The Art
of Living : A tribute to AKC
"The artist is not a special kind of man, but
every man should be a special
kind of artist
...every man who is not a
mere idler and parasite,
is necessarily some special
kind of artist, skilled
and well contented in the
making or arranging
of some one thing or another according to his
constitution and training." [AKC 1943: 97]
Ananda Coomaraswamy (AKC), is perhaps best known as an "art
critic" and or an "exponent of Oriental art." This is
unfortunate as it tends to categorize him as an academic whose work is of
interest only to those involved in the study of the history of painting, or in
the East as a supporter and abettor of nationalist aspirations. His concerns
were far broader - indeed, one might say universal, for he was concerned with
the purpose of life and the ordering of a just society which would facilitate
man's achievement of true happiness. In so far as every man is or should be an
artist - that is the maker or creator of things that are both useful and
beautiful - the understanding of the true nature of art is essential if we are
to fulfill our true destiny. The universal nature of these principles draws
upon solid Catholic as well as Oriental sources.
Much depends upon "rhetoric" or the proper use of language, an
art form at which AKC was a master. Art for example is not something to be hung
on the wall, for art remains in the artist. It is the artifact, the object made
by art which is to be used - if indeed it has any real use. "We cannot do
without art, because art is the knowledge of how things ought to be made, art
is the principle of manufacture (recta
ratio factibilium), and while an artless play may be innocent, an artless
manufacture is merely brutish labor and a sin against the wholesomeness of
human nature." [Lipsey I 1977:29] Again and again he stressed that it is
normal for a man, any man, be he king or carpenter, be he surgeon, author or
toolmaker, to be an artist. "...the human artificer works - or should work
- like the Divine Artificer, with only this important distinction, that the
human artificer has to make use of already existing materials, and to impose
new forms on these materials, while the Divine Artificer provides his own
material out of the infinitely "possible," which is not yet, and is
therefore called "nothing..." [Lipsey I 1977: 54] He does not work
with his hands or with already existing materials, but « thinks things,
and behold they are. It is towards this perfection that the human artificer
tends: at least, if he did not think things, they would not be." [Lipsey I
1977: 55] It is in this sense that the artist is "creative." Now it
is clear that most of us in the modern world are not free to be creative or
true artists. The greater majority of the work force - whether laboring in a
factory or working as a secretary - is condemned to a "servile" form
of labor, not fit for free men and women. They must perform a physical act
devoid of any creativity, which is in fact what Aristotle would call a
"slavish" act. Their only freedom is "to work or starve which is
not a responsible freedom, but only a legal fiction that conceals an actual
servitude..." [Lipsey I 1977: 40] Such a view he explained "is hardly
flattering to those whose admiration of the industrial system is equal to their
interest in it." He noted that Aristotle defined as "slaves"
those who had nothing to offer but their bodies (Politics 1.5.1254b. 18) and
that "political freedom does not make of assembly-line workers and other
‘base mechanics' what Plato meant by ‘free men.'" "A system of
manufacture governed by money values presupposes that there shall be two
different kinds of makers, privileged artists who may be "inspired,"
and underprivileged laborers, unimaginative by hypothesis since they are
required only to make what other men have imagined, or more often only to copy
what other men have already made. [Lipsey I 1977: 31] The fact remains that
"most of us are doing forced labor, working at jobs to which we could
never have been ‘called' by any other master than the salesman; that the very
few, the happy few of us whose work is a vocation and whose status is
relatively secure, like nothing better than our work and can hardly be dragged
away from it." And thus we have developed the concept of a leisure state,
a state of pleasure to be enjoyed apart from our daily work. But even here our
pleasures are corrupted, because "We are no longer sure what kind of life
it is that we ought for our own good and happiness to imitate, and are for the
most part convinced that no one knows or can know the final truth about
anything: we only know what we "approve" of, i.e., what we like to do
or think, and we desire a freedom to do and think what we like more than we
desire a freedom from our errors." [Lipsey I 1977: 23]
Mediaeval
theologians did not write treatises on art as such, but used the productions of
art to illustrate the principles upon which all activity must be based. In
similar manner, AKC used the crafts, above all painting, to the same end.
Before however providing a brief summary of these principles, one must turn to
his criticism of the modern concepts of art as taught in our colleges and art
academies.
Basically moderns "look upon the arts from two points of view,
neither of them valid: either the popular view that believes in a ‘progress' or
‘evolution' of art and can only say of a ‘primitive' that ‘that was before they
knew anything about anatomy' or of ‘savage' art that it is ‘untrue to nature';
or the sophisticated view which finds in the aesthetic surfaces and the
relations of parts the whole meaning and purpose of the work, and is interested
only in our emotional reactions to these surfaces." [Lipsey I 1977: (?)]
With regard to the former, "we designate cultures of the past or
those of other people as relatively ‘barbaric' and our own as relatively
civilized,' never reflecting that such prejudgments, which are really
wish-fulfillments, may be very far from fact. Every student of the history of
art discovers, indeed in every art cycle a decline from a primitive power to a
refinement of sentimentality or cynicism. But being humanist himself, he is
able to think what he likes, and to argue that the primitive or savage artist
‘drew like that' because he knew no better; because he (whose knowledge of
nature was so much greater and more intimate than that of the ‘civilized' or
‘city' man) had not learnt to see things as they are, was not acquainted with
anatomy or perspective, and therefore drew like a child!" [AKC 1943 &
1956: (?);Lipsey I 1977: (?)] We are indeed careful to explain when we speak of
an imitation of nature or study of nature we do not mean a ‘photographic'
imitation, but rather an imitation of nature as experienced by the individual
artist, or finally a representation of the nature of the artist as experienced
by himself. Art is then ‘self-expression'" [Lipsey I 1977: 62] As Van Gogh
put it:"real artists paint things not as they are... but as they feel them." It is no wonder then
that we have "an insatiable interest" in the life and feelings of the
artist who has been described as "painting his psyche on the
canvas." The consequence is that
every modern artist "must be individually ‘explained'; his productions are
"not communicative of ideas... but only serve to provoke reactions. Whereas
civilized societies since the dawn of man have "called their theory of art
or expression a ‘rhetoric' and have thought of art as a kind of knowledge, we
have invented an ‘aesthetic' and think of art as a kind of feeling." Works
of art are often described as "significant," but rarely are we told
what they are significant of. How often
one hears the comment about a piece of contemporary ‘art': "I don't know
what it means, but I like it." We forget that Plato refused to give the
name of ‘art' to anything that was irrational (Gorgias 465A), that he taught there was no real speaking - another
art form - that did not lay hold upon the Truth. (Phaedrus 260E) The contemporary view is well expressed by art
critic Georges Braque has stated, "the only valid thing in art is the one
thing that cannot be explained."
Which brings us to another contemporary viewpoint, namely that the
appreciation of art involves a certain sensibility to its aesthetic qualities.
"By sensibility we mean of course an emotional sensibility; aisthesis in Hellenistic usage implying
physical affectibility as distinguished from mental operations. We speak of a
work of art as ‘felt' and never of its ‘truth,' or only of its truth to nature
or natural feeling; ‘appreciation' is a ‘feeling into' the work. Now emotional
reaction is evoked by whatever we like (or dislike, but as we do not think of
works of
art as intended to provoke disgust, we need
only consider them here as sources of pleasure): what we like, we call
beautiful, admitting at the same time that matters of taste are not subject to
law....The purpose of art is to give pleasure; the work of art as the source of
pleasure is its own end; art is for art's sake... questions of utility and
intelligibility rarely arise, and if they do are dismissed as irrelevant."
"To say that art is essentially a matter of feeling is to say that its
sufficient purpose is to please; the work of art is then a luxury, accessory to
the life of pleasure." [AKC 1943 & 1956:64(?); Lipsey I 1977:
64(?)] "To equate the love of art
with a love of fine ensations is to make of works of art a kind of
aphrodasiac." [Lipsey I 1977: 14]No wonder then that "the modern
artist is neither a useful or significant, but only an ornamental member of
society" [Lipsey I 1977:28]; that his products are enjoyed by the wealthy,
but are neither useful nor meaningful to the average man.
What then is the traditional or catholic view of art? "The active life of man is of two
sorts, either a doing or a making. These are the realms respectively of conduct
and of art; the one is governed or corrected by prudence, the other by
art." [Lipsey I 1977:20] "Works of art are means of existence made by
man as artist in response to the needs of man as patron and consumer." [Lipsey
I 1977:112] Art is the manipulation or arrangement of materials according to a
design or pattern, preconceived as the theme may demand, which design or
pattern is the idea or intelligible aspect of the work to be done by the
artist." In other words, the artist first conceives the theme or pattern
of the work in his mind, and then makes this "form" manifestly
present in his work. It is this pattern or idea that the artist
"imitates," and which gives intelligibility to his work. If "all
the arts, without exception, are to be imitative." The question must then
be asked, "imitative of exactly what?" Not imitative of some phantasy
which the passions of artist can arouse in his psyche, not imitative of the
"accidents" of nature as we see it (which a photograph can do
better), but imitative of a divine pattern. This is true as much for a spade as
for an altar, for agriculture is indeed a divine art. This is why St. Thomas
Aquinas taught that "art" is the imitation of Nature in her manner of
operation," (Summa 1.117.1) not nature as we commonly understand it, but Natura naturans, Creatrix Universalis,Deus.
In other words, traditional art is "not concerned with Nature, but with
the nature of Nature." "This imitation or re-presentation of a model
involves, indeed a likeness, but hardly what we usually mean by versimilitude.
What is traditionally meant by ‘likeness' is not a copy, but an image akin and
‘equal' to its model; in other words, a natural and ‘adequate' symbol of its
referent. [Lipsey I 1977:20]
Some clarification of these concepts can be derived by considering
Rhetoric. The original Greek meaning of this word is skill in public speaking,
but can also be applied to writing. In the traditional viewpoint, speaking is
the effective expression of a thesis. There is a very wide difference between
what is said for effect and what is said or made to be effective, and must work,
or would not be worth saying or making. It is true that there is a so-called
rhetoric of the production of ‘effects,' just as there is so-called poetry that
consists only of emotive words, and a sort of painting that is merely
spectacular; but this kind of eloquence that makes use of figures for their own
sake, or merely to display the artist, or to betray the truth in courts of law,
is not properly a rhetoric, but a sophistic, or art of flattery. By ‘rhetoric'
we mean, with Plato and Aristotle, ‘the art of giving effectiveness to
truth.'" [Lipsey I 1977: 14] As
AKC was fond of saying, "the
beauty of the well turned phrase is the splendor
veritatis.
We have said that Art is the imitation of
Nature in her manner of operation Nature's manner is to imitate the form of
humanity in a nature of flesh. We have also spoken of "form"
"The form of humanity does not only exist in this way, but also - for the
middle ages and the east, if not for us - in a nature of light, transformally.
This means that to make our statue right we must have understood both human
nature and the nature of stone, or wood, or whatever our material: only so can
we imitate the form of a man in the nature of stone or wood."
"Similitude is with respect to the form" (Summa1.5.4. St. Basil, De
spiritu sancto.) It is
important that we understand exactly what is meant by "form" in this
philosophy. For example, we say that "the soul is the form of the
body." "Form" is logically prior to the thing; the artist
conceives the form before he makes the thing, or as the Middle Ages put it, the
artist proceeds "by a word conceived in the intellect" (Summa 1.45.6) This procedure is an act
of imagination, viz the entertainment of an idea in an imitable form. This is
the "art" by which the artist works. "The knowledge of form is
not a knowledge derived from the finished artifact or from nature...," nor
is it a phantasm that the artist seeks in his own subconscious. Rather, as
Plotinus says: "the crafts such as building and carpentry which give us
matter in wrought forms may be said, in that they draw on pattern, to take
their principles from that realm and from the thinking there"(V.9.11). And
so it follows that as Augustine says, "the standard of truth in the
artifact is the artificer's art; for then only is the arch truly an arch when
it agrees with this art." so that "it is by their ideas that we judge
of what things ought to be like."(De
Trinitate IX.6.11) Elsewhere AKC points out that "art can have, not
only ‘fixed ends', but also ‘ascertained means of operation'; that it is not
only for those who sing here to sing of Him, but to sing as He sings."
[Iengar and Coomaraswamy 1993: 62]
We
have not as yet spoken of "beauty," but suffice it to say that what
is "de-formed" will lack beauty - though of course some people will
as Augustine pointed out, like what is ugly. "And so it is that we begin
to understand in what sense the form of a thing is called the "formal
cause" of its appearance and how the perfection of the thing itself is
measured by the degree to which it faithfully reflects the form or idea of the
thing as it subsists in the image-bearing light or, in other words in the
Divine Intellect....This mental image or form according to which the thing is
made is called the "art in the artist" and, as in the case of the
Divine Art, is the "formal cause" of the thing's appearance.."
The human artificer works - or should work - like the Divine Artificer, with
only this important distinction, that the human artificer has to make use of
already existing materials, and to impose new forms on these materials, while
the Divine Artificer provides his own material out of the infinitely
"possible," which is not yet, and is therefore called
"nothing." [Lipsey I 1993: 62] Art then "implies a
transformation of the material, the impression of new forms on material that
has been more or less formless." [Lipsey I 1977: 15]
The
true artist is "inspired" by which AKC did not mean "moved"
by unconscious drives. "It is always by the Spirit that a man is
inspired." (Fig) "Christ, ‘through whom all things were made,' does
not bear witness (express) of himself, but says ‘I do nothing of myself, but as
my Father taught me, I speak.'" and as John said, "he that speaketh
from himself seeketh his own glory." So it is the divine within the artist
that inspires him. AKC quotes Plato: "Do we not know that as regards the
practice of the arts (with particular reference to the divine originators of
archery, medicine, and oracles, music, metalwork, weaving, and piloting) the
man who has this God for his teacher will be renowned and as it were a beacon
light, but one whom [Divine] Love has not possessed will be obscure."
"And so the maker of anything, if he is to be called a creator, is at his
best the servant of an immanent Genius (i.e. God); he must not be called
"a genius," but ingenious." He is not working of or for himself,
but by and for another energy, that of the Immanent Eros, Sanctus Spiritus, the
source of all "gifts." [Lipsey I 1977: 33]
If the human artist derives his
forms from the divine original - if he makes all things "in accordance
with the pattern that was shown thee upon the mount" - it follows that all
true art is symbolic. Not symbolic in the usual sense of the word, not an
arbitrary sign selected by either the artist or the patron, not appointed to
the work by psychoanalysis, linguistics or symbolist art, not the imitation of
a perceptible, but rather the imitation of an intelligible model. Turning to
architecture to clarify this concept, I quote from Adrian Snodgrass' The Symbolism of the Stupa:
In the traditional Indian view, a
building, if it is properly conceived,satisfies both a physical and a
metaphysical indigence; it has a twofold function: it provides "commodity,
firmness and delight" so as to serve man's psycho-somatic, emotional and
aesthetic needs; and also serves him intellectually, acting as the support for
the contemplation of supra-empirical principles. In this view an adequately
designed building will embody meaning. It will express the manner in which the
phenomenal world relates to the Real. [Snodgrass 1985: (?)]
Snodgrass continues: "All things that exist, images, words, language,
physical and mental phenomena - are symbols of the supra-empirical levels of
reality. Every existent thing is a "reflection" of an archetypal
Form." One must not be misled by Jungian ideas which place and derive the
archetypes from the "collective unconscious," which is a human, if
not sub-human source. "The essential Form and the material substance of
the entity respectively constitute its intelligible and sensible aspects."
The
artist then, like the Divine Artist, creates symbolically. As St.Thomas says,
the artist "operating by a word conceived in his intellect and moved by
the direction of his will towards the specific object to be made, "is the
cause of the becoming of things. AKC quotes Walter Andrae to the effect that
mankind "makes symbols, written characters, and cult images of earthly
substances, and sees in and through them the spiritual and divine substance
that has no likeness and could not otherwise be seen." The net result is
that Christian, and indeed, all traditional artistic symbolism can be spoken of as a "calculus" (Emile
Male). It is not the private language of any individual or culture, but "a
universal language, universally intelligible." Again, as Walter Andrae
said, the purpose of art is "to make the primordial truly intelligible, to
make the unheard audible, to enunciate the primordial word. Such is the task of
art or it is not art." [Lipsey I 1977:36 footnote]And again, AKC:
"The artist's function is not simply to please, but to present an
ought-to-be known in such a manner as to please when seen or heard, and so
expressed as to be convincing. The artist has no license to say anything not in
itself worth saying, however eloquently; that it is only by his wisdom as a man
that he can know what is worth saying or making." [Lipsey I 1977:318]
In
what way is a work of art beautiful? "Seeing that God alone is truly
beautiful, and all other beauty is by participation, it is only a work of art
that has been wrought, in its kind and its significance, after an eternal model
that can be called beautiful." Beauty in this philosophy is the attractive
power of perfection." "And since the eternal and intelligible models
are supersensual and invisible, it is evidently ‘not by observation' but in
contemplation that they must be known. Two acts then, one of contemplation and
one of operation are necessary to the production of any work of art."
[Lipsey I 1977: 24] Now things are made to be used, and it goes without saying
that artifacts that are useless, no matter how much they may please us, can
never be beautiful. "The distinction of beauty from utility is logical,
not real." [Lipsey I 1977: 25]
Now
all this may strike one as being of only theoretical interest. Such is far from
the case, for it has in view the last end of man which is not the accumulation
of innumerable toys, but his eternal happiness. "A traditional
civilization - [that is one based on these principles] - presupposes a
correspondence of man's most intimate nature with his particular vocation. The
forcible disruption of this harmony poisons the very springs of life and
creates innumerable maladjustments and sufferings....The distinctive
characteristic of a traditional society is order. The life of the community as
a whole and that of the individual, whatever his special function may be,
conforms to recognized patterns, of which no one questions the validity"
[Lipsey I 1977: 290]The way of life and the way of work are one and the same
way, and as it says in the Bhagavad Gita,
"Man attains perfection by the intensity of his devotion to his own proper
task." "All tradition has seen in the Master Craftsman of the
Universe the exemplar of the human artist, and we are told to be "perfect
even as you Father in heaven is perfect."[Lipsey I 1977:64]
This view of art, which is also a view of life, is based on an
anthropology of man almost forgotten in our day. Traditional societies
understood the nature of man as based on Spirit, Psyche and Body, the latter
two being united in the "psycho-physical" which included thinking
processes. As Boethius said, the man who seems himself as an animal who reasons
has forgotten who he is. The true artist then is a metaphysician who seeks to
know and live in the Spirit (or Truth, Beauty which are but names of God). From
the time of Descartes on (with roots going farther back) the "Spirit"
lin man has been virtually ignored. Often described as the "doctrine of
the two selves," the artist, and every man should be an artist, seeks to
know and adhere to the true Self or Spirit which must be distinguished from and
directive of the psycho-physical or lesser self. AKC gives a clear expression
to these principles in the following passage:
"To ‘think for oneself' is
always to think of oneself. What is called ‘free thought' [for the painter,
self-expression] is therefore the natural expression of a humanist philosophy.
We are at the mercy of our thoughts and corresponding desires. Free thought is
a passion; it is much rather the thoughts than ourselves that are free. We
cannot too much emphasize that contemplation is not a passion but an act; and
that where modern psychology sees in "inspiration" the uprush of an
instinctive and subconscious will,the orthodoxy philosophy sees an elevation of
the Artist's being to superconscious and supraindividual levels. Where the
psychologist invokes a demon, the metaphysician invokes a daemon: what is for
one the ‘libido,' is for the other ‘the divine Eros.'" [Ansshen 1947: 162]
“Through the mouth of Hermes the divine Eros began to
speak."[Hermetica (?):Prologue] We must not conclude from the form of the
words that the artist is a passive instrument, like a stenographer. ‘H' is much
rather actively and consciously making use of ‘himself' as an instrument and
vehicle. The man is passive only when he identifies himself with the
psycho-physical ego, letting it take him where it will; but is active when he
directs it. Inspiration... cannot work in the man except to the extent that he
is ‘in the Spirit.' It is only when the form of the thing to be made has been
known that the artist returns to ‘himself.,' performing the servile operation
with good will, a will directed solely to the good of the thing to be made. The
man incapable of contemplation cannot be an artist, but only a skilfull
workman. It is demanded of the artist to be both a contemplative and a good
workman." [Ansshen 1947:161]This does not deny to the artist the ability
to "express himself," because nothing can be known or done except in
accordance with the mode of the knower. So the man himself, as he is in
himself, appears in style and handling...The uses and significance of works of
art may remain the same for millennia, and yet we can often date a place oplace
of a work at first glance. But the artist whom we have in view is innocent of
history and unaware of the existence of stylistic sequences. Styles are the
accident and by no means the essence of art. [Ansshen 1947: 163]
It
follows them that the artist, by plying his craft, perfects his soul. He is not
interested in glorifying himself, but in giving glory to God, and hence like
the surgeon or the priest, has no desire to leave his personal mark upon his
work. "The anonymity of the artist belongs to a type of culture dominated
by the longing to be liberated from oneself. All the force of this philosophy
is directed against the delusion that "I am the doer." I am not in
fact the doer, but the instrument; human individuality is not an end but only a
means. The supreme achievement of individual consciousness is to lose or find
(both words mean the same) itself in what is both its first beginning and its
last end. All that is required of the instrument is efficiency and obedience;
it is not for the subject to aspire to the throne; the constitution of man is
not a democracy, but the hierarchy of body, soul and spirit. Is it for the
Christian to consider any work "his own" when even Christ has said
that "I do nothing of myself"? [Ansshen 1947:164]
Those that would export the industrial system to those parts of the
world "not yet spoiled," would do well to consider the effects of
destroying native crafts and replacing them with the production of machine made
goods, the goal (last end) of which is to provide profits for investors. While
the craftsman is worthy of his hire, he does not work for profit, but for the
good of the work to be done. The devastating effect of industrializing
so-called backward countries, of reducing artisans to the level of "wage
earners" whom AKC called "the hired and fired man,"[Ansshen
1947:170] can be seen in the de-culturation of these societies and the readily
available artifacts produced. Both
artist and patron are victims, for in fact "nothing ought to be made,
nothing can be really worth having, that is not at the same tine correct or
true or formal or beautiful (whichever word you prefer) and adapted to good
use." [Lipsey I 1977:28] Hence, as AKC stated, "should we propose to
raise our standard of living to the savage level, on which there is no
distinction of the fine from applied or sacred from profane art, it need not
imply the sacrifice of any of the necessities or even conveniences of life, but
only of luxuries, only of such utilities as are not at the same time useful and
significant." [Lipsey I 1977:28]
AKC
was often accused of being a "mediaevalist," of wishing to return to
the Middle Ages. However preferable the Middle Ages might be in comparison to
our current "civilization," such was not what he advocated. The forms
of society can be varied, as indeed they are in various cultures. It is a return
to the principles that underlie these various forms that he advocated. The
greater majority of moderns are denied the opportunity to be artists, that is
to say, to be creative and to live their lives in such a way as to be conducive
to their eternal happiness. It is true that one can save one's soul while
working in a factory - but never by working in a factory. As Eric Gill has
said, one might become a saint by being thrown to the lions in the Colosseum,
but, this by no means indicates that we must condemn ourselves to the martyrdom
of factory work. "Manufacture without art is brutality" (Ruskin), and
to force mankind into this setting is to make of him a brute, to reduce him to
the level of an animal that "lives by bread alone." There can be no
corrective to the problems of the modern world until and unless there is a
return to the principals of traditional society - not the principles of AKC -
but to those of traditional life and art, which he made his own. This in fact
is what he did in his own life, for his work was with the written word, and in
this he himself was a traditional artist
par excellence.
References
Ansshen, Ruth Nanda, Ed. 1947. Art, Man and Manufacture in Our Emergent
Civilization.
New
York: Harper Publishers.
Coomaraswamy, Ananda K. 1943 & 1956. Christian and Oriental Philosophy of Art. (Formerly
titled « Why Exhibit Works of Art? »). London: Luzac & Co.,
(1943) & New
York: Dover
Publications (1956).
Hermetica: The Ancient
Greek and Latin Writings which Contain Religious or Philosophic
Teachings Ascribed to Hermes
Trismegistus. Ed.
W.Scott, 4 vols, 1924-1936.
Iengar and Rama P.Coomaraswamy, Ed. 1993. Spiritual Authority and Temporal Power,
2nd edn.
New delhi:
Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts.
Lipsey, Roger, Ed.1977. Coomaraswamy. I- Selected Papers: Traditional Art and Symbolism.
Princeton, N.J.: Princeton
University Press, Bollingen Series
LXXXIX.
Snodgrass, Adrian. 1985. The Symbolism of the Stupa. Ithica, N.Y.: Cornell (Studies on
Southeast
Asia.