shearer & gould. duchamp's l.h.o.o.q.-from 1919 or 1930
TRANSCRIPT
7/23/2019 Shearer & Gould. Duchamp's L.H.O.O.Q.-from 1919 or 1930
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/shearer-gould-duchamps-lhooq-from-1919-or-1930 1/2
American Association for the Advancement of Science is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Science.
http://www.jstor.org
Duchamp's L.H.O.O.Q.-From 1919 or 1930?Author(s): Rhonda Roland Shearer and Stephen Jay GouldSource: Science, New Series, Vol. 287, No. 5450 (Jan. 7, 2000), p. 41
Published by: American Association for the Advancement of ScienceStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3074242Accessed: 03-07-2015 06:00 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
This content downloaded from 128.122.149.154 on Fri, 03 Jul 2015 06:00:51 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/23/2019 Shearer & Gould. Duchamp's L.H.O.O.Q.-from 1919 or 1930
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/shearer-gould-duchamps-lhooq-from-1919-or-1930 2/2
Duchamp's
L.H.O.O.Q.-From
1919 or 1930?
Marcel
Duchamp's
ntentionsie revealed
n
an
inadvertent,
but
highly amusing
and
equally
instructiveerror n the
figure
of
L.I.O.O.Q.
(a
moustached
and bearded
MonaLisa) that illustratesBarry Cipra's
News Focusarticle
Duchamp
ndPoincare
renew
an old
acquaintance
(26
Nov.,
Duchamp's
L.H.O.O.Q.-From
1919 or 1930?
Marcel
Duchamp's
ntentionsie revealed
n
an
inadvertent,
but
highly amusing
and
equally
instructiveerror n the
figure
of
L.I.O.O.Q.
(a
moustached
and bearded
MonaLisa) that illustratesBarry Cipra's
News Focusarticle
Duchamp
ndPoincare
renew
an old
acquaintance
(26
Nov.,
Duchamp
estooned
t least
12
other er-
sions of the Mona
Lisa
throughout
is
ca-
reer,
ll
presumably
s
part
of a
plan
or
hint-
ing
toward
is
intentions,
nd
displaying
he
power
of
tiny
alterations n
general
hemes
(if
only
we couldfree our
mindof
expecta-
tions,
and learn to observe
closely).
But
fromcomparisons f measurementsf the
facial
features,
hearer nd Brandt
1)
have
concluded hat all these
othermustachiod
Duchamp
estooned
t least
12
other er-
sions of the Mona
Lisa
throughout
is
ca-
reer,
ll
presumably
s
part
of a
plan
or
hint-
ing
toward
is
intentions,
nd
displaying
he
power
of
tiny
alterations n
general
hemes
(if
only
we couldfree our
mindof
expecta-
tions,
and learn to observe
closely).
But
fromcomparisons f measurementsf the
facial
features,
hearer nd Brandt
1)
have
concluded hat all these
othermustachiod
The
Duchamp guises
of Mona Lisa.
L.H.O.O.Q.,
1919
(left);
L.H.O.O.Q.,
1930
(middle);
and
Mona Lisa
by
Leonardo Da
Vinci,
1504
(right).
The
Duchamp guises
of Mona Lisa.
L.H.O.O.Q.,
1919
(left);
L.H.O.O.Q.,
1930
(middle);
and
Mona Lisa
by
Leonardo Da
Vinci,
1504
(right).
p.
1668).
Cipra
discusses
analyses
y
R. R.
Shearer nd R. Brandt
1)
that
Duchamp's
infamousL.I.
O.O.Q.
of 1919-his
suppos-
edly
simple
desecration f
festooning
an
image
of
the MonaLisawitha
moustache,
beard,
nda salaciousitle
the
etters
poken
out
loud in French
ound
ike the sentence
She
has
a hot
ass )-
actually
represents
Duchamp's
ore ubtle nd
complex
manip-
ulation
of
creating
is
own
lithographic
e-
production y making
a
composite
of his
face
with
Leonardo's
a
Gioconda.
In
so
doing,
we
presume,Duchamp
wished o
ex-
pose
the foiblesof art criticsand historians
by
showing
hathe
couldso alter
heirmost
famous
con,
and
they
wouldnot notice so
long
as he distracted
hem
by
an
outrageous
graffito
nda
plausible
Dadaclaim
or
why
he haddone
so).
p.
1668).
Cipra
discusses
analyses
y
R. R.
Shearer nd R. Brandt
1)
that
Duchamp's
infamousL.I.
O.O.Q.
of 1919-his
suppos-
edly
simple
desecration f
festooning
an
image
of
the MonaLisawitha
moustache,
beard,
nda salaciousitle
the
etters
poken
out
loud in French
ound
ike the sentence
She
has
a hot
ass )-
actually
represents
Duchamp's
ore ubtle nd
complex
manip-
ulation
of
creating
is
own
lithographic
e-
production y making
a
composite
of his
face
with
Leonardo's
a
Gioconda.
In
so
doing,
we
presume,Duchamp
wished o
ex-
pose
the foiblesof art criticsand historians
by
showing
hathe
couldso alter
heirmost
famous
con,
and
they
wouldnot notice so
long
as he distracted
hem
by
an
outrageous
graffito
nda
plausible
Dadaclaim
or
why
he haddone
so).
Monas
differ rom
he
original
1919version
in a crucial
way.
In
fact,
the otherversions
all use unaltered
eproductions
f
Leonar-
do's amous
painting.
Only
Duchamp's
919
original
and
the
replica
hat
he
produced
later or the
portable
ndminiaturized
mu-
seum
f his oeuvre
he
Boite-en-Ialise)
ea-
tures
he
composite
f his
face andLeonar-
do's MonaLisa. In
Cipra's
rticle, he
top
image
on
page
1669 is described
as the
1919
original,
but
it
actually represents
Duchamp's
irst
replication
f
1930,
using
Leonardo's naltered
ainting.
nterestingly,
Duchamp
did not exhibit
he
original
1919
work
n
public
until
1930,
when
he
posted
both
versions,
ide
by
side,
n
a
gallery,
er-
haps
as a dareor a
challenge.
Incidentally, our
illustration
howing
Duchamp's
masterpiece
the
Large
Glass
Monas
differ rom
he
original
1919version
in a crucial
way.
In
fact,
the otherversions
all use unaltered
eproductions
f
Leonar-
do's amous
painting.
Only
Duchamp's
919
original
and
the
replica
hat
he
produced
later or the
portable
ndminiaturized
mu-
seum
f his oeuvre
he
Boite-en-Ialise)
ea-
tures
he
composite
f his
face andLeonar-
do's MonaLisa. In
Cipra's
rticle, he
top
image
on
page
1669 is described
as the
1919
original,
but
it
actually represents
Duchamp's
irst
replication
f
1930,
using
Leonardo's naltered
ainting.
nterestingly,
Duchamp
did not exhibit
he
original
1919
work
n
public
until
1930,
when
he
posted
both
versions,
ide
by
side,
n
a
gallery,
er-
haps
as a dareor a
challenge.
Incidentally, our
illustration
howing
Duchamp's
masterpiece
the
Large
Glass
(p.
1668)
appears flopped
that
s,
turned
y
180
degrees
n
printing
roma
reversed
ega-
tive),
another llustration
f errors o
easily
made
with
objective
isual
nformation.
Rhonda Roland Shearer
Stephen
Jay
Gould*
Art Science Research
Laboratory,
62 Greene
Street,
New
York,
NY
10012-4346,
USA.
E-mail:
*Presidentof AAAS.
References
1. R.
R.
Shearer
nd R.
Brandt,
aperpresented
t the
conference Methods
f
understanding
n artand
ci-
ence:Thecase of
Duchamp
nd
Poincare,
arvard
University,
ambridge,
A,
to 7 November 999.
Bt Toxin:
Assessing
GM
Strategies
The debateover
possible
deleterious
ffects
on the Monarch
utterfly
f
genetically ngi-
neered
lants xpressing biological
nsecti-
cide
(Bt
toxin)
s described
n the News Fo-
cus
article Risks ndbenefits:GM
crops
n
the cross hairs
by
Dan Ferber
26
Nov.,
p.
1662).
In
response,
ome critical
points
should e raised.
The
ssue
s broaderhanwhether
t
toxin
(from
the bacterium Bacillus
thuringiensis)
producedby genetically
modified
(GM)
crops mperils
Monarch utterflies.
he real
issue is thata
strategy
o
constitutively
x-
press
an insecticidal
ompound
n
large-scale
crop
monocultures
15
million acres of
Bt
corn
was
planted
n theUnitedStates
n
1998,
200
o of the total
acreage
of
corn),
andthus
expose
a
homogeneous
ubecosystem
ontin-
uously
o
the
oxin,
eems
bound o
createBt-
toxin-resistant
ests
becauseof
heavy
selec-
tion
pressure.
ooneror laterwe
will
likely
see Bt-toxin
esistance
n
those insects
hat
arecontinuouslyncontactwith hesemono-
cultures nd eedon
them. f or when hisoc-
curs,
we will
have ost
the use of a valuable
bio-insecticide.
orabout30
years
Bt
toxin
has been
applied
n the
spot(by spraying
.
thuringiensis
irectly
onto
plants)
and
only
when
there are
signs
of infestationof
the
crops
by
insects.
t
s
the
most
successful io-
logical
nsecticideontrol
ystem
we have
and
would
probably
etain ts
potency
against
pests
or
many
more
ears
o come.
Bt toxinhas been found
o leak
through
the root
system
of
Bt-toxinGM maize
nto
the
soil,
whichcould
possibly
affecta
myri-
ad of insects
n the
soil
and
give
rise to hor-
izontal
gene
transfer,or
example,
hrough
soilbacteria
1).
Perhaps
we
should
onsid-
er
going
back o the
drawing
oard
and de-
signing
better GM
strategies
with less or
noneof such
drawbacks.
Theo Wallimann
Institute of Cell
Biology, ETH-Honggerberg,
CH-
(p.
1668)
appears flopped
that
s,
turned
y
180
degrees
n
printing
roma
reversed
ega-
tive),
another llustration
f errors o
easily
made
with
objective
isual
nformation.
Rhonda Roland Shearer
Stephen
Jay
Gould*
Art Science Research
Laboratory,
62 Greene
Street,
New
York,
NY
10012-4346,
USA.
E-mail:
*Presidentof AAAS.
References
1. R.
R.
Shearer
nd R.
Brandt,
aperpresented
t the
conference Methods
f
understanding
n artand
ci-
ence:Thecase of
Duchamp
nd
Poincare,
arvard
University,
ambridge,
A,
to 7 November 999.
Bt Toxin:
Assessing
GM
Strategies
The debateover
possible
deleterious
ffects
on the Monarch
utterfly
f
genetically ngi-
neered
lants xpressing biological
nsecti-
cide
(Bt
toxin)
s described
n the News Fo-
cus
article Risks ndbenefits:GM
crops
n
the cross hairs
by
Dan Ferber
26
Nov.,
p.
1662).
In
response,
ome critical
points
should e raised.
The
ssue
s broaderhanwhether
t
toxin
(from
the bacterium Bacillus
thuringiensis)
producedby genetically
modified
(GM)
crops mperils
Monarch utterflies.
he real
issue is thata
strategy
o
constitutively
x-
press
an insecticidal
ompound
n
large-scale
crop
monocultures
15
million acres of
Bt
corn
was
planted
n theUnitedStates
n
1998,
200
o of the total
acreage
of
corn),
andthus
expose
a
homogeneous
ubecosystem
ontin-
uously
o
the
oxin,
eems
bound o
createBt-
toxin-resistant
ests
becauseof
heavy
selec-
tion
pressure.
ooneror laterwe
will
likely
see Bt-toxin
esistance
n
those insects
hat
arecontinuouslyncontactwith hesemono-
cultures nd eedon
them. f or when hisoc-
curs,
we will
have ost
the use of a valuable
bio-insecticide.
orabout30
years
Bt
toxin
has been
applied
n the
spot(by spraying
.
thuringiensis
irectly
onto
plants)
and
only
when
there are
signs
of infestationof
the
crops
by
insects.
t
s
the
most
successful io-
logical
nsecticideontrol
ystem
we have
and
would
probably
etain ts
potency
against
pests
or
many
more
ears
o come.
Bt toxinhas been found
o leak
through
the root
system
of
Bt-toxinGM maize
nto
the
soil,
whichcould
possibly
affecta
myri-
ad of insects
n the
soil
and
give
rise to hor-
izontal
gene
transfer,or
example,
hrough
soilbacteria
1).
Perhaps
we
should
onsid-
er
going
back o the
drawing
oard
and de-
signing
better GM
strategies
with less or
noneof such
drawbacks.
Theo Wallimann
Institute of Cell
Biology, ETH-Honggerberg,
CH-
8093
Zirich,
Switzerland. E-mail:
theo.walli-
References
1. D.
Saxena,
S.
Flores,
G.
Stotzky,
Nature
402,
480
(1999).
8093
Zirich,
Switzerland. E-mail:
theo.walli-
References
1. D.
Saxena,
S.
Flores,
G.
Stotzky,
Nature
402,
480
(1999).
www.sciencemag.org
SCIENCE
VOL 287
7
JANUARY
2000
www.sciencemag.org
SCIENCE
VOL 287
7
JANUARY
2000
The
1919 and 1930 versions of Marcel
Duchamp's
series
of
images
of the Mona Lisa with
a moustache and
beard,
entitled
L.H.O.O.Q.,
prove
a source of confusion. Potential
pest
resistance
to Bt toxin
produced
by genetically
modified
crops
is discussed in two
let-
ters-as a
general topic,
and more
specifically
as it relates to re-
search on the
European
corn
borer: The critical
point
about
the
in-
heritance of resistance and
its
implications
for resistance
manage-
ment is whether
heterozygotes
die
on
transgenic plants.
And local
experiences
in Zimbabwe with the
community-based
natural
re-
source
management
(CBNRM) approach,
being
used in several
African
nations,
are described.
The
1919 and 1930 versions of Marcel
Duchamp's
series
of
images
of the Mona Lisa with
a moustache and
beard,
entitled
L.H.O.O.Q.,
prove
a source of confusion. Potential
pest
resistance
to Bt toxin
produced
by genetically
modified
crops
is discussed in two
let-
ters-as a
general topic,
and more
specifically
as it relates to re-
search on the
European
corn
borer: The critical
point
about
the
in-
heritance of resistance and
its
implications
for resistance
manage-
ment is whether
heterozygotes
die
on
transgenic plants.
And local
experiences
in Zimbabwe with the
community-based
natural
re-
source
management
(CBNRM) approach,
being
used in several
African
nations,
are described.
.
z
0
o
-r
,:
z
0
I
cm
02
t-
:
if
.
z
0
o
-r
,:
z
0
I
cm
02
t-
:
if
411
This content downloaded from 128.122.149.154 on Fri, 03 Jul 2015 06:00:51 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions