On Art
THEME/S
v*
I HAVE undertaken this task not because I want you to accept my ideas but because I have a liking and respect for some of our young artists and art students. I admire their earnestness and I want to be of some service to them in clarifying some of the fundamentals of art. I want to bring to their
notice that besides European art there are other arts equally great and that there is much to learn and assimilate in them. I want to put before them some ideas of Sri Aurobindo on arts,-ideas which he gave to mankind in order that man may be able to fulfil his destiny, and live a divine life on earth. I want to tell you, students, that most of you lack mastery over technique-any technique-which gives discipline to the artist.
The mastery which the Chinese and the Japanese artist has —and which the Indian and Italian artist had—over his technique is not found among modern artists.
It is true that technique is not all, and that mere technique is not art. But the discipline, the control of the material which the mastery of the technique gives is very precious. The efforts to create without mastery over techinque is like trying to write poetry without grammar or even language. The artist must learn and then forget the technique.
Europe has dominated the world for more than two centuries not only in economics and politics but in literature and arts. This domination by the European culture has produced very tonic effect on many cultures in Asia and has given rise to renaissance in their literature and life generally. But together with much good this domination has also given
* A Lecture at the J J. School of Art, Bombay 1-2-1954.
Page 46
rise to a general inferiority complex and in the field of arts particularly this has resulted in lifeless imitation of European art and soulless attempts by Indian artists—except the work done by Indian artists in the years when the national consciousness awoke. The European critics told the world that India had no art and Indians swallowed this nonsense for more than two generations. All arts except those that Europe had created were 'primitive'. Greek art which is the parent of later European art was the standard by which all art had to be judged. All these uncritical ideas have to be given up. Fortunately, thoughtful men in Europe are giving them up. It is good to remember that, however unconventional the art of Europe may be for the last century, even European art had its tradition. Let us also remember that Persia, China,1 Japan and India have had their arts—arts of long standing, and that their artistic value need not necessarily depend upon their fulfilling the standards set by the latest current fashion or theory or values current in Europe.
It is true that our artistic activity—as all our cultural life—came to a standstill practically with the loss of freedom and cultural decline. During the period of domination England forced upon India European art-ideals, methods and values. Schools of art were compelled to teach only European art and by European methods. It was only in Calcutta at the end of the last century that an English artist of exceptional calibre, Mr. E. B. Havell, introduced on his own responsibility
I "Chinese art has consistent history and is even more persistent than the art of Egypt. It is more than national. 30 Centuries before Christ it began and yet Europe has not been able to enter into the spirit of this art,
Its inward spirit still remains strange and remote.......We are passive spectators of a way of thought and life which is beyond us.
The East yields its secret slowly and one may say that in order to appreciate these works of art to the full, one has to acquire new way of looking at the world. It may be said without exception that the oriental artist is never looking at the world from our point of view.
Herbert Read Meaning of Art,
Page 47
Indian art, its ideals and methods in the school at Calcutta. It is not that European culture has done India no good. Far from it. Some great and eternal values like freedom, value of the individual, need of organising collective economic life for general progress—these are elements that are bound to lead men to progress.
Today when the world wants to be free and India has secured her freedom let us shake ourselves free from this cultural domination. Let us not reject what we need and can assimilate but let us not harbour the illusion that whatever the West thinks and does is perfect. Let us not blindly accept their values and judgements. Let us take what we have to, and need, but also let us find out whether we have anything to give, to contribute. Let us not be servile imitators of a dead past, or living present of Europe. Let us free ourselves from the false notion that holding on to Indian technique—of whatever period or school—is the way to express the soul of India in art-forms.
In order to bring home to our young friends with force some of my contentions I would put two or three points of view before even I begin my discourse.
We all know very well that the ideals of the Renaissance are long past from the field of art in Europe—for art also reflects the culture of the time—and yet in spite of all the changes that have taken place during 3 or 4 centuries, it is possible to stand before a picture of the Renaissance period and feel admiration for it, to enter into its world and enjoy it. Could we feel the same about a modernist work of art, say after one hundred years ? Even today one hears that Epstein's "Eve" had to be put away into the godown because nobody is prepared to pay the price. If it is contended that Renaissance art is preserved because it is religious—and not secular—one may ask: have the pictures no aesthetic appeal ? To all Indians who are all not Christians, that art has an appeal even today.
Page 48
It has been suggested that the objections to ultramodernist art is based on its being new, on its containing the unfamiliar and therefore it appears foreign to the taste of the ordinary man. This is not quite true. Intellectual people are quite prepared for novelty, and they do try to put away their preferences when they find a painting done in the new style. There are cases in which the disapproval is not due to want of desire to understand and appreciate. Besides, one can cultivate and acquire a taste for art that is new and foreign. Do we not in Indian cultivate our taste when we first eat chocolates or cheese?
There are persons who are impressed about the artistic value of ultra-modernist paintings by the fabulous prices at which they are sold. This is an illusion which the true art-lover must get over. The price paid for a painting is not an index to its artistic value. And it is a gratuitous assumption to suppose that one who pays a high price for a painting understands art.
The first genuine outburst of inspiration in European art,—apart from Greek which derived much from Crete, Asia minor and Egypt,—was after the spread of Christianity. It was during the Renaissance that churches, statues and paintings came as if in floods. Gothic, Romanesque and Baroque and other styles found expression in church-building. Great creators came on the scence almost in a crowd. The soul of the people found expression in an inspired art which is the wonder and admiration of mankind for all time.
The art of the Renaissance was mainly religious and spiritual, like the ancient art of the East. But when European mind turned to Rationalism and science then all secular arts— especially painting, found their centre in Paris. France, notably Paris, has remained the dynamic centre of European
Page 49
Painting for nearly three hundred years. Between the idealism of the Renaissance and intellectualism of today there are many phases.
The Age of Reason followed the Renaissance and materialistic sciences advanced in Europe. Reason gradually became the leader in all the fields of life. The attention of Europe was then again directed towards Greek culture. The inspiration of religion from arts almost dried up and Europe accepted the Greek ideal of perfection especially in its arts. The Greek ideal was a kind of balance between man's intellect, his aesthetic being and his body. To the Greeks, a human being endowed with intellectual eminence, a sense of beauty and a strong and beautiful body was the ideal. The Greeks never seriously looked beyond the intellect in their cultural endeavours. The European art-ideal underwent a change. The eye of the artist that was turned inwards or towards a supraphysical Reality now turned outwards, towards Nature, human body, life etc. And even when it turned to creation of Gods, it conceived them with the help of intellectual imagination and did not see them by inspired vision. Catholic France became the leader of this rational movement and the centre of art-activity.
Formerly, the subjects of painting were either religious or mythological. It is true that the church was the patron, but it must not be forgotten that the spirit of the times was intensely religious. Later on, life of heroes, historical events and incidents interpreted imaginatively came into vogue. Now, Nature became the chief subject of art. Landscape painting had a place in the Renaissance. It was meant as a background for life, for incident, for man. Herbert Read says, " it was not as objects of separate aesthetic contemplation ". " Landscape element in a painting was allowed to dominate the incident". Originally it was intended to create or supply an atmosphere appropriate to the incident. From there came
Page 50
the idea of creating " atmosphere for its own sake " (Read). From the infinite beauty of Nature the landscape-artist used to select a portion that specially appealed to his aesthetic sensibility, and he rendered it realistically. There used to be an element of harmony in the choice and execution of work.
But Nature was not the chief subject for the artist—in Europe as it was to the Chinese or the Japanese artist. To him Nature mainly existed for man.
In Japanese and Chinese art Nature exists independently of man. The attempt to portray the mood of Nature which we find in these far eastern countries has very few parallels in European art. In their art Nature becomes a living expression of the infinite, she is one of the chief powers of the Cosmos and very often, men, animals and birds appear small in the midst of Nature's vastness and infinity. In European art the mood of the artist is dominant, in far eastern art the mood of Nature seems to be depicted. Nature in the East is like a symbol, She is infinite and eternal. Art of the east tries to represent the infinitely varying moods of Nature in her infinitely multiple forms,1
But that is besides our purpose. There is no doubt that there has been very remarkable progress in the technique of art in Europe during this modernist period and many fundamental considerations about art have been brought to the forefront. The establishment of Art Academy in Paris gave a great impetus to art in France. At that time Realism and classicism were in vogue.
1 " Chinese Art depicts the harmony of the universe. It has nothing in common with Western art which wants to represent the particularities, of natural appearances. His landscapes are not Particular landscapes behind the particular is the general. Chinese art conceives Nature as animated by an immanent force and the object of the artists is to put themselves in Communion with this force and then to carry its quality to the spectator "
The meaning of Art—Herbert Read.
Page 51
The officially sponsored Academy recognised art which conformed to its standards. Ingrees was the recognised leader of the Academy. There was a great opposition to the policy of patronising only the official art-style. Eugene de-la croix, the great Romantist, was the prominent leader of the opposition. Pictures done in a style other than the one favoured by the Committee were refused. Even De la Croix was refused. It was long after he became famous and was recognised that he was taken as a member of the Committee, and even then he was a minority of one !
We shall try to see the general outline of evolution of western art from 1875 to 1906. We might distinguish between Modernists and ultra-modernist to bring the evolution upto-date. The Modernist period can be said to come to its close in 1906 with the death of Cezanne, though some of its leading figures like Claude Monet continued to live upto 1926. But Matisse and Picasso had already come to Paris in 1906 and they and some others had done some of their paintings in the ultra-modernist style.
The artists who ushered in the Modernist era had to struggle very hard and to go through many difficulties. But the same cannot be said about the ultra-modernists. They practically stepped in the wake of success that attended the efforts of the heroic group that led the vanguard of the movement. I believe Picasso saw something of this struggle in the first four or five years of his career in Paris. But really speaking this point is hardly pertinent in evaluating art. It can have a place in our understanding and estimate of the personality of the artist but not of his art.
This period between 1876 and 1906 is one of the most extraordinary periods in the history of art,—particularly painting. Painters whose works were refused by the official committee formed themselves into a group,—several small
Page 52
groups also—and decided to hold exhibitions of paintings rejected by the Committee. This was a great adventure full of many difficulties not the least of which was economic. " Salon des refuses" attracted slowly the attention of the public.
Art, including painting, is pursued as a profession and the number of painters in Paris alone was about 30 thousand in 1929. When art is pursued on such a scale, it is possible that ambition, patronage, desire for money or name may influence, to some extent, the standards of pure art and opposition might be offered on mere materialistic considerations. But in this case of the modernist movement there was no such thing. It was the opposition between true votaries of art on one side, and the established method and its upholders on the other. The officially recognised art had fixed standards while the modernists claimed freedom to create as they liked.
When Cezanne and his contemporaries declared their revolt against the academic art they did not have any special revelation, or had not found some other Reality. They were all not in agreement about the goal and the technique. But they all felt the cramping influence of the official policy and wanted to pursue new ideas. They did not take to Nature as their predecessors, and they met the opposition of established standards in their work.
Representation of Nature or of incidents of history or religion or mythology as subjects of art were left behind. The painters wanted to represent the " impression " produced on their mind or on the sense, by objects, persons or Nature. De la Croix was a romantic; he used to interpret Nature and incidents through his individual temperament. Cezanne wanted to express in his painting his " Sensation " of the object. He found that forms of objects in Nature could be classified into simple geometric shapes-cubes, pentagones, triangles, cylinders etc. He aimed at representing volume and solidity in painting.
Page 53
He noted the differences in the colour-effects of shades. Shade was represented before by black colour. He introduced various colours to represent shadows. The modernist, in short, did not want to reproduce or imitate Nature, for he argued that the painter could never represent an actual tree in his painting.
It was also noted that the colour of objects undergoes a great change with light. In fact, there is no one colour of an object. It depends upon light falling upon it. They wanted to paint these light-effects on colour in their works.
There is hardly any parallel in world's cultural history to the heroic struggle for artistic revival carried on by this band of painter in France, poor, unencouraged, neglected and subject to an official taboo. There were among them fifteen to twenty painters who would have ranked as masters at any period and in all there were 40 to 60 painters of good calibre who struggled for years to secure the freedom of the artist to create according to his genius. In spite of temperamental differences, and those of ideals and methods they stuck together united in their opposition. The economic difficulties they went through were great, for, their paintings, unrecognised by officialdom, found it difficult to find a market. Many of the great works were sold at ridiculously low prices. When they were in difficulty they left Paris and went to the suburbs and even to small villages where they continued their work. Whenever they could they organised " Salon des refuses" Exhibitions. There were times when some of them could hardly afford to buy canvas; they used to scrap off the colours from an old painting of their own to utilise the same canvas for a new painting. Such was the singleness of their devotion to art that when Monet's wife died in penury the first thing he remarked was the change of colour on her face due to death! How hard they worked and how prolific was their output may be gauged from the following fact. Pissaroo had to flee from the village in France to England when the Franco-Prus-
Page 54
sian war was declared. He could not take his paintings with him. The Prussian soldiers occupied the house and used it as a butchery and his paintings as door-mats and as fuel in winter! When the war was over he got back 40 out of his 1500 paintings. It must be remembered that Pissaroo painted for thirty years after that! This is only one instance out of many.
Art—Ideal and Technique
To us, perhaps, the development of their art-ideal is more important and useful. Art could not have progressed on the old ideal accepted by Realism. So, the aim of representing in painting the "Sensation" of the object made its appearance and instead of Realism that imitated Nature, the aim of reproducing the "Impression" became dominant. The artist wanted not to represent the object, but his "impression" of it. On the side of the technique planes of colour and differences of tone were used in order to bring out the artist's "Sensation" and "impression" Light and shade—particularly effect of light on colour and on object was studied very minutely and it made a new departure in the technique of painting. Some of them,—notably Monet—tried to represent the effect of light on colour by painting the same object several times under different light. Many painters began to paint direct with colour,—without resorting to outlines. Volume alone was considered enough to give form; thus colour became prominent in painting.
There was a time in Europe when painting was learnt by apprenticeship with a great master—as was the case in the East. So many well known artists of the Renaissance learnt their art in their master's workshop. That training gave mastery of the technique. But when this new movement came even the weak remnants of the system disappeared and with it gradually was lost the mastery of the technique which is so essential to real creation. It is one thing to have the mastery
Page 55
of the technique and forget it or leave it—like Picasso—and quite another to have no mastery and to aspire to create without any knowledge of the materials or technique. It is like a man using sounds to convey language. He has to learn the language and even grammar to be able to create.
Some of these painters in France saw Nature with the infinite variety of objects capable of being reduced to simple geometrical shapes, like cubes, squares, cylinders, triangles. The impressionists not only tried to give their own "Sense-impression" of the object but their own "mental impression" created by projecting these geometrical shapes upon Nature. So far as the sense-impression of the object was concerned, there was something in Nature which corresponded to it. If winter was represented in the picture there was the 'impression' on the eye of winter. But when the Impressionist passed on to Cubism, there was no such correspondence in Nature. The Cubes were present in the mind of the painter—though the first cubes might have been "suggested" to him by his own sence-perception either in colour-plane or in the forms of objects.
It was Gaugain1 who gave clear expression to this view, though his own works show no sign of his being able to carry out his view,—that the artist has to use Nature only as a repertoire. Nature is only a mass of raw-materials for the artist. He can use what he likes out of it. He can even change nature.
From this liberty with the forms of Nature that the artist claimed the assertion of his right to create altogether new
1 Gauguin: "For him the Impressionists were the representatives of their decadent century, for they had pursued their researches in accordence with the eye, and not towards the mysterious centre of thought."
Basil Taylor
Page 56
form—forms which did not exist in Nature—was only one step further. So, the artist claimed the right to create forms from within himself. It may be from his sensation interpreted by him, or his mental idea projected by him—as in cubism—on Nature.
Then the question was: if "Sensation"—"impression" "idea" or "mental thought" could give us new forms why not "instincts", why not "passions", "fancies" "dreams" "suggestions"—"impulses"—"feelings"? The "Fauves"—the word means "wild-beasts", tried to carry 'instincts' in their paintings. A further step was "Surrealism" which wants to assert the right of art to be above the need of being comprehensible! "Why should art 'mean' anything"? the Surrealist asked. "Dadaism" —"Futurism" and many similar ultra-modern movements in art are only extensions of this fundamental trend of subjectivism which began with Cezanne. The circle almost seemed complete when the modernist artist tried "Primitivism" with a vengeance. Manytriedtoderiveinspirationform Negro primitives.
Looking at the vast output of artistic creation during this period, we find that there has been an unusual number of new "forms"—forms unknown before. But it may be admitted that so far as "beauty" is concerned, there seemed to be a great ebb. Art has to create forms, it is true, but has it not to create forms that express beauty, some self-existent harmony, some rhythm, which our intuitive faculty of appreciation can feel? Nobody seemed to bother about "beauty", "rhythm" in this drive to create "new" forms. Forms for the sake of forms cannot hold the aesthetic sensibility for long. It is "beauty" "harmony", and some inner quality of Truth—some power in the form that endows it with a Reality, that gives permanence to a form in art. Most of the forms that are created under this subjective trend by modernist artists hardly embody these aspects. They excite one's curiosity at the most, some of them tremble under feet the aesthetic sense. It is true that man
Page 57
must be prepared to change or develop his sense of appreciation of forms by accepting new form—forms that have been created from within by the artist.
But the question is: Are they " forms" ? i Secondly "forms" because they are 'new' have they the right to be called "artistic"?
Traditon is a bondage if it dominates but it is also a protecting influence and disciplines the artist. When that protection is gone, there comes in the field of art unruly self-will, desire to be singular, even queer—and it leads ultimately to chaos. The artist comes to believe that what is new is necessarily great—, a work of genius. He wants to be striking and extraordinary—there is straining for effect. As a result he tends to become obscure.
When the modernist movement began in Europe, nobody could even believe that the forms of art which the ultra-modern school has given us, would ever come out of it. The artists only wanted in the beginning of represent their "sensation" of the object. This meant that he was feeling that he is not bound to represent the object as it was, i.e. to imitate Nature. The sensation meant the impression produced on his senses and interpreted by his mind. Then his "I" came to the front and wanted, or began, to take freedom with line, with colour and ultimately he wanted to be independent of all bondage to Nature; his "Self", he asserted, was free to express itself. He claimed the right to create forms that did not exist in physical nature, in life. He accepted in the beginning the forms of nature as raw materials—as repertoire for his new creation. But he distorted, twisted and dislocated the forms of Nature in his new creation. The onlooker instead of perceiving the delight of new creation very often feels only the violence of the distor-
l "All expression is not art" Herbert Read.
Page 58
tion on his sensibility. One may say that the aesthetic sense of the onlooker requires to be trained to appreciate this new creation.
Now, no one ever disputed, in the East at least, the right of the artist to create forms that have nothing in common with natural forms. But when it is asserted that the artist should not imitate Nature and when the artist begins to distort the forms of Nature then, the memory of the natural form constantly reminds the onlooker of the correspondence and it is therefore difficult to feel it as a new creation.
What is needed is to " transform", not merely to take liberty with and "distort" the forms of Nature in art. Otherwise, as Dr. Anand Coomar Swamy says, the forms will only be " denatured "—contrary to Nature. This creates the impression of unnaturalness, violence, repulsion. This " transformation " of nature in art cannot be made by merely changing the outer, the external parts of the natural form. Such a change or transformation to be real and effective must be organic. This work of transformation has to be done by the inner being of the artist—not by his outer mind—or by his intellectual theory about forms, i or his erratic unregulated fancy, or his subconscious.
So, while we do accept the right of the artist—as the ancients in the East and the West had done,—to create new forms we find it difficult to accept as valid the methods he adopts for his creation.
I have said already that a form because it is "new", —i.e. independent of Nature—is not therefore "artistic" or "beautiful" or aesthetically satisfactory. These forms too
1 " It has always been recognised that the source of art's appeal lies in these unconscious regions. A work of art cannot be constructed rationally." Herbert Read
Page 59
must satisfy the fundamental elements of beauty. The method employed by modern artists is often without discipline,— chaotic. Sometimes it seems the artist is trying to exhaust the methods of distortion possible with a natural form—a human face or an object. Often the result is mutilation of Nature, it may lead to a sense of the strange and bizzare. It does not give joy which is the mark of true creation. If we are told " The artist feels delight in these creations ", we may say— " Perhaps he does, if it is creation, it is not normal, not human but creation from lower subconscient world with its chaotic and amorphous forms ".
In this task of arriving at the correct technique of creating new forms, it may be of interest to consider whether there could be a synthesis of the technical advance attained by modern art in the West and methods of creating forms known in ancient India and countries of the far East. That may, perhaps, help us to find a way out of the present impasse. The Indian method was that of inner concentration on the subject,—or one may even say, " on the object ". The artist has to allow the form that corresponds to the subject to arise out of his consciousness as a result of this concentration. I have already partly indicated this process in my preceding exposition. Often it may be an outer suggestion, excitement of some sense or some experience of life that may start the process and set the creative consciousness of the artist to work. What is created may bear some sign of the originating cause. But the form thus created corresponds to the subject of his concentration. This was what the ancients meant by " correspondence " or Sādṛśya. It is not outer resemblance or imitation of the natural form, but the correspondence of the form created with the consciousness of the artist, its being the true representation of that which the creator wants to express or create,1
1 "Aryan and Semitic races have different modes of aesthetic expression. The Aryan sees in painting not a means of interpreting the outer world, but a means of expressing the inner self."
Herbert Read The Meaning of Art.
Page 60
The artist concentrates his consciousness (on the subject, or on the object) which attracts his will to create. This itself becomes a kind of discipline, which rules out erratic suggestions, phantom forms, random fancies, eruptions of the subconscient, intrusion of the strange and such other things that are irrelevent to his artistic aim. For illustrations of this method in art, one may look at the forms of God and Goddessess and those of the Titans—Asuras and Rākṣasas—that eastern art has created. They do not observe the rules of human anatomy— for, as Dr. Coomaraswamy said "they are not expected to function biologically", but they do give us an impression of superhumanity which they are intended to represent. It is possible that the aesthetic sense of an observer who has never thought of art-creation beyond Nature may find it difficult—if not impossible—to appreciate these forms and may even conclude, as once Joshua Reynolds did, that "this art is barbarous"; but if it stops a little and allows the first reaction to subside, it may find that the form though beyond nature satisfies his sensibility and even his demand of beauty. One says "yes, this kind of form is possible". "It is even beautiful, has a beauty of its own—but not on our material plane". The form has proportion, rhythm, which lends it a kind of beauty. Twelve or six hands of Goddess or God seem at first sight to break the rule of human anatomy, but it conveys the spiritual aspect or its own truth and at the same time the disposition of the limbs appear to our intuitive sense quite proper—appropriate and even beautiful. The elimination of wondering impulses, fancies and suggestions allows a kind of steady form to emerge or precipitate itself in the consciousness of the artist which has a reality of its own. Dr. Coomaraswamy in his book Transformation of Nature in art refers to Malvikagnimitra, a Sanskrit drama, in which there is reference to portrait painting. The reason for failure in making a portrait is said to be "shithila samadhi" or "lack of concentration or identification"—and
Page 61
not want of observation or imitation. Some may think that this method of an inner concentration or identification with the subject may be suitable to ancient India but can have no utility for the modern man. This is far from actual experience. The example of George Russell, alias AE, the Irish poet, shows that not only in modern times but even outside India, this subjective method of creating forms is practicable. His book "Candle of vision" bears witness to his experience of it. The case of Raihana Taiyabji, whose book "The heart of a Gopi" is an illustration of such receptivity of forms from the inner worlds, proves that it is capable of being useful today. The most striking example however, so far as the field of painting is concerned, is that of the great Bengali artist, Abanindranath Tagore. In his autobiography A. Tagore has described how he used to see a flood of forms, all colourful, around him when he was trying to paint the ''Krishna-Charit" series. It seemed as if the brush was slower than the flow of forms that was trying to rush down on the canvas. The difficulty was not how to create forms but how to canalise the flow of inspiration into controlled expression. The other experience came to him after the death of his mother. When his mother died A. Tagore felt deeply sore because he had not drawn his mother's portrait. He sat quietly and tried to recall in memory his mother's form. All unexpectedly it appeared before his inner vision and A. Tagore was excited and became nervous and tried to draw the portrait in a hurry. Suddenly the vision disappeared. Then being advised by his elder brother, he remained calm when the vision appeared to him a second time. This time he was able to draw the whole portrait faithfully and satisfactorily.
But while these examples—Indian and European, are given it is not suggested that there should be in the world of art a return to the past whether of Europe or of India. This is not desirable, neither is it possible. In the words of A. Tagore "such an effort would be a forced marriage—(Rāksasa Vivāha)
Page 62
between the present and the past"..."As a carriage cannot move backwards so cannot life" Bagishwari Lectures).
But India should certainly try to contribute something from her deepest soul, something based on her culture,—something that once gave to the world Ajanta and Ellora—to modern art, as to other fields of human endeavour. In short, India, open to the world's progressive currents, must create as her deepest soul dictates, not as some outer domination dictates or determines. As the spiritual vitality of India becomes strong her creative power in art will also develop. When I say "Strong vitality" and "India's advance" I mean by the phrases India's spiritual strength, the development of her soul, her true consciousness apart from national egoism and desire-soul.
The differences that divided the East and the West have not remained constant. Political and economic considerations and also the swift and easy transport are bringing men nearer and nearer. This process is bound to increase with time. More than any other, in the field of art men will begin to feel the need of unity and progress. Future art will move more and more towards the art of humanity. But it will not be the type of modern European art though it seems to dominate almost all countries at present. The ideals, theories and methods which govern it will pass and will have to give place to more balanced elements. The art of the future will utilise to the full the great contribution to technical advance made by modernist period. The art of humanity—a common cultural achievement of man's soul seeking for beauty, desiring to create forms—will not mean the disappearance or suppression of all characteristics of racial or cultural art-elements. On the contrary the characteristics of each art will contribute its share to the common, universal art. But before that consummation comes each regional or cultural art will have to try to assimilate the elements of other developed arts. The art of Japan, China, India, France and other countries will each contribute to the making of the art of
Page 63
humanity. This will not come about by an artificial process of addition but by an organic growth, by assimilation. Art of humanity will really appear when mankind has learnt to feel the whole humanity as one, i. e. when man outgrows his national egoism, and begins to think and feel in terms of humanity.
The main characteristic of that future art will be that of the modernist art in its beginning. It will be an art of subjective self-expression in which the higher ranges and deeper truths of man's consciousness will find rhythmical expression. It will bring into art-forms authentic subjective experience of levels of being beyond mind. And even when it deals with life and Nature and the material world, it will bring into play an intuitive or an inspired vision, the sight which will transform them into a world of beauty.
It may be asked why the modernist art, which already stresses the subjective expression, is not regarded great or successful. The answer is that the nature of the trend is in the right direction. Europe is trying hard to get away from its extroverted surface consciousness to something behind, something deeper. It has not yet found the true inner source of creation. There is possible, as I said already, a true and a false subjectivism. There is 'ego' and true individually in man : one is false the other is true—though both may be said to be subjective. It is the false, or rather ignorant subjectivity that finds expression in most of the modern art creations. It expresses the subconscient, the lower-vital region of impulses, the chaotic inner planes of consciousness. It is incapable of meeting our highest aesthetic need. Two elements of the highest importance which modernist art has given to all future art are: freedom to create in the light of the artist's soul, and a certain directness in the method of self-expression.
In one of his replies to a friend Picasso says : "not what the painter does but what he is, is important". It has long
Page 64
been recognised that the true creator is the soul or more correctly, the inner being, of the artist, even though outer objects, environment, life-experience may act as stimulating influences to set his creative inner being into movement. But this inner being of man is surrounded by instruments of Nature which are very complex. It has many levels of being. In fact, it is this complexity of man's inner being that renders the task of the artist very difficult. Very often he mistakes his vital being that is interested in life and movement, his desire-soul, for his true being. It is even true that this Vital being in man, his being of life-force, can and often does create great art. In all true artistic creation this vital element is needed to give life to it. It draws its material not merely from the great ocean of life around but with the help of imagination it can create powerful, new forms which have a great appeal for life. There is a plane of higher vital being, a higher vital world, —far above the plane of ordinary life of every day where forms of great power and beauty exist. An artist can either rise to this plane occasionally and draw inspiration for his work from there. He can straightway bring down forms— either literary or plastic—into his art-creation or may modify them in transit through his consciousness.
But that is not the highest plane available to the artist. He can rise to the intellectual plane and feel, perceive or see forms on that plane and can establish contact with them and bring them down in his creation.
He can, if he acquires the practice, even contact his true soul, his true being, his inmost self, and see forms on that plane. He can bring them down into his art-creation.
Above the mental level there are ranges of consciousness attainable by man. i The greatest artists are those who, either
1 "It has always been the function of art to stretch the mind some distance beyond the limits of the understanding. That "distance beyond'' may be spiritual or transcendental or perhaps, merely fantastical; somewhere it will overlap the limits of the rational"
What is wholly rational cannot satisfy the aesthetic sensibility".
Herbert Read.
Page 65
consciously or unconsciously, succeed in contacting these higher levels of consciousness and bring down forms from the world of supreme harmony. Behind all the outer aspect of turmoil and strife of life there is a harmony trying to express itself. This harmony is not merely a harmony on the life-plane, though life is its most important field for expression. This harmony is spiritual; some glimpse of it the poet had when he spoke of "the music of the 'spheres'." It belongs to a supreme spiritual plane, but its aim is to manifest itself here on our life-plane. Art is one medium through which it can express itself here in terms of material media. An artist can contact— in fact, the greatest artists have always contacted,—this plane of harmony and brought down forms from there in his art either direct or with some modification while they pass through his consciousness.
It is necessary that the modern artist should realise atleast the great complexity and multi-dimensionality of man's consciousness so as to save himself from obscurity and errors due to his want to clarity about the inner structure of man. Modern psychological theories can also give him a glimpse of this complexity but these theories—like the psycho-analysis of Freud—give a very one-sided view of the inner being of man.
In the present state of art there is no reason for disappointment because the trend towards subjective expression is in the right direction. In future we might even look beyond the mere human self of man, for, there is within man the possibility of outgrowing his mere humanity. He can widen out and ascend to a universal consciousness. In his inmost being " man is more than man ". The artist discovering his own true self would derive inspiration to create from there.1
1 To live in the subliminal world, to dwell there and to forget the conscious world. ...It seems the reality or sufficiency of normal perception; the vision of the eye is arbitrary and limited, it is directed outward. Inward is another and a more marvellous world. It must be explored.
Herbert Read Meaning of Art
Page 66
Even if he could not rise permanently to his true self an occasional ascent or exaltation would enable him to create from there. This was what the Greeks meant by 'Enthusiasmos'. If the artist could rise from his mental consciousness to intuition, inspiration and beyond to the universal plane and still beyond to the plane of Truth-harmony he could then give us an art that would be an embodiment of the higher movement of his consciousness while at the same time it would satisfy man's aesthetic sensibility. He could then bring down forms which might rightly be called " divine ". It is then that the artist acquires the right of the highest creator. In order to be able to do this great work he must ascend, however temporarily, to the heights or fathom the depths of consciousness and bring down here forms which not only are new but divine. Then shall we see with our mortal eyes forms that belong to a divine world.
Note:
Some lines from Savitri which cast light upon the origin and nature of some works of ultra-modern art are quoted here.
Impure, sadistic, with grimacing mouths,
Grey foul inventions grusome and macabre
Came televisioned from the gulfs of Night.
Her craft ingenious in monstrosity,
Impatient of all natural shape and poise,
A gape of nude exaggerated lines,
Gave caricature a stark reality,
And art-parades of weird distorted forms,
And gargoyle masks obscene and terrible
Trampled to tormented postures the torn sense.
Book II. Canto 7.
All nature pulled out of her frame and base
Was twisted into an unnatural pose:
A new aesthesis of Infernos' art
That trained the mind to love what the soul hates.
Page 67
Home
Disciples
Purani
Books
Share your feedback. Help us improve. Or ask a question.