Philosophers, Duchamp, and the “Indie Artist"

In Thus Spoke Zarathustra and some of his other now canonized works, Friedrich Nietzsche often wrote of the philosopher's obligation to “go under” for the sake of man to “go over”. Surrounded by a poetic context of ambiguities, I always had difficulty understanding what the old man meant by this prescription for his modern man. As I grow more and more and develop within this modern social system, however, I begin to see the meaning of these words more clearly.

Nietzsche was a nobody, an eccentric and crippled old man, although quiet and cordial. His night life consisted of nothing much more than sitting in his attic and straining his failing eyes to read his own ramblings poured out on a stack of stale papers. Although pretentiously addressed to the modern age, his writings and essays were intended for nobody. Much of his works were only later to be discovered and published arguably against his will by the only person he ever acknowledged to truly know him, his most beloved sister.

And what is strikingly fascinating about this reclusive man, whose most definitive social context probably consisted of his very own fantasies he autonomously constructed for himself, was that he gave modern man something much more than modern man ever gave to him. This certainly is very distinct about Nietzsche’s gift to our modern age. Yet, what is more distinct is his shaping of the new identity of the philosopher and modern artist. Giving man a pattern and an image to replicate was nothing much different than philosophers before him, but the nature of his self-prescribed task was certainly much different.

Whenever I reflect on Nietzsche’s above words, I can not but think of the general sacrifice philosophers make for every age, and especially this one, when philosophers largely go unrecognized and unappreciated. At least for our time, there will never be another celebrity like Hume or Kant. The intellectual celebrity is now the physicist, biologist, politician, or the psychologist.

So I think of Marcel Duchamp and immediately reflect on his piece, Fountain. For Duchamp’s world, and even the Society of Independent Artists, this work was nothing more than a urinal plopped down in the middle of an art gallery. Yet, we can not now avoid associating this piece with initial rejection, only to be followed up by universal recognition in years to come. Again, it is the same way with various experimental music artists who sometimes carry that title: “Indie”. When I now think of Nietzsche, I am tempted to bring in a primary task recognized in both the contemporary Indie artist and Marcel Duchamp. From separate angles and utilizing different language-games, all three of these aesthetic figures contribute to the formation of the ambiguous and abstract identity of modern man. The very hopeful and now greatly needed task of these aesthetes is to offer a new possible doorway, a pond of disparate and fragmented tunes, colors, and values, only to be recognized or rejected… And that is why it is a sacrifice. I think of the work of experimental bands like Radiohead, Animal Collective, or the Pixies… Such bands have all offered a pond of abstractions and something terrifying but original to the music scene, often to be criticized or receive, at best, a pat on the head by mainstream critics. Their job is to off-set the pattern, in the desperate hope of setting a new one. The difference between such pioneers as these and some figures such as Coldplay or Dave Matthews is that such artists have rested on the pioneering sacrifice of the more obscure and experimental bands. The former sacrifice is the trial and error for the latter’s recognition as art.

It is this element that Nietzsche, Duchamp, and the experimental artist share. They do not serve the audience but the voice which will be recognized by the audience, and, occasionally, they themselves will be the object of recognition. Nietzsche seemed to imply that original thought would require a deposit of that thinker’s identity; the pioneer of the age submerges himself in a sea of ambiguity. The potential tragedy is that he may not emerge. His baptism is determined by his surroundings. The philosopher offers a concept or maybe a few concepts, only to be adopted or trampled and never be discovered again. This is his “going under” only to hope that man will “go over”.

Wittgenstein wrote that man is an endless resource for possible values and intended ends. More particularly, it is the rejected philosopher and artist who offer this resource. It is up to the rest of mankind to choose what characteristics and values to draw from these resources. And it is not that such men and voices who choose to replicate and embody these characteristics are scum; it is only that they are in a different kind of work. For the philosopher, his voice becomes the theologian and scientist who consume and re-package his ideas for the world. For the Indie music artist, it is the “pop” or “mainstream” artists, as almost every modern artist seems currently to relate to Duchamp.

There is probably not a single philosophy student unfamiliar with that obnoxious question: “and what are you gonna do with THAT degree??” But if it were not for the philosopher’s general apathy in desiring to answer that question, we would not be studying philosophy. The philosopher’s job is much less trivial than gathering an audience or making a recognized living for himself. His job is to sacrifice his thoughts, which are everything to him; they are, essentially, his identity. And that is his intimidating and sometimes despairing task. Modern thinkers and artists are often too heavily criticized as arrogant or too abstract, but they are sometimes perceived this way because they do not work within the patterns set for them. They work to define those patterns. Nietzsche defined modern man. Duchamp defined the modern artist. Their deposit is their sacrifice, and their exposure to ridicule is their gamble.