La Pendule de Profil can be understood not merely as an unusual clock, but as a Duchampian device for restricting vision. A clock ordinarily presents its face openly and offers time as public, immediate information. The designation “in profile” changes that relationship: it makes the clock’s readable face conditional upon the spectator’s position. Instead of simply telling time, the object makes the act of trying to see time part of its meaning.
This suggests that the work belongs to a larger Duchampian interest in controlling access to vision. The viewer is not given a complete image from any neutral position; the object determines the terms of encounter. In this respect, La Pendule de Profil can be compared with Étant donnés. There, Duchamp makes vision possible only through two peepholes in a locked door. The viewer receives a carefully composed scene, but only after assuming the precise position required by the apparatus. In both works, seeing is not free or automatic. It is structured, limited, and made conditional.
Fresh Widow may offer another variation on this idea. It takes the form of a small French window—an object normally intended to permit a view—but replaces its transparent panes with black leather. The window remains recognizable, but its essential promise has been withdrawn. It no longer allows access to a view; it becomes a surface that blocks the eye. However, Fresh Widow is built as a hinged device, meaning it can be opened. This leaves us with the question: is Fresh Widow an unresolved readymade? One that, under the right conditions, will allow us to see what is now hidden.
The clock, the window, and the door therefore share a related operation. Each normally provides visual access: a clock to time, a window to the world beyond it, and a door to an adjoining space. Duchamp transforms each into a threshold that frustrates ordinary access. La Pendule de Profil withholds its title; Fresh Widow withholds the view beyond; Étant donnés withholds its image except through a narrowly prescribed aperture. Their connection lies not necessarily in a direct sequence of influence, but in a recurring concern with making vision conditional.