“…art
is simply the right way of making things, whether symphonies or aeroplanes. The
normal view assumes, in other words, not that the artist is a special kind of
man, but that every man who is not a mere idler and parasite is necessarily
some special kind of artist, skilled and well contented in the making or arranging
of some one thing or another according to his constitution and training.”
Coomaraswamy’s
rebuke to shoddiness, ugliness and narcissism will sound quaint to
sophisticates, as will the exclusion of idlers and parasites. He derides art
that is principally “a self-revelation or self-expression of the artist,” and
contrasts it with the “normal but forgotten view of art, which affirms that art
is the making well, or properly arranging, of anything whatever that needs to
be made or arranged, whether a statuette, or automobile, or garden.”
Let’s
add a poem. Over the weekend I read an essay by a contemporary poet-critic in
which he dismisses the “well-made poem,” as though there were any other sort
worth reading. He associates “well-made” with dullness and unimaginative
conformity, when in fact that pretty closely describes most so-called
experimental work, poetry or otherwise, and most work undertaken by the
earnest, sincere and resolutely confessional. No, a well-made poem ought to be
at least as well-made and useful as a chair. Its parts ought to cohere.
It ought to mean something, give pleasure and work. Otherwise, in Coomaraswamy's words, "it has no real use, but is only a
luxury product or mere ornament.”
No comments:
Post a Comment