Talk:The Bride Stripped Bare by Her Bachelors, Even

Visionary

Bride is an incredible work that epitomizes the frustration of single men in modern society. Always seeing the woman they want that is forever unavailable (a bride), always masturbating to the idea of disrobing and fucking her, but this will never happen (they're seperated by planes) and they are forever single (bachelors). I can't believe this was done in the early 20th century.

The Emperor Stripped Bare By His Spectators, Even.71.188.124.71 (talk) 19:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)Ars Fraus

Redirect page

Thanks for getting this going TheArtistT2001! The title of this piece of art is The Bride Stripped Bare by Her Bachelors, Even, so that would be the main page and The Large Glass would be a redirect. I have a lot of information about it, but won't get to it right away. --sparkit (talk) 04:46, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I've rethought this. The piece is most often referred to as The Large Glass. The title Duchamp gave it, though, is an integral facet of the piece. In any case, it can all be worked out with redirects and in the body of the article. --sparkit (talk) 16:09, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Notes from article page

(I'm moving these notes here, rather than leave them on the article page.) --sparkit (talk) 13:42, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Other versions reputedly had titles "The Bride Deceived", and similarly to that affect.

The diagrams on P. 64 of D'Harnoncourt & McShine would be useful!

Web references:

One of the better text references: http://www.artchive.com/artchive/D/duchamp.html (extract from Janis Mink, "Marcel Duchamp, 1887-1968: Art as Anti-Art")

Small extract from the Janis Mink on the word "even" (in French: même),

The full title is also puzzling. In French, the title ends with "même", which is always translated as the adverb "even". Of course, as has often been noticed, phonetically it could also mean "m'aime", that the bride "loves me". (This interpretation has supported an incest theory coupling Duchamp with his sister Suzanne.) It appears Duchamp added the "même" to the title after his arrival in the United States in 1915, when he was experiencing the disjointedness of the French language from the point of view of someone trying to teach it to Americans. If "même" were understood as an adjective (Duchamp himself said it was an adverb), it could mean "the same", such as 'C'est la même chose' (that's the same thing), 'C'est moi-même' (it's me), or 'quand plusieurs verbes ont un même sujet' (when several verbs have the same subject). In any case, it does seem possible that Duchamp hints the bride and the bachelors could be diverging facets of the single person who invented them.

Without the comma before "même", it would mean something like "The bride stripped bare by her very bachelors". This is how I had always understood it, but I'm no authority on Duchamp's intentions. Milivoj 21:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The article says the work was broken, then repaired, and later the article says it is shattered, but between two panes of glass.

"Broken" and "shattered" are not quite synonymous, so I would like to ask about that.

Was the shattering intentional, the breakage not intentional, and what repairing was done? Thanks.

~~NotWillRiker — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.9.112.31 (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The work was shattered, in that both panes have cracks, but not "broken" since no pieces are missing. The repair was to reenforce the structure so it would not fall apart.FigureArtist (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

accuracy

please someone check the accuracy of the meaning section... I was quite ona run and couldn't check the French quotes if exact. Thanks! Sailko

Thanks for additing that Sailko! The "meaning" section is one of many interpretations. At the very least it needs attribution -- whose interpretation is it? Other interpretations are also called for if one is included in the article. Particularly more info on what Duchamp said and wrote about the piece. >>sparkit|TALK<< 03:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't find any source for the alchemy interpretation, but I added deeper discussion of Janis Mink's and Andrew Stafford's ideas as well as fairly textbook gendered and Lacanian readings, to illustrate that there are numerous possibilities for understanding this artwork. I can't see many critics reading any of Duchamp's pieces as allegorically as the interpretation Sailko contributed, so if it's going to stay it really does need attribution. PoetrixViridis 15:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The alchemy interpretation sounded completely ridiculous to me, because: 1. It mis-quoted the French title of the work 2. The French phonetic alternative proposed is NOT a phonetic alternative (the author obviously doesn't know a word of French, and probably doesn't know much about Duchamp if (s)he cannot give the correct French title). 3. No source is given for the interpretation.

I suggest removing this paragraph entirely, unless someone more knowledgable in history of art has read this interpretation in some serious source and can give references to it. (Milivoj, 23 April 2006)

I think it was Arturo Scwartz, a patron of Duchamp's, who first came up with the alchemy interpretation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sparkit (talk • contribs) 05:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

Agreed 100%--it's gone. PoetrixViridis 06:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

capitalization

This should be at The Bride Stripped Bare by Her Bachelors, Even. Can someone with privileges please correct this? Dforest 15:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Small Terminological Edit

I replaced the quasi-homonymical 'erratic' with 'erotic' which I believe is the proper term in that sentence. The Cabanne Dialogues as well as the included brief 'Appreciation' by Jasper Johns (cited) support this assertion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.28.148 (talk) 22:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Citation

If I had all my books on hand I could maybe tap up some citations for the analysis - they look supportable. If someone else has the time, crack out the Dialogues by Cabanne, as well as the Writings and you can probably account for most if not all of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.28.148 (talk) 22:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The analysis seems to be based upon the web page [1] listed in the external links but not given an inline ref.FigureArtist (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)