Interviews with Ed Ruscha and Bruce Conner

Abstract

Armstrong: How did you first know about Duchamp? Was it through art school? Ruscha: I think it was in a book, a reproduction of the Nude Descending a Staircase. It was as if there were an asterisk on that picture; his Nude Descending a Staircase was such a spectacle at the time that you remembered it for that. That was part of its value. Then, there were my teachers in school [Chouinard Art Institute in Los Angeles], who were more along the line of Abstract Expressionists. These people admired Duchamp, but probably didn't like his work; they couldn't see it for its true value. So he was only marginally mentioned, but all the students knew about Armstrong: You have said that your teachers were often disparaging in their remarks about Duchamp. Did that have a certain appeal to students then? Ruscha: Yes, it did. And it probably had precisely the effect that Duchamp would have liked to have had on students, and that is to be a rebel. He was against a kind of academic slavery that artists went through who followed a traditional path; he was for the spirit of revolt. Armstrong: Did his rejection of painting, and especially of the retinal in painting, cause you to reevaluate your approach to art early in your career? Ruscha: It just made me aware that there was another way to think about things. Finally, the ultimate mystery of his work is its value. It's hard to be taught how to look at Duchamp's work; it has to be felt somehow. Armstrong: You once said that your books were the most Duchampian of your work. Ruscha: I feel that the spirit of his work is stronger in my books than in anything else. But I don't use him as a reference; he's just so much a part of my history and my art--as he is for so many artists. Armstrong: You were once quoted as saying: If Marcel Duchamp hadn't come along, we would have needed to invent him. Could you elaborate?