Heartland Monument #4. No Ball Games.

Rene Magritte paints a pipe and paints an announcement of surreal negation: “this is not a pipe”. The image takes on a new significance, or rather, it is almost emptied of meanings, in the sense that meanings become residual, remnant and on the edge of being ruined. With the pronouncement that this is not a pipe, we no longer see a pipe but a painting of a pipe. The pipe, the pronouncement and the painting are all called into question. Is the image representing an actually existing pipe, perhaps Magritte’s favorite thinking pipe? Is the image representing pipes in general or a French pipe or other series of pipes? Are actually existing pipes also representations, perhaps of the indomitable thinking intellectual? What does the pronouncement refer to? Does it announce the representation of a pipe as not a pipe? Or does it announce that the actually existing pipe as not pipe? Or that what the pipe represents are intellectuals as not intellectuals? Or is it announcing the painting as not a pipe? Is the painting of a pipe that is not a pipe a painting at all? If so, what is the painting of? A non-pipe or non-intellectual intellectuals?

The Treachery of Images, 1929

Michel Foucault writes of the intrusion of speech in Magritte’s painting, creating a circular reference that breaks down the affirmation of a pipe, short-circuiting the discourse that making the painting meaningful or beautiful. Meaning implodes, collapses inwards. What then? Perhaps then, there’ll be the freedom to make our own meanings from the ruins of meaning – the intellectual’s vanity of freedom (while smoking a pipe). Thus, there is irony in the painting, and also irony in Magritte’s and Foucault’s own intellectual pronouncements. But the point is Magritte has painted, Foucault has played, both have acted and the pipe is subverted, meaning is ruined – a monumental violation.

Violation, 1937

The Board paints a sign and paints a real affirmation; the beautiful landscape of sculpted Board public housing flats and green open field is interrupted by the monumental affirmation of authority and ownership – this is “state land”. But the state cannot merely affirm and it must also speak, it must also paint, unwittingly, a pronouncement of surreal negation: “no ball games”. When before, the interruptive sign blends into the landscape, making it the land the state’s, with the pronouncement of “no ball games”, we no longer see the land but a sign almost emptied of meanings. State land, the pronouncement of “no ball games” and the sign are all called into question. Are the words “state land” representing this existing land within the boundaries of the field, or all land that are open fields, or Singaporean land in general? Is the actual piece of land representing the state, so that we can point to the open field and say, “this is the state”? Or is it when there are no ball games, then the open field is state land, so that if there is one, it ceases to be? Or does the pronouncement refer to the fact that the state does not play ball games on land? Or does it point to the condition of no ball games as reflecting the presence of the state? Or does it lament the fact that there are no ball games on this state land, and thus invite us to have ball games? Or does it allow all games and activities as long as there is no ball involved?


The heartland footballers enact the intrusion of state speech in the Board’s sign, creating a tripling reference between the field, the sign and the ball game that breaks down the affirmation of the state land, short-circuiting the discourse making the sign meaningfully authoritative. Authority implodes, collapses inwards. What then? Perhaps then, there’ll be the freedom to make our own meaningful place from the spatial ruins of authority – the heartlander’s dream of freedom (while playing ball games). Thus, there is irony in the sign, for “no ball games” pronounces the violation of authority and thus opened up the field for ball games. State land is subverted, authority is ruined, community is enacted, and the beautiful game is played – a violating monument.