Page 114

connected to secretion is a sign of the difference between the orderliness of urban centres, which hide its secretion, and the non-orderliness and brutality of the peripheral locations, where the attitude towards secretion might be more revealed. However, secretion is a taboo in both cases, for it reaches into the intimate field of the male gender. Duchamp must have suspected that art was not merely a created work, but a certain historically defined social agreement. Thus, the Fountain as an object that dealt with social taboos marked the location or process of secretion (because of which it was made in the first place), however the question arises as to what does it denote once its function is taken away from it. With the exception of the photographs of Duchamp’s studio the Fountain was always positioned horizontally. If we look at Duchamp’s lithograph Four Readymades (1964), we can follow Duchamp’s poetical connection of four readymades to the cycle of our seasons; we can also notice the formal position of the outflow opening, which is in the graphic prints drawn at the bottom of the urinal, which could indicate the aforementioned scatology. However, if we combine the (non)functionality with the positioning in time, we can state that the lying down Fountain merely indicates the scatological position that it would assume if it did not become a work of art. Its function was not removed from it, for it did not achieve its function. It was not torn from the context, but placed before it, in its state of innocence. The Fountain is a product waiting to be bought by the consumer, at which the consumer product is always in a state of sterility. Gober’s Urinals are more scatological because they are, even though non-functional, placed into a functional position. If Duchamp’s Fountain still indicated its original use, it had lost

its vulgarity through the transition into a work of art. On the contrary, this transition is no longer possible with Gober, even though his urinals were not functional from the very beginning and used merely in the field of a work of art. Their positioning gave them the feeling of functionality with which their use was emphasised. The scatological appearance of Duchamp’s Fountain can be ignored, needs to be taken into account in Gober’s Urinals, and is impossible to miss in the Lost & found. These are public urinals, dirty and with traces of urine. Due to this the formal connection with the urinals found in the world of art is shown merely as an empty signifier. If Duchamp and Gober would never have used or created urinals, they represent the most probable public site for body hair in the Lost & found project. The body hair is not alien to the photographs of toilets, but the essence of the work of art, in which the photographs pass on the information as regards the location on which the body hair was found. This changes the hierarchy of importance – the body hair that has became visible due to the photographs, is exposed as the essential part. The body hair on the urinals is not more important than the location in which they were found, but they are an important part of the Lost & found. They are the object, while the scatological feature of the location in which they were found has the function of tactility, when the viewer realises that these body hairs are not merely traces of foreign bodies, but also dirty and possibly exhibited in Petri dishes so that diseases are not spread. The body hair itself is a trace of our and foreign bodies and is in the context of secretion more disgusting than merely body hair from a part of the body


CIIIID.indd 112

13.1.2014 23:53:27

Corpus indeterminata  
Corpus indeterminata  

Opus Corpus indeterminata by artist Zoran Srdić Janežič