The First Readymade, 1913 - by AXA - 2004
AXA's Christmas Book Report
Baroness Elsa by Irene Gammel
Well, I made it through Irene Gammel's ponderous and speculative Baroness Elsa. In Gammel's favor I will say she has managed to create a decent and comprehensive biographcal sketch of Elsa, filling in many details about her life. Collecting disparate materials through her research she has created a more complete vision of Elsa than previously available in one volume.
Gammel also makes a strong case for the Baroness as an important original artist and poet in her own right as well as being a leading contender for consideration as a progenitor of Performance Art. I have come away with a greater understanding of and appreciation for the Baroness Elsa, despite the book's flaws.
I was familiar with her works in The Little Review, having had access to original copies of the Review when I worked as a curator of exhibits at a rare book library. Gammel does a good job introducing the reader to Elsa's fiery poetics.
Because of my own art background I had a special interest in a few key aspects of this book regarding New York Dada and Elsa's interactions with Marcel Duchamp and Man Ray. Among the many things I had heard about this book prior to reading it, two apparently common popular misperceptions have stood out. First, that the Baroness is the Mother of Dada, and second, that she gave Marcel Duchamp the urinal used for his Readymade, Fountain.
Also closely linked, the misperception (in the popular mind, not in Gammel's book) that Marcel Duchamp got his idea for his Readymades from the Baroness. This idea falls especially flat. Gammel's research doesn't even support it. (She mentions correctly, but in in passing and paranthetically, that Duchamp made his Bicycle Wheel in 1913, which was about two years prior to his meeting Baroness Elsa). This object has long been established by art historians as being at least the precursor to if not the first ever of his Readymades.
I imagine that these ideas should remain in popular circulation despite their unsubstantiability demonstrates more the cleverness and longevity of marketing blurbs and the Pavlovian nature of humans than they reveal anything of substance or value about this book or the Baroness.
Gammel does raise the very intriguing possibility that Elsa *may* have collaborated with Duchamp on his Readymade titled Fountain (signed R. Mutt, 1917). She provides various pieces of circumstantial evidence to bolster her "theory that Fountain carrie's the Baroness's fingerprint". The most compelling piece of evidence is from a letter Duchamp wrote to his sister, Suzanne, on April 11, 1917.
In the quoted excerpt he tells her that "One of my female friends who had adopted the pseudonym Richard Mutt sent me a porcelain urinal as a sculpture; since there was nothing indecent about it, there was no reason to reject it." This certainly would be a stunning revelation if it could be substantiated.
However, it should be noted that Gammel soon tempers her own enthusiastic theorizing, saying: "... while final evidence of the Baroness's involvement may be missing, there is a great deal of circumstantial evidence that points to her artistic fingerprint." It is a long way from that to the notion that Duchamp got it (Fountain) from the Baroness. It is also worth noting that the Baroness never laid claim to Fountain, whereas she was quick to lay claim to any of her other work if it seemed it was being misattributed.
Part of the reason we are left hanging in theory and not in fact is that at the time, the Baroness was living in Philadelphia and Duchamp in New York and "to date, no Philadelphia contact has been identified". Further, in her notes (Chapter 8, 53) Gammel points out that Francis M. Nauman, in his book, New York Dada, writes that Duchamp's "female friend" "was probably Louise Norton Varese because her address ... was discernable on Stieglitz's original photograph (of Fountain) along with the title "Fountain" and the name "Richard Mutt"". This identification makes far more sense in the larger art historical context and is backed up by facts, not theory or speculation.
So, to clear up the major misperception which has been promulgated: there is no direct evidence to provide proof that Duchamp got Fountain from the Baroness. What Gammel has provided is a theory and an argument in support of her theory.
Overall this book seems adequately researched and annotated. Of primary interest to me was Part Three, chapters 6 - 11, covering New York Dada. Beyond her theorizing, Gammel provides a decent but limited overview of this material. The latter part of the book provides some interesting information, specifically on her interaction with (Gammel calls it "Courting of") Djuna Barnes.
There are some other problems with the book, foremost being Gammel's prolific speculations. I was surprised how many times I would read her saying things like "It is fun to imagine" or "the Baroness may easily have come into contact with" while building her theories and arguments. It is as if speculation can be substituted for historical fact in this postmodern age.
In most instances, too, Gammel's prose is stiff and lifeless in what could have been a more warm, human and life affirming biography. The Baroness embodies vitality and life lived to its fullest no matter the depressing nature of her real circumstances. In addition, Gammel admits to but always downplays, excuses or perversely interprets the more negative aspects of Elsa's personality (her antisemitism, her lack of personal hygiene, her violent temper come to mind).
That the Baroness might be considered the "Mother of Dada" seems like another instance of the hopeful way Gammel speculates that things might be. There were many women within the inner circle of New York Dada who might equally be considered as having played such a central role. I'm not certain there is such a thing as an singlular Mother of Dada. Yes, Elsa was an exceptional, unique woman and artist, but one among many.
Finally, too often this book comes off as a postmodern and feminist promotional piece, disguised as art historical scholarship. At times there seem to be too many different agendas at work here. Careering and self promotion of the author, heavy-handed revisionism in the service of feminism, and redefinition in the service of commodifying the Baroness for the benefit of the contemporary art market and the benefit of collectors and galleries. Such is the influence of art market capitalism.
Setting aside Gammel's obvious bias (Elsa-Centric) and taking all things into consideration I would rate this book at a 6 of 10. It might have rated better if the writing were livelier and the many superfluous speculations were edited out. If you want to learn more about New York Dada I would recommend Robert Motherwell's work in this area as a starting point.
For a wonderful introduction and online exhibit of Marcel Duchamp see Making Sense of Marcel Duchamp
Baroness Elsa by Irene Gammel
Well, I made it through Irene Gammel's ponderous and speculative Baroness Elsa. In Gammel's favor I will say she has managed to create a decent and comprehensive biographcal sketch of Elsa, filling in many details about her life. Collecting disparate materials through her research she has created a more complete vision of Elsa than previously available in one volume.
Gammel also makes a strong case for the Baroness as an important original artist and poet in her own right as well as being a leading contender for consideration as a progenitor of Performance Art. I have come away with a greater understanding of and appreciation for the Baroness Elsa, despite the book's flaws.
I was familiar with her works in The Little Review, having had access to original copies of the Review when I worked as a curator of exhibits at a rare book library. Gammel does a good job introducing the reader to Elsa's fiery poetics.
Because of my own art background I had a special interest in a few key aspects of this book regarding New York Dada and Elsa's interactions with Marcel Duchamp and Man Ray. Among the many things I had heard about this book prior to reading it, two apparently common popular misperceptions have stood out. First, that the Baroness is the Mother of Dada, and second, that she gave Marcel Duchamp the urinal used for his Readymade, Fountain.
Also closely linked, the misperception (in the popular mind, not in Gammel's book) that Marcel Duchamp got his idea for his Readymades from the Baroness. This idea falls especially flat. Gammel's research doesn't even support it. (She mentions correctly, but in in passing and paranthetically, that Duchamp made his Bicycle Wheel in 1913, which was about two years prior to his meeting Baroness Elsa). This object has long been established by art historians as being at least the precursor to if not the first ever of his Readymades.
I imagine that these ideas should remain in popular circulation despite their unsubstantiability demonstrates more the cleverness and longevity of marketing blurbs and the Pavlovian nature of humans than they reveal anything of substance or value about this book or the Baroness.
Gammel does raise the very intriguing possibility that Elsa *may* have collaborated with Duchamp on his Readymade titled Fountain (signed R. Mutt, 1917). She provides various pieces of circumstantial evidence to bolster her "theory that Fountain carrie's the Baroness's fingerprint". The most compelling piece of evidence is from a letter Duchamp wrote to his sister, Suzanne, on April 11, 1917.
In the quoted excerpt he tells her that "One of my female friends who had adopted the pseudonym Richard Mutt sent me a porcelain urinal as a sculpture; since there was nothing indecent about it, there was no reason to reject it." This certainly would be a stunning revelation if it could be substantiated.
However, it should be noted that Gammel soon tempers her own enthusiastic theorizing, saying: "... while final evidence of the Baroness's involvement may be missing, there is a great deal of circumstantial evidence that points to her artistic fingerprint." It is a long way from that to the notion that Duchamp got it (Fountain) from the Baroness. It is also worth noting that the Baroness never laid claim to Fountain, whereas she was quick to lay claim to any of her other work if it seemed it was being misattributed.
Part of the reason we are left hanging in theory and not in fact is that at the time, the Baroness was living in Philadelphia and Duchamp in New York and "to date, no Philadelphia contact has been identified". Further, in her notes (Chapter 8, 53) Gammel points out that Francis M. Nauman, in his book, New York Dada, writes that Duchamp's "female friend" "was probably Louise Norton Varese because her address ... was discernable on Stieglitz's original photograph (of Fountain) along with the title "Fountain" and the name "Richard Mutt"". This identification makes far more sense in the larger art historical context and is backed up by facts, not theory or speculation.
So, to clear up the major misperception which has been promulgated: there is no direct evidence to provide proof that Duchamp got Fountain from the Baroness. What Gammel has provided is a theory and an argument in support of her theory.
Overall this book seems adequately researched and annotated. Of primary interest to me was Part Three, chapters 6 - 11, covering New York Dada. Beyond her theorizing, Gammel provides a decent but limited overview of this material. The latter part of the book provides some interesting information, specifically on her interaction with (Gammel calls it "Courting of") Djuna Barnes.
There are some other problems with the book, foremost being Gammel's prolific speculations. I was surprised how many times I would read her saying things like "It is fun to imagine" or "the Baroness may easily have come into contact with" while building her theories and arguments. It is as if speculation can be substituted for historical fact in this postmodern age.
In most instances, too, Gammel's prose is stiff and lifeless in what could have been a more warm, human and life affirming biography. The Baroness embodies vitality and life lived to its fullest no matter the depressing nature of her real circumstances. In addition, Gammel admits to but always downplays, excuses or perversely interprets the more negative aspects of Elsa's personality (her antisemitism, her lack of personal hygiene, her violent temper come to mind).
That the Baroness might be considered the "Mother of Dada" seems like another instance of the hopeful way Gammel speculates that things might be. There were many women within the inner circle of New York Dada who might equally be considered as having played such a central role. I'm not certain there is such a thing as an singlular Mother of Dada. Yes, Elsa was an exceptional, unique woman and artist, but one among many.
Finally, too often this book comes off as a postmodern and feminist promotional piece, disguised as art historical scholarship. At times there seem to be too many different agendas at work here. Careering and self promotion of the author, heavy-handed revisionism in the service of feminism, and redefinition in the service of commodifying the Baroness for the benefit of the contemporary art market and the benefit of collectors and galleries. Such is the influence of art market capitalism.
Setting aside Gammel's obvious bias (Elsa-Centric) and taking all things into consideration I would rate this book at a 6 of 10. It might have rated better if the writing were livelier and the many superfluous speculations were edited out. If you want to learn more about New York Dada I would recommend Robert Motherwell's work in this area as a starting point.
For a wonderful introduction and online exhibit of Marcel Duchamp see Making Sense of Marcel Duchamp
that's a great equation too
i love it
It just shows you that inspite of having a good education people can still spew lots of BS
merry x-mas!!!