GLEANINGS
In the PRABUDDHA BHARATA (Dec. 1943) Swami
Prabuddhananda reports a conversation he had with Sri Nandalal Bose on Art. The
following are extracts from the replies given by the great artist:
Art is imagination. It is feeling expressed in
line, form and colour. Art must evoke feeling, otherwise its value is nothing
…….
The aim of art is creation, and not imitation of
Nature. The same creative impulse that moves in Nature, impels and inspires the
artist. And it is this inspiration which the hand of the artist paints to the
senses. Art is thought. To be communicable, thought must take concrete form…….
In any work of art, life-movement is that movement
which is impelled by the very first impulse of inspiration, which carries in it
the intrinsic quality and character of the particular rasa that has to
be expressed. In a picture it is the most vital line; in a poem it is the
inevitable word or combination of words. It is there that one feels the very
pulse or life-throb of a picture or a poem. It, at once, renders unity and
character to the work in hand.
Rhythm is a further elaboration of that
life-movement; it combines other elements, motifs, units; it catches up the
original movement and adds to that a continuous swing; continues it in a
perfect harmony of contrasting as well as corollary movements……
Perspective is the artist’s apparent relation with
the objects seen at a distance. Things, when looked at from a distance, appear
smaller than their actual size. This is a phenomenon which an artist has got to
take note of. Omission of this knowledge in any work of art means violation of
the law of perspective. But what is the truth in perspective? The mind sees
things in a way peculiar to itself. An object which is distant to the physical
eye may be near to the mind; a near one, distant. The mind often ignores the
category of space. There are, therefore, two kinds of perspectives, namely,
visual and mental. Following the mind, the oriental artists, not infrequently,
omit visual perspective in their works of art. So, some Western critics find
fault with them. But they do not realize how much mind contributes to art. It
is mind not eye which is the real artist.
China excels in landscape of a kind which expresses
spiritual realisation and spiritual experience in the artist through
conventional and symbolical forms of Nature. Realistic portrait-painting has
reached its high-watermark of excellence in Europe. India has excelled in the
expression of spiritual realization through conventional and symbolical
drawings of animals and human figures…….
You have to look at them (works of art) with the
eyes of a child. You should not approach them with preconceived ideas, or the
analytical eye of a mere critic. Art is not to be appreciated in that way.
The following are extracts from ‘S’ who writes in
the INDIAN SOCIAL REFORMER (4–12–1943) on “G B S looks Back”:
George Bernard Shaw has given Hannen Swaffer what
is described as a “farewell interview.”
It is strange that Shaw, who prides himself on his
essential common-sense, should have slipped so badly as to fall a prey to the
human weakness of seeking a striking exit and then, too, talk of “awaiting his
turn with serenity.”
The message itself is painful reading. It is doubly
so when it comes in the evening of his days from one who has so indubitably
left his mark on the many facets of British life. Shaw has been a force for
progress, however feeble he may feel it was. And it is not helpful to progress
when one, who was essentially a fighter, tells the world that the fight has
been all in vain.
What is tragic is Shaw's loss of faith in his own
work. At a younger age it would not have mattered very much, this loss of faith
for then one can cease from persisting in futility. But it is a pretty
desperate state to reach when one “is awaiting one's turn in serenity.” “This
is the way the world ends–not with a bang but a whimper.”
The age we live in has produced men who have both
style and thought. Prominent among them are Havelock Ellis and Bernard Shaw.
But Shaw’s brilliance was his bane. The world at large distrusts brilliance.
Lesser men console themselves for the lack of it by equating it with
instability and, when it is accompanied by a sense of humour, with
irresponsibility. Most men can reconcile themselves to a new idea if it is not
clumsily presented. All of them can enjoy good writing if there is no thought
within it.
The influence of Shaw on the times is difficult to
gauge. It is impossible to say of anyone man that he changed the ideas of his
period, except in obituary notices. But of Shaw one thing is certain; that many
of the things which were shocking when he first uttered them, are now become
current coin. Some of them have even become out-of-date. The reason why Shaw is
taken more seriously now is that the paradox of yesterday has ceased to dazzle,
has almost ceased to be a paradox. The medium of the stage and the number of
plays put out by Shaw both enabled the public to grow familiar with his style.
And humour was the element which caught and held public attention. It is a moot
point whether the humourist achieves anything beyond amusing his hearers and
readers. There are many who hold that to get people to laugh at their own
foibles is the best way to restore them to normality. On the other hand, the
man who starts getting people to laugh with him at their follies often ends by
being always laughed at himself. The man who would set his mark on the world,
must be capable of rousing people to an emotion less balanced than laughter.
Humour is, after all, a sense of proportion. Shaw himself has said this often.
When one sees things clearly, one is apt to refrain from action, because one
has lost that singleness of purpose, which inspires all action.