Tag Archive: art

Duchamp's letter

I came across the following letter which Marcel Duchamp sent to his brother-in-law Jean Crotti when asked about his opinions on an art piece. Duchamp was a trailblazing artist of the earlier part of the 20th century and has arguably done more than anyone else to shape the artistic sensibilities of the modern Western world. He has been a polarizing figure and I have had more than my share of snickering disapprovals (mostly at the hands of MV) for being fascinated by this artist. Something tells my that the ideas in the letter apply more generally to life.

You were asking my opinion on your work of art, my dear Jean - It's very hard to say in just a few words - especially for me as I have no faith - religious kind - in artistic activity as a social value.

Artists throughout the ages are like Monte Carlo gamblers and the blind lottery pulls some of them through and ruins others - To my mind, neither the winners nor the losers are worth bothering about - It's a good business deal for the winner and a bad one for the loser.

I do not believe in painting per se - A painting is made not by the artist but by those who look at it and grant it their favors. In other words, no painter knows himself or what he is doing - There is no outward sign explaining why a Fra Angelico and a Leonardo are equally 'recognized'.

It all takes place at the level of our old friend luck - Artists, who in their own lifetime, have managed to get people to value their junk are excellent traveling salesmen, but there is no guarantee as to the immortality of their work - And even posterity is just a slut that conjures some away and brings others back to life (El Greco), retaining the right to change her mind every 50 years or so.

This long preamble just to tell you not to judge your own work as you are the last person to see it (with true eyes) - What you see neither redeems nor condemns it - All words used to explain or praise it are false translations of what is going on beyond sensations.

You are, as we all are, obsessed by the accumulation of principles or anti-principles which generally cloud your mind with their terminology and, without knowing it, you are a prisoner of what you think is a liberated education-

In your particular case, you are certainly the victim of the 'Ecole de Paris', a joke that's lasted for 60 years (the students awarding themselves prizes, in cash).

In my view, the only salvation is in a kind of esotericism - Yet, for 60 years, we have been watching a public exhibition of our balls and multiple erections - Your Lyons grocer speaks in enlightened terms and buys modern painting -

Your American museums want at all costs to teach modern art to young students who believe in the 'chemical formula'-

All this only breeds vulgarization and total disappearance of the original fragrance.

This does not undermine what I said earlier, since I believe in the original fragrance, but, like any fragrance, it evaporates very quickly (a few weeks, a few years at most). What remains is a dried up nut, classified by the historians in the chapter 'History of Art'-

So if I say to you that your paintings have nothing in common with what we see generally classified and accepted, and that you have always managed to produce things that were entirely your own work, as I truly see it, that does not mean you have the right to be seated next to Michelangelo-

What's more, this originality is suicidal as it distances you from a 'clientele' used to 'copies of copiers', often referred to as 'tradition'-

One more thing, your technique is not the 'expected' technique - It's your own personal technique, borrowed from nobody - And there again, this doesn't attract the clientele.

Obviously if you'd applied  your Monte Carlo system to your painting, all these difficulties wouldl have turned into victories. You would even have been able to start a new school of technique and originality.

I will not speak of your sincerity because that is the most widespread commonplace and the least valid - All liars, all bandits are sincere. Insincerity does not exist - The cunning are sincere and succeed by their malice, but their whole being is made up of malicious sincerity.

In a word, do less self-analysis and enjoy your work without worrying about opinions, your own as well as of others.

Affectionately,

Marcel

Art-less

It bothers me to think that for all the mystique and hazy beauty that is often endowed to 'Indian art' by nostalgic emigrants and westerners too eager to latch on to the infinite ocean of eastern wisdom, it is actually quite a barren field where new ideas almost never come along and old ones are repeated ad-infinitum. As an example, although Indian classical music is richer and deeper than I would ever have the time and expertise to explore, the truth is that barring a few raagas here and a few innovations there, it has remained almost unchanged through the centuries. Part of the reason for this, I feel, is exactly the same reason why it has the mystique that it has. Because its learning is so regimented and because it has no written notation, it is extremely hard for a layman to appreciate it. This removes Indian classical music to an entirely different plane, one where the common man cannot even hope to reach. This lends a great mystique to it but, unfortunately, it also prevents it from reinventing itself. You can have a beautiful little walled garden for yourself, but sadly, without the forces of creation which come from openness and irreverence, it will remain just that and nothing more. This is probably a reason why such a huge divide exist between high and low music in India with classical music sitting in its ivory tower, unscratched and smug, and popular music, mediocre at best, catering to the taste of the billion who are completely unable to bridge the gap between the two. Music in the Western society, on the other hand, has undergone tremendous changes. From the time when perfections were sought after and Bach produced his masterpiece studies in the mathematical harmonies of music to the acceptance of dissonances and complete ambiguity in what can be considered music - with a plethora of experiments and changes in between - it's a story of the continual asking of questions and never having too much respect for tradition. As a result, the sheer number of forms that theoretically exist lends almost a smooth and unbroken transition from high music to popular music. It is easier to get inspired when you realize that the rules of the game are not sacrosanct - something that is lacking in India classical music.

It might have to do with culture and hopefully that will change with economic prosperity and people would become more rebellious, more questioning, and more intolerant of authority and propriety. I feel that within appropriate laws and freedoms, it's a good thing. It encourages dialogue and makes one rethink some of our most fundamental assumptions. Art gets benefited from such a blasphemous attitude by becoming more cutting edge, more vibrant, and more in tune with the times. Although I'm not very sure of what I mean by being in tune with the times! Marcel Duchamp created the Fountain (a urinal) in 1917 and termed it art. John Cage created 4 minutes and 33 seconds of silence as a musical piece in 1952. Jackson Pollock's brand of abstract expressionism lived in the 60s. Schwitters wrote the sound poem Ursonate in the 20s. I don't know what form cutting edge art, which by definition rebels against the existing systems, takes in the contemporary society when everything that there was to rebel against was already exhausted by the end of the first half of the 20th century! A friend once told me that postmodern art is that which takes itself too seriously. I don't completely agree but that's a line of thought I'll save for later. For now I'll live with the solace that with the disapointment that is inherent in the current non-experimental nature of Indian art, comes the consolation that there is a lot left to explore.

Mozart and Art

I went to a Mozart concert by Orchestra Nova today. The pieces played were:

1. Violin concerto 3

2. 3 German dances

3. Symphony No. 40

As good as the 3 pieces are, Symphony 40 would be instinctively likable because its main theme is a well known tune. The second movement of the symphony was the one that I liked the most. It's a slow, almost sad but very romantic piece which managed to evoke a very tangible scene in my mind. The scene of two lovers dancing on a wooden pier over the ocean on a cloudless night. The sky is shot on the horizon in the shape of the moon and it is bleeding its milky agony on the scarred ocean. The only sounds are the creaks of the wooden floor of the pier as the hard soles and piercing heels of the dancers create rhythmic impressions over its accumulated dust. The dance is slow and intimate now and energetic and primal then and the rest of the universe with all its consequences and concerns has melted into the significance and insignificance of a few mutual gazes and some skipped beats. The two, oblivious of the celestial firmament above and around, dance away to the tunes of an invisible hand and whims of an unseen puppeteer, his gestures sure and controlled, her movements rapturous yet precise. The two ephemeral inky blots move among the mighty company of stars with the confidence of stupidity and the egoism of love but on the dull and permanent canvas of the heavens, they mark their patterns with the brilliance of human will. And it's a beautiful pattern. It is smooth and differentiable where the violins have taken deep breaths and discontinuous where the strings are plucked. It is serene and slow where the music is stringed and agitated and violent in the company of horns. Every now and then, they come close, their hands held together, the sorry moon imprisoned between his palm and hers - when the music goes quiet - and with a tremendous jerk as the crescendo is reached, the other side of the night sky gets drenched in the moonlight.

Mozart might never have intended images to be associated to his music but I feel that the importance and essence of art is not in the creator's intent but in the viewer's interpretation. I have colored his sketchy drawings with my imaginations and probably have gone overboard but art is nothing if not a good lie. Its importance is in its ability of making us invent beautiful false stories. It's actually useless when it is factual. And at this point I get reminded of a beautiful passage by Wilde where he talks about the real utility of art - the capability of inventing lies:

'Art, breaking from the prison-house of realism, will run to greet him, and will kiss his false, beautiful lips, knowing that he alone is in possession of the great secret of all her manifestations, the secret that Truth is entirely and absolutely a matter of style; while Life---poor, probable, uninteresting human life---tired of repeating herself for the benefit of Mr. Herbert Spencer, scientific historians, and the compilers of statistics in general, will follow meekly after him, and try to reproduce, in her own simple and untutored way, some of the marvels of which he talks.'

Loading...
X