Marcel Duchamp made a number of Rotoreliefs by applying various patterns to discs and then rotating them with an electric motor. The film he made of them in 1926 was called Anemic Cinema and, just as the pieces themselves did, it successfully generated virtual sculptures through optical illusion. There are versions of this film in circulation on the internet, YouTube and Vimeo for instance, with a musical sound track added and there are also colour versions floating around. But the original was made in 1926, so it’s safe to say it’s a silent film. I found the added sound track distracting – three dimensionality suddenly popping up is more than stimulating enough on its own. Colour films of the works though, add to the effect.
Why would he call it Anemic Cinema? I think this question gets to the heart of the matter. To answer it, the viewer needs to clarify an understanding of what sculpture is and what cinema is. Must sculpture actually be three dimensional, or would virtual three dimensionality suffice? A major theme in Duchamp’s work is to push viewers to define terms and make the necessary and sufficient conditions explicit. If a urinal can be art, then the question is “Why?”.
Duchamp’s film refines the sculpture problem even further. Now there isn’t even a disc and a motor, but rather, an image of a disc that seems to rotate because of the presentation speed of progressive images, in other words, a movie. That’s about as virtual as a sculpture can get.
But I think “anemic” relates strictly to film as opposed to sculpture. A film is a virtual event, non narrative and abstract films included. Michael Snow’s La Region Centrale, 1971, is a virtual event just as much as Gone with the Wind. I think that’s just what film is. The events you witness in a movie aren’t really happening, you just knowingly take them as real during the viewing.
In 1926, an era before anyone thought of making a kinetic sculpture, an image of a sculpture would be static, just like an image of a painting, time is unnecessary, they’re not events. As an aside, I searched when Calder made his first mobiles and Wikipedia gives a date of 1932 plus the incidental information that Duchamp was the person who gave them that name.
What we find is, Duchamp had a wry sense of humour. Anemic Cinema is a film of a sculpture that requires motion to generate a stable shape. It might as well be a still photograph but it can’t be. Anemic indeed.
The image of Rotoreliefs came from here: http://myhomepage.ferris.edu/~norcrosa/ModernArtWebsite/Pages/April1.html
wegway 
That actually clarifies a lot for me about Duchamp. I always saw him as more of a joker than an artist. This has helped me see him in a different light.
LikeLike
I replied already, but I didn’t notice the “reply” button. I assume you now know that I have replied. I’m still learning WordPress.
LikeLike
Thanks for that. There’s NOT a lot of literature on Duchamp that simply asks, “Gee whiz, why would he do that?”. Most books and articles are very theory and jargon heavy, soft science about art. For an artist wondering why he is considered important this is a theoretical cul de sac. A useful artist’s question would be, “Why did he do that, and is that relevant to my own practice?”.
Way back in 1998 (and I know this because I just checked the publication date when I grabbed the book to confirm the spelling of his name) I read “Kant after Duchamp” by Thierry de Duve. Great title, about two guys I find very interesting, and I really enjoyed reading it – I was excited about it. Thing is, now I don’t remember one point made in the book. Theory’s not my line, I’m an artist. It was fun, but irrelevant to my practice.
LikeLike
I am with David Yerle here. I have mistaken him for the problem itself, and never really thought of him as a man posing a problematic question. I always separated him and the questions that followed. I watched the videos as well and they made me uncomfortable.
David Yerle actually just wrote a good post about the problems in defining ‘things,’ so I have been thinking about it this evening quite a bit. A sculpture has its parameters, but what are they? Does it need to be physical? Is it subject to time at all? Or just the time required to look at all its parts? I guess it boils down to that question of ‘What is Art?’ Where I fear there will never be consensus, and so I suppose it is the job of artists –some at least– to remind us all that we have no idea.
LikeLike
I’m also following David Yerle’s thing on things. I think our three posts compliment each other.
LikeLike
I like the Duchamp of joker or stand up, residue is the hallmark of activity, if you are not the witness in the first person than what you are experiencing is a souvenir, what a sculpture is today in our expanded understanding of the world comprises of a much larger appreciation of the souvenir. It’s total attributes being all the activity associated with the object event, purchases, planning, environmental footprint, preparation of materials, residue from the activity of making, possible health hazards to involved individuals. Duchamp I believe knew of the anemic end of the object he had created and experienced, Anemic Cinema is what we are left with. Duchamp, Dali, Warhol were all jokers, and I love them for that.
LikeLike