{"id":1460,"date":"2016-04-29T00:00:30","date_gmt":"2016-04-29T04:00:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/sequitur\/?p=1460"},"modified":"2018-09-13T14:46:19","modified_gmt":"2018-09-13T18:46:19","slug":"schoenberger-tinguely","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/sequitur\/2016\/04\/29\/schoenberger-tinguely\/","title":{"rendered":"Jean Tinguely\u2019s Cyclograveur: The Ludic Anti-Machine of Bewogen Beweging"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Figure<\/a>
Figure 1. Jean Tinguely, Cyclograveur, 1961. Welded scrap metal, bicycle elements, sheet metal, drum and cymbal, book. 225 x 410 x 110 cm. Kunsthaus Z\u00fcrich.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Bewogen Beweging <\/em>(Moved Movement) was an exhibition held at the Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, from March 10 to April 17, 1961. Curated by two museum directors\u2014the Stedelijk\u2019s Willem Sandberg and Pontus Hult\u00e9n, from the Moderna Museet, Stockholm\u2014together with artists Daniel Spoerri and Jean Tinguely (1925\u20131991),[1]<\/span><\/span><\/a> the show constituted a survey of Kinetic art as it presented nearly two hundred works by over seventy artists, all of whom contributed to the novel spectacle of rusty wheels, chains, broken typewriters, strollers, and alarm clocks that moved and made noises. Many of the works on display incorporated bicycles in various forms.[2]<\/span><\/span><\/a> A Netherlandish metaphor for both play and utility, the bicycle is at once a child\u2019s toy and the predominant mode of transportation for adults in Amsterdam. Examining in particular Tinguely\u2019s Cyclograveur<\/em>\u2014a sculpture based primarily on the bicycle\u2014this essay reveals that the exhibition deployed the illogical movements of mechanical components in a ludic critique of the rapid industrialization and modernization of the Netherlands after World War II.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Tinguely was well represented in Bewogen Beweging<\/em>, with twenty-eight works on display.[3]<\/span><\/span><\/a> He constructed his Cyclograveur <\/em>of rusty parts scavenged from bicycles, automobiles, and baby carriages (Figure 1).[4]<\/span><\/span><\/a> The saddle, originally a two-person motorcycle seat installed sideways, was placed on a post twice the height of that of a typical bicycle, while the pedals were connected to several gears and four wheels. A large drawing board extended about a meter beyond the pedals. Cyclograveur <\/em>became kinetic when a museumgoer climbed onto the bicycle to push the pedals. This action caused a fifth wheel behind the drawing board to rotate around the surface via lanky arm-like metal rods while another rod, positioned in front of the board, held a drawing implement that would create an artwork. The bare bones of a toy car were towed behind the Cyclograveur<\/em>, as if from an appendage, in a metaphor of subordination that mocked the ascendancy of the automobile (Figure 2). Typical of Tinguely\u2019s works, the artist attached a cymbal and an upside-down metal bucket drum that were struck by mallets, reminiscent of a one-man band, to augment the already ridiculous clamor of the rickety machine. Tinguely had created an anti-machine beneath a veneer of fun, the absurdity of which softened his critique of modern mechanization while at the same time inviting reconsideration of it.<\/p>\n

Rather than directly confronting the blind embrace of modernization, Tinguely employed humor to allow room for the viewer to form his or her own judgment. In his 1975 book Art: Action and Participation<\/em>, art historian Frank Popper (b. 1918) examines Cyclograveur<\/em>\u2019s place in Kinetic art.[5]<\/span><\/span><\/a> Explaining how critique functioned by way of humor in Tinguely’s work, Popper writes:<\/p>\n

“For Tinguely, we must bear in mind, the machine incarnates human\u00a0intelligence<\/em>: its beauty as well as its capacity for movement help to explain its attraction for him. Thus we can expect that the metamorphoses of the machine will bring about a corresponding dynamic effect in the spectacle, which reaches the \u2018summit of absurdity\u2019 through its own intrinsic logic.”[6]<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

The absurdity of a machine endowed with human characteristics addressed the Dutch anxiety about rapid industrialization by poking fun at the \u201cpromises\u201d of automation. By presenting a purposeless object that subverted the functionality of the very purposeful bicycle, Cyclograveur<\/em> humorously encouraged visitors to question their presumptions about machines and their expectations of the coming \u201cmachine age\u201d.<\/p>\n

\"Figure<\/a>
Figure 2. Jean Tinguely, Cyclograveur, 1961, detail. Welded scrap metal, bicycle elements, sheet metal, drum and cymbal, book. 225 x 410 x 110 cm. Kunsthaus Z\u00fcrich.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Anxiety over technological advances was not new in the 1960s. French philosopher Henri Bergson (1859\u20131941) was distressed by the increasing mechanization of the modern world, a notion that informed his central belief about what generates laughter. In his study Laughter: An Essay on the Meaning of the Comic<\/em> (1911),[7]<\/span><\/span><\/a> Bergson describes the comical as \u201csomething mechanical encrusted on the living.\u201d As an example, Bergson cites a man tripping and falling. The humor in such an act is found in a man\u2019s \u201clack of elasticity.\u201d[8]<\/span><\/span><\/a> In this example, the unfortunate man \u201ccontinued like a machine in the same straight line\u201d demonstrating a \u201cmechanical inelasticity.\u201d[9]<\/span><\/span><\/a> For Bergson, humor is man\u2019s embodiment of machine-like characteristics: the inability to catch his balance by spontaneously reacting to changes in the environment, as early machines could not adjust to obstacles. But while Cyclograveur<\/em> addressed anxiety about machines, its humor is found in the inverse<\/em> of Bergson\u2019s principle. Here, the comical is not embodied in a human assuming mechanical characteristics, but rather in Tinguely\u2019s machine becoming anthropomorphic. As Popper articulates, we see the artwork adopt peculiarly human traits, such as the capacity to create. The very ludicrousness of the comical machine and its imperfect human operator demands that the viewer reconsider both.<\/p>\n

This conflation of man and machine evidently struck a chord with Dutch audiences in the 1960s. Nearly all the reviews of Bewogen Beweging<\/em> reference Tinguely\u2019s anti-machines\u2014and frequently Cyclograveur<\/em>\u2014in their texts or illustrations.[10]<\/span><\/span><\/a> For example, a reviewer in the progressive newspaper Vrij Nederland<\/em> writes of Tinguely\u2019s contributions: \u201cHis machines are as messy as people, but they still work miraculously and present a balanced slapstick,\u201d and continues, \u201cthere are a lot of laughs at \u2018Bewogen Beweging\u2019, and not laughing at but laughing with the exhibition.\u201d[11]<\/span><\/span><\/a> This comment on the amusing quality of the show highlights a problem inherent in ludic art: due to its playful nature Cyclograveur <\/em>was misunderstood by some as merely innocuous humor.<\/p>\n

While some critics paid more attention to the spectacle apparent in Cyclograveur <\/em>and Bewogen Beweging<\/em>, a more sophisticated and nuanced view also emerged at the time. A review in the left-wing newspaper Volkskrant <\/em>asserts that the exhibition was \u201can attack on the technocracy of our time,\u201d although it continues to point out the lightheartedness of the show: \u201cthe grotesque and utterly useless, but diligently moving constructions, which you bump into here, are trying to be a witty provocation\u2014certainly a challenge to the mechanization of all that is human.\u201d[12]<\/span><\/span><\/a> As the anonymous Volkskrant <\/em>review suggests, exhibiting non-functional machines, or anti-machines, constitutes a critique of postwar functionalism and an alternate view of the social norms of the previous decade.[13]<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

As did all the works in Bewogen Beweging<\/em>, Tinguely\u2019s Cyclograveur<\/em> addressed the postwar transformation in Dutch society.[14]<\/span><\/span><\/a> But while Tinguely was critiquing the increasing mechanization of modern society, what resonated most powerfully with Dutch audiences was that he communicated in a language that every Dutchman understood: Tinguely spoke Bike.<\/p>\n

Janna\u00a0Schoenberger<\/h3>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n

Endnotes:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Unless otherwise indicated, translations are the author\u2019s.<\/p>\n

[1]<\/span><\/span><\/a>After its stay at the Stedelijk Museum, Bewogen Beweging<\/em> traveled to the Moderna Museet under the title R\u00f6relse Konsten<\/em> (Movement in Art<\/em>), with additions by Tinguely, including his Ballet des Pauvres<\/em> (Ballet of the Poor).<\/p>\n

[2]<\/span><\/span><\/a> One artwork based on a bicycle, Robert M\u00fcller\u2019s La Veuve du Coureur<\/em> (1957), received press attention because it was deemed \u201cpornographic.\u201d It was a gray, elongated version of a stationary bicycle that looks as though the frame of a bicycle had merged with a coat rack. M\u00fcller had carved a hole in the saddle through which protruded a cream-colored phallic object. The object was rigged to the chain in such a way that it would move up and down through the hole while the apparatus was pedaled. Criminal charges were levied against Sandberg for displaying the work, but were eventually dropped. When the press asked about the affair, Sandberg quoted from the Bible (in German): \u201cDem Reinen ist alles Rein\u201d (To the pure, all things are pure). The director\u2019s wit echoed the ludic nature of the exhibition. \u201cGeen vervolging om \u2018de Weduwe\u2019,\u201d April 22, 1961, Knipselmap Bewogen Beweging, Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam.<\/p>\n

[3]<\/span><\/span><\/a> Spoerri, on the other hand, acted solely as a curator without contributing artwork. Most artists were represented by one to three works, but a few showed more: Pol Bury (7), Alexander Calder (8), Marcel Duchamp (7), Robert M\u00fcller, (6), Bruno Munari, (6), Man Ray (9), Dieter Roth (8), Nicolas Sch\u00f6ffer (7), and Raphael Soto (10). The relative degrees of representation reflect these artists\u2019 association with the avant-garde or Kinetic art or both.<\/p>\n

[4]<\/span><\/span><\/a> While <\/span>Cyclograveur<\/em> (Bicycle Engraver) is presented in Tinguely\u2019s Meta-matic<\/em> (Drawing Machine) series in Museum Tinguely\u2019s collection in Basel, the term graveur<\/em> suggests that the machine engraved rather than drew; in fact, it could be equipped to do either. The work is described in great detail in the review: \u201cPijltje gooien naar een vast gespijkerd overhemd,\u201d March 09, 1961, Knipselmap Bewogen Beweging, Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam.<\/p>\n

[5]<\/span><\/span><\/a> Popper did not identify Tinguely\u2019s work by its title, but rather described it as his \u201cbicycle seat sculpture (1961),\u201d in which \u201cthe spectator actually pedals the bicycle.\u201d Frank Popper, Art: Action and Participation<\/em> (New York: New York University Press, 1975), 216.<\/p>\n

[6]<\/span><\/span><\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[7]<\/span><\/span><\/a> Henri Bergson, Laughter: An Essay on the Meaning of the Comic (1911)<\/em>, trans. Cloudesley Brereton and Fred Rothwell (Dover Publications, 2005), 18; 24.<\/p>\n

[8]<\/span><\/span><\/a> Ibid., 5.<\/p>\n

[9]<\/span><\/span><\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[10]<\/span><\/span><\/a> Two articles stand out for reproducing images of Tinguely\u2019s work, especially Cyclograveur<\/em>, thereby demonstrating the greater attention paid to his artwork: \u201c \u2018Bewogen Beweging\u2019 beweegt,\u201d March 15, 1961, Knipselmap Bewogen Beweging, Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam; and, \u201cBewegende kunst in Stedelijk Museum van Amsterdam: Extreme gemotoriseerde oud-ijzer formaties,\u201d March 25, 1961, Knipselmap Bewogen Beweging, Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam. Not all the critical attention was positive. In one article, \u201cThe Bicycle Repairman\u2019s Nightmare,\u201d the author admits that he does not understand the work, but then proceeds to give an earnest detailed mechanical analysis of Cyclograveur<\/em>, explaining the flaws in the workings of the wheel and chain. This review, while perhaps not enlightening from an art-critical standpoint, shows how the formal qualities of Tinguely\u2019s work attracted the attention of a wide audience. Moreover, it underscores the seriousness with which Dutch audiences regarded their bicycles. \u201cDe nachtmerrie van een fietsenmaker,\u201d March 17, 1961, Knipselmap Bewogen Beweging, Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam.<\/p>\n

[11]<\/span><\/span><\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[12]<\/span><\/span><\/a> \u201cPotsierlijke anti-machines in Stedelijk Museum,\u201d March 15, 1961, Knipselmap Bewogen Beweging, Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam.<\/p>\n

[13]<\/span><\/span><\/a> The majority of reviewers, however, failed to recognize the political import of the exhibition, viewing it instead as innocuous carnivalesque fun. V.d. W, \u201cBewogen Beweging,\u201d April 13, 1961, Knipselmap Bewogen Beweging, Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam.<\/p>\n

[14]<\/span><\/span><\/a> Undergoing industrialization later than its neighbors Belgium and Germany, the Netherlands experienced a dramatic increase in industrial production during World War II, which continued through the 1950s. James Kennedy, Nieuw Babylon in aanbouw: Nederland in de jaren zestig<\/em>, trans. Simone Kennedy-Doornbos (Amsterdam: Boom, 1997), 10 \u201312.<\/p>\n

Download Article<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Bewogen Beweging (Moved Movement) was an exhibition held at the Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, from March 10 to April 17, 1961. Curated by two museum directors\u2014the Stedelijk\u2019s Willem Sandberg and Pontus Hult\u00e9n, from the Moderna Museet, Stockholm\u2014together with artists Daniel Spoerri and Jean Tinguely (1925\u20131991),[1] the show constituted a survey of Kinetic art as it presented […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":10585,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[3],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/sequitur\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1460"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/sequitur\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/sequitur\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/sequitur\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/10585"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/sequitur\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1460"}],"version-history":[{"count":22,"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/sequitur\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1460\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1804,"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/sequitur\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1460\/revisions\/1804"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/sequitur\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1460"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/sequitur\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1460"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/sequitur\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1460"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}