THE WATER CLOSET:
ON THE ART AND TECHNOLOGY
OF SANITATION SYSTEMS
June 28th, 2008, Enjoy Gallery
1). Introduction.
The term ‘Readymade’ was defined by Marcel Duchamp in 1938, in Dictionnaire Abrégé du Surréalisme, co- written with André Breton, as “an ordinary object elevated to the dignity of a work of art by the mere choice of an artist ” (Obalk, 2000). Yet this claim presupposes that mass- manufactured consumer artifacts have no dignity until they are ‘made’ into artworks (through the institutional power of artists to enact such actions) and that all resulting artworks have dignity (lacked by the initial object). Neither claim is particularly true. Without wishing to dwell on the exotic ontology of installation art, I merely suggest that there is no such thing as a merely “ordinary object,” and that to insist on the “dignity of the work of art” is to ignore the significant dignity of manufactured objects, in particular water- closets, their history and cultural implications, and the network of systems and infrastructure that they are connected to.
2). Historical Background: The Ancient World
Main points:
• The emergence of toilets, latrines, sanitation systems etc. is coincident with the shift
from nomadic ways of life to concentrations of society in urban centres.
• First toilets known: Egypt, 2100BC.
• First written ruling on latrines: the Torah, Deuteronomy 23.
(Deuteronomy 23:10 -23:13) clearly instructs the Jews to maintain hygiene standards, even at war, and to keep the latrines far from camp: “And thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee ”:
• Water borne toilets appeared in China during the Western Han Dynasty, around 206 BCE- 24 CE; Crete, 1700BCE; the Roman Empire marked the peak of sanitary and waterworks engineering
(Deuteronomy 23:10 -23:13) clearly instructs the Jews to maintain hygiene standards, even at war, and to keep the latrines far from camp: “And thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee. ”
3). The Hygienic Decline of the West
• As all the great Ancient Civilizations fell, so too did their sanitary engineering.
• Bathing, basic hygiene, soap, all highly unusual in Europe until the 18th
Century for all but the ruling classes (if then).
• The Nietzsche hypothesis: cleanliness associated with the Romans, and vanity
• Perfumes and powders covered the stench.
• Streets of Europe frequently open sewers.
• No toilet paper available until the 19th Century.
4). The Triumph of Science over Superstition.
• Appalling hygiene standards a major factor in the Black Plague of 1350, which
killed one third of the population of Europe.
• People gradually realized that disease was transmitted through water and waste.
Earliest proclamation on sanitation of 1388, banning dumping “Dung and Filth” into
rivers and towns.
• Three distinct shifts in culture that led to the modern sanitary systems:
• a). shift from Medieval superstition to science and evidence- based health policy
• b). a shift from Medieval power structures (serving their own interests) to the
modern nation- state that seeks to improve the lot of the populace
• c). With the development of legislation enforcing hygiene standards, and covering
such details as the type of toilet used or the water pressure required, we see an
increasingly complex network of power relationships in place to ensure standards
and compliance.
• Public health policy often requires a mass casualty event for momentum. First ordinances on sanitation followed the Black Death; 55,000 Londoners dying from cholera in 1849 was required for authorities to provide a 24 hour water supply in London, and the development of a ball- valve to prevent wastage of water.
5). Cultural attitudes towards the site of excretion: Martin Luther, Jewish
custom, Junichiro Tanizaki.
• This movement towards sanitation effectively ended a long tradition of rustic attitudes towards basic hygiene, and (perhaps) the idea of the place of excretion as a site of repose.
Junichiro Tanizaki In Praise of Shadows. (In'ei Raisan, 1933): “The toilet is the perfect place to listen to the chirping of insects or the song of birds, to view the moon, or to enjoy those poignant moments that mark the change of seasons. Here. I suspect, is where haiku poets over the ages have come by a great many of their ideas” “… how very crude and tasteless to expose the toilet to so much illumination” (Tanizaki, 2001).
• Martin Luther’s locus hypocastum : the cloaca
• Synagogue toilet signs.
• Folk remedies and coprophia
• benjo- kami
6). The Flush Toilet: on its invention and implementation
Main points:
• An explosion of decoration with the appearance of the first truly reliable
flush toilets: the Victorian period.
• Usefulness and Aesthetics. Hume writes of the aesthetics of the useful: “A machine, a piece of furniture, a vestment, a house well contrived, for use and convenience, is so far beautiful, and is contemplated with pleasure and approbriation. An experienced eye is here sensible to many excellences which escape persons ignorant and uninstructed. Can anything stronger be said in praise of a profession, such as merchandise or manufacture, than to observe the advantages which it procures to society; and is not a monk and an inquisitor enraged when we treat his order a useless or pernicious to mankind?” (Hume, 1948:182).
• an invention may achieve perfection; modern alterations may be superfluous.
(Consider the “wash- down closets” at the Thistle Inn in Wellington).
• The best design may be very simple; complex design solutions may be
inefficient and difficult to use.
The simplest designs (or ideas) are often the best; sophisticated systems (or ideas)
may be full of excrement.
• The greatest breakthroughs are frequently not in the invention itself, but in
the perfection of a tiny part;
it may take years to perfect that tiny part, and once it is discovered, it may seem
trivial.
• The New Invention must integrate with existing systems, or the creation of a
completely new infrastructure.
The flushing toilet was invented in 1596, by John Harrington, but there were no water supplies in place to feed such an invention. It would be 200 years before the invention would reappear. Toilets need running water and sewer systems, and sewer systems require the total realignment and rebuilding of cities. In this sense, the modern toilet is the product of city- wide reconstruction. Paris’s sewerage system was largely constructed during the rebuilding of that city during the 19th century by the great town planner Georges-Eugène Haussmann (March 27, 1809 – January 11, 1891), who described the as “underground galleries, which are organs of the big city, working as organs of the city, without being revealed.” Like the relationship between computers and their networks, toilets are of limited use if they are not integrated with this greater system.
• The new invention must cohere with people’s expectations in order to find a
market. If the people are too uncoordinated or irrational to see the invention’s merits, it must be forced into use by government and law.
Conclusion:
The toilet is the end- result of a centuries- old struggle against disease, filth and disorder. In terms of design, it is of marginal interest, but in terms of what it represents (the invisible subterranean infrastructure that make civilization possible) it is a major and surprisingly fragile achievement. Conceptually sits at the centre of the relationship between ourselves and the natural order (with its attendant dangers).
Select Bibliography
Duchamp, Marcel. Salt- Seller: The Essential Writings of Marcel Duchamp. (Marchand
du Sel). Eds. Michel Sanouillet and Elmer Peterson (London: Thames and Hudson,
1975) 141-142.
Fox& Co. “History of the Toilet.” http://www.muswell-hill.com/foxandco/pages/history_toilet.htm
(accessed June 15 2008).
Godfrey, Tony. 1998. Conceptual Art. London: Phaidon Press.
Gurrola, Juan José and Girst, Thomas. "Fountain" avant la Lettre.” Tout- fait: The Marcel Duchamp
Studies Online Journal. Issue 1, 1999.
http://toutfait.com/duchamp.jsp?postid=775&keyword=fountain
Hume, David. Enquiry concerning the Principles of Morals in Hume’s Moral and Political Philosophy
ed. Henry D. Aiken. London and New York: Hafner Press, 1848
Lippard, Lucy. 1973. Six Years: The Dematerialization of the Art Object 1966- 1972.
New York: Praeger.
Obalk, Hector. “The Unfindable Readymade.” Tout- fait: The Marcel Duchamp Studies Online Journal. Issue 2, 2000.
http://toutfait.com/duchamp.jsp?postid=912&keyword=fountain
(Accessed June 15, 2008).
Palmer, Roy. The Water Closet: A New History. Wellington, Sydney and
Auckland: A.H. & A. W. Reed, 1973.
Perloff, Marjorie. “Dada without Duchamp/ Duchamp without Dada: Avant- Garde tradition and the
Individual Talent.” Stanford Humanities Review.Vol. 1.7 (1999).
http://www.stanford.edu/group/SHR/7-1/html/body_perloff.html
PlumbingSupply.com. “The History of Plumbing: Roman and English Legacy.”
(First published in Plumbing and Mechanical, July 1989). http://www.theplumber.com/eng.html
(accessed June 15, 2008).
Pathak, Bindeshwar. “Aryan Code of Toilets: 1500BC.” Sulabh Toilet Museum
http://www.sulabhtoiletmuseum.org/fact.htm
Pathak, Bindeshwar. “History of Toilets.” International Symposium on Public Toilets, Hong Kong, May 2527, 1995. http://www.sulabhtoiletmuseum.org/pg02.htm
(accessed June 15, 2008).
Schellekens, Elizabeth. “Conceptual Art.” In Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. First published 7th June 2007.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/conceptual-art/ (accessed June 14 2008).
Tanizaki, Junichiro. In Praise of Shadows. (In'ei Raisan, 1933). New York: Vintage,
Friday, 27 June 2008
Saturday, 14 June 2008
letter to the Commissioner
[claim: the term 'art' has shifted over time].
I can concede all of that, but my basic point still stands. The term 'art' as used today does not appear to have the same sense as it did in the 19th Century. Take the following utterances:
1a Leonardo da Vinci is an artist. 1b The Mona Lisa is an artwork.
2a Marcel Duchamp is an artist. 2b Nude Ascending a Staircase is an artwork.
3a Chris Burden is an artist. 3b "Shoot" (1971) is an artwork [in which he was shot in the left arm]
4a Tracey Emin is an artist 4b My Bed (1999) is an artwork
I would say that the terms 'artwork' in 1b and 2b have the same meaning, and the terms 'artist' have the same meaning in 1a and 2a. But the terms 'artwork' and 'artist' in 3a,b and 4a,b simply do not have the same meaning. That's the real argument: what the term 'art' actually means is a matter of semantics. So, I agree with you that the meanings of words can shift over time; what I think is seriously problematic is the assertion that Burden and Emin are artists in the same sense that Da Vinci is an artist. The term 'art' has shifted in its referent, just as the terms 'awesome' and 'enchanted' have been cheapened.
I can concede all of that, but my basic point still stands. The term 'art' as used today does not appear to have the same sense as it did in the 19th Century. Take the following utterances:
1a Leonardo da Vinci is an artist. 1b The Mona Lisa is an artwork.
2a Marcel Duchamp is an artist. 2b Nude Ascending a Staircase is an artwork.
3a Chris Burden is an artist. 3b "Shoot" (1971) is an artwork [in which he was shot in the left arm]
4a Tracey Emin is an artist 4b My Bed (1999) is an artwork
I would say that the terms 'artwork' in 1b and 2b have the same meaning, and the terms 'artist' have the same meaning in 1a and 2a. But the terms 'artwork' and 'artist' in 3a,b and 4a,b simply do not have the same meaning. That's the real argument: what the term 'art' actually means is a matter of semantics. So, I agree with you that the meanings of words can shift over time; what I think is seriously problematic is the assertion that Burden and Emin are artists in the same sense that Da Vinci is an artist. The term 'art' has shifted in its referent, just as the terms 'awesome' and 'enchanted' have been cheapened.
Tuesday, 10 June 2008
Response to John Hurrell
Dear John.
1). I cannot speak for Arthur Danto. As for George Dickie, his definition of art is that art is any instance of an ‘artwork’ that is so authorized by the art-world. This definition is intelligible only post- Duchamp; and even with Duchamp in mind, this stipulative definition is both anachronistic and tautological. More to the point: it begs the question. It presupposes that Duchamp’s urinal actually is art. Whatever the tricksy logic here, (to quote a friend) when artists have to appeal to the authority of an analytic philosopher for backup, you know they’re running out of ideas.
But enough of the tu quoques. I've been thinking about the "anachronism" argument re. art. (That is: to reject conceptual art requires an old- fashioned idea of what art is that discounts all modern art since Duchamp's urinal). You could go the way of Wittgenstein's observation that the term 'game' has no fixed meaning; a lottery is a game, and so is soccer, but they have nothing in common. The term 'game' refers to a whole family of instances, some members have no common elements. The term 'art' is similar. Duchamp's Fountain has nothing in common with Da Vinci's Mona Lisa. The real problem is that it is difficult to show how Da Vinci and other Renaissance artists, or the Impressionists, or any art before 1917 has anything to do with conceptual art: the latter seems completely adrift, conceptually speaking. That is, it seems an error to consider Da Vinci and et. al. (for example) to be in the same professional class. That's the corollary of the claim that a traditional definition of art (such as mine) is anachronistic. That is, essentially, the barrel you are looking down, as a practicing artist. If my definition of art ignores the fundamental discord between pre- and post- Duchamp art, any tacit assertion that et. al., Jeff Koons etc. are in the same profession, let alone the same league, ignores this same rift. I think the burden of proof falls on anyone who makes such an assertion.
2). You wrote: “Lilith, your notion of art seems to be 'art is what looks like art' Art however need not to be fabricated 'with artistry' or any visual quality.”
This is a straw man. I simply stated that “an artwork is a thing which has been fabricated with some degree of artistry.” I did not say that an artwork has to look like an artwork. I seriously doubt that this is a controversial claim: the etymology is clearly understood. I propose a change of tack: an artist is a person who is artistic, broadly construed. (This claim is similar to the claim that a scientist is someone who is scientific, and a musician is someone who is musical. Someone who worships sticks is not scientific; someone who has no musical skills is not a musician; someone who cannot produce art is not an artist). If a person has made no attempt to cultivate a craft, art or talent that distinguishes them from someone else (and this may include, I concede, someone who can find domestic objects and install them in an art gallery in such a way as to inspire a new way of seeing that object), I suggest that they are not an ‘artist.’
3). “In your discussion of conceptual art you are confusing a definition of the anthropological activity with value judgments of the work's quality. There is no connection linking the two.”
If an artwork is defined as whatever is deemed by the artworld public, and nothing else, you have rendered quality irrelevant. Granted. Yet consider this: every conceivable human activity that does not merely produce waste material has standards and an implied quality, insofar as the objective is implied (cooking, automotive design, playing tennis, practicing scales). Art prior to 1917 had this quality: an artist is a person who paints, sculpts, etc. One can paint well, or poorly, or (post- Bosch) can open the portals to the Unthought, or whatever. Dickie’s theory wins coherence and official approval, at the expense of actual substance. “Art,” as you seem to understand the term, is a very strange idea. I suggest that it is grounded on an empty mysticism, representing nothing.
1). I cannot speak for Arthur Danto. As for George Dickie, his definition of art is that art is any instance of an ‘artwork’ that is so authorized by the art-world. This definition is intelligible only post- Duchamp; and even with Duchamp in mind, this stipulative definition is both anachronistic and tautological. More to the point: it begs the question. It presupposes that Duchamp’s urinal actually is art. Whatever the tricksy logic here, (to quote a friend) when artists have to appeal to the authority of an analytic philosopher for backup, you know they’re running out of ideas.
But enough of the tu quoques. I've been thinking about the "anachronism" argument re. art. (That is: to reject conceptual art requires an old- fashioned idea of what art is that discounts all modern art since Duchamp's urinal). You could go the way of Wittgenstein's observation that the term 'game' has no fixed meaning; a lottery is a game, and so is soccer, but they have nothing in common. The term 'game' refers to a whole family of instances, some members have no common elements. The term 'art' is similar. Duchamp's Fountain has nothing in common with Da Vinci's Mona Lisa. The real problem is that it is difficult to show how Da Vinci and other Renaissance artists, or the Impressionists, or any art before 1917 has anything to do with conceptual art: the latter seems completely adrift, conceptually speaking. That is, it seems an error to consider Da Vinci and et. al. (for example) to be in the same professional class. That's the corollary of the claim that a traditional definition of art (such as mine) is anachronistic. That is, essentially, the barrel you are looking down, as a practicing artist. If my definition of art ignores the fundamental discord between pre- and post- Duchamp art, any tacit assertion that et. al., Jeff Koons etc. are in the same profession, let alone the same league, ignores this same rift. I think the burden of proof falls on anyone who makes such an assertion.
2). You wrote: “Lilith, your notion of art seems to be 'art is what looks like art' Art however need not to be fabricated 'with artistry' or any visual quality.”
This is a straw man. I simply stated that “an artwork is a thing which has been fabricated with some degree of artistry.” I did not say that an artwork has to look like an artwork. I seriously doubt that this is a controversial claim: the etymology is clearly understood. I propose a change of tack: an artist is a person who is artistic, broadly construed. (This claim is similar to the claim that a scientist is someone who is scientific, and a musician is someone who is musical. Someone who worships sticks is not scientific; someone who has no musical skills is not a musician; someone who cannot produce art is not an artist). If a person has made no attempt to cultivate a craft, art or talent that distinguishes them from someone else (and this may include, I concede, someone who can find domestic objects and install them in an art gallery in such a way as to inspire a new way of seeing that object), I suggest that they are not an ‘artist.’
3). “In your discussion of conceptual art you are confusing a definition of the anthropological activity with value judgments of the work's quality. There is no connection linking the two.”
If an artwork is defined as whatever is deemed by the artworld public, and nothing else, you have rendered quality irrelevant. Granted. Yet consider this: every conceivable human activity that does not merely produce waste material has standards and an implied quality, insofar as the objective is implied (cooking, automotive design, playing tennis, practicing scales). Art prior to 1917 had this quality: an artist is a person who paints, sculpts, etc. One can paint well, or poorly, or (post- Bosch) can open the portals to the Unthought, or whatever. Dickie’s theory wins coherence and official approval, at the expense of actual substance. “Art,” as you seem to understand the term, is a very strange idea. I suggest that it is grounded on an empty mysticism, representing nothing.
Conversation between Tao Wells, John Hurrell, Lilith Cohen
Lilith Cohen said...
Wayfarer Gallery asserts that [conceptual] art is a "sickly and weak carcass." Fair enough, but we need some closer analysis of this obituary.
My first point: this issue seems to hinge on the idea of conceptual art's ontology: that is, where exactly is it? And what makes it exist at all? My understanding is that it exists, if anywhere, in particular "conceptual art works." Hence, conceptual art works are a subset of "artworks." yet an artwork is a thing which has been fabricated with some degree of artistry. Now, by definition, a conceptual artwork is not a thing of artistry: the 'art,' if anywhere, is in the imaginative or intellectual faculty. In this sense, conceptual artworks are ontologically similar to the works of lawyers or philosophers. This suggests to me that the concept of "conceptual artwork" is an oxymoron. It only exists insofar as other people will accept the claim that the gesture (which is what it is, in the end) signifies an artwork.
My second suspicion is this: when the "but is it art?" objection is raised against the latest Turner Prize winner, the same trite explanation is repeated: "It is supposed to raise basic questions about the idea of what art is." There's the rub. We are supposed to believe that the particular conceptual work represents an interesting and intellectual rich insight. yet look at the dates, kids: Duchamp placed the urinal in an art gallery in 1917. That's nearly a century ago. Even if we grant that the whole readymade thing really is art, and not a game played with words, surely artists could come up with a new idea? Et Al, Billy Apple, Jeff Koons, Gail Haffern-- is it not to beggar belief that these people are to be bracketed in the same class as any artist at all worthy of note before 1917?
JUNE 1, 2008 9:16 PM
John Hurrell said...
Lilith, your notion of art seems to be 'art is what looks like art' Art however need not to be fabricated 'with artistry' or any visual quality. Check out George Dickie or Arthur Danto for their definitions of the subject. In your discussion of conceptual art you are confusing a definition of the anthropological activity with value judgements of the work's quality. There is no connection linking the two.
Wayfarer Gallery asserts that [conceptual] art is a "sickly and weak carcass." Fair enough, but we need some closer analysis of this obituary.
My first point: this issue seems to hinge on the idea of conceptual art's ontology: that is, where exactly is it? And what makes it exist at all? My understanding is that it exists, if anywhere, in particular "conceptual art works." Hence, conceptual art works are a subset of "artworks." yet an artwork is a thing which has been fabricated with some degree of artistry. Now, by definition, a conceptual artwork is not a thing of artistry: the 'art,' if anywhere, is in the imaginative or intellectual faculty. In this sense, conceptual artworks are ontologically similar to the works of lawyers or philosophers. This suggests to me that the concept of "conceptual artwork" is an oxymoron. It only exists insofar as other people will accept the claim that the gesture (which is what it is, in the end) signifies an artwork.
My second suspicion is this: when the "but is it art?" objection is raised against the latest Turner Prize winner, the same trite explanation is repeated: "It is supposed to raise basic questions about the idea of what art is." There's the rub. We are supposed to believe that the particular conceptual work represents an interesting and intellectual rich insight. yet look at the dates, kids: Duchamp placed the urinal in an art gallery in 1917. That's nearly a century ago. Even if we grant that the whole readymade thing really is art, and not a game played with words, surely artists could come up with a new idea? Et Al, Billy Apple, Jeff Koons, Gail Haffern-- is it not to beggar belief that these people are to be bracketed in the same class as any artist at all worthy of note before 1917?
JUNE 1, 2008 9:16 PM
John Hurrell said...
Lilith, your notion of art seems to be 'art is what looks like art' Art however need not to be fabricated 'with artistry' or any visual quality. Check out George Dickie or Arthur Danto for their definitions of the subject. In your discussion of conceptual art you are confusing a definition of the anthropological activity with value judgements of the work's quality. There is no connection linking the two.
The only way to destroy conceptual art is to undermine the concepts
I've been thinking about the "anachronism" argument re. art. (That is: to reject conceptual art requires an old- fashioned idea of what art is that discounts all modern art since Duchamp's urinal). You could go the way of Wittgenstein's observation that the term 'game' has no fixed meaning; a lottery is a game, and so is soccer, but they have nothing in common. The term 'game' refers to a whole family of instances, some members have no common elements. The term 'art' is similar. Duchamp's Fountain has nothing in common with Da Vinci's Mona Lisa. The real problem is that it is difficult to show how Da Vinci and other Renaissance artists, or the Impressionists, or any art before 1917 has anything to do with conceptual art: the latter seems completely adrift, conceptually speaking. That is, it seems an error to consider Da Vinci and et. al. (for example) to be in the same professional class. That's the corollary of the claim that a traditional definition of art (such as mine) is anachronistic.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)