Huxley on art and tradition
Andrew Werby
This is inevitable. Artistic talent is an extremely rare phenomenon;
therefore good art is extremely uncommon. The only substitute - and it is at
best a partial solution - for personal talent is a good artistic
tradition.This enables people with little talent to produce good work
because it relieves them of the necessity for using their own second-rate,
or tenth-rate, imaginations. A good tradition may be defined as the ghosts
of good dead artists dictating to bad living artists. So long as the bad
artists listen to the dictations, and so long as they make no attempt to
launch out on their own account, they will produce good derivitive work. But
an artistic tradition need not necessarily be good. For generations the
ghosts of bad artists may dictate to other bad artists; the results, when
that happens, are deplorable. But even at its worst the art of
pre-industrial times is seldom quite so depressing and never so painfully
vulgar as modern bad art."
Aldous Huxley "Beyond the Mexique Bay" c. 1934 Triad/Paladin Books Granada
Publishing Ltd. 8 Grafton St. London W1X 3LA ISBN 0-586-08481-9
[I just came across this in my reading, and thought it might provoke some
interesting discussion. Is artistic talent really as rare as Huxley seems to
think? Has modern art's inclusiveness broadened the field sufficiently so
that the term can encompass more different abilities than were thought of as
defining it in the past? Are we living in a time when we listen to the
whisperings of inferior ghosts, or have we given up listening at all? Is the
art of previous times or other cultures superior to our own because these
worked within a solid tradition, harnessing the efforts of many artists
towards a common goal? If you don't believe that, is some new art as good
as - or perhaps better than- any art that came before? Or have these notions
of "good" and "bad" art become irrelevant today- and if so, what matters
now?]
Andrew Werby
http://unitedartworks.com
ljrobins
rare, but artistic genius certainly is. I find Huxley's view leans way too far
in one direction. It could also be said that first-rate imaginations create as
good of art (if not better) of work based solely on artistic traditions, and
that good tradition can be, and often is, used as a crutch. Or in other ways, a
way of making *safe* art soaked in the disillusionment of how it is crafted.
Who cares if mediocre or bad living artists produce good derivative work? What
is the point in that? It is just bad art masked in a surface of well crafted
marks. In fact, in my opinion, it's even worse! Maybe Huxley really just has a
personal problem with vulgarity. At least vulgarity doesn't make any bones
about what it really is. I take truth over disillusionment (or lies) any day.
lissa
Marilyn
contacting present day artists. I believe we are still listening through art
history.
What hits me really hard is the date of the quote. The population of the world
has what, quadrupled since that time? There are more artists today than existed
then obviously, but even more because of the increasing availability of
materials not to mention the training available today.
Then, most important of all, we have suffered a global cultural rupture with
what came after 1934, W.W.II, Hitler, the Holocaust, the Bomb. There was never a
time before in history when we could contemplate genocide on a massive scale and
the end of life on the entire planet. The effect of this contemplation is enough
to drive half the population to making art. (But not with the same attitude as
pre-1934.)
What matters now, would be for people to listen to the director of "Traffic"
Steven Soderbergh who when receiving his Academy Award instead of thanking the
usual people, thanked all artists, all the people who make art. He can't imagine
a life without it.
I don't think in terms of good or bad art. If a work is really bad, it's not
Art, it's junk.
Marilyn
Andrew Werby
"Marilyn" <mwe...@islandnet.com> wrote in message
news:3AEB3492...@islandnet.com...
> That was an interesting quote from Huxley, with the image of ghost artists
> contacting present day artists. I believe we are still listening through
art
> history.
>
> What hits me really hard is the date of the quote. The population of the
world
> has what, quadrupled since that time? There are more artists today than
existed
> then obviously, but even more because of the increasing availability of
> materials not to mention the training available today.
[Huxley concedes the possibility that more talent comes to the fore in the
modern era, and agreed that the population had doubled in the century
previous, increasing the pool of possible talent, but he points out that the
production of "seeing-matter" had far outstripped this arguable increase in
talented individuals. And that was just from inventions like process
reproduction and the rotary press- I'd love to hear what he'd think of the
Internet. He also thought that the harder it is to make art, the better it
turns out: ]
"Luxurience, unchastity, and consequent vulgarity become possible only when
men have acquired almost complete mastery over matter. The man of delicate
and noble talent will express freely his delicacy and nobility; the man
whose
talent is coarse and vulgar will be able at last to give free rein to his
coarseness
and vulgarity. This is why any improvement in the techniques of subduing
matter
to spirit is always attended by an increase in vulgarity. Only an artist of
exceptional
austerity can make a temperate use of the resources of a highly developed
technology. " -ibid
>Then, most important of all, we have suffered a global cultural rupture
with
>what came after 1934, W.W.II, Hitler, the Holocaust, the Bomb. There was
never a
> time before in history when we could contemplate genocide on a massive
scale and
> the end of life on the entire planet. The effect of this contemplation is
enough
> to drive half the population to making art. (But not with the same
attitude as
> pre-1934.)
[Well, Hitler was around then- he and Mussolini are treated with in this
book- and the world may be excused for thinking it had been through a
"global culture rupture" in World War I. You seem to use "making art" as a
substitute for "insanity", but I suppose it is that for many of us.]
>
> What matters now, would be for people to listen to the director of
"Traffic"
> Steven Soderbergh who when receiving his Academy Award instead of thanking
the
> usual people, thanked all artists, all the people who make art. He can't
imagine
> a life without it.
[Yeah, aren't we special...]
>
> I don't think in terms of good or bad art. If a work is really bad, it's
not
> Art, it's junk.
>
> Marilyn
[I think that's a problem of semantics that many of us fall into. If you
restrict the definition of "Art" to mean only "good art" of which you, of
course, are the sole arbiter, then we can never decide what to call all the
rest (it seems like a steep slope down to "junk"), and we'll never agree on
what Art is. I think we're better off with an attitude like Huxley's which
admits gradations of quality, based on the intent of the maker to produce
art, even if there is a failure to do it very well. Of course, Huxley was a
severe judge, being a thorough-going classicist, and an amateur painter as
well. (He liked painting, but the results never came up to his standards.)]
Andrew
Marilyn
"Luxurience, unchastity, and consequent vulgarity become possible only when
men have acquired almost complete mastery over matter. The man of delicate
and noble talent will express freely his delicacy and nobility; the man
whose
talent is coarse and vulgar will be able at last to give free rein to his
coarseness
and vulgarity. This is why any improvement in the techniques of subduing
matter
to spirit is always attended by an increase in vulgarity. Only an artist of
exceptional
austerity can make a temperate use of the resources of a highly developed
technology. " -ibid
This language is so Victorian.
I see Morris Graves as the "man of delicate and noble talent" and
Jackson Pollock giving free rein to "his coarseness and vulgarity."
And both achieved some great painting.
>
> [Huxley concedes the possibility that more talent comes to the fore in the
> modern era, and agreed that the population had doubled in the century
> previous, increasing the pool of possible talent, but he points out that the
> production of "seeing-matter" had far outstripped this arguable increase in
> talented individuals. And that was just from inventions like process
> reproduction and the rotary press- I'd love to hear what he'd think of the
> Internet. He also thought that the harder it is to make art, the better it
> turns out: ]
>
Oh, the Internet to Huxley would be coarse and vulgar and so plebeian, don't you
think?
>
>
> [Well, Hitler was around then- he and Mussolini are treated with in this
> book- and the world may be excused for thinking it had been through a
> "global culture rupture" in World War I. You seem to use "making art" as a
> substitute for "insanity", but I suppose it is that for many of us.]
No, making art keeps us sane not in an 'art therapy' sense but because it gives
us a means of expression.
Yes, World War I and the Spanish 'flu wiped out a generation of young men but
nothing can match the systematic murder of 6 million people. Nor the results of
the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
Huxley did foresee the danger of mass movements, of "group think" I believe he
called it.
Marilyn
Lauri Levanto
Marilyn wrote:
>
> This (Huxley's)language is so Victorian.
What is wrong in that? Shakespeare and Pepys used language that was older than
Victorian. Does it make their meanings obsolete?
-lauri
Lauri Levanto
Huxley
"The truth is, of course, that most art has either been bad or indifferent.
This is inevitable. Artistic talent is an extremely rare phenomenon;
therefore good art is extremely uncommon. The only substitute - and it is at
best a partial solution - for personal talent is a good artistic
tradition.
...
But even at its worst the art of
pre-industrial times is seldom quite so depressing and never so painfully
vulgar as modern bad art."
I agree with Huxley hat most art has been bad or indifferent. Through selection we
see
only old masters. The mediocre old artists are forgotten. In some old castles one
can see
portraits and riding scenes as naive as Rousseau, but void of naivism spirit.
lissa
<...>
Who cares if mediocre or bad living artists produce good derivative work? What
is the point in that? It is just bad art masked in a surface of well crafted
marks. In fact, in my opinion, it's even worse! Maybe Huxley really just has a
personal problem with vulgarity. At least vulgarity doesn't make any bones
about what it really is. I take truth over disillusionment (or lies) any day.
What is Art, then. I think very much that it is what we have learned to regard as
art.
"Much of the modern art is shallow in expression and even worse, shallow in
intention."
(Dennis Lawson?). Vulgarity adds to street credibility. Ghost of mrdia exposition
whispering here.
I have long wondered the the narrow-mindness of contemporary art world. I see it as
fashion trade. What is ten years old is passe. Classical music is not in museums, it
is living and appreciated as that. Classical ballet is living on side of modern
dance.
That is the way we should think about visual arts, too.
Marilyn
Then, most important of all, we have suffered a global cultural rupture with
what came after 1934, W.W.II, Hitler, the Holocaust, the Bomb. There was never a
time before in history when we could contemplate genocide on a massive scale and
the end of life on the entire planet. The effect of this contemplation is enough
to drive half the population to making art. (But not with the same attitude as
pre-1934.)
And why did people contemplate mass destruction. The importance of an event depends
on the severity, but also what I can do for it. If I can do nothing, contemplation
makes things worse.
That is alienation, the reason that "half of the population is making art".
Because they do not want to do anything else.
Industrial revolution made the work boring. The romantic heroes were surgeons,
the last people depending on skill. The WW1 ended the era of war heroes. The
romantic
ones were pilots, fighting one to one. The computer revolution took the skill out of
office work. The romantics escape to hacking or arts.
. . .
I don't think in terms of good or bad art. If a work is really bad, it's not
Art, it's junk.
Andrew
. . .
he (Huxley) points out that the
production of "seeing-matter" had far outstripped this arguable increase in
talented individuals.
It is not only the plentitude of images. The possession of "art" is more democratic
now.
The framed pictures are achievable outside the priviledged class. The Russian avant
garde was
well aware that a new art is needed for proletariat. They failed to produce that and
Russia
opted socialistic realism instead. The high brow society in turn needed new
discriminatory token,
abstract art.
I think that's a problem of semantics that many of us fall into. If you
restrict the definition of "Art" to mean only "good art" of which you, of
course, are the sole arbiter, then we can never decide what to call all the
rest (it seems like a steep slope down to "junk"), and we'll never agree on
what Art is.
Sure we will newer agree what Art is. Not even what is "good art".
But thanks for a good topic!
- lauri
Marilyn Welch
It's an observation not a condemnation.
Marilyn
Peter H.M. Brooks
Lauri Levanto <lauri....@nokia.com> wrote in message
news:3AED301E...@nokia.com...
think of was an objection to how such language might include, or approve
of, Victorian values - not that I would see a reason to object to those
really either.
--
"Death, like eating roast chicken or going to war, is an area in which
no absolutely kind or wholesome things happen." Derek Roskell BMJ
10/02/2001
Peter H.M. Brooks
Marilyn Welch <wq...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.1010430074756.25142A-100000@vtn1...
> No nothing wrong Lauri!
>
> It's an observation not a condemnation.
>
suggestion that there is something peculiar about my preferring
'Victorian values' to sixties values [or rather lack of values].
William Barkin
-Bill
--------------------------
William Barkin - Fine Artist
Online Portfolio
http://www.bcn.net/~wbarkin
"Andrew Werby" <and...@computersculpture.com> wrote in message
news:raEG6.29103$Jh5.25...@news1.rdc1.sfba.home.com...
Andrew Werby
"Kromkowski" <kromk...@aol.com7remspam> wrote in message
news:20010430155417...@nso-dd.aol.com...
> 2 cents:
>
> I am not inclined to think that "artistic" talent is all that rare. On
the
> other hand, whether the "artistic talent" get fully used is a whole other
> matter.
[I'd say the definition of "artistic talent" encompasses more things now
than it did in Huxley's time. Then, it pretty much boiled down to a knack
for draftsmanship. People who weren't able by an early age to make
realistic and elegant 2d renderings of 3d objects by hand took themselves
out of the running. While this is still certainly a desirable skill to have,
it no longer defines one as, or disqualifies one from being, an artist. Like
it or not, modern art makes use of a broader range skill-sets and aptitudes.
Whether these are all used to their fullest extent depends on the individual
artist and the focus of his/her work.]
and It is an interesting question to look at or consider the spread of
> quality for any period of time from extremely bad to extremely good
(great).
> Part of the problem is that every one lives in interesting times and on
average
> bad are is more likely to get lost and destroyed over time.
[It must be a comforting thought, that what has been preserved is generally
the best of what was. But although people take better care of more valuable
items, I suppose, we can't really tell if the items more valued at the time
would really be better to our modern sensibilities. Old masters or their
descendants usually threw out drawings, for instance, considering them mere
preparatory work of little or no value compared with the paintings that were
their real product.]
>
> I think that tradition (or least understanding the links to it) does go a
long
> way to producing in the aggregate better art. Take for example, so called
> "performance art" ,"conceptual installation" and "video" art, each of
which in
> many places -- and wrongly for the most part in my opinion -- seeks to try
to
> be part of the tradition of sculpture or part of no tradition whatsoever.
The
> reason there is so much bad "performance", conceptual installation and
video is
> because it more often than not fails to actually connect with the true
> precursors which have longer and larger tradition: I.e. Drama, including
the
> sub-traditions of the court jesters, mimes, set design and film, etc.
[Many modern artists consider traditional forms something to be departed
from or ignored altogether in favor of something newly devised. This was a
founding tenent of Modernism, although it seems that Post-Modernism has
discarded it in favor of an ironical embrace of past forms and traditions,
suitably mixed and matched.]
>
> As for "modern" and "contemporary" visual art having poor artists as
ghosts, I
> disagree with Huxley, because these "traditions" are really just "styles"
and
> hence are for the most part of the past traditions of painting and
sculpture,
> so long as we see the consistant themes of using formal elements:
composition,
> line, form, color, texture, etc. The tradition of painting and sculpture
are
> about these formal issues -- and so long as we are attuned to them (even
if we
> execute them in a different style than the past), then in the aggregate
better
> or passably good art will be more likely to be produced.
[I don't see how one could do a painting or sculpture without in some way
dealing with these formal elements, if only to thumb one's nose at them.
That doesn't amount to working within a tradition, though. A tradition is
like an artist's skin, lived within a whole lifetime, without which life and
art would be unthinkable. A style is more like a suit of clothes, to be worn
a while, then changed or discarded in favor of another. I find only faint
hope where you find grounds for optimism, since I see little attunement to
formal values in much contemporary art, or even any consensus as to what
they might be. Some modern artists do get it, and are making excellent art,
but I don't see the aggregate improving any more than Huxley did. But I hope
you're right and I'm wrong about this...]
Andrew Werby
http://unitedartworks.com
artist
Do you think Huxley was just dissing Warhol?
t
Llothcat
that is but 200 years old or so. Museums did not exist until the 1900's, for
instance. I look at Huxley as a person that was stuck "inside the box", as it
were, unable to look outside the preconcied concepts of his time and station.
Quite sad and dull, really, once you think about it.
So where does this leave us as artists? About the same place as "artists"
have always been..the estranged fringe people of society that do pretty strange
things to get attention. With pride, I place myself among them...
artist wrote:
--
CAT~
little carnivore
hunts mosquitoes and pine cones
fears vacuum cleaners
jan de smet
comment is not fair. I have no sympathy at all for people who don't
believe in the future.("Brave new world"- like things) This text just
reinforces my negative feelings on this writer.
What counts for the artist is the white sheet of paper in front of
him, the first line, he is going to draw and the next one. Let every
work be "geistig" and honest. The role of tradition is secondary
without any doubt. I do not question the value for the artist of
understanding his cultural background and historical roots. But let
never the past dominate in a dogmatic way. Huxley's text has the
intention to let us believe that there are a few genial artists and
all the rest are stupid amateurs who need help and rules. On the
contrary I think an artist should not be afraid to believe in his own
possibilities and in his creativity. This is a fundamental starting
point.
Tradition, what good and bad art is, is something for the historians
of the next century, if it can motivate them to puzzle all this out.
Dear Andrew, What is tradition for you? And do you know what Huxley
understood as tradition, Was Kandinski, Cezanne or the Impressionists
part of tradition for him?
kr
jan de smet
my e mail address : jan_d...@yahoo.co.uk
Hilde's e mail address : hilde...@planetinternet.be
url : http://home.planetinternet.be/~hsoens1/
>"The truth is...... never so painfully
>vulgar "
>
>Aldous Huxley "Beyond the Mexique Bay" c. 1934 Triad/Paladin Books Granada
>Publishing Ltd. 8 Grafton St. London W1X 3LA ISBN 0-586-08481-9
>
Sharon Barcone
desire to create a work of lasting fine art.
sharon
jan de smet wrote in message <3b07cc3a...@news.planetinternet.be>...
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Andrew Werby
----- Original Message -----
From: "jan de smet" <hilde...@planetinternet.be>
Newsgroups: alt.sculpture,rec.arts.fine
Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 6:59 AM
Subject: Re: Huxley on art and tradition
> I am not familiar with the work of Huxley.So I take the risk that my
> comment is not fair. I have no sympathy at all for people who don't
> believe in the future.("Brave new world"- like things) This text just
> reinforces my negative feelings on this writer.
[Huxley believed the future would occur, he just didn't have extremely high
hopes for it. If one reads "Brave New World" today, one has to give Huxley
some points for prescience. He struggled as an amateur painter to get close
to the sort of art he liked, but never succeeded in pleasing himself with
it. But he was an excellent writer, whatever one thinks of his taste in
art.]
What counts for the artist is the white sheet of paper in front of
> him, the first line, he is going to draw and the next one. Let every
> work be "geistig" and honest. The role of tradition is secondary
> without any doubt.
[Perhaps not in your mind. But who would you rather spend an extended amount
of time with- someone who is honest but dull and ignorant, or someone witty
and well-informed, but who may be teasing you? I guess it's a matter of
temperament...]
I do not question the value for the artist of
> understanding his cultural background and historical roots. But let
> never the past dominate in a dogmatic way. Huxley's text has the
> intention to let us believe that there are a few genial artists and
> all the rest are stupid amateurs who need help and rules. On the
> contrary I think an artist should not be afraid to believe in his own
> possibilities and in his creativity. This is a fundamental starting
> point.
[We've had quite a bit of art now that's based on this sort of
self-confidence. I'm not saying it's a bad thing- it's like the radiation of
organisms into a vacant ecological niche. Most of the forms which are tried
out have no chance of survival, but of these experiments new things can
grow. While one can currently find practitioners of every sort of art that
ever has been done- from cave-painting and petroglyphs on down- it's the
ones that attempt to start new "traditions" that I find the most
interesting- and here I part company with Mr. Huxley.]
> Tradition, what good and bad art is, is something for the historians
> of the next century, if it can motivate them to puzzle all this out.
> Dear Andrew, What is tradition for you? And do you know what Huxley
> understood as tradition, Was Kandinski, Cezanne or the Impressionists
> part of tradition for him?
> kr
> jan de smet
[I doubt Kandinski and Cezanne would have counted as part of any tradition
Huxley would have recognized as such, although they might be who he meant by
"bad dead artists" (after a while- the passage I quoted was written during
Kandinski's lifetime). I don't know what he thought of the Impressionists,
but I suspect it might be what he considered a "bad tradition". What Huxley
really loved was the art of the Renaissance, I believe, from reading his
comments in "The Doors of Perception", where he takes mescaline and dives
into contemplation of the drapery in an Old Master painting.]
Andrew Werby
http://unitedartworks.com
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
>
> [Huxley believed the future would occur, he just didn't have extremely
high
> hopes for it. If one reads "Brave New World" today, one has to give
Huxley
> some points for prescience. He struggled as an amateur painter to get
close
> to the sort of art he liked, but never succeeded in pleasing himself
with
> it. But he was an excellent writer, whatever one thinks of his taste
in
> art
>
Huxley's dystopia 'Brave New World' was balanced by his utopia
'Island' - it is worth a read.
'Doors of perception' and 'Heaven and Hell' are also quite hopeful and
positive - as well as being interesting explorations of perception and,
in some ways, art.
jan de smet
The positioning of the artist against tradition is an important debate
and your comments are to the point.
In the margin of your message I was reading a little bit in a
translation of " The Genius and the Goddess" and yes AH is an
excellent writer. But I would like to bring another dimension of
tradition into the discussion as a consequence of this short
exploration.
AH mentions on page one; Thurber, Michelangelo, Mickey Spillane, The
"Karamazov", Dirac, Toynbee, Sorokin and Carnap. Frankly spoken I
cannot situate a number of them, and I have to keep the Enceclopedia
Britannicus open on my desktop. This is not a problem for me. But my
neighbour and a lot of other people with him are definitely going to
close this book after this first page. He simply does not know, what
the Karamazov is. And if he would find it out, he would never
feel,understand the specific meaning of a "worn-out Karamazov"....
Putting too much emphasis on tradition and cultural historical
background includes the risk, that some forms of art are only
understood and appreciated by a happy few; by an elitist group. I am
not against "witty" and well-educated people and don’t promote to be
"dull and ignorant", but my neighbour is a party as well in the social
function of art. We do not need to teach him, what attracts him and
what he likes.
To conclude and summarise, I perceive tradition positive if it remains
on the background as a reference, as a safe refuge for the artist but
I am rather negative on tradition that
- creates in an artificial way distance with the "consumer", that
negates the social function of art
- imposes dogmatic rules and sets limits to expression and creativity