The concept of “ugly art”, or simply art that disregarded what was generally accepted as art, didn’t start in the 80’s and 90’s with Deconstructionism. It started much earlier, in the early 1900’s under the moniker Dadaism. Dada’s chief theorist Tristan Tzara solidified the movement’s rejection of beauty, labeling it, “a boring sort of perfection, a stagnant idea of a golden swamp.” Marcel Duchamp, the artist responsible for the above work and one of the most well known artists of the movement, rejected the Impressionism and Cubism painting movements of the time because they were, “for the eye, not the mind.” Dadaists were staunch advocates for ugliness as a valid artistic condition, reflecting the ugliness of a wartime world and questioning what art truly was. I’ve always felt that the Dadaists were the smartest and bravest artists of their time, completely transforming the landscape of our perception of art. What would art look like today without their passion for ugliness? Would modern art have unfolded in the same way? No, I’m positive it wouldn’t have. Duchamp’s “Fountain”, shown above, is the one of the most quintessential images of the Dada movement. He challenged the ideas of what art is or isn’t with these readymades, like a urinal turned upside down and signed with a different name. Many found this crude, ugly, the furthest thing from art. And if they were to see an upside down urinal on the side of the street, those adjectives may suffice. But as I posited before, ugly art is not about aesthetic, it is about meaning. The meaning behind Duchamp’s work is what makes it art. His intention of challenging the Academy and making a comment on the current ugliness of the world elevates it despite its appearance. There is aesthetically beautiful art that is empty of that kind of depth. Isn’t that ugly?