Wild that you claim others misunderstand art via an ill conceived attribution to "thing-ness", but make all of your arguments on the grounds of said "thing-ness".

Duchamp's R Mutt is an abstract commentary.

The actual vehicle of this commentary, the upside down urinal, is wholly arbitrary.

>Wild that you claim others misunderstand art via an ill conceived attribution to "thing-ness"

I don't claim others misunderstand art. I'm saying that art as a product that can be sold for income, where people want to own it, is tied to thingness.

>The actual vehicle of this commentary, the upside down urinal, is wholly arbitrary.

Yes. I agree. I'm generally confused by what you're trying to say here. I also know there are a many copies of Fountain... which again, demonstrates the concept of thingness in art I'm trying to talk about.

You typically can't hang a performance art piece in a gallery all day. You certainly can't sell a print to people at home. The fact that they care about the original instead of holding equal value to the print is exactly what I'm talking about. Digital creations don't have the same thingness, because you'd literally need to do something like get the original RAM that rendered the piece to identify it as "the original."