I thought at first glance it was the very recognizable painting as the movement and composition of the lines and the color is hard to miss. Then, when I came to my senses, I recognized the robot like figure was really not at all the cubistic nude of the Duchamp I was remembering.

I was somewhat relieved by a quick search to find a picture of the original, look at it again after many years of it never even entering my conscious and remember the words of my professor, Olli Peter Valaine as he tried to explain Modernism.  Remembering his words,  I am now again interested, and drawn to the compelling fearlessness of  Duchamp as he presented this entirely new look to cubism. Of course, he was practically kicked out of the French art world for it, and was ridiculed even in the cartoon media of the day when it was first shown at the New York Armory Show in 1913.

The point of this whole story, I guess, is somewhat varied, first I thought the robotic art piece was a bit of a slur on the original and some how almost sacrilegious, but then I remembered it was Marcel Duchamp that practically started this concept, of using famous art and turning it into your own. Talk about sacrilegious…he is the one that drew a mustache and beard on the Mona Lisa and called it “Ready Made” art, named it L. H. O.O. Q. which loosely translated from French slang means “a hot tail.” Marcel Duchamp was the one who signed his name, well sort of… he really signed it Richard Mutt… to a urinal, set it on a pedestal, entered it into an art show and called it “Fountain”  and then defended it with some esoteric thought process of what constitutes art.

So I guess my, “What in the world is that about,”  reaction to the robots, harks back to Duchamp and his art and brings me full circle, as I remember the convoluted sometimes entertaining story of Marcel Duchamp.

The rest of the circle is the Hemingway quote at the beginning. At first I was going to write this serious art history lesson about Marcel Duchamp  and his role in the development of Modernism and the Cubustic movement and the Armory Show of 1913 and the artistic family of Duchamps, and how line development and repetition go hand in hand with art and interior design and on and on…well, that just became too much work and too uninteresting, thus the bleeding that lucky for us all did not happen. Instead, I decided to help you win a trivia contest. Question:

What artist added a mustache and beard to the Mona Lisa and got by with it?

or

Who signed a urinal and called it art?

Now you have the answer if it ever comes up.

Note: For some reason I can’t capture a picture of the Fountain and post it here, but if you are interested you can google it further.  You will notice it is signed R. Mutt  which was the name Duchamp used to enter it into an art show.  All of that is another story, amusing and interesting, and like all art forms a pathway to the thinking of the artist. There is also an interesting article on Google by Sara Shea, that explains the tongue in cheek attitude of Duchamp.

Nude  Descending a Staircase, No. 2 is part of The Louise and Walter Arensberg Collection at the Philadelphia Museum of Art.           Fancy – Bleed.

Fancy – That Inspirational Girl.

Since the main religion of Morocco is Islam, which forbids the representation of people and animals in art, Moroccan designs are complex patterns and abstractions. According to Islam beliefs, these patterns create a sense of beauty so that the viewer  can focus on higher truths than humans and animals.  Moroccan pottery varies within the country, however regardless of the area  Moroccan pottery is made with meaningful designs, styles, symbols and colors.

Since Morocco sits in a strategic location at the point of blending cultures on the northwestern point of Africa this geographical location imbues Moroccan interior design   with European, African as well as Persian influences.

Fancy – The Glitter Guide.

Blueprints to the Eiffel Tower | Retronaut.

Construction of the Eiffel Tower | Retronaut.

Fancy – Eiffel Tower view.

The artist of this lovely painting was impossible to identify, it had been re-blogged so many times.  However, I am certain it is a watercolor painting. I am also certain that it required, of the artist, an accomplished technical skill…so in honor of this lovely painting, I think I should pass on a little knowledge of watercolor technique.

It appears that the artist used a block out technique and a series of washes.  I find it particularly beautiful, not only for it’s visual expression, but because of the exquisite technique. The technical planning that goes into a watercolor is similar to the technical layering achieved in a silk screen print (serigraph). When working in either medium a constant vigilance to the layering colors and the transparency of the colors is paramount. I would surmise the trees in the foreground were blocked out first, with a layers of light washes as more trees were blocked out to create the depth. These block out areas, meaning an area covered with a masking substance  used to protect the paper as layers of pigment are applied, must be planned first. Notice the small areas of sky, that area would also have to be planned first. A somewhat crazy watercolor purist attitude is the use of technique such as this, never would those trees have been painted with an opaque medium later, however, the white line of light in the very back is probably opaque watercolor. My professor, Thomas Currey, a transparent watercolor purist to the core might have allowed that one line of opaque, but rest assured, he never would have allowed two.

  Like all good design it is all in the planning.

If anyone happens to recognize this work I would appreciate the name of the artist, as I am unable to recognize the style.

Crush Cul de Sac.

Fancy – Upsidedown print by Jennifer Davis, original Art.