Viewing page 129 of 169

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

duction and illustration, a record or counterfeit of external physical appearance —— of beasts; —— He "drew" and thereby created the art of Line. He "painted from model" —— an object, —— objectivity, —— naturalism. Not creation by "demonstration". It was painting during milleniums——such illustration is not any longer our idea of painting. When he drew the colorless outline of an elephant or tiger it was to demonstrate their ferocity and man's danger. But it was not his superstition transformed into aesthetic sensation. As Henry McBride, the New York critic, put it concisely: In painting, give me the 'moods', not the 'facts'. Or, as Stefan Bourgeois, in his excellent exposé of the intellectual-emotional duality of painting, (as printed in his catalogue to the magnificent Lewisohn collection) styles it: The illustrating artist cave-draftsman 'absorbs', the external appearance —— while the creative artist cavewoman —— 'projects' —— her inner imagination. The problems at large are treated, in the musical press, much more critically and continuously, so as to enlighten lovers of painting. Later on the "models" were other things —— a rose, a sunset, a portrait, a 'mountain in America', or some other obvious external beauty, works of art by Nature —— as it were. The painters copy them in order to demonstrate "The beautiful" —— which is not "art" —— or love, or other sentiments, analogies, or a romantic event, that is mere human feelings, which are or is not 'art' —— of the "essence of a thing" unknowable -- by a sleight-of-hand trick. All such "painting from model" continued to be illustrations of natural objects -- the visible forms. But it was not the emotional image which resides in our imagination as a form of mood. If it once was art, it is not Art any longer, not "painting"; it was, it is the skilful artistry of a salesman who delivers somebody's "goods". Such then was the first draftsman-artist. His son being like the father, without imagination and emotion, equally unable to create, was not he poet but a teacher and professor, and the professor's son, in turn, unable to teach, improved the professional lineage and become the aesthete —— the dissector port mortem. Professions are for money and a name. The first woman painter was out for an unseen kiss; the poet for being understood.

The cave-draftsman soon became jealous of the art of the woman and borrowed her red ochres and other earth colors. For he had noticed that color puts life on all things of nature, as well as on events, and that without color his somewhat lifeless drawings of animals did not satisfy the critics. Thus it came that realistic color —— which is not emotional force of the imagination, a visible tone from the soul of music, an essence in itself, but which is a mere superficial attribute of things, a mere optical regulator of sculptural form —— became the means by which the academical draftsman 'modelled' and made his mechanical drawing of outlines of the appearance of things still more "rea", more deceptive, more "true-like". Thereby he adulterated both the pure art of simple line, and the other art of pure color —— (painting). Only the Chinese painters were able to develop painting as a great art of pure and spiritual

4

line. We can hardly hope to ever lift landscape painting to the sublime height of beautiful color and spiritual form it once had in China. We have no business with that mental attitude. However, some of Ruisdael's spiritual landscape compositions, or some of Teniers' scenes, for their approach to "pure painting", have never been excelled in France or elsewhere, from classicists and romanticists to the modernists. France claims no monopoly in painting. We prostrate ourselves before fetiches our delusion sets up.

From that cave-man artist of crude objectivity working in the service of the mighty, descends, like sands on the sea, the interminable line of the semi-painters who, throughout the entire history of painting, draw from model. So, today, they —— academicians and modernists alike -- do not start with the imagination, do not address themselves to the soul of the spectator, do not create, like a composer, moods clad in elemental effects of painting, instead they start and finsh with "facts", and, by way of imitation and copy, demonstrate Nature. In the best and rarer cases they succeed with glittering and novel but irrelevant terms of the beautiful: "painting for Painting's sake" (a mistake based on what is music, and what is the nature of decorative arts.) That is to say, after the renaissance, in Europe, painting, the art of color, forgot its real mission and birth-right and became the mistress of Intellectual and male predominance. Today, what is case in business, is in painting, either style a la mode, or a la academy. The entire output of stylistic juggleries, of borrowed insincere mannerisms, of vapid anachronisms, is calculated to divert attention from the fundamental error in problem, to camouflage the great gap left vacant by imagination —— with novel and sensational color tricks and line-stunts, —— so as to dish up with new sauces, the stale and pragmatical "painting from model", hard-boiled commonplace and accidental "realism" (or "sur-realism" for all that). The modernist painters, owing to the fundamental and traditional error of a few French leaders, force the intensity of volume-form, by line and sculptural means —— that is, they force painting out of its frame and its logical limitations. Today painting, the great art of "female" outlook attempts to look and act "mannish", to "entertain". It "reveals" nothing, but its own spiritual emptiness, it glitters on with superficial trappings, it amuses only with virtuosities of very shoddy technical manufacture. All its brilliant but vapid follies and frivolities have "nothing to say" to us, contain no serious thoughts, and profounder spirit of the age, like the ones which our music and literature deal with as vital substance and which each transforms into its idiom.

The mutual jealousies between the two fundamentally different outlooks —— intellect and emotion —— male and female attitude, the art of line-form and the art of color-form, have caused the evolution of painting to run parallel to that of music. However, the critical strife, while it keeps music in the lead, echoes in the painting of today as mere gossip. The inherent duality of painting is impotent to face the higher spiritual

5