|
Gustave Moreau, Matisse's former teacher at the Academie Ecole des Beaux-Arts, in Paris, embellished nudes he painted with real jewelry. Degas sarcastically referred to this as: "Decorating PILES OF MANURE with DIAMONDS," which was, no doubt, cruel, even for the sharp-tongued Degas.
George Braque, less acid in his remarks, simply stated that: "The means should match the needs, no more no less." He advised artists to seek simplicity, to shun excessive theorizing, to rely on their own convictions, their own emotional response to their problems. "Great pictures," he said, "are intuitive, not formalized!" Picasso, always honest when it came to art, added his voice by stating that the most difficult problem he faced in his early years, when he was exposed to the explosion of new ideas, was his struggle to escape the academic background he received at the school where his father taught. "Distant horizons," Picasso explained, "will not come from an excessive concern with the rules, or for that matter, from preoccupation with visual reality: it is far deeper, inward, essence of each of us, that really matters!" He also suggested that there WAS no RIGHT WAY OF ART, that any style, the whole gamut of expression, was correct, if it suited the intuitive nature of the artist. To the end of his life, Picasso adored the primitive art of Africa, the naive painting of children, of "primitive painters," art without pretense. He gave a party to celebrate the achievments of the French primitive, Henri Rousseau, who created such distinguished paintings as: "The Dream" and "The Sleeping Gypsy," as well as others. Rousseau, touched by Picasso's praise, and not, for a moment, questioning his sincerity, told Picasso that: "I am a great ARTIST in the MODERN MANNER, and YOU are a great ARTIST in the EGYPTIAN MANNER! Picasso, amused, replied that "Le Dournier" was correct in his statement, that the comparison was a legitimate one. "My aim," he exclaimed, holding his wineglass high in tribute, "is to SOMEDAY paint in the MODERN MANNER, like you!" Innocence, Picasso once wrote, is the most difficult to "obtain" in a painting--terribly difficult--almost impossible, he believed. "The academic," he had gone on to say, "fills our minds with 'la merde!' As you are well-aware," Picassso went on, 'la merde' can be cleaned up, but alas, the smell remains!" One of the worst conditions for learning in art, or for any subject, is for a student to idolize his teacher. The result of this reverence is that eventually he becomes the identity of that individual, an alter ego. Teachers of art who accept this as their DUE, are bad teachers, and, most likely, bad ARTISTS, IF THEY PAINT ON THE SIDE. Bad ARTISTS, especially if they do not make a living, BECOME TEACHERS; they have no CHOICE. If they are inept, which is usually the case, they pass their abominable theorizing on to unsuspecting victims, simply, because, on the face of it, THEY have NOTHING ELSE TO OFFER.... They don't know any better! A young student, a novice at art, may do better without schooling, making out on his own: think of it, neither Van Gogh nor Cezanne, ever had any formalized instruction, and look at what they accomplished! "If I had been accepted at the Ecole Academie des Beaux-Arts," Cezanne told Pissarro, "I'd have been lost, a faceless NOTHING, MARCHING to the same drum like all the rest of them!" Cezanne also said, as he and Pissarro painted along the Rivet Oise near Pontoise, "The Bouguereaus and the Geromes really do us honor by their rejection of our work!" Pissarro turned his head toward Cezanne, holding the brush poised before a canvas, and nodded, saying: "I think you are entirely justified in making that statement." The dilettantes, the so-called sophisticates, the know-it-alls, who proliferate on the perimeter of art, are part of the current system, which, builds on itself, CREATING SYNTHETIC STANDARDS, whose main concern, is: PERPETUATE the CONTROL of the BUYING AND SELLING OF ART. Each generation is the same, the faces change, but the process goes on. Today we have different styles, different modes, but the venality and fraud remain exactly the same. A painting, Cezanne insisted, is the establishment of a pictorial, or abstract space, using the basic elements of LINE, FORM, TEXTURE, AND COLOR. These elements are arranged to satisfy the intuitive nature of the artist--NOTHING ELSE. They should not be imitative of nature, nor should they follow the dictates of so-called establishment policies. Great artists teach us to see differently, even so, we must learn to see with OUR OWN EYES; to Form OUR OWN CONCLUSIONS; to see what has been done without claiming it for ourselves. We are taught to UNDERSTAND, but we MUST BREAK with the PAST, at this point. The only viable expression is PERSONAL; everything besides this, becomes IMITATIVE. Matisse said: "When I am confronted with problems, I say to myself that I have canvas, paint, that, no matter what difficulties emerge for me, I must express myself with purity. I begin by placing four or five points of color, by sketching a few lines, then, from this stage, I proceed to build on what I have done. After these steps, my imagination, my innermost instincts, take over, and to put it simply, I am carried along by them. The lesson I find in this is very simple: I have confidence in my capacity to express myself, and once I have begun, the procedure will push me, in the most natural way, to a conclusion which can be good, mediocre, or just PLAIN BAD. Obviously, it is the first which interests me, and all ideas which are failures, are promptly discarded. Chance is always present--this is essential--art is mysterious, not a production line, because a human being is not a machine." He added: "A moderate consistency in art is possible; all ideas are flawed, few are perfect and far between, and generally, if the premis is relatively sound, one can be close to achieving goals. Whether a painter destroys flawed works is always a serious question. One cannot know precisely about this because of not always being ready, to make such emotional decisions. Matisse, always an admirer of Cezanne, purchased a small "Baigneuses," from Vollard, after visiting his gallery on the Rue la Fitte in the Monmartre. He kept this painting for 37 years, referring to it on numerous occasions, and finally, wanting others to share his admiration of it, he bequeathed it to the Louvre. "It is necesary," Cezanne wrote to his writer-friend, Emile Zola, "that he who chooses art, must have the dedication of a religious zealot giving his soul to God!" He had gone on to say that: "Painting is a jealous mistress, never, forget that for a second, a profession that DEMANDS the HEART, the MIND, AND THE BODY!" "One must never doubt," Cezanne reminded his young friends, Charles Camoin and Emile Bernard, "that he has something to express: this is essential, yet,: it seems to me, that the problem is not completely in this particular thing, vital as it is, but in having the means to express." "An artist," he told Bernard, "must not talk or write too much." A statement referring to Bernard's well-known habit of theorizing. "It is not in talk," he had continued, "that he will find himself--one does does not discover the treasures of art over a cognac!" Picasso, who was not at all fond of the critical intellectualization of art, which was at its height at the turn of the century, said more or less the same thing. "An artist," he is reported to have said, "should not talk with his mouth, but with his brush! What a man does is far more eloquent than mere words; a brushstroke is more expressive than volumes of words written or spoken about art!" Matisse, somewhat talkative, it might be stated, also had his aversion to incessant dialogue, saying: "He who engages in endless chatter about art, exposes himself to the dangers of theory, which replaces feeling with disastrous results; a painter's BEST example is HIS WORK!" Did Picasso, Braque, Matisse, and Cezanne, really believe what they said, or were they, perhaps, making jokes to confuse the army of critics, dealers, connoisseurs, and dilettantes, who buzzed like flies around the periphery of art? Maybe, they were half-truths, written to put down the hated art critics, who were saving their own asses, professionally, by supporting the Academic monopoly. The radicals in Paris, almost to a man, hated the army of know-it-alls, the establishment, in general, telling people what to think! When one critic stated he knew precisely how Picasso had created a certain painting, the artist had a big belly-laugh, ridiculing the idea, saying it was preposterous that anybody should make such claim: it is idiotic, he said, to say you could explain the beauty of a flower, a Mozart concerto, or for that matter, the "Mona Lisa." "Art," he had emphasized, "is an ABSTRACTION BEYOND SUCH ASSUMPTIONS!" How true! And yet, even today, the flow of such nonsense proliferates, inspired by a gullible public who accepts such CLAPTRAP AS AUTHENTIC. Bonnard was right when he observed that an artist, a true artist, is as ignorant as what he has done as the critics who write about art! Any system, at a particular time, sets the standards by which art is measured, usually by a host of people, who thrive and somehow profit on it. This STANDARD IS ARTIFICIAL, and actually, has little to do with art itself. The tragedy, acted out again and again, is that real talent is LOST IN THIS MELANGE OF PHONINESS, because its prerequisites have nothing to do with GOOD or BAD ART, but with PROFIT, ALONE. Some theory is necessary for a painter, although excessive theorizing can result in dogmatism, which can be a form of creative constipation. Matisse, alert to this, nevertheless engaged in it, but in application, he backed off, knowing it was a dead-end. No great art is created through intellect alone; without feeling, it does not exist! A reflection of nature, untouched by the artists's individuality is NEGATIVE, and only reproduces what is already in existence, a complete waste of time! "An artist must paint with his HEART or he is NOTHING," Chagall said. "The art of today lacks content: they paint with their HEADS, resulting in a MEANINGLESS REPRESENTATION, DEVOID OF INNER EMOTION and FEELING!" Innovation, sensationalism, ridiculous claims, posturings, media exaggeration, is the norm in modern art. The hoop-la has extended beyond the individual, and art has become A MONSTROUS COMMODITY, not done for artistic values, but for insiders who use it for their own ends. But all is not lost; we can THANK GOD for the silent creators, apart from the current system, who go their personal ways, setting their standards. They keep alive the tradition of artists who think for themselves just like the radical groups at the end of the nineteenth century. The sincerity of these men shows a powerful and original initiative, which is absent in the present group of charlatans who are BAD ARTISTS, BAD ACTORS, in some instances, mouthing meaningless lines ... The revolution in art is DEAD; it has become a monotonous fraud; a repetitious amalgam of preposterous assumption, a ridiculous and stupid plaything, an entity with no tangible validity, an echo, of a world, which in a civilized way, is increasingly shallow, only a shadow of the new ideas that came into art at the close of the nineteenth century. Matisse said: "He who wants to be totally dedicated to his art, must first cut out his tongue!." He might have added that: isolation from his contemporaries, who seek, on every side to corrupt his ideas, is also necessary. The French painter felt we must, in searching for the Holy Grail of art, exclude the insidious Satans who dispense drivel as an excuse for expertise. The situation becomes more serious when the manipulators hold positions of power in our museums, schools, and even worse, the power to exercise their ideas in the media. How to deal with the problem is not clear now, nor was it clear. when the government, the conservative establishment, did everything in their power to discourage such artists as Cezanne, Degas, Renoir, Monet, and later, certainly, Matisse, Picasso, Derain, Vlaminck, although by the time the latter were showing, liberal ideas had moved art to the point where there was some question of taking the next step, which was, of course, COMPLETE ABSTRACTION... Cezanne, in reference to his progress as an artist, stated it was better to turn to painting itself for knowledge, rather than listen to a bunch of critics who had never held a brush in their hand. "The history of painting, as we view it in the Louvre, can tell us all we need to know." An artist, he added: "can review substance, technique, public acceptance, even historical vision, but he can never acquire, from any source, his intuitive response, which is not subject to analysis!" In truth, an artist, can STRIVE FOR CONTENT, WITHOUT HAVING THE SLIGHTEST IDEA OF WHAT IT MIGHT BE. Picasso once observed, "If the painter admits he is ignorant of what he is trying to do, he is a TRUE ARTIST, not a fabricator living.on the pretensions of a system which ARROGATES TRUTH UNTO ITSELF! Art, then, is a contradiction; it does not follow RULES; and, it is in the violation of rules that truth is often found. It seems too simple to say it is intuitive; but to UNDERSTAND and USE the INTUITIVE is very COMPLEX. Braque, once, using a metaphor, called it: "Catching a bird in flight," an improbability. Cezanne's little mystery, his treasure, as he said, was ever-elusive, never something you could depend upon, at any time. He would often write to Pissarro complaining about his frustrations: "What I had in my hand yesterday," he'd write, "is gone today--nothing WORKS!" "Matisse,"Braque told Picasso, "talks from both sides of his mouth, defending the Ecole des Beaux-Arts, and, at the same time, posing as a revolutionary! What a joke! When, however, he went on to say, "He avoids theorizing, and speaks with his brush, it is quite another matter! If a picture is an arrangement of LINE, FORM TEXTURE, AND COLOR, WHEN DOES IT BECOME ART? What was it when it was merely a VISION? It becomes ART when the ARTIST decides it is the fulfillment of his VISION. What if others do not agree? Are these visionary goals accidental? Instinct is true in an uncertain sense, possibly real only at the moment it happens, and purely speculative, but it is the only course for an artist. Children and primitives are, as Picasso insisted, the most pure of artists, and he was probably correct. An Impressionist contribution to painting was the application of full color; the use of "opposition color," and in an over-all sense, the use of color for its own expressive objectivity. Art historians give them credit for this, but fail to give them credit for individual expression, (they merely painted a form of realism,) and few historians give them credit for the role they played in asserting that all artists have the right to exercise the PRINCIPLE OF CREATIVE FREEDOM. It is popular, in certain circles, to ridicule Impressionist as artists who painted only "air," and, that they were essentially shallow artists, nothing more. What nonsense this is! It is preposterous because the major members of the Impressionist group, were complete artists in every respect, well aware of all the new ideas developing, and they stayed withing certain guidelines because of economic, or other critical reasons.
"A painter speaks of results," Matisse said, "not ambitions." A nice sweeping statement, but unfortunately, it is not true. Who, on GOD'S EARTH, IS WITHOUT AMBITIONS? Yes, and INCLUDING MATISSE! The beginning, for all creators, is a DREAM: IT IS IN DREAMS, THAT A TRUE ARTIST IS BORN. Matisse, at times, was in grave danger of becoming a theorist like the Academicians, but happily, he became aware of the threat, and learned to keep his mouth closed, talking less and less, and painting more and more! It was a joke when the Post-Impressionists derided the Impressionists as shallow artists; the facts indicate that Post-Impressionism wouldn't have existed if Monet, Cezanne, Pissarro, hadn't lead the way! One curious fact is, that the cognescenti still put down Impressionist painting, even when it was getting the highest prices on the international market. Did music play a role in modern art? Possibly. Many artists speak of similarities between music and painting. Both Klee and Kandinsky made such comparisons--the parallels are too obvious to be ignored. Do we, in blind acceptance of what we digest from the current crop of critics, curators, connoisseurs, etc., perpetuate creative sterility, create fabricated legends, an amalgam of synthetic symbols of a society which has lost its concern for aesthetic standards? In respect to this, Picasso once said, after signing a table cloth in a restaurant where he was dining with an impecunious artist friend, "Here take this, draw anything on it, and they, the dealers, will pay you handsomely!" "Sensations, feeling for the exquisite mysteries of nature--THIS IS WHAT IT IS ALL ABOUT!" Cezanne wrote, in a note to his companion of youth, the novelist, Emile Zola, "It is a never-ending quest, where, for the most part, you fail in your aspirations!" You can add Cezanne's comrades in the radical movement of the last decades of the nineteenth century, as also thinking this way. Especially Pissarro, who was a lot more perceptive about such matters than is generally known. The pedagogue, buried in theory, wrote: "Development between alternates, polarities, of tangible, and intangible space, two-dimensionality, description, complementation, and synthesis! If you encounter one of these idiots, ask him to show his paintings, not his notebooks." Matisse, who as we have said, liked to talk about art in a theoretical way, remained, throughout his life, defensive about it. Once, before a group of students, he remarked that he wanted to show light and space with color." How come he forgot to mention his feelings? Feelings never get any credit. Why? I suppose it is not impressive enough for the didactic mentality. Even great masters like Matisse, fall prey to the idea that they must justify their art theoretically. Cezanne, it is true, tried to do this, but actually, nothing, really relative to his art, developed. Anyway, even if he did indulge in the CLICHE GAME, he had been right all along when he called "art a personal EXPRESSION before NATURE." In old age, Cezanne realized it would have been better if he had kept his mouth shut, again, to let his WORK SPEAK FOR HIM. When Emile Bernard, a born theorist about artistic matters, hung around him in his late years, Bernard only got the drivelings of an old man, who, finally. was aware of the IRONY of the Fame and SUCCESS which his former enemies had given him.... Why did so many modern painters, Matisse, for instance, recommend ACADEMIC TRAINING, where it was so ALIEN to their OWN EXPERIENCE? The answer, some speculate, is because they were unable to EXPLAIN THE ESSENCE OF WHAT THEY HAD DONE! A painter shouldn't review his own work, it being enough that he CREATED THE ART, and it should speak for ITSELF. Critics, who review such art, are, generally, unqualified for what they do, and. they abound everywhere. Real ARTISTS, surface only RARELY: They should remain anonymous, hidden from intrusive factors, because ISOLATION, IN THE BROADEST SENSE, is more advantageous to the PURITY OF ART. Academic art was not degenerate; it was just BAD ART, AND BAD ART, in the main, is COMMON, in a historical sense.... Do FORMS of TEACHING HAVE A DECISIVE INFLUENCE ON ART? It is probably true that they exercise only a moderate effect--great artists just appear--they overcome current obstacles, they will achieve their goals, create their special kind of art, no matter what sort of political climate they live in. The rise of Impressionism in the face of implacable opposition, is an example of this .... Actually, RENNAISSANCE ARTISTS, taken as a whole, were ILLUSTRATORS--BUT WHAT ILLUSTRATORS! They were able to rise above the political, economic, and spiritual demands of their time, and produced significant art. When teachers of art question you. the reply should be: "Do you want my opinion, or do you want the answers you gave me? Art can be derivative of NATURE, SYMBOLIC, SYNTHETIC, ABSTRACT, ANYTHING in fact--there is no SPECIFIC APPROACH TO THE SUBJECT. Theorists love to believe there is an all-encompassing base for creativity, but nothing, absolutely nothing, indicates such a thing exists. ART IS SELF-EXPRESSION, yes, AND COMMUNICATION: without the latter it is not ART. The MESSAGE IS LOST, and therefore, the point of doing it, becomes OBSCURE. Great ART, essentially, is SIMPLE, and those who stress otherwise are seeking something for themselves that lies BEYOND ART. Excessive emphasis on the lowest common denominator is the basis of most "establishment art." It is a mistake to seek direction merely for the purpose of pleasing your contemporaries. To do so, tends to eliminate self-expression on an individual level, but is attractive because it ensures ECONOMIC SUCCESS within the social structure. Art that transcends its own time, lives on to be appreciated by succeeding generations, becomes universal, part of a historical legacy. "Influence," Picasso said, "is a DEADLY THING for a developing artist." No one could possibly question this! Matisse admitted as much, although denying it affected his work. During an interview in his late years, however, he did confess that he had never lost his respect for academic theory and painting, which stretched back to his childhood. We are all creatures of the times during which we lived. The greatest challenge, among all challenges for the creative mind, most artists would agree, is to DISCOVER ONE'S SELF. Cezanne was blessed through circumstances, to be isolated, (to a large degree,) from his contemporaries, a fact that, no doubt, that accounts for the extraordinary nature of his accomplishment. By turning in on himself, he was able to create an art that was personal AS WELL AS REVOLUTIONARY. "Give me your child," society says, "I will form him in my image!" Thus we are molded into preconceived individuals. It takes great strength of character to RESIST THIS THREAT TO ORIGINALITY. All governments, democratic, or authoritarian, are the same in the END. Bureaucrats invariably assume the responsibility for setting standards. People are educated along certain fixed principles, laws are written with this in mind, and enforced. Eventually, there are those individuals, who, as I have said, do OVERCOME these handicaps, but, THE PRICE IS HIGH! What is success? Obviously, there are many kinds: material, acceptance by peers, etc. The highest degree of success, however, is a success based purely on personal principles--but it is RARE. A decision to follow personal principles, will, no doubt, satisfy the INNER SPIRIT, but will, inevitably, bring on a BAG OF TROUBLES. The renegade THINKER will be ALIENATED from conformist society. Remember Van Gogh? He had much to offer even on his terms, and it was given with LOVE for his fellow-man; but sadly, he and his artist-friend, Gauguin, could not be forgiven because they were viewed as traitors to their own generation. Matisse, as we have said, declared the institute, The Academie Ecole des Beaux-Arts: to be a threat to the originality of the artists who studied there, but nevertheless, he, and quite a few others, were uncomfortable with opposing the theoretical base the Academie represented. Manet, in particular, had a difficult time with -this because, at heart, he WAS AN ACADEMICIAN, and would have been very happy to have functioned within its security, which was, at the time, a mustt if an artist was to taste the sweet success he dreamed about. Fortunately, Manet's revolutionary concept of painting prevented the fatal embrace, which might have changed the course of art.... Cezanne, characteristically, had no trouble with this, because he had suffered too much from "official condemnation," which had been cruel and prolonged. His final TRIUMPH over his ACADEMIC ENEMIES was - gratifying to him, but ironically, it came, as he told his young friends DURING HIS LAST YEARS IN AIX EN PROVENCE, "WHEN AGE HAD BURNED OUT THE FIRES WITHIN ME!" Ruskin, who was a prolific writer on art, was, in rare instance of being perceptive, partly right when he said the prerequiite of success as a painter WAS PATIENCE. He might have added to this that PATIENCE alone, without talent, is MEANINGLESS!-
|