Evening Talks with Sri Aurobindo

14th January, 1941

Sri Aurobindo had seen a volume of Cezanne and one of the painters of the 20th Century representing the most modern trends of artistic movement in France.

Page 302

Cezanne had found "remarkable" models for his portraits. All of them were very fine and showed power.

He didn't know drawing and so some of his things were imperfect. Colour is everything. (I showed him the small volume on Cezanne). He liked it better because of the colour plates.

In the evening he said he had liked Matisse also.

He found three things in modern art - 1. Ugliness, 2. Vulgarity, or what might be called coarseness,  3.  Absurdity.

In their nude studies it is very low sexuality which they bring out. They all call it "Life" – but it is not life. Even in the most ugly corner there is something fine and beautiful that comes and saves it. It shows France has gone down.

To create form by colour only, – that is a matter of technique and one can accept it.

It started with Cezanne – but even there the beginning is already there in his study of the nude. There is too much of a genius to be positively ugly.

When they go further even in the application of their theories they become absurd.

What they mean by "inner" is "subconscient", lower "vital".

There is no objection to suppressing the unessentials in a work of art – all great artists do it. To retain the "essentials only" – Fauvism.

Page 303

24th January, 1941

Life of Blake with many of his etchings was shown to Sri Aurobindo. He had not liked them very much when a few of them were shown to him some days back. During daytime when he saw them he said that they were merely "dramatic" and "imaginative" rather than "creation of art." He remarked that English art in general was more a result of "mental imagination and less satisfying as a work of true art." The "Death of a white horse" looks like a violent angry old man, and the horse is also wild and angry. "I can't say I'm impressed." If you can compare his work with the etchings of Rembrandt, you will see the difference between true artistic creation and imaginative work.

I related Lawrence Binyon's remarks in the preface that these works make an impression on the mind and don't so much appeal to the aesthetic senses and so you are disappointed when you see them again.

He was glad to note that Lawrence Binyon agreed with him in this respect.

"I liked some of his paintings" he said "especially his representation called "the murder." It is a great work. You see that it represents murder. That is art.

In his poetry, too, I was rather disappointed, except "Book of Thel" (journey to Thel) and some of his lyrics – his poetry also is not satisfying. It is like his etchings "You find it rhetorical" – Durer also was a great etcher. The claim was that he used to paint or etch these things under inspiration.

"There is a realm of the stretch of vital romantic from which you can get these things. That period comes in Yoga also. But these things are not deep and profound."

Page 304

The symbolism which he claims to have evolved for the complete explanation and interpretation of Christianity looked very elaborate to me.

Sri Aurobindo : Yes, all that may be true but it is not poetry. Middleton Murray and some others try to make so much of his poetry. It is the same you find people trying to indicate that the names of certain countries stand for certain activity and certain contribution, and that even individual names (of Gods).

Page 305