitor to go into a hardware store, and buy a urinal they like. Then tell them to write "The real Duchamp" on it, and position it on a pedestal. Attach a standard museum plaque, crediting the work to the janitor.