conclude that this un-Wellesian film is like a readymade, a la Marcel Duchamp.

Duchamp's readymades are also deeply engaged with the notion of the signature, in that a

readymade is a nominal piece of art. It is nominated by Duchamp, following what he

called pictorial nominalism, to become what the proper noun designates as art, even

though the actual object is merely a product otherwise called by a common noun.

Comparing Duchamp's work to Allen Smithee's, Jonathan Eburne suggests, "[w]ith the

readymade, Duchamp, like Smithee, did not 'invent' or 'create' so much as devised ways

of exhibiting or reproducing other objects, even other works of art, under aliases designed

to complicate the all-too-automatic process of using art 'as a proper name"' (232-33).

We might add that, like the category (e) films, the readymades present a way out of

assigning authority to the author. In a 1961 lecture on the readymades, Duchamp said that

"the choice of these 'readymades' was never dictated by aesthetic delectation,"

emphasizing an indifference and a "total absence of good or bad taste" (141). While

disowning The Stranger in an interview with Bazin, Bitsch, and Domarchi, Welles

ironically echoed Duchamp, saying "I don't know if it is good or bad" (74). So, if this

film is seen as a readymade, we might then be able to answer the question Bazin posed at

the end of his critique of auteurism-Auteur, yes, but what of?-by saying that in the

case of The Stranger, Welles is the "auteur" of what can in fact be seen as a readymade.

As it turns out, Bazin's initial assessment of the film as a Wellesian parody is correct. As

a readymade, however, The Stranger can be regarded as a productive parody than one

that can be easily dismissed.

 Michael North has argued that readymades posed a serious challenge to the regime

of authorship because they effectively eliminated the human intermediary. In so doing,