The Character of Writings by Artists about their Art

Leonardo, Vol. 9, pp. 231-234. Pergamon Press 1976. Printed in Great Britain THE CHARACTER OF WRITINGS BY ARTISTS ABOUT THEIR ART Rita Nolan* The writings of artists about their art comprise a vast and growing literature about the arts. What relation, if any, is there among these writings, the art works of their authorartists , and art in general? Synoptically, what is the character of these writings? In this paper, I shall consider several ready candidates for answers to this question. These answers may seem to some drearily unsatisfactory and their defects tiresomely obvious. What are interesting about these unsatisfactory answers are the reasons why they cannot be correct. These reasons suggest a different answer to that question, and one that illuminates an interesting aspect of the creative enterprise. Mapping new territory requires adopting one of alternative audacities. Among these is the alternative of imposing sharp boundaries upon a continuous terrain, or else of representing the continuous gradations of the terrain but selecting certain features for emphasis. My subject here lends itself to the second audacity. I. Most of the writings that I am concerned with can be approached as philosophy of art done nearsightedly, in need of corrective lenses. Perhaps it is this fact that accounts for the glaring absence of commentary by philosophers on these writings. One might well ask how one can seriously consider evaluating the truth of statements like Antonin Artaud’s, extolling the virtues of Balinese theater, “The theater . . . never should have ceased to be this ...dazzling ensemble full of explosions, flights, secret streams, detours in every direction of both external and internal perception” [l], or “Written poetry is worth reading once and then should be destroyed” 121, and “The misdeeds of the psychological theater descended from Racine have unaccustomed us to that immediate and violent action which the theater should possess” [3]. On Artaud’s view, as it is stated, Shaw, Molitre, indeed Shakespeare himself should not have done what they did, and, whatever it was they did, it was not true theater. The philosopher is interested in the unvarnished, untarnished truth; statements that lead to such obviously false conclusions cannot be true statements. Furthermore, how is one to grapple philosophically with the apparently conflicting claims that abound in such writings? Mondrian says, in praise and explanation of non-figurative art, “Since art is in essence universal, its expression cannot rest on a subjective view” [4]. But Henry Moore says, “each particular carving I make takes on in my mind a human, or occasionally animal, character and personality, and this personality controls its design and formal qualities, and makes me satisfied or dissatisfied with the work as it develops” [5]. Stravinsky says, “For * Dept. of Philosophy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27514, U.S.A. (Reprinted from The Journal of Aesfheficsand Arf Crificism 33, 67 (1974) with permission. Copyright 1974 by The American Society for Aesthetics.) myself, I have always considered that in general it is more satisfactory to proceed by similarity rather than by contrast . Music thus gains strength in the measure that it does not succumb to the seductions of variety” [6]. But Doris Humphrey says, “Art is for stimulation, excitement, adventure. Painters know very well that this calls for asymmetry. So do sculptors and musicians. Choreographers are apt to use too much symmetry .. .and this will spell monotony and death for a dance” [7]. Although each is expounding on a different art form and there are differences among the terms employed in these statements, nevertheless, the underlying claims radically conflict. Conflicting claims are hardly novel in philosophy. But the conflicting claims occurring in these writings are coupled with an opacity of meaning that leaves the philosopher bare-minded in searching for reasons or proofs in support of one claim over the other. What sense can reasonably be attached to such notions as “the essence of art”, “resting on”, “subjective view”, a “personality controlling the design of a carving”, and a “personality making one satisfied with a work” that occur in these statements? Opacity of meaning seems indeed a hallmark of these writings. Louis Kahn says, “A space can never reach its place in architecture without natural light” [8]. And...