IN THE PHILADELPHIA
MUSEUM OF ART IS A COLLECTION OF
PAINTINGS AND OBJECTS BY A MAN WHO'S
UNIQUE VIEW OF LIFE HAS GREATLY
INFLUENCED MODERN ART. SO HERE YOU ARE, MARCEL,
LOOKING AT YOUR BIG GLASS. YES, AND THE MORE I LOOK
AT IT THE MORE I LIKE IT. I LIKE THE BREAKS,
THE WAY THEY COME. THE CRACKS - YOU REMEMBER
HOW IT HAPPENED IN 1926? I REMEMBER
HEARING. IN BROOKLYN THEY PUT THE TWO
PANES ON TOP OF ONE ANOTHER ON A TRUCK, FLAT, NOT KNOWING
WHAT THEY WERE CARRYING, AND BOUNCING FOR 60
MILES IN CONNECTICUT. SO THAT'S
WHAT HAPPENED. BUT THE MORE I LOOK AT IT
THE MORE I LIKE THE CRACKS BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT
LIKE SHATTERED GLASS. THEY HAVE A SHAPE. THERE'S A SYMMETRY
IN THE CRACKING. THE TWO CRACKINGS ARE
SYMMETRICALLY DISPOSED AND THERE'S ALMOST
AN INTENTION THERE, AN EXTRA CURIOUS INTENTION
THAT I'M NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR - READY MADE INTENTION,
IN OTHER WORDS, THAT I RESPECT
AND LOVE. BUT IT WAS ONE OF YOUR
BIGGEST UNDERTAKINGS - MOST AMBITIOUS. BY FAR IT IS, AND I
WORKED EIGHT YEARS ON IT AND IT IS
NOT FINISHED. AND I DON'T KNOW WHETHER
IT WILL EVER BE FINISHED. BUT NOW I'LL SHOW YOU
SOME FINISHED THINGS. COME ALONG. THERE'S THE</i><i>
</i>CHOCOLATE GRINDER.</i> YES, ONE OF
THE TWO I MADE AND THE THIRD ONE IS
ON THE GLASS ITSELF. YOU HAD SEVERAL
VERSIONS OF THE NUDE DESCENDING A</i><i>
</i>STAIRCASE</i> TOO, DIDN'T YOU? YES, I HAD THREE, BUT
THIS ONE IS THE REAL, THE FIRST ONE THAT WAS
SHOWN AT THE ARMORY SHOW. THE ONE THE
NEWSPAPER MAN CALLED "AN EXPLOSION IN
A SHINGLE FACTORY". YES, THAT WAS
REALLY A GREAT LINE. C'EST DE
SCANDAL, YES. AND THIS IS
BOXING</i> MATCH,</i> A DRAWING THAT I
NEVER USED, IN FACT. FOR THE GLASS,
I NEVER USED IT. I FELT IT WAS NOT
QUITE WHAT I WANTED. IT MUST BE A GREAT
SATISFACTION TO YOU TO HAVE SO
MANY VERSIONS AND SO MUCH OF YOUR
WORK IN ONE COLLECTION SUCH AS YOU FIND HERE IN
THE PHILADELPHIA MUSEUM. OH, WONDERFUL. I ALWAYS FELT THAT SHOWING
ONE PAINTING IN ONE PLACE AND ANOTHER PLACE IS
JUST LIKE AMPUTATING ONE FINGER EACH
TIME OR A LEG. HERE I FEEL AT HOME, MY
HOUSE, AND I'VE NEVER HAD REALLY SUCH A FEELING
OF COMPLETE SATISFACTION. I CAN UNDERSTAND HOW AN
ARTIST WOULD FEEL ABOUT THAT. MARCEL, THESE DON'T
SEEM YOUR EARLIEST WORK. NO, THE EARLIEST IS
THIS ONE IN THE CORNER. THE CHURCH.</i> THAT WAS DONE IN
MY VILLAGE IN 1902. HOW OLD
WERE YOU? I WAS 15 THEN. AND THEN I WENT ON AND DID
SOME MORE THAT ARE NOT HERE. IT'S RATHER
IMPRESSIONIST, ISN'T IT? THAT
WAS THE VOGUE? YES, WELL, IT WAS
NOT THE VOGUE, IT WAS THE ONLY THING
WE TALKED ABOUT, YOU SEE, IT WAS ADVANCED
AND YET EVEN WHEN YOU SEE THESE TWO
WHICH ARE LATER, ALREADY IMPRESSIONISM
IS GONE DOWN IN VOGUE. THEY'RE MORE
STRUCTURAL AND CEZANNE HAS
BEEN RECOGNIZED THEN AND CEZANNE IS THE
GREAT MAN AND I WAS INFLUENCED BY CEZANNE IN
THOSE TWO PAINTINGS, SEE? THIS IS MY TWO BROTHERS
PLAYING CHESS IN THE GARDEN AND THIS IS
MY FATHER. THE WHOLE FAMILY
WERE PAINTERS? YOUR SISTER
AND BROTHERS? ONE SISTER PAINTS,
YES, BUT ESPECIALLY MY BROTHER,
VILLON, PAINTS. DID THEY BRING YOU INTO
THIS CEZANNE IMPRESSIONIST? NO, IT WAS
ON MY OWN. JUST IN THE AIR? IN THE AIR, YES. AND MY FATHER WAS
VERY NICE ABOUT IT. IN FACT IT WAS VERY
DIFFICULT THEN AS IT IS NOW TO BECOME A PAINTER
ON YOUR OWN. HOW CAN YOU EXPECT
TO LIVE, ETC., ETC.? SO HE WAS
A GOOD MAN. HE LOOKS
PATIENT. THERE SEEMS TO BE
QUITE A STEP BETWEEN THIS AND THE NUDE</i><i>
</i>DESCENDING A STAIRCASE.</i> YES, THE NUDE WAS
TWO YEARS LATER. 1912. 1912, AND IT WAS AFTER
THESE THAT I DECIDED THAT NO MORE OBVIOUS
INFLUENCES AS I HAD BEFORE. I WANTED TO AT LEAST
BE LIVING IN MY DAY AND MY DAY
WAS CUBISM. 1910, '11, '12 - CUBISM
WAS IN ITS CHILDHOOD AND THE APPROACH WAS SO
DIFFERENT FROM THE PREVIOUS MOVEMENTS THAT I WAS VERY
MUCH ATTRACTED TOWARD IT. AND I BEGAN BEING
A CUBIST PAINTER AND FINALLY I
CAME TO THE NUDE. THE NUDE, HOWEVER, IS
SOMETHING OF MOVEMENT THAT THE CUBISTS DIDN'T
SEEM TO BE INTERESTED IN. YOU SEE, THERE WAS
ALSO FUTURISM AT THAT TIME. THE ITALIANS. ITALIAN FUTURISM. BUT I
DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT IT. YOU WEREN'T
IN MUNICH. I NEVER
KNEW ANY. THE FAMOUS FUTURIST SHOW
IN PARIS WAS IN JANUARY 1912 WHEN I WAS PAINTING THIS.
SO I HADN'T SEEN IT. THERE'S A
COINCIDENCE THERE - OF COURSE YOU MIGHT
SAY IT WAS IN THE AIR - BUT I DIDN'T ACTUALLY
KNOW THE FUTURISTS BUT I DID THIS PAINTING
WITH THE IDEA OF USING MOVEMENT AS ONE OF
THE ELEMENTS IN IT. AND NEXT YEAR,
THE FOLLOWING YEAR, I SENT IT AT THE
INVITATION OF AMERICAN PAINTERS
DAVIS AND WALTER PACH. IT WAS AN EVENT
IN AMERICAN... I KNOW, BUT IT'S ONLY NOW THAT
WE KNOW IT, 40 YEARS LATER. AT THE MOMENT IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN
AN EXPLOSION OF SUCCESSFUL. A WEEK OR TEN DAYS AND
FINISHED AND OFFERED PIE, HM? BUT THEN THAT WAS
NOT ENOUGH FOR ME. I WENT ON WITH THE
IDEA THAT, ALL RIGHT, I HAD DONE WHAT I COULD
WITH CUBISM IN MY OPINION, AND IMMEDIATELY I
WANTED TO CHANGE. THIS IDEA OF CHANGING,
NOT REPEATING MYSELF. I COULD HAVE DONE
TEN NUDES PROBABLY AT THAT TIME
IF I WANTED TO. I DECIDED NOT TO GO THAT
- THAT WILL COME INTO ANOTHER DISCUSSION
PROBABLY ABOUT WHY I DID THAT, BUT I WENT IMMEDIATELY
TO ANOTHER FORMULA WHICH IS THE FORMULA OF
THE CHOCOLATE GRINDER.</i> I WAS
IN ROUEN IN ONE OF THE SHOPS
SHOWING THROUGH THE GLASS A REAL, AN ACTUAL
CHOCOLATE GRINDER, THAT A MANUFACTURER
OF CHOCOLATE SHOWED HIS CHOCOLATE
GRINDER IN THE WINDOW AND IT AMUSED
ME SO MUCH THAT I TOOK IT AS A
POINT OF DEPARTURE. WHAT WAS DIFFERENT IN
YOUR POINT OF VIEW HERE THAN IN ANY NORMAL STILL
LIFE OF A CHOCOLATE GRINDER? WAS IT A MECHANICAL
INTEREST? YES, IT WAS THE MECHANICAL
SIDE OF IT, BUT THEN IT WAS ALSO A POINT OF DEPARTURE
OF A NEW FORM OF TECHNIQUE. I COULDN'T GO INTO THE
HAPHAZARD DRAWING OR THE PAINTING, THE
SPLASHING OF PAINT, I WANTED TO GO BACK
TO A COMPLETELY DRY DRAWING, DRY
CONCEPTION OF ART. AND THE MECHANICAL
DRAWING FOR ME WAS THE BEST FORM OF
THAT DRY FORM OF ART. ACCURACY, PRECISION, NO MORE
NOTHING OF THAT HANDIWORK CHANCE? - WELL, CHANCE IS
ANOTHER QUESTION, BUT IN THAT
ACTUAL DRAWING THE PRECISION THAT
COULD NOT BE EVEN LIKED BY ALL THE PEOPLE WHO LIKED
IMPRESSIONISM AND ALL THIS, IT WAS A NEW
DECISION ON MY PART TO GET AWAY
FROM EVEN CUBISM. AFTER A YEAR
OF THAT... AND THIS WAS THE REAL
BEGINNING FOR THE LARGE GLASS.</i> AT THE TIME YOU DID THIS
WAS THERE NO NOTION OF WHAT
WAS COMING? NO, BUT I WAS ALREADY BEGINNING
TO MAKE A DEFINITE PLAN, COMPLETE PLAN FOR
THE WHOLE GLASS AND THE CHOCOLATE</i><i>
</i>GRINDER</i> WAS ONE POINT AND THEN CAME THE SLIDING
MACHINE ON THE SIDE. ALL THIS WAS SUPPOSED, AND WAS
DRAWN IN '13 AND '14 ON PAPER AND PLANNED OUT BECAUSE IT WAS
BASED ON A PERSPECTIVE VIEW, MEANING COMPLETE CONTROL
OF THE PLACEMENT OF THINGS. IT COULDN'T BE HAPHAZARD
OR CHANGED AFTERWARDS. IT HAD TO GO THROUGH
ACCORDING TO PLAN, SO TO SPEAK. WELL, I IMAGINE YOU FEEL
THAT THE CHOCOLATE GRINDER</i> HERALDED SOMETHING
IN YOUR WORK, SOMETHING OF THAT BREAK
YOU'VE OFTEN TOLD ME ABOUT. YES, IT WAS, REALLY A VERY
IMPORTANT MOMENT IN MY LIFE. I HAD TO MAKE GREAT DECISIONS
THEN AND I MADE A GREAT ONE BY SAYING TO MYSELF "NO
MORE PAINTING, YOU GET A JOB". AND I LOOKED FOR A JOB IN
ORDER TO GET ENOUGH TIME TO PAINT
FOR MYSELF. AND I GOT A JOB AS A LIBRARIAN
IN PARIS IN THE BIBLIOTHEQUE CENTER IN VIEUX AND THIS
WAS A WONDERFUL JOB BECAUSE YOU HAD SO MANY
HOURS FREE IN THE DAY. YOU MEAN, PAINTING
FOR YOURSELF, NOT MERELY TO
PLEASE OTHER PEOPLE? EXACTLY. AND THAT OF COURSE LED ME
TO THIS CONCLUSION THAT YOU EITHER ARE A
PROFESSIONAL PAINTER OR NOT. THERE ARE TWO
KINDS OF ARTISTS. THERE ARE THE ARTISTS
THAT DEALS WITH SOCIETY, IS INTEGRATED
IN SOCIETY, AND THE OTHER ARTIST, THE
COMPLETELY FREELANCE ARTIST WHO HAS NOTHING
TO DO WITH YOU. YOU MEAN THE MAN IN
SOCIETY HAS TO MAKE CERTAIN COMPROMISES TO
PLEASE THEM AND TO LIVE, IS THAT WHY YOU
TOOK THE JOB? EXACTLY. I DIDN'T WANT TO DEPEND
ON MY PAINTING FOR A LIVING. DIDN'T YOU HAVE A CERTAIN
INCOME FROM YOUR FATHER? ENOUGH TO LIVE, YES, MY FATHER
WAS VERY NICE ABOUT THAT. HE ALWAYS
HELPED US ALONG. ALL THREE
OF YOU? ALL THREE, YES. LONG
AFTER WE WERE OF AGE, AND I MEAN HE HAD
A VERY FUNNY IDEA. HE SAID, ALL RIGHT, I'LL
GIVE YOU WHAT YOU WANT BUT DON'T FORGET WE ARE THREE
SISTERS AND THREE BROTHERS SO WHATEVER YOU GET
DURING MY LIFETIME YOU'LL NEVER GET AFTER MY
DEATH AS AN INHERITANCE. SO ALL THESE SUMS THAT
HE HAD ADDED CAREFULLY WERE SUBTRACTED FROM
WHAT WE GOT AFTER HIS DEATH. SEE, IT WAS VERY
AMUSING FRENCH IDEA. WELL, AT LEAST IT HELPED
YOU OVER THE BUMPS. OH, SURE. WELL, MARCEL, WHEN YOU
SPEAK OF YOUR DISREGARD FOR THE BROAD PUBLIC AND SAY
YOU'RE PAINTING FOR YOURSELF, WOULDN'T YOU ACCEPT THAT AS
PAINTING FOR THE IDEAL PUBLIC, FOR A PUBLIC WHICH
SHOULD APPRECIATE YOU IF THEY WOULD ONLY
MAKE THE EFFORT TO? YES, INDEED. IT'S ONLY A WAY OF PUTTING
MYSELF IN THE RIGHT POSITION FOR THAT IDEAL
PUBLIC BECAUSE THE DANGER IS TO PLEASE
AN IMMEDIATE PUBLIC, THE IMMEDIATE PUBLIC
THAT COMES AROUND YOU AND TAKES YOU IN
AND ACCEPTS YOU AND GIVES YOU
SUCCESS AND EVERYTHING. INSTEAD OF THAT, IF YOU
WAIT FOR YOUR PUBLIC THAT SHOULD COME 50 YEARS,
100 YEARS AFTER YOUR DEATH, THAT'S THE RIGHT
PUBLIC I WANT. IT'S A RATHER
AESTHETIC ATTITUDE. I DON'T THINK YOU EVER FELT
THAT A PERSON WAS JUSTIFIED IN TAKING AN IVORY TOWER
ATTITUDE AND DISREGARDING THE INTELLIGENT AND
SYMPATHETIC PUBLIC. NO IVORY TOWER
IN MY IDEA AT ALL. I REMEMBER A LINE IN A PIECE
BY HENRI PIERRE ROCHE IN WHICH HE REFERRED TO
YOU AS SAYING THAT YOU WERE ALWAYS CAREFUL TO FIND A
WAY TO CONTRADICT YOURSELF. I IMAGINE BY THIS YOU MEAN
YOU WERE TRYING TO AVOID REPEATING YOURSELF.
IS THIS RIGHT? YOU SEE, THE DANGER IS TO LEAD
YOURSELF INTO A FALSE TASTE. EVEN IN THE</i><i>
</i>CHOCOLATE GRINDER...</i> TASTE, THEN, IS
SOMETHING THAT REPEATS SOMETHING ELSE THAT
HAS BEEN ACCEPTED? EXACTLY.
IT'S A HABIT. REPETITION OF THE SAME THING
LONG ENOUGH TO BECOME TASTE. IF YOU CUT IT SHORTLY, I
MEAN AFTER YOU'VE DONE IT, THEN IT STAYS AS
A THING BY ITSELF. BUT IF IT'S REPEATED A NUMBER
OF TIMES IT BECOMES A TASTE. AND GOOD TASTE IS WHAT'S
APPROVED AND BAD TASTE IS THE SAME REPETITION
BUT IT'S NOT APPROVED, IS THAT WHAT
YOU MEAN? YES, GOOD OR BAD IS OF
NO IMPORTANCE BECAUSE IT'S ALWAYS GOOD FOR ONE
AND BAD FOR THE OTHER. THE QUALITY IS NOT IMPORTANT,
BUT IT'S TASTE ANYWAY. WELL, HOW DID YOU FIND A
WAY TO GET AWAY FROM GOOD OR BAD TASTE IN YOUR
PERSONAL EXPRESSION? YOU KNOW, IN THE
MECHANICAL TECHNIQUE THERE WAS NO
TASTE POSSIBLE. A MECHANICAL DRAWING
HAS NO TASTE IN IT. BECAUSE IT WAS DIVORCED
FROM THE CONVENTIONAL EXPRESSION IN
THE PAINTING. AT LEAST I THOUGHT
SO AT THAT TIME. AND I DO THINK
TODAY THE SAME WAY. AND DOES THIS DIVORCE
FROM HUMAN INTERVENTION IN DRAWING AND PAINTING
HAVE ITS RELATION WITH THE INTEREST
YOU HAD IN READYMADES? NATURALLY, AS A SORT OF
CONCLUSION OR CONSEQUENCE OF DEHUMANIZATION
OF THE WORK OF ART. IN SUCH A POINT THAT I CAME
TO THE IDEA OF READYMADES. I CALL THEM READYMADES AS A
NAME FOR - LET ME SHOW YOU. THIS IS A READYMADE
BIRD CAGE WITH - IF YOU SEE ME HAVING A HARD
TIME BECAUSE THIS IS NOT SUGAR. THIS IS MARBLE AND
IT WEIGHS A TON. AND THAT WAS ONE
OF THE ELEMENTS THAT INTERESTED
ME WHEN I MADE IT. YOU SEE, IT'S READYMADE AND THE
SUGAR HAS CHANGED INTO MARBLE. IT'S A SORT OF
MYTHOLOGICAL EFFECT. THIS IS A READYMADE
DATING BACK FROM 1916. IT'S A BALL OF TWINE
BETWEEN TWO PLAQUES OF COPPER - BRASS.
AND BEFORE I FINISHED IT ARENSBERG PUT SOMETHING
INSIDE THE BALL OF TWINE AND NEVER TOLD ME WHAT IT
WAS AND I DIDN'T WANT TO KNOW, IT WAS A SORT OF SECRET AND IT
MAKES A NOISE SO WE CALL THIS READYMADE WITH A SECRET</i><i>
</i>NOISE</i> - AND LISTEN TO IT... I WILL NEVER KNOW WHETHER
IT'S A DIAMOND OR A COIN. YOU DIDN'T MEET
ARENSBERG UNTIL YOU CAME TO THE
UNITED STATES, DID YOU? NO, I CAME IN 1915 AND THAT
WAS MY FIRST MEETING WITH HIM. WALTER PACH TOOK ME TO HIS
HOUSE - COMING OUT OF THE BOAT, HE CAME ON THE BOAT - AND IT WAS
A LIFELONG FRIENDSHIP WITH HIM. WAS ARENSBERG
HIMSELF A PAINTER? NO, HE WAS A POET. HE WAS
A POET CONNECTED WITH THE SCHOOL OF
IMAGES IN ENGLAND... H.D. AND
RICHARD ALDINGTON? YES, ALL THESE, AND
THEY HAD A MAGAZINE HERE WITH KREYMBORG, ALFRED
KREYMBORG, WALLACE STEVENS, CALLED OTHERS</i> AND THEY
PUBLISHED THAT MAGAZINE. DIDN'T HE PUBLISH SOME
MAGAZINES HIMSELF THAT CONNECTED WITH YOUR
GROUP, OR YOUR FRIENDS? YES, TWO AMUSING
MAGAZINES, ONLY HAD ONE ISSUE
UNFORTUNATELY. ONE WAS CALLED WRONG</i><i>
</i>WRONG</i> AND THE OTHER ONE WAS CALLED
THE</i> BLIND</i> MAN.</i> THEY WERE
DADAISTS. YES, THEY WERE
INSPIRED BY DADA. WAS IT MORE OF A LITERARY
MOVEMENT PERHAPS THAN...? YES, IT WAS
MORE LITERARY. IT WAS NO MORE TO DO
WITH PLASTIC ART AS SUCH, NO MORE CONSIDERATIONS
OF TECHNIQUE OR AS TO ALL THE
SCHOOLS BEFORE - IN FACT IT
WAS NEGATION, A REFUSAL TO ACCEPT
ANYTHING LIKE THAT, TO DENY ANY PREOCCUPATION OF
THEORETICAL INTEREST, YOU SEE? SO THE DADA MOVEMENT IMPASSE
BECAME COMPLETELY LITERARY AND IN FACT BECAME
SURREALISM IN 1923. WHEN THEY GOT... AS
USUAL, A GROUP OF PEOPLE DON'T GET TOGETHER
VERY LONG. TWO YEARS OR THREE YEARS
OF IT WAS ENOUGH AND THEY BEGAN FIGHTING TOGETHER
AND THEY HATED EACH OTHER SO THEY DISPERSED AND BECAME
ANOTHER GROUP FROM ITSELF ON THE ASHES OF DADA
TO BECOME SURREALISM. BUT YOUR GROUP IN AMERICA, I
MEAN THE ARENSBERG GROUP, WAS ASSOCIATED WITH SEVERAL
OTHER GROUPS, WASN'T IT? THERE WAS, FOR EXAMPLE,
KATHERINE DREIER, WHO WAS ALSO A
PATRON OF ART, AND SHE STARTED A MUSEUM
CALLED SOCIETE ANONYME AND THE SOCIETE
ANONYME WAS A MUSEUM TO BRING FROM
ABROAD PAINTINGS TO GET A SORT OF A
COMMUNION OF ART FROM THE TWO SIDES
OF MODERN ART. AND IT WAS
QUITE SUCCESSFUL. THESE SEVERAL GROUPS I IMAGINE
LAID A CERTAIN FOUNDATION FOR AN UNDERSTANDING OF
CONTEMPORARY EUROPEAN ART IN THIS COUNTRY MUCH
BEFORE OTHER ACTIVITIES. YES, YES, AND AMERICA WAS
ABSOLUTELY MODERN ART CONSCIOUS WHICH NEVER
HAD HAPPENED BEFORE. I SEE. WELL, KATHERINE DREIER ALSO
OWNED YOUR LARGE GLASS WHICH WE WERE LOOKING
AT A LITTLE WHILE AGO. YES, SHE, AT THE TIME
WHEN THE ARENSBERGS - WHO HAD THE GLASS FOR A WHILE,
OR FIRST HAD THE GLASS WHEN IT WAS ALMOST FINISHED
BUT NEVER WAS FINISHED - IN 1920, '21, WHEN THEY LEFT
NEW YORK FOR CALIFORNIA THEY DIDN'T WANT TO
TAKE THE GLASS ALONG BECAUSE IT WAS TOO FRAGILE
AND COULDN'T EXPECT TO TRANSPORT IT VERY EASILY
AND SO SHE, KATHERINE DREIER, BOUGHT IT FROM THEM AND SHE
HAD IT THE REST OF HER LIFE. MARCEL, FROM WHAT YOU SAY, THE
GLASS WAS NEVER REALLY FINISHED. NO. NO, THE LAST TIME I
WORKED ON IT WAS IN '23. STILL IT REMAINS AN
UNFINISHED EPIC AS I SEE IT. UNFINISHED, YES. AND ALSO FOR ME IT SEEMS
TO INDICATE THAT YOU WERE NEVER REALLY DEDICATED
TO CONVENTIONAL PAINTING IN THE ORDINARY
SENSE OF THE WORD. YOU WERE HAPPY
ENOUGH TO DO THIS, YOU WERE HAPPY
ENOUGH TO LEAVE IT, YOU WERE HAPPY ENOUGH
TO CHOOSE BOTTLE RACKS AS A READYMADE AND FILL
BIRD CAGES WITH MARBLE TO DECEIVE THOSE WHO
THOUGHT IT WAS SUGAR. I IMAGINE THAT THERE'S
SOMETHING BROADER IN YOUR CONCEPT OF WHAT
ART IS THAN JUST PAINTING, IS THAT WHAT YOU
FEEL YOURSELF? I DON'T LIKE TO PUT
WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH BUT I HAVE OFTEN
THOUGHT ABOUT IT. YES, IT WAS REALLY I
CONSIDERED PAINTING AS A MEANS OF
EXPRESSION, NOT AN AIM. ONE MEANS
OF EXPRESSION. ONE MEANS OF EXPRESSION
INSTEAD OF AN AIM, A COMPLETE AIM
FOR LIFE AT ALL. THE SAME AS I CONSIDER
THAT COLOR IS ONLY A MEANS OF
EXPRESSION, IN PAINTING IT SHOULDN'T BE
THE LAST AIM OF PAINTING - IN OTHER WORDS, PAINTING
SHOULD NOT ONLY BE RETINAL, OR VISUAL, IT SHOULD HAVE
TO DO WITH THE GRAY MATTER OF OUR UNDERSTANDING
INSTEAD OF PURELY VISUAL. SO IT'S THE SAME THING
WITH MY LIFE IN GENERAL. I DIDN'T WANT TO PIN MYSELF
DOWN TO ONE LITTLE CIRCLE, AND I TRIED AT LEAST, TO
BE AS GENERAL AS I COULD AND THAT'S, FOR EXAMPLE,
THAT'S WHAT I DID WHEN I TOOK
UP CHESS. CHESS IN ITSELF IS A HOBBY,
IT'S A GAME EVERYBODY CAN PLAY BUT I TOOK IT VERY
SERIOUSLY AND ENJOYED IT. BECAUSE I FOUND SOME COMMON
POINTS BETWEEN CHESS AND PAINTING ACTUALLY WHEN
YOU PLAY A GAME OF CHESS IT'S LIKE DESIGNING
SOMETHING OR CONSTRUCTING SOME MECHANISM OF SOME
KIND BY WHICH YOU WIN OR LOSE. THE COMPETITIVE SIDE
OF IT HAS NO IMPORTANCE, BUT THE THING ITSELF
IS VERY, VERY PLASTIC AND THAT'S PROBABLY WHAT
ATTRACTED ME TO THE GAME. YOU MEAN BY THAT
AN ENJOYMENT, A SORT OF
FULLER LIVING? THAT IS TO SAY ANOTHER
FORM OF EXPRESSION? YES, AT LEAST IT WAS ANOTHER
FACET OF THE SAME KIND OF MENTAL EXPRESSION,
INTELLECTUAL EXPRESSION. ONE SMALL FACET IF
YOU WANT BUT IT WAS JUST ENOUGH DIFFERENT
TO MAKE IT ANOTHER FACET AND THEN ADD TO
THE BODY OF MY LIFE. MARCEL, YOU SPENT QUITE A
BIT OF TIME IN THE LATE 1930'S AND THE EARLY 1940'S
ON YOUR RELIEFS, DO YOU REGARD
THAT AS A DISTINCT PERSONAL
EXPRESSION ALSO? YES, ABSOLUTELY. IT'S A NEW FORM OF
EXPRESSION FOR ME, INSTEAD OF
PAINTING SOMETHING IT WAS TO USE A REPRODUCTION
OF THOSE PAINTINGS THAT I LOVED SO MUCH INTO
A SMALL REDUCED FORM, INTO A SMALL SHAPE, AND
HOW TO DO IT I DIDN'T KNOW. I THOUGHT A BOOK,
WHICH I DIDN'T LIKE, SO I THOUGHT OF THE
IDEA OF A BOX IN WHICH THEY WOULD BE MOUNTED
LIKE A SMALL MUSEUM, PORTABLE MUSEUM AND
THERE IT IS IN THIS. IT'S A SORT OF READYMADE
HELP AS YOU CALL IT? YES, SEE IT
OPENS THIS WAY. OUT IT GOES, AND THEN WE
HAVE THE REST OF IT IN THIS. PRACTICALLY ALL
YOUR WORK IS IN HERE. PRACTICALLY ALL OF IT, I THINK
VERY FEW THINGS ARE MISSING. YOU SEE THIS
ROTO-RELIEF... WHAT IS IT,
IS IT A DISC? YES, IT'S A SERIES
OF 12 DRAWINGS, DIFFERENT DRAWINGS,
BASED ON THE SPIRAL. TO BE USED ON A
GRAMOPHONE OR... YEAH, ON A VICTROLA AND THE
EFFECT IS THAT WHEN YOU TURN THEM AT A CERTAIN SPEED LIKE
33 AND A HALF TURNS A MINUTE YOU GET THE
EFFECT OF... A GROWING FORM. LIKE A CONE OR CORKSCREW
OR THE SPIRAL EFFECT. BUT THEY ARE
DIFFERENT DRAWINGS. THIS ONE FOR
EXAMPLE IS A GLASS. IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE A GLASS
HERE, BUT WHEN IT TURNS THIS COMES UP LIKE
A THIRD DIMENSION. WE HAVE THIS
ONE HERE... THAT'S THE
DADA PERIOD. THE MONA LISA WITH A
MUSTACHE AND A GOATEE. THAT WAS A GREAT ICONOCLASTIC
GESTURE ON MY PART. SACRILEGIOUS. SACRILEGIOUS, BLASPHEMOUS,
ALL YOU WANT. BUT OUTSIDE OF THIS
BLASPHEMOUS GESTURE I HAVE OTHER GESTURES
OF THE SAME KIND IN THE DADA PERIOD,
LIKE THIS CHECK. I PAID MY DENTIST WITH
THIS CHECK WHICH WAS AN ORIGINAL CHECK DRAWN BY
MYSELF ON NO BANK AT ALL. AND HE ACCEPTED IT. HE WAS A VERY GOOD
SPORT AND HE ACCEPTED IT. SO WHAT HAPPENED, THE
FUNNIEST PART OF IT IS THAT TEN OR 15 YEARS
LATER I SAW HIM AGAIN AND I BOUGHT
THE CHECK BACK FOR MY OWN COLLECTION,
AND THERE IT IS. THIS IS ALSO ANOTHER
ONE ON A SYSTEM, A MONTE CARLO SYSTEM
TO WIN IN MONTE CARLO, TO BREAK THE BANK
IN MONTE CARLO. OF COURSE I NEVER
BROKE ANY BANK WITH IT AND I THOUGHT
I HAD A SYSTEM AND I MADE SOME SHARES THAT
I SOLD TO DIFFERENT PEOPLE TO MAKE A CAPITAL OF IT AND
BREAK THE BANK IN MONTE CARLO. DID YOU UNDERTAKE IT?
DID YOU TRY TO... OH, I DID. I SOLD
A FEW SHARES. BUT DID YOU
WIN ANYTHING? NO, I NEVER
WON ANYTHING. NOW THIS IS THE</i><i>
</i>BOXING MATCH.</i> AS YOU SEE THE DRAWING IS
COMPLETELY GEOMETRICAL OR MECHANICAL BECAUSE
THAT WAS AT THE PERIOD WHEN I'D CHANGED
COMPLETELY FROM SPLASHING THE PAINT ON THE CANVAS TO AN
ABSOLUTELY PRECISE DRAWING WITH NO RELATION
TO ARTY HANDIWORK. THIS WAS ONE OF THE
MOTIVES OF THE GLASS THAT WASN'T
INCORPORATED? IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE IN IT
AND NEVER WAS INCORPORATED IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN
SOMEWHERE HERE. BUT NEVER
WAS FINISHED. AND, AS YOU KNOW, I LIKE
THE INTELLECTUAL SIDE, ALTHOUGH I DON'T LIKE
THE WORD "INTELLECT". FOR ME, INTELLECT
IS TOO DRY A WORD. TOO, UM, INEXPRESSIVE. I
LIKE THE WORD "BELIEVE". BELIEVING IS MORE - I THINK
THAT PEOPLE IN GENERAL WHEN THEY SAY "I KNOW",
THEY DON'T KNOW. THEY BELIEVE. I BELIEVE THAT ART IS THE ONLY
FORM OF ACTIVITY IN WHICH MAN AS</i> MAN SHOWS HIMSELF
TO BE A TRUE INDIVIDUAL. AND IS CAPABLE OF GOING
BEYOND THE ANIMAL STATE. BECAUSE ART IS AN
OUTLET TOWARDS REGIONS WHICH ARE NOT RULED
BY TIME AND SPACE.
Fantastic! I assume this was conducted afterhours but in an exhibit open to the public during normal buisness hours. Perhaps I missed some audio on that. I love how he picks up his sculptures so casually, shakes and unfolds them as he speaks about them.