Play—Artistic Freedom
I am very aware that our theme in the sprint2 is play, but not just play in the sense of games, but play in the sense of performance, distribution, adaptation, etc.I thought I could explore something about the birth of art in relation to play, and whether Duchamp’s rebellion against play brought art into a new dimension.
Scenario:
The great trouble with art in this country [the United States] at present, and apparently in France also, is that there is no spirit of revolt— no new ideas appearing among the younger artists. They are following along the paths beaten out by their predecessors, trying to do better what their predecessors have already done. In art there is no such thing as perfection. And a creative lull occurs always when artists of a period are satisfied to pick up a predecessor’s work where he dropped it and attempt to continue what he was doing. When on the other hand you pick up something from an earlier period and adapt it to your own work an approach can be creative. The result is not new; but it is new insomuch as it is a different approach.
(Duchamp, 1946)
Human beings are subject to both spiritual and material bondage in their lives, and in these bondages they lose their ideals and freedom. So people use their remaining spirit to create a world of freedom; it is play, and this creative activity arises from human instincts.
—–Johann Christoph Friedrich von Schiller
After the main task of sustaining and perpetuating life has been completed, human beings still have energy left over. The outlet for this surplus energy is play. Play itself has no utilitarian purpose; the very process of playing is the purpose of play.
—-Herbert Spencer
I cite here the Schiller-Spencer understanding of play. Understanding how these philosophers, who predated Duchamp’s ideas by a century, viewed play might be able to respond to Duchamp’s point of view, or find a connection between their views.
According to Schiller-Spencer, artistic or aesthetic activities originate from the play instinct of human beings, which is manifested in two aspects: on the one hand, it is due to the excess energy of human beings, and on the other hand, human beings apply this excess energy to activities that have no practical utility and no utilitarian purpose, embodied in a kind of “free” play. Schiller pointed out in his “Aesthetic Education in Brief” that human “sensual impulses” and “rational impulses” must be harmonized organically through “play impulses”. He believes that in real life, man is not free because he is compelled by the forces of nature and material needs, but also by the constraints and compulsions of the laws of reason. Only through “play” can man get rid of the compulsion of nature and the compulsion of reason, and gain true freedom, that is to say, only through “play” can man realize the harmonious unity of material and spiritual, sensual and rational.Therefore, people always want to use their excess energy to create a world of freedom. Schiller uses the example of animals to illustrate that “play” is an innate instinct, saying: “When the lion is not compelled by hunger to fight other beasts, his surplus energy opens up an object for itself, and he makes his majestic roar resound through the wilderness, and his vigorous energy is used in this purposeless way was enjoyed.” Schiller further argues that this “play” instinct or impulse of man is the motive for artistic creation. In this kind of unprofitable, purposeless free activity, man’s excess energy is given vent to, thus gaining pleasure, that is, the pleasant enjoyment of beauty.
Later, Spencer further played and added to this claim by arguing that man, as a higher creature, has more excess energy than lower creatures. Art and play are the venting of this excess energy of man. Spencer emphasized that the main characteristic of “play” is that it has no practical utilitarian purpose; it is not a process of activity necessary for the maintenance of life, but for the consumption of the excess energy accumulated in the organism, and for the pleasure and beauty obtained in the free release of this excess energy. Therefore, the aesthetic and artistic activities of people are, in essence, a kind of ” play “, and the sense of beauty is the pleasure of venting excess energy from the ” play “.
The essence of Duchamp’s artistic freedom is in common with Schiller-Spenser’s emphasis on freedom, and Schiller’s emphasis on freedom from reason in the nineteenth century is in some ways the same as Duchamp’s proposal to break the established rules of art in the twentieth century.
Duchamp once said that when you’re a child you don’t think philosophically, you don’t say, “Am I right? Am I wrong?” You simply follow the path that you find interesting.
Duchamp received art lessons from the Academy, painted oil paintings, imitated Cézanne’s Post-Impressionism, Matisse’s Fauvism, but also expressionism similar to Munch’s, and Picasso’s Cubism. Yet Nude Descending a Staircase was rejected by the Salon des Artistes Indépendants in Paris, an avant-garde art fair that claimed to be free of prejudice, which ironically rejected Duchamp’s work on the grounds that it ‘did not quite meet the criteria of Cubism because it had too many futuristic elements’. The emerging artists raised the banner to liberate art from ‘the evil of tradition and dogma’, and when they succeeded, they were quicker to circle the wagons and impose new standards on art.
Duchamp’s use of playful, ready-made art to negate all the aesthetics attached to it, and thus to liberate art and the artist completely, was a feat. The artists who preceded Duchamp, although transformative, did not break away from painting and sculpture, and they all honed their techniques and refined their theories, essentially contributing new artistic techniques.
Duchamp’s provocation of the rules of art is tantamount to a demand for true artistic freedom. He treats artworks in a playful manner, snow shovels, tyres, urinals, spoofs of the Mona Lisa and the fabrication of the non-existent “R. Mutt”, in order to emphasise his own perception of art – freedom. Letting go of artistic ideas such as colour, light and shade, all standards and definitions of beauty and ugliness. Art is play, and the way to create art is play.
However, contemporary art has evolved to the point where we are surprised to find that anti-rules have also become rules. When I walked into the Tate Modern, I was able to see how ironic it was that Duchamp’s urinal was also moved into the museum. After Duchamp’s exalted rebellion, new definitions of art and art schools became popular again. After countless artists started to play, play is no longer free either, and I think this is one of the dilemmas that contemporary art is facing.
reference:
Spencer, H. (1899) The principles of psychology. London: William & Norgate.
Schiller, F. (1847) Über die ästhetische Erziehung des Menschen. Stuttgart: Cotta.
Great blog! The structure of your blog is clear. You discuss what is art, artistic game artworks. All of your work was laid out with a logical and well-organized presentation structure. And I like your idea that “Games are social, they cannot exist outside of society.” You used examples, facts, and stories to help illustrate your point about the body parts.
A few comments on what you have posted for Sprint 2:
An interesting post Nuanxin. I really like the way this begins, directly addressing the theme (play) and showing immediately that it has a series of different connotations that you engage with. The opening lines are very good, but you drift away from this insight quickly.
I really don’t think you need to attempt to define art at the onset of the post – moreover you really don’t manage to this difficult task justice (never a good idea to tackle a thorny question that’s not the immediate issue at hand – which is “play” here). What you propose doesn’t actually have any connection to extant attempts by aestheticians to define art. It’s not true that there are just “eight art forms that are unified in the world of art”; there simply is no definitive list of art forms, nor has any form of art ever been “precisely defined”. You suggest – without supporting evidence – that Calligraphy, Photography and Comics are not art forms, when they have all long been accepted as such (e.g. Photography is a degree programme here in the School of Art).
I think whether or not play is art is a moot point – the problem statement is more focused on play as a technique, method or approach in making art. Duchamp was advocating that a playful irreverence was more important than reverential following-in-the-footsteps of your predecessors.
When you move on to look at ‘Artistic game artworks’ you slip into conflating games with play. Play and games are not the same thing. A game may involve play but play is something we find in many aspects of culture, not just in gaming.
The quotes from Schiller and Spencer are actually well chosen. Attempting to respond to each quote and expanding on what they have to say about play would be more effective as a response to Duchamp’s provocation. Schiller equates play with ‘freedom’ – why? Expand… Spencer suggests play is akin to an accursed share, all excess energy. – why? Expand… Spencer suggests play is ‘purposeless’. Is this true? Can Schiller and Spencer’s concepts of play be combined or are they at odds? etc.
For the Schiller and Spencer quotes, you need to add full citation for any references in the blog. List all the sources you cite at the bottom of the page in a Bibliography just as you would in an essay. See: https://www.ed.ac.uk/institute-academic-development/undergraduate/good-practice/referencing
It’s always easy for me to quickly read and empathise with Chang’s stark views in her writing. People give creativity in play and create art in play to break the rules. She mentions the example of Duchamp, who, as a pioneer of contemporary art, redefined art and liberated it from the pigeonholes of the academy, but art was then subjected to new standards imposed by emerging artists, like a spell. What will be the way to open up new horizons in the future? One can’t help but wonder.