But how can the Large Glass be "four-dimensional"?
Duchamp's seemingly contradictory statements about the
4-D as physically unseeable, while maintaining that his
Glass (which we do see) is 4-D, provides a major clue to
what the Large Glass is! We can see from evident
perspective that the Large Glass rendering is
obviously a three-dimensional representation. The fact that
we can see it with our senses at all indicates -- especially
since Duchamp said the fourth-dimension can only be seen by the mind --
that the Large Glass must be three- not four-dimensional.
If Duchamp wanted to represent Poincaré's creativity
"machine in motion" and unconscious sieves as a fourth-dimensional
object, how could he logically ever depict it in 3-D so
we could actually see it? The answer, of course, resides
in the device of the Poincaré cut itself. Poincaré specifically
developed this technique as a method for capturing momentary
"snapshots" of overwhelmingly complex, non-linear probabilistic
systems that are impossible to see physically in 3-D (Peterson, pp. 160-165).
To summarize, Duchamp described his Large Glass as four-dimensional;
the fourth dimension cannot be physically seen, yet we see the Glass
in three-dimensions. The Poincaré cut itself can translate a fourth-dimensional
system that we can't see into a lower third-dimensional slice that
becomes visible. Look at Illustration 2B.
Objects in irregular orbits from Duchamp's initial conditions, although
separating from each other in trajectories generated from initial conditions in
time and space, eventually return to a 3-D slice in an unstable
4-D equilibrium. This reduction of 4-D mentality (in Duchamp's chosen
metaphor) to 3-D visibility represents a new application
of Poincaré's technique -- a device that was conventionally used to
translate 3-D systems to 2-D cuts or 2-D systems to 1-D cuts.
Duchamp stretched Poincaré's dimensional technique to suit his
belief that processes beyond the senses -- i.e., those that can
only be mentally comprehended -- are 4-D, whereas visible objects
and schematics are 3-D and 2-D. In a note, Duchamp defends his right
to extend Poincaré's technique to include the fourth-dimension in a
dimensional continuum [Duchamp always said that he wanted to
"stretch" the laws of physics just "a little"
(Tomkins, p. 34)]. Duchamp writes:
Just as the draft piston dots represent return movement on a 2-D plane from the larger 3-D probabilistic system of the Milky Way cloud in the Large Glass Bride, the Large Glass (appearing as a 3-D whole) is a Poincaré cut of the 4-D universal creativity machine, where Duchamp's specific probabilistic system represents one part in the same continuum. See Illustration 3. The whole of nature stands outside Duchamp's 3-D cut, but the cut is also embodied within, capturing a slice of nature's whole. Leonardo's windows are two-dimensional cuts or "snapshots" of a static, 3-dimensional nature. Duchamp's window begins where Leonardo's ended. Duchamp's window goes beyond 3-D nature and the retinal, allowing us to see into the vastness of nature's creativity through his non-retinal representation of this vastness as a cut (an abstract schematic "snapshot"). Duchamp said that he hated "repetition" and rejected simple cause and effect explanations of causality and Newtonian determinism. Duchamp correctly said that "formulas and theories are based upon repetition" (see DeDuve, 1991, p. 238; Gold, 1958, Appendix 41). This statement had been true until Poincaré's probabilistic system of chance. In an unstable equilibrium, one can discover definite patterns with a Poincaré cut. These "return trajectories" are not exact, but only similar, and by definition, can never be the same. In Poincaré's mechanism, Duchamp found a creative machine that couldn't repeat movements. His ideas and objects would emerge and disappear through time and space, and always stay similar across all scales of nature.12 Duchamp's ideas were generated from his initial conditions (notes), and then emerged as a variety of words, schematics and objects (never art). Art & Academe (ISSN: 1040-7812), Vol. 10, No. 2 (Fall 1998): 76-95. Copyright © 1997 Visual Arts Press Ltd. |
1 2 3 4 6 |