Readymade, Found Object, Photograph

Margaret Iversen

Art Journal · 2004 · 19 citations · 0 references

Concepts

TL;DR

The 1936 Surrealist Exhibition of Objects showcased many object types, but only readymades and found objects remain influential, and today they are increasingly seen as distinct categories rather than interchangeable terms. This paper aims to separate readymades from found objects by showing that their distinctiveness depends on the type of subjective relationship each presupposes. The study finds that readymades and found objects reflect different facets of Kant’s aesthetic conception of the subjective relation to art.

Abstract

The 1936 Surrealist Exhibition of Objects brought together a bewildering range of items including natural objects, interpreted natural objects, incorporated natural objects, found objects, perturbed objects, readymade objects, American objects, Oceanic objects, mathematical objects, and Surrealist objects. Of the nonethnographic types listed, only the readymade and the found object still retain any currency, and the readymade can no longer be subsumed under the Surrealist umbrella. Marcel Duchamp's readymade and André Breton's found object have such different legacies that they now arguably constitute a categorical distinction. This was not so clear in the mid- 1930s when Breton could define readymades as "manufactured objects raised to the dignity of works of art through the choice of the artist."2 Yet, even now, the terms are still often run together and used interchangeably. What I want to do in this paper is to drive a wedge between them. We will find that their distinctiveness hinges on the kind of subjective relation each assumes. They turn out to embody different aspects of the most influential account of what might be called the subjective dimension of our relation to art—Immanuel Kant's conception of the aesthetic.