Marcel Duchamp not only challenged the art world in 1917 with his “readymade” urinal entitled Fountain, he intended to confront society’s feelings about homosexuality. By signing the inverted urinal with a pseudonym R. Mutt and submitting it to the newly established Society of Independent Artists, he attempted to subvert the standards of aesthetics by undermining the idea that art was sacred, while also shedding light on the homosexual sub-culture of the era. “While the interwoven histories of pissoirs and male-male public sex may not have been part of Duchamp’s life story,” they are components of Fountain (Franklin 23). Although most writing and reflection about Fountain pertains to critics dismissing it as a vulgar joke or a clever appropriation of an object that was not actually a work of art, they were missing Duchamp’s true intention of the piece. This writing intends to point out that Marcel Duchamp was actually intending to acknowledge the 1917 gay community thriving in public men’s rooms throughout Paris, New York and beyond.

Duchamp was on the board of the Society of Independent Artists, but they were unaware Fountain was his submission and overrode their own rule of ‘no jury’ to exclude the urinal from the show. Proclaiming the dismissal was based on the grounds that it was obscene and “may be a very useful object in its place…it is by no definition, a work of art” (Franklin 32). Duchamp resigned from the board in protest, but may have believed that the true reason Fountain was rejected remained unsaid.

Fountain brought to light the gay sub-culture of public urinals, which was a topic the civilized art community didn’t want to address, explore or promote, so they covered up their true denial by changing the subject. They made the issue about the definition of art instead. Duchamp may have believed that the group wanted to avoid addressing the homosexual connotations that the urinal revealed. His choice of a urinal as his “readymade” echoed a kind of fetish symbol for homosexual encounters. Considering this makes one believe that the protests by the Society were basically because they didn’t want to open a Pandora’s Box and acknowledge the sub-culture of the gay community. Gallery owners may have feared exposure of homosexual activity within their ranks if they didn’t condemn Fountain at the onset.

During the ninetieth and early twentieth centuries in New York, Paris and other cities, public urinals or pissoirs, were cultural concerns on several levels. City planners and health officials voiced concerns of placement and public health, but the underlying threat that worried them most was male homosexuality (Franklin 23). Officials and social reformers were convinced that “male homosexuals…were attracted to public toilets just as moths were to street lights” (Franklin23). This turn of the century blessing of sanitation had morphed into a queer playground for the homosexual community, which had not been so visible on the streets before. There was already a New York and Paris sub-culture of gay pornography that depicted men engaging in sexual acts in pissoirs and men’s rooms (Franklin 29). It was as if this artwork was advertising the fact that this is where to go for gay sex.

The cultural taboos of the era were on high alert when Duchamp introduced Fountain, in 1917; luckily Alfred Stieglitz photographed it before it was lost to history. Since then, Duchamp was commissioned in the 1950s to make several replicas of his famous urinal, which are on display at the finest museums in the world (Cromwell 2). In 2004 Duchamp’s Fountain received the honor as being “the most influential artwork of the 20^th century” (Cromwell 2).

Through the decades that followed, Duchamp’s Fountain has conceived many generations of urinal art, also sparking controversy, although today’s gay culture is out in the open and culturally accepted. Dutch artists Elmgreen and Dragset have made their mark in art history following Duchamp. They prepare architectural structures that often subvert and transform their functions, offering humor between proximity and promiscuity (Vestner 2). Their sculptural installation, “Gay Marriage” 2010 is a direct homage to Duchamp. It is a pair of men’s room urinals whose pipes intertwine below, declaring their intimate connection openly. The cultural reflection of the art of the urinal has transformed over the decades, but it is still a bell weather report on how a society rejects or accepts homosexuality.

Bibliography

Cromwell, Bob. “The Toilet Guru.” Toilets of the World, 22 Feb. 2021, toilet-guru.com/.

Franklin, Paul B. “Object Choice: Marcel Duchamp’s Fountain and the Art of Queer Art History.” Oxford Art Journal, vol. 23, no. 1, 2000, pp. 25–50.

Vestner, Elmar. “Gay Marriage: ELMGREEN & DRAGSET (2010).” PERROTIN, 1 Jan. 1970, www.perrotin.com/artists/Elmgreen_et_Dragset/32/gay-marriage/19066.