The title as such, suggests what is called in French " un effeuillage ", and it is beyond any doubt that sexuality is one of its dimensions.But, as I attempted to suggest above it is not that much a lady - might she be a sister - who is stripped bare in the Large Glass, but rather the reality. The real reality, the native reality. Reality I mean, before it is thought. And also of course what happens to reality when it is thought. In a very comparable manner, all well considered, to what Hegel does in "La Phénoménologie de L'esprit ".
And yes, it is possible to say - at first - that the
Large Glass is about the sort of knowledge you need to:
And it is more or less the only sort of knowledge that Nature requires us to have as regards the movement of knowledge, and it is sufficient for us to persevere into it. Let it be used, and then what we were not able to know in the course of our life, will ultimately be known by our descendants as time passes (although sometimes after really many years). Depending on this condition that they also make use of the same fundamental magical recipe.
And this is why knowledge of the opposite sex remains
the basic objective of this major epistemological effort to which children
But well, were things not to get further, either because
this interpretation is prolongated to the ultimate degrees of esoterism,
or more simply due to this remark, that a friend of mine made once which
a smile - and what a smile she has ! - that painters only ever become painters
because they have this passion to make drawings of bare ladies, then nothing
would have been said that would not be also true of software engineers
of of plumbers.
In 1968, Duchamp, precisely,
reworked in a sketch "Femme aux bas blancs ",
a work by Courbet and added a bird to it.
Where may be seen that by doing this, he added a bit to "This is not a pipe" by Magritte.
As a matter of fact, Duchamp's conclusion adds perspective to what Magritte fingers. Because Courbet's work of course, is not the true cunt either. So that the hawk says "false cunt" just as Courbet's work should say "false cunt" to any viewer. And so that ordinary perspective itself is also fingered as a lie. But the movement introduced by Duchamp's play on words, fingers that our representation is, as regards reality, in the same relationship as words in a play on words. In other terms, not much more than a chance, or more precisely said, in the best cases a coincidence.
above gives a hint of how improbable indeed may be that Duchamp, who
spend notably more time on playing chess than on women, might have
designed the Large Glass only as a
metaphor of the sexual act.
....more time on
playing chess than...