Anti-art and the-thing-itself

I'm sort of fascinated by the idea of anti-art, particularly the idea of the thing itself as art. I was browsing around the internet for more information on the subject, and I found an interesting article on Academic OneFile, called "Art now: America: life on Mars: the Carnegie International challenges the interest of the idea that a thing can be a work of art in itself." It talks about Duchamp and his effect on the art community, explaining that "Marcel Duchamp tossed a grain of sand into the art world that, depending on your point of view, has grown into either a lacerating vision of truth or an enormous drag. He was the first artist to see that the thing itself could be a work of art if someone claimed it to be so." The author mentioned a few other artists who took Duchamp's example and did similar things in their art.

He mentioned, though, something that protested the idea, and it piqued my interest:
"But aren't textural and technical modulation necessary for psychological modulation to occur, and isn't psychological modulation the goal of art?" He speaks, of course, of the textural and technical modulation that Duchamp's work lacks. But honestly, I think the psychological modulation happens in spite of that. The very fact that there is no "textural and technical modulation" allows the psychological modulation to occur. The art is controversial, and it sets us thinking, "How is this art?" He set it under a different name and a different point of view, making us look at the urinal in a completely different way. Isn't this the sort of "psychological modulation" that the article spoke of? I would certainly think so.

If you want to have a look at the article and decide for yourself, you can find it here.