L.H.O.O.Q., 1919 by Marcel DuchampASSIGNMENT:
Write a persuasive essay with the following subject:
Should Marcel Duchamp's version of the Mona Lisa be considered art? Why or why not?
Write your essay in Microsoft Word, then copy and paste it into this blog by clicking on "comments" below.
---( LOOK ON THE WIKI FOR IMPORTANT INFORMATION )---
You can also check out this link
31 comments:
Yes, I think this is considered art because you said so yourself everything is art. No matter what.
I also think it’s art because to me everything is art. It could be the most ugliest picture you’ve ever seen and I would think it was art.
No I don’t think that Marcel Duchamp’s version of the Mona Lisa could or should be considered as art. I think that because it looks like its kind of being made fun of. The painting is known worldwide and it’s rude to put a beard and a mustache on it. I think that the original painting is better because it’s more professional and serious looking.
Yes I think its considered art because, it looks like Mona Lisa’s art itself.
Also it might be the ugliest thing piece of art you’ve ever seen but oh well its just art.
MARCHEL DUMCHAMP VERSION OF THE MONA LISA IS ART BECAUSE ART IS THE WAY SOME VIEWS SOMETHING EVENTHOUGH IT MY BE HURT FULL OR NOT ART IS A FORM ON HOW SOMEONE EXPESS THERE OPINON JUST THAT THEIR ILIKE THEY SAY THAT THE MONA LISA IS A MASTERPIECE BUT THEY SHOW A DIFFERENT ONE IS IT STILL A MASTER.
HTYE LIKE TO SHOW THAT EVEN A GRETA MASTER CAN HAVE ITS TWIST PLUS U CANT SAY THAT THIS ISNT ART IT IS ART JUST BECAUSE IT HOW STRONGLY THEY FEEL ABOUT THIS MASTER PIECE
I think it really shouldn’t be considered as art. The only reason is that basicly all he did was add a mustache and goatee. That’s not art to me; art to me is not taking someone’s art and drawing on it. That’s just a defiling of art. Yes he as a Dadaist might have thought art was dead but drawing on it though is might. Yes it was redone but unlike impressionists who do redo others art, they to me defiled it I mean to you or others it might be art but to me doing that just doesn’t cut it. I mean I know I’m saying that if an impressionist still makes art when redoing someone else’s and a Dadaist does the same thing but its wrong but I think there is a difference. The difference is when an impressionist does his/her work I think they are honoring the original artist’s work. As what a Dadaist takes someone’s art work and draw on things to something beautiful, like a girl, and make it less of what it is.
Yes I do believe its art. The reason I believe that Duchamp added the moustache and goatee because he was trying to say maybe that, with the beliefs of DaDa, he was saying that the old art is boring. My reasons are that DaDa stated that art is dead and doing that to one of the most well known pieces in the world would say that, second that DaDa is outrageous and unpredictable so altering the Mona Lisa in a strange way would show that very well, and third would probably be to get people wound up about it. I do believe that all this was based on the beliefs of DaDa and his trying to make it known.
I think that Marcel Duchamp's version of the Mona Lisa should be considered art because it has deep thought put in to it. He was trying to prove something trough this piece. Though the piece is just a cheap postcard of Mona Lisa with a mustache and goatee drawn on it the meaning is deep. His and dada‘s belief of how old art is not the only type of art is shown in this piece. If we consider “subway drawing” by Robert Ryman a piece of art then why can’t we consider Duchamp’s Mona Lisa or L.H.O.O.Q. a piece of art.
Even the letters L.H.O.O.Q. mean something. In English it sounds like look if said out loud and in French it puns the phrase "Elle a chaud au cul", translating into "She has a hot ass" in English. I think the fact that he put thought and meaning behind the drawing makes art.
I think that Marcel Duchamp’s version of the Mona Lisa is not considered as art because to me art can be anything but the one thing that stood out to me was the mustache that was placed on the face of Mona Lisa. The mustache looks like it was accidentaly placed there. It also looks like they was teasing Mona Lisa by placing it on her face.To me i think Drawing on another Persons Painting isn't considered art because it's like taking credit on something you didn't basically do but just added a little detail. If there was one person known for an artpiece, i think that person should work on that art piece alone and not taking other people paintings and changing it. I think art takes time and to me, Marcel Duchamp’s version of the Mona Lisa piece looked like it was done in like 3 minutes, And was slapped on thier like it didn't matter. I didn't see why he would put the mustache on her. Therefore, i believe Marcel Duchamp’s version of the Mona Lisa Painting was not considered as art.
Dada Document- Media Arts
1- because he wanted to show people the different things and views out of just 1 picture or he did it trying to be funny. It doesn’t change much in art, I just think it was a realty stupid ideas to do it though in my opinion.
2- I do not think it is art, because all he did was draw a moustache and a goatee. I think and see it as just drawing on something trying to be funny about it. It doesn’t change much at all in the whole picture. Then again it may just be that he was just starting to discover how many things someone can do with one picture.
Art
I think that it should be considered art because he took hard work that he worked on with this artist and then he added a twist. Its art when someone e sings a remix of a song, and usually it’s a big fad. I think that it should be considered art because it has reasoning, and maybe this man had meaning behind this. I think that it was mean that he did take this incredible work of art and changed it into something that is a monarchy, but I think music, dance, and everything else is art. People add creative twists on them and its not considered bad, and it’s not something that is a movement of some sort. I think people who think that they are bad have reasoning behind what they are saying, but they still should find the fact that this art was made to be art from the artists and just because its not original, and just because this man used someone else’s work doesn’t mean that it isn’t art. I think that art is art no matter what kind it is. It could be murdering someone and they do something with a twist and that’s a devilish type of art but I would certainly see it as art.
I'm responding to everyone that said this isn't art. This is art because everything is art no matter what, short sweet and simple. Just because it's ruining someone elses work to make something your own or to make it funny doesnt mean it's not art, because everything is art.
By Meghan O’Donnell
Marcel Duchamp’s Mona Lisa should be art it represented almost everything that dada stood for. It showed rebellion and oddness. It mocked the work of Leonardo, so to represent how he believed that, that tradition of art was pompous. Dada’s were all about rebellion and anger against society. They hated the First World War calling it stupid and horrifying. Many would say that the Mona Lisa of Marcel was horrifying, but it still happened and people still supported it. They called art a picture of the world rather than of one crude thing. They wished to connect to the real world instead of making things more set in one space they wanted to stretch the boundaries of art and question it. Which is exactly what Marcel did with his Mona Lisa. Dada would represent everything from politics to other artist’s works, they went against society, and they showed the world a completely different side of art.
I'm responding to Kasey's comment because i agree everything is art, no matter what it looks like. It could be ugly, beautiful, or the nicest piece of art work you ever seen. It doesn't matter art is art.
I wanted to reply to Becky because I think hers had a a lot of truth to it because it shows the meaning of art, and how some people comprehend it. I mean art is art. Everything is art, we are art, and what we do is art. Even if we do make stupid decisions, what we do is our art.
i dissagree with linda she said along with a few others that it was defiling another persons work when honestly he was having fun. art is anything if you say it is art. art can be the most outlandish thing in the world. it could be a black papaer and you could say its a picture of an air guitar! art is what ever you say it is. you define art in your own way.
I am responding to the people that are saying this is art because yes i do agree that mostly everything is art but this is someone's work and another person ruined it and made it weird and meaningless looking. i think that the original painting was better. it was regular looking, it didn't look ruined. This painting was of a lady that purposely had no mustache or goatee. if the artist wanted those things there he would of put them there when he first created it.
I agree with everyone that said this isn't art because to me and many others this is not art drawing a mustache on the mona lisa is just rude yes he may have had a point but he kind of just made the mona lisa into kind of a joke. It's like he didn't take it serious.
Art is a painting, a picture, or anything. Marcel Duchamp is art. I think it is art is because it is an original piece that was just remade. The original piece was Mona Lisa and it was a masterpiece. When anti-artist vandalized it, the masterpiece became anti-masterpiece. Graffiti is art but in a different point of view and the Marcel Duchamp if like graffiti.
Yes I do believe its art. The reason I believe that Duchamp added the moustache and goatee because he was trying to say maybe that, with the beliefs of DaDa, he was saying that the old art is boring. My reasons are that DaDa stated that art is dead and doing that to one of the most well known pieces in the world would say that, second that DaDa is outrageous and unpredictable so altering the Mona Lisa in a strange way would show that very well, and third would probably be to get people wound up about it. I do believe that all this was based on the beliefs of DaDa and his trying to make it known.
I am replying to Linda's comment I agree with her. This was making fun of art. Not making it look better though the amazing piece of art that is the Mona Lisa needs no help to look good. This was not something that is great. I mean to the people around him watching him do this could think its great I mean who knows it could have taking him weeks to do this, though I highly doubt it. It probably took seconds to think of this
I disagree with kara. Marcel duchamp's Mona Lisa should be considered art because not all art is beautiful to everyone.It's his art he did draw on it and that was the point to mock the original
i disagree with nicoette because first of all he isn't defiling he expressing his own opinion and idea about this painting and as we all know a idea is art because we all get and idea before we even do something like drawing something .landscaping,she has no right to say that this isnt art it something that he put time into to show how he felt about this paint so to me a idea or opnion is art
I wanted to reply to Kasey’s comment because its true that no matter what the painting, drawing, editing, or any other form of art is, its still art. Art can be whatever your mind makes up.
I'm responding to Kara and I agree with her because i also think that the mona lisa's painting looks like it have been made front of. And i also agree when she said " i think that the original painting is better because it's more professional and serious looking." from that statment i think the painting from Marcel Duchmamp's doesn't look like it is serouse it looked like it was just teasing to the artist and it looked like a joke to me. But the original painting looks more sensible and professionally done, and should be kept that way.
Agrees with Garrett
This should not be considered art because all it's only a painting of the "Mona Lisa" but with a goatee and a mustache. Honestly i consider it as a disgrace of art and he didn't do any hard work because its was just off a postcard. On top of that, he even deleted the extra images and said the "Mona Lisa" just 'shaved'. Even if this is what Dada stands for, and art can be thought as anything, this painting shouldn't be classified as such.
In my opinion Marcel Duchamp's version of the Mona Lisa should be considered as art. It should be considered as art because whether you like t or not anything can be considered as art. For example, a table can be a sculpture and just by the details she added to the art piece gives it another meaning because now there is an option of Mona Lisa being a man instead of a woman. Also it represents something. What it most likely represents is payback. Not necessarily payback to the artist but to society. And if you think about it all art whether if you meant it or not has a meaning. Also she expresses her feeling toward the art piece like it can be making fun of the Mona Lisa. n other words she is rejecting the past.
I dissagree with everyone who said that Marcel Duchamp's art work is not considered art.
I disagree because everything is art,
even though it seems like he's making fun of it. Marcel Duchamp took something and made it his own by adding a mustache.
everything is art no matter what.
i think that the panting of mona lisa is no pont
ther is a lot of pantings of people why is this one so spesiel???
i dont even understanded y people even bother it.
thes relly nothing geart about it!!
its a pictuer of a woman who is very ugly.ithing that the person that drew on it should go some were cuz its not even that funny or intersting.
im responding to anybody who thinks this isnt art because everyone has different ways and views of everything in the world and anything made by anybody- the creator would call it art. For example if i changed art like dad then i would call it art because i made it and would have supporting reasons to call it that.
Post a Comment