Sorry, but not.
Duchamp's claim about the transformation of objects into art through the simple act of choice is certainly revolutionary, but it is not without its challenges. First, the idea that choice itself can be the only element necessary to transform something into art calls into question the importance of labor, technique, and craftsmanship that have historically been associated with artistic creation.

Traditional art has always required a certain level of skill and personal involvement of the artist in the work. If we accept that anything can be art just because someone declares it to be, we risk emptying the concept of art of any concrete meaning. In this sense, one is not "defining" art narrowly, but rather preserving a meaning that gives art a specific value and distinction from any other human activity.

Moreover, the idea that art must necessarily "make people angry" or provoke a reaction is not a universal criterion. Many works of art are created to inspire, educate, or simply express beauty, without the intent to provoke or create controversy. To claim that art is necessarily defined by its ability to shake up the public may be limiting and reductive.

Thus, although Duchamp's act played a significant role in redefining what can be considered art, to claim that any choice is itself art and that anyone who declares it can automatically be an artist is an idea that trivializes the creative process and the value of art itself.
nostr:nevent1qqspuvfgcr684445ypcyjzdujnwkqug5wykudpxmf63zdqfzzuvnx2cppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qgs2e0zd0ltq3cr73xq0p0ph4qw9wmchzgz08s6gjx0lzushtczl8asrqsqqqqqpsapt22