Talk:Fountain (Duchamp)/Archive 1

Old stuff
"but he did state that the initial "R" stood for "Richard", which is slang in French for "moneybags"." --> I'm french and I can tell you I've never even thought Richard was slang for anything... let's not get carried away and try to find meaning where there wasn't any, shall we? --69.157.151.232 17:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, "richard" is in fact slang for a rich person (whether or not Duchamp ever intended this is quite another matter). According to the Petit Robert, the meaning is attested as early as the 15th century. Here's the definition and example given in the PR : Fam. et péj. Personne riche, qui a de la fortune. Un gros richard. -> nabab. « C'est un état que nous ne souhaitons à personne, que celui d'être le richard de la famille » (Montherlant). It's certainly not common nowadays, but would probably still have been back in 1917 and later even, as evidenced by the quotation from Montherlant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Callacatacat (talk • contribs) 07:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Armut comment
"One theory suggests R.Mutt may be a play on the German word Armut, meaning poverty."

70.107.131.206 19:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)this should be removed. It's true that it's "one theory", but there are many other theories that are much more relevant to the message of this art. This is not a piece about poverty, this is a piece about art itself. That's the whole point of readymades. To give this theory so much credibility is to besmirch what Fountain is all about!


 * Yes, I am curious as to the source of this as well.

One theory suggests R.Mutt may be a play on the German word Armut, meaning poverty.

The above removed from main article until a source is provided for it. Tyrenius 13:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've found a source! (also used for other information in the article): Tyrenius 13:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Major Edit Proposal
I am proposing a major edit to this page. I wrote an 18 page paper on Duchamp's readymades, especially "Fountain," and the monumental influence it had on the art that followed. For such a monumentally important piece of art, I think it deserves a better entry. This is a fairly abbreviated entry, but I just want to see what people think before changing everything:

This is one of Marcel Duchamp's most influential works and its creation stems largely from of his dadaist (specifically New York Dada) notions. The Dada goal was to destroy art by bring it out of the hands of the bourgeoisie to the banality of the real world. This piece is an example of a readymade (now known as found art) which was simply a found object taken from the real world context and pronounced art.

This particular "readymade" was purchased in a hardware store, signed with the psuedonym "R. Mutt," and named "The Fountain." The New York Dadaists were fond of linguistic word games and inside jokes and these trends are apparent in this piece. The signature is a joke name, perhaps referring to his own lack of reverence for art by calling himself "mutt." Another theory suggests R.Mutt may be a play on the German word Armut, meaning poverty. The title itself reflects Duchamps philosophy on art; the name of something beautiful but otherwise purposeless is given to something utterly banal in much the same way Duchamp believes art is pretty but useless construct of the upperclass and should be returned to the everyday real world. The clever thing in it all is how he attempted to destroy art through a simple pun.

Duchamp submitted the piece to the "unjuried" 1917 Society of Independent Artists (of which he was a board member) exhibition and even though there was no screening process, it was rejected as "not being art." He resigned from the board shortly after the incident.

In December 2004, Duchamp's Fountain was voted the most influential artwork of the 20th century by 500 of the most powerful people in the British art world. This is testimony to the influence of Duchamp's work, and the mark he has left on the art world. The effect of this revolutionary creation was almost the opposite of Duchamp's original intentions. Even though he was trying to destroy art, he managed to revitalize it with the notion that the simple act of deeming something as "art" can create art, opening the door to artists to follow such as Jasper Johns and Robert Rauschenberg, the Pop artists and later the conceptual artists. Ideas as art became a highly embraced philosophy in the art world. Fifty years after creating "The Fountain," Duchamp reflects on the misinterpretations of his intentions in saying, "I threw the urinal in their faces and now they admire it for its aesthetic beauty."

The original "Fountain" has long been reported "lost" or "missing" and so the only versions available today are reproductions.


 * If your edit is legitimate, please have at it. I, for one, found this article too brief. Possibly, the Fountain's status as art has nothing to do with the physical work. Would any toilet be okay? What about just asking people to imagine a toilet? Average people find this kind of art offensive: why is my toilet worth 25 dollars and this guy's toilet is worth millions of dollars? What makes irreverence art? Why go through the motions of offending people if you already know the outcome? These are other questions need answering. Otherwise, readers will think art critics are merely capricious snobs.


 * Wikipedia encourages bold edits. However, there can also be bold edits to bold edits - or even complete reversions (rv) of edits. You should go ahead with your ideas, but bear in mind Wiki policies.
 * 1) NOR - no original research - means information has to come from already published sources, not personal pet theories and not personal research. If you want to include these, get them published somewhere else first (and then you can reference them).
 * 2) NPOV - neutral point of view - a balanced presentation of the facts and differing viewpoints in an ideal article.
 * 3) Cite references and sources.
 * Tyrenius 10:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Brian Eno?
This 2006 performance was a continuation of the performance artist's work from a performance he conducted in 1993 when he urinated into the piece while it was on display in Nimes, in southern France.

I'm aware that the same man who attacked the piece recently did so once before in 1993, but wasn't it Brian Eno who urinated in the piece, and in a totally seperate incident, both elsewhere (in New York) as well as two years later, in 1995?

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=916964

At this link, in quotation, is text of what is allegedly Eno's account straight from his own diary, but every net search (although not very exhaustive searches, I'll admit) I've done related to Eno's involvement only give me sites linking to that page.

Or am I wrong, and perhaps both Eno and the repeat attacker have urinated in it? It would make sense considering only one of the articles I've read (so far) of the recent attack describes exactly how the piece was attacked in 1993.

Clarification, anyone?

--Monsquaz 16:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

"Appealing" is not a point of view
I am trying to point out the aesthetic qualities of an object. I am not going to say that they are unappealing. Why am I getting reverted?

And furthermore, that is not a point of view. At least, not a point of view that I am aware of. If you consider it a point of view, could you just tell me what the point of view is that you think I am promoting, as you see it?

And further furthermore, I do not consider it original research to describe the most obvious visual qualities of an object of art. It is white. Is it original research to describe it as being white? Bus stop 16:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * First, many people would disagree with you that the urinal is appealing on an artistic or formal level. This is your opinion that it is appealing.  I, personally, find it appealing, but I'm not an expert, nor are you.  And if you are, cite it to your work.  We aren't here to posit what is "appealing" - we are here to present cited, sourced material to experts in the field, on the subject, or on the form itself.  So we cite what we write to back up what we say.  As it stands now, you are putting material in that says the work is "appealing" with no sources.  I can assure you, any Request for Comment on this issue you would fail to pass the WP:NPOV criteria.  This is official policy, and can't be circumvented by giving antonyms.  Just find a source for what you write, that's all.  Thanks.  --David Shankbone 16:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

"Appealing" happens to be why the article exists. It is only in that sense that I am using the word. Appealing is why the object is housed in a museum. Appealing is why it is discussed. It has meaning. It has significance, in many people's minds. It is in that sense that it is "appealing." My usage of the word "appealing" equates with "value." Marcel Duchamp's Fountain serves as a flashpoint for discussing critical issues, for many people. It has "attractiveness" and it has "appeal."

It is art that we are talking about. It is visual art. Very few works of visual art are totally repulsive. It is perfectly natural to employ the word appealing to refer to smooth, curvilinear, porcelain white surfaces. That is straightforward, neutral, description.

I have not expressed a point of view. Nor have I done original research. This is a work of art that we are describing. It is not original research to say that the urinal is smooth. It happens to be white -- do you object to my saying it is white? I have not used fanciful language. I have not, for instance, compared it to "a dove in flight." It is white, so I have simply called it white. That is not original research, not in the context of a work of visual art. It would be ludicrous to think one could not state basic, incontrovertible facts pertaining to a work of visual art. There is no issue of original research. If you thought the object were blue, that would be a legitimate objection. But I contend that my referring to the object as white cannot possibly be construed as original research. Bus stop 18:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is all your opinion. Not every piece of art in a museum, nor every article, do I find "appealing" - and I would be surprised if you could say the same thing.  You can describe the work, but you can't give your opinion that it is "appealing" or any other value-laden term. --David Shankbone 18:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I am using the word appealing in the most general sense. I thought I explained that above. But also, I am referring to smooth, white, curvilinear surfaces. That language is associated with appealing. It is the general case that visual art contains at least some visually appealing qualities. That is not the exception -- that is generally the case. As I said above, it would be rare to find any work of visual art totally devoid of visually appealing characteristics. My use of the word appealing is without any particular import. There is no pushing of any point of view. Context is everything. Curvilinear and smooth are appealing qualities, generally. Since we are talking about visual art, there is no particular point of view being expressed. In a straightforward manner I am referring to obvious qualities, using the terms that are generally applicable. Bus stop 18:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You're still expressing opinions. That "smooth, white, curvilinear" is associated with the word "appealing" is an opinion you have, that you are ascribing as a fact.  Says who?  You?  We aren't here to tell people what is appealing, and what is not.  What you, yourself, think is obvious to others is a falsehood.  Secondly, There are plenty of artists who don't effort to be "visually appealing" and many who effort NOT to be visually appealing, and you don't have to go far to find one.    --David Shankbone 19:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you offer me an example of an artwork that has no visually appealing qualities? (And by the way, we are not talking primarily about artists. We are talking primarily about artworks. The subject of the article is not primarily Marcel Duchamp. The subject of the article is the sculpture titled Fountain, by Marcel Duchamp.) I would be interested to know which work of visual art you know of that has no appealing visual characteristics. Bus stop 19:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not here to educate you on the breadth of the art world, just to make sure you don't put your point of view into the article. Thanks.  --David Shankbone 19:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't asking you to "educate" me. It was you who said that some artists make artwork deliberately intended to not be appealing. I just thought that if you could point to a work of art that you considered not appealing we could discuss that. I feel that the imperative to make artwork seductive and visually appealing is alive and well. I know it goes through changes. What is appealing in one period of time is not appealing in another period of time. I thought it might be interesting to discuss. Bus stop 19:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * True, it would be interesting, but this isn't a chat room, it's a page to discuss changes to Wikipedia, and such a discussion would be against guidelines and policy. --David Shankbone 20:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

But you are wrong. That is the point. "Appealing" is a natural and almost always present quality in works of art. Bus stop 20:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it. You just aren't entitled to put it into the article.  Best of luck.  --David Shankbone 20:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

That point of view was not put into the article. Bus stop 20:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Was it a "used" urinal?
Are you saying it was a used urinal? If so, from where do you get this information? Bus stop 21:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You should read the article, and what a Readymade is. The better question is, what leads you to believe it was a clean new professionally-produced urinal?  --David Shankbone 21:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

In other words, you do not know that it was used. Then why are you saying, in your last edit summary, that the object wasn't "clean and new?" Do you know anything about this?

The article Readymades of Marcel Duchamp makes reference to "manufactured objects." I am equating "manufactured" with "professionally produced."

I can't attest to the fact that the urinal had never been urinated into. Do you have reason to believe that the urinal was used, in that sense? Bus stop 22:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Before you edit an article, you should know about it. No offense, but you are making yourself look foolish by admitting that, basically, you know nothing about this piece of art.  By the way, that's my photograph on the page, and I know a good deal about it.  You should research it before you expect others to explain it to you so that you don't make edits that are untrue, misleading, point-of-view, or otherwise inaccurate.  I don't see much point to continuing this discussion. --David Shankbone 22:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And note that you were the one who put in "clean, new"; I didn't replace that with "dirty and used".--David Shankbone 22:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

If you can not continue this discussion, that is OK. But I will continue to edit the article. And there will still be a need to resort to use of the Talk page to iron out differences. I'm sorry not to find you more conversational, since we are both trying to write a Wikipedia article on Fountain, a sculpture by Marcel Duchamp. Bus stop 22:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

If you pee on it, does that make it art? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.193.112.62 (talk) 23:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

90 Degrees?
"he turned it 90 degrees from its normal position" I beleive that should be 180 degrees? It is mentioned more than once...


 * I believe it's position as displayed in the art gallery represents a rotation of 90 degrees from its position of use in the average bathroom. The rotation is one from, for instance, the position of the hour hand on an analogue clock (the "small" hand) moving from the "12" to the "3." That I believe is a rotational movement of 90 degrees.


 * Specifically, instead of being "mounted" on the wall, it is "mounted" on the "floor." The angle formed between the wall (vertical) and the floor (horizontal) is 90 degrees. Bus stop 11:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

"Interpretations" section
This could really do with some inline citations. As it stands the only reference given is right at the end of the "The Artist's Name" subsection. Other parts, in particular the "Formal interpretation" subsection, currently read very much like original research. 86.132.138.205 22:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

"If we separate the capital and lowercase letters we get "R.M" and "utt", "R.M" would stand for "Readymade" which is the fountain itself and "utt" when read out loud sounds like "eut été" in French (much like Duchamp's L.H.O.O.Q.). Together it means "Readymade once was, 1917". Word games like this are common in Marcel Duchamp's work." THIS IS COMPLETE BOLLOCKS. This really should be removed; some student's original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.230.38.115 (talk) 20:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

In French "eut" doesn't mean "once was", but "had". I really don't think such an "interpretation" actually holds any water. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Callacatacat (talk • contribs) 07:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Missing citation
Footnote 8 ("Quoted in Schwarz, p. 649.") is incomplete. Schwarz's work is not referred to in full in the "References" section or anywhere else in the article. Can someone provide a full reference? &mdash; Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 18:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This has been left "floating" now for fourteen months. Since no one has been able to come up with this mysterious reference, I have suppressed it into hidden text and tagged the quotation with a request for a citation. One suspects this might be a reference to Arturo Schwarz but, as he has published at least five books on Duchamp, as well as a dozen or more general titles that likely include references to him, whoever put that reference in had better come up with a proper citation, or the quote will need to be removed.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's unlikely we'll track down the anonymous person who added the quote (diff). --sparkit TALK 05:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

"Origins" section: quotations
Could someone could double check the the below excerpt:

The New York Dadaists stirred controversy about Fountain and its being hidden from view in the second issue of The Blind Man which included a photo of the piece and a letter by Alfred Stieglitz, and writings by Beatrice Wood and Arensberg. The text accompanying the photograph made a claim crucial to much later modern art:

Whether Mr Mutt made the fountain with his own hands or not has no importance. He CHOSE it. He took an article of life, placed it so that its useful significance disappeared under the new title and point of view – created a new thought for that object.[5]

In defense of the work being art, Wood also wrote: "The only works of art America has given are her plumbing and her bridges."[6] Duchamp described his purpose with the piece as shifting the focus of art from physical craft to intellectual interpretation.

I recall Duchamp's "The Richard Mutt Case" (1917) is the origin of the quotes not Stiegliz, Woods, or Arensberg, but I currently do not have any sources on hand to check before making any changes to the article. A reprint of Duchamp's article, however, can be found in Charles Harrison and Paul Wood's Art in Theory: 1900-2000: An Anthology of Changing Ideas (2002).

--Spiraltra (talk) 03:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I can attest that the Woods quote is from Blind Man. See the Blind Man link in references. The second issue of Blind Man includes writings of Wood, Arensberg and others. As well as, the Stieglitz photo and maybe some writing from Stieglitz (I don't remember.)


 * The "Whether Mr. Mutt made..." quote is from Blind Man, too. Page 5. The attribution is messed up in the wikipedia article. I'll fix it right now. It may be re-quoted in many articles and books like Art in Theory, but I think we should cite the original source - Blind Man.

--sparkit TALK 13:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Baroness Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven
I would like to propose an edit to a section of the "Origin" page that discusses the possible collaboration between Duchamp and the Baroness on the work "Fountain."

My edit would read:

According to another version, Duchamp did not create Fountain, but rather assisted in submitting the piece to the Society of Independent Artists for a female friend. In a letter dated 11 April 1917 Duchamp writes to his sister Suzanne telling her about the circumstances around Fountain's submission : "Une de mes amies sous un pseudonyme masculin, Richard Mutt, avait envoyé une pissotière en porcelaine comme sculpture" ("One of my female friends, who had adopted the pseudonym, Richard Mutt, sent me a porcelain urinal as a sculpture."[5] (Quoted in Irene Gammel's Baroness Elsa: Gender, Dada and Everyday Modernity-A Cultural Biography. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2002.) Duchamp never identified the female friend, but two candidates have been proposed: the Dadaist Baroness Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven, whose scatological aesthetic echoed that of Duchamp....

Alexpsparks (talk)


 * I would agree that regardless which version is correct, it wasn't a collaboration. As I understand the new research, he only claimed it as his work much later. I support this edit. --Theredproject (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree. There was no collaboration, but there was assistance. "There’s still some controversy about if Duchamp actually did the thing. He did it, right? That’s been disclaimed, correct? No controversy with me.  Right. So there’s no doubt then?  No doubt." [] “Fountain” At 100: An Interview With William Camfield Valueyou (talk) 08:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Uhm, I'm new to this talk editing, so forgive me for making mistakes in the layout here. I think it's good that there is at least a mention of the Baroness on this page, but I still feel like Duchamp is getting all of the credits, while it's been almost certainly proven to be her work, or at least not his. I've been doing a bit of reading (but all my current sources are in Dutch. (I was gonna link two of the best ones I'd found, but one is an .online domain that Wikipedia doesn't accept) I was hoping to be able to help with the editing of the Dutch wiki page, but it seems like Fountain doesn't have a page in Dutch (it might be on Duchamp's page though). I suggest you look up the keywords of my little piece here on Google (I wish I could look for English sources but I actually should be working right now...) and it seems quite clear that Duchamp is not the maker of this work, or at least not without any assistance. It fits the style of the Baroness much better and she had already been experimenting with readymades back in 1913 (The Enduring ornament). Also, Duchamp has said that Mutt was a simple change from the name JL Mott Iron Works (118 Fifth Avenue, New York), where he supposedly had bought the urinoir. However, this model of urinoir was not one that JL Mott ever had in their range of products and at the supposed time of buying it, there wasn't even a store on the adress that Duchamp mentioned, only a showroom.
 * SquidKiddd (talk) 12:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fountain (Duchamp). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hatii.arts.gla.ac.uk/MultimediaStudentProjects/00-01/9704524l/MM
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141204113832/http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20060212191356996 to http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20060212191356996

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Fountain (Duchamp). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041012093700/http://arthist.binghamton.edu/duchamp/fountain.html to http://arthist.binghamton.edu/duchamp/fountain.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hatii.arts.gla.ac.uk/MultimediaStudentProjects/00-01/9704524l/MM%20Project/Html/badly3.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141204113832/http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20060212191356996 to http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20060212191356996
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060301001858/http://www.artscienceresearchlab.org/articles/betacourt.htm to http://www.artscienceresearchlab.org/articles/betacourt.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fountain (Duchamp). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110517081532/http://hem.passagen.se/gkrantz/ett/artiklar/kjell.html to http://hem.passagen.se/gkrantz/ett/artiklar/kjell.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Article nomenclature
Shouldn't this article be titled "Fountain (artwork)", similar to Metronome (public artwork)? GreaseballNYC (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * As long as there is no danger of any other artwork being titled "Fountain", this might make sense. On the other hand, the title is probably more closely associated with Duchamp himself than with the object.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree to a change of title, as there are doubts whether Duchamp made it himself, or just claimed he did after Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven died.Femkemilene (talk) 07:24, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm in favour of changing it as well, for the same reason as Femkemilene mentioned. It makes no sence to put Duchamp in the title if it's so likely he didn't even make it. SquidKiddd (talk) 14:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Leaning towards in favor, and if the name is changed (although a redirect to the present title necessary) more about EVF-L's likely initial creation should probably be in the lead. Maybe an RM on this would be beneficial to get more editors interested in researching the "mystery" present about the origins of this artwork. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I have been so free to change the title. I think the lead is now biased the other way, but surely somebody else will change that. Femkemilene (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * And it's been moved back. Someone needs to do a proper WP:RM. "Fountain (artwork)" won't cut it. "Fountain (R. Mutt)" might be ok, or with the date at least. I don't think it's terribly well known as "Fountain", but maybe I'm wrong. Apart from his letter, Duchamp had no difficulty taking credit (and cash) for it in later years, and the article still begins "Fountain is a 1917 work produced by Marcel Duchamp", though with the doubts covered lower down. Johnbod (talk) 21:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The disputed attribution of Fountain and the role of Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven are nothing new to me. I've know about it for years. It's an interesting case. But Wikipedia does not lead with revising misattributions. We follow what the sources say, and for now, the majority of sources attribute the work to Duchamp. So that is what we're going to write. We can certainly mention (keeping WP:DUE in mind) that new research attributes it to EvFL, but we cannot significantly divert from what the majority of sources say. That doesn't mean the title can't or shouldn't be changed.
 * It is common that we use parenthetical disambiguation when there are more subjects with the same title and we tend to use the article class in parenthesis. That is artwork. If we have more than one one artwork with the same name, it makes sens to distinguish them with the name of the artist, like we do with The Last Supper (Leonardo da Vinci), The Last Supper (Ghirlandaio), The Last Supper (Crespi) and, somewhat different, but still Last Supper (del Castagno). Regardless of the revision of the attribution, our policies and guidelines support Fountain (artwork). I think it makes sense to request that Fountain (Duchamp) be renamed to Fountain (artwork). WP:Requested moves would be the appropriate venue to do that. Vexations (talk) 02:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Read the policies more carefully please (WP:NCDAB and WP:VAMOS)! The prime factor in disambiguation is avoiding ambiguity and aiding recognition by the reader, and Fountain (artwork) fails that very badly. There are thousands of sculptural fountains that might refer to, or it would be taken as a topical article on that subject.  The present title actually works very well - anyone looking for this will be aware of the connection with Duchamp. I'm happy to keep the present title, but if it must be changed Fountain (urinal) would be better, or Fountain (R. Mutt), as I suggest above. Johnbod (talk) 14:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't think of a single fountain that could ever be using the title Fountain (artwork). All the fountains we cover have their own proper name. The only feasible target I can discern is our article about the urinals. If I understand you correctly, Fountain (artwork) would refer to a large set of articles that are so diffuse that none of them could plausibly be a single target, and therefor it should either not be used or disambiguated again. If it were to remain as a redirect, what SHOULD it point to? Vexations (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, here, I suppose, but who is ever going to need it? Johnbod (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Johnbod's proposed name, Fountain (R. Mutt), is fair to all uninjured parties. It is also surrealistic enough to become part of the artwork. Win-win. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Fountain (Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven)
New evidence points clearly to the Baroness as maker of the fountain. The source also states that Duchamp lied about/ made up its origin, which now is debunked by the author. Unfortunately the source is in dutch, but also other dutch media covered the story in english for those that can not read dutch: Palimpalim2018 18 June 2018

https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2018/06/14/famous-urinal-fountain-is-not-by-marcel-duchamp-a1606608
 * Freytag-Loringhoven is already mentioned in the article. Coldcreation (talk) 11:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Do not move page without gaining consensus first. "Fountain is one of Duchamp’s most famous works and is widely seen as an icon of twentieth-century art." (Tate) Coldcreation (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This art-mystery at least deserves a mention in the lead, and an extension of the case for Freytag-Loringhoven's participation in the text of the page. Duchamp took credit, and to do so, if FL created it, had to have her approval (but that's guesswork too). The controversy over creation seems to be coincidental in spots, and could either be made up or just a faulty memory of time and place. An interesting "case" all around, but I don't think Wikipedia has enough detail yet to change the name of the article and name of the creator. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * See three sections up - we are having 2 conversations here. Johnbod (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry about moving it, I didn't expect more people to react and had incorrectly assumed consensus had already been reached after the response of 3 others. In reaction to having FL's approval, it is important to mention he only took credit for the work after both FL and some photographer died (don't really understand which photographer was mentioned in the NRC article). Femkemilene (talk) 09:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The only photographer mentioned in is Morton Schamberg Vexations (talk) 12:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * In the article (linked above) by Sandra Smallenburg, it is written the label on which the submitter wrote the name Richard Mutt is a different handwriting than the signature on the pot itself - and neither resembles the handwriting of Duchamp. It is doubtful she had a graphologist examine the signature. It sounds like the writer's opinion. Having studied many signatures of M. Duchamp in high resolution, I can give the (equally valid) opinion that the original signature R. Mutt—shown in the 1917 Alfred Stieglitz photograph—bares many characteristic features of Duchamp. One for example is the "M" of Mutt. The "v" at the center of the M does not extend further than half-way toward the baseline of a letters: Typical of Duchamp. It is most common, in other artists signatures, to see this point closer to the baseline. Too, the baseline itself is far-from straight: Typical of Duchamp. The heaviness of the stroke on the right side of the letters is typical of Duchamp. The "R" of R. Mutt is also typical of Duchamp in that the upper section is proportionally smaller than the lower section. Finally, to attach the claim that this work is by woman rather than a man, and therefore "Thanks to the #MeToo movement, the time is right for change. There is now momentum to bring the work of women back to the attention" is basically playing the gender card, accusing artists and art historians of sexism or misogyny, without evidence that the attribution to Duchamp was based on sexism. Whenever someone uses this card (or other cards, such as the race card) it is usually a sign that they have nothing else to rely upon, doubling down on a failed strategy, broadly seen as a cynical tactic. These are just a couple red flags. I'm sure there are more. I will now proceed to study the situation more closely. Yes, original research. In any case, hitherto, there is not enough empirical evidence to attribute authorship of Fountain to anyone other than Marcel Duchamp. Coldcreation (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)