"S.O.S." AND ART

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 106, 31 October 1931, Page 12

"5.0.5." AND ART

(To the Editor.) Sir, —The letter by "S'.O.S." recently in your paper raises issues o£ great interest. His views (in spite of my suspicion concerning the whereabouts of his tongue) fairly represent the attitude of ninety out of a hundred of even our best citizens concerning those vital constituents of all worth-while civilisation, namely, art, and, more broadly, culture.

Without consulting dictionaries or other tomes of instruction, art I take to be mini's effort to reproduce in the most beautiful ami worthy form the mystical impressions made on. his spirit or soul (cull it what you will) by the life-How. To appreciate therefore any work of art, one must approach it from this viewpoint of seeking and mysticism. That is why jazz and such nudities arc not art. They pcrhiips stimulate our rhythmical sense, or

appeal iv some other way to our faculties, but they strike no chords in those depths from which the mcrenge comes that Hie is transient, is beautiful and mysterious.

To convey art's message it is not ncecswiry that tliu medium be complex, and that is where "5.0.5." fails in his witty word parody of some of pur greatest music. Beethoven's Fifth Symphony is based in the first part on one phrase of four notes, and that part follows to some extent the scheme of composition humorously described by "5.0.5."; but on the structure of this one phrase Beethoven arrays man against the universe, and resolves into musical sounds the strivings, the despairs, the hopes, and the triumphs which form the fate of most men. If any person fails to receive from artistry such a message fits nature of course varies as does the iSi'hinx from Taj Mahal, or the Fifth Symphony from Handel's Largo), either he is not .sympathetic to that particular form of art (e.g., is not musical), or is not trained Milliciently in it for the message to reach him, or perhaps the, artist has by overelaboration or concentration on technicalities obscured the vital element in his work-.

I have seen the painting "5.0.5." refers to, and perhaps after reading the above lih will appreciate that a photographic effect, duly coloured, of men working on ii wharf would not be art. There would be no other element than reproduction in such" a picture. Its colour might be correct, its technicalities excellent, but, if it did not appeal further than that, it would not be art.' But represented in such a way as to concentrate on one small canvas man's industry, his alliance with the machines, the romance of commerce, the reproduction of a scene may be ennobled into being part of the phantasy of man's fate.

To sum up, all works of art should be approached in the snirit of seeking and mysticism. Do not confuse amusement or enjoyment with art, although art generally contains those elements. If, after patience and striving (in reason), there is no responsive chord within you which answers, sometimes like the swell of dawn, to the art impulse, then either you or the artist has failed. If generations, millions, even in some oases thousands, of men have found such response, and yon can not, then it is likely that the failure is with you. Some perception is lacking, just as it may be that a man is born colour blind. But because to you red is green, do not | call fools or hypocrites all that host, to whom red is red.—l am, etc., LAYMAN.