A Visit to the Ghandriz Gallery

Last week, I saw the works of four painters on display at the Ghandriz Gallery. It was worth seeing, because for the first time in years, I saw a few people who, in this craft, have adhered to principles and based their work on sound calculation, and with the understanding they have reached, one can address them and weigh their artistic thoughts (because they think and they work).

Also, “Rouin Pakbaz” had raised some points in a few pages that seemed worthy of attention, and sometimes offered a justification that, though not quite sufficient, was nevertheless comprehensive and at least convincing, and it appeared that he had based the characteristics of the work on a precise matter. He said: “Every painter, by creating a work, with the help of his means of expression, gives embodiment to the reflection of external realities within himself.”

If “Rouin” is truly committed to these two subjects (the help of means of expression, and his external and internal realities) and has attained a philosophical conviction in them, it must be said that it is an important matter he has understood and paid attention to. And this is indeed right. For the goal in art is not merely to stimulate (that it should create a stimulus by any means whatsoever; rather, the condition is with what it creates the stimulus), and this is the very thing to which I have made an inadequate reference regarding the subject of Pop Art, saying that mixing the arts together and bringing about a single stimulus from the participation of the arts obviously produces fleeting and hasty effects, but loses the property of specialized art, which is deeper, and does not leave an effective and firm footprint in the mind; it merely makes realities resemble a mirage and provides passing and superficial pleasures.

“Rouin” had written: “The creative painter of today, while not separate from nature, does not merely imitate it either. Rather, he selects its elements at will and according to his needs, and bestows upon them a new order that is entirely specific to himself, and in this way proposes re-creation.”

This statement, considering that others have said it many times and that listeners and seekers have not paid sufficient attention to the essence of the speech and have not developed a belief in it, even if it is repeated many times (like all things already said), saying it and the like of it becomes necessary. But it requires further explanation, namely that what is meant by nature in our minds are familiar forms, and these forms are gathered in our memory in abundance with confusion and disorder; in fact, all of them have a surrealist shape in our memory, and forms never exist in our recollection in the same simple and separate way that we see them side by side in nature. Therefore, the use of outward nature, and that too in this customary shape (without considering its confused characteristics), and trees without attention to the effects of their external factors, and mountains without bearing in mind the factors that alter them, is itself a kind of surrealist form and so-called mysterious novelty-seeking, and is of almost the same kind that, for example, “Seurat” brought about in the style of “Passéism.” And this is an understanding of familiar nature from which creative artists flee; they seek another state of nature to obtain from it a resemblance to their desires to present to others, and in order to find forms close to their purpose, they break the head and arms of nature. And now, too, since, as they put it, they find no resemblance between external nature and their memories, they have turned their attention to introversion and reach for their inner compositions or mixtures, which are confused stores.

It must be understood that inner stores are always in an unclear form, and if the artist has an intention that is clear in every respect, he cannot make use of inner nature without selection. The reason painters’ works are unclear to interested people is this very failure to select forms from inner nature that accord with the purpose. The artist’s selective choosing from outer or inner nature is the finding of the connecting parts between himself and others, so that it can be a means of transmission between this one and that one, and between himself and others.

The fresh justification, or new order and re-creation, of which “Rouin” has spoken is something new to be said in a necessary mold. However, the phrase “a fresh justification of man’s relationship with nature” is an inadequate classical phrase; better expressed, one could say: a fresh justification of man’s relationship with the new encounters of life, in which case a clearer concept is yielded than that of nature (which is generally broad, and its explanation complex).

I gazed at the paintings of the thoughtful “Rouin.” Works on red and brown backgrounds, in which he had created compositions with symmetrical forms. It is as if this man has sat for years at the scales and been occupied with weighing, and it is now that he gives balance, weighs light and heavy, relates the short and the tall, and finally presents his perception and feeling with calculation and order, wishing to express what he has to say in a balanced and dignified manner (and does not want, like hurried and nervous people, or like whining and mumbling children, to shift from one foot to the other and in the end fail to make anyone understand his point, with no one listening to him either, and instead of compelled attention, even showing pity).

“Rouin” has certainly realized that the uncalculated presentation of emotions (without their finding order and synthesis, or without their being expressed in the simple language of color) is not the work of a painter-artist, and that whatever pours out from his unconscious is not fit to be presented; and it seems he knows (or at least wishes to know) that in order to speak, one must know a great many things so as to say a little that is dignified and meaningful. Throwing a handful of colored words onto the surface of a canvas without having organized them in terms of meaning and purpose is obviously rambling speech, and it seems that “Rouin” does not want this. Already he has begun to speak with caution and calculation, and even if he is not saying anything important, at any rate, later on, with the understanding he has, he certainly will. For this mirage does not deceive his unconscious (or that of one like him), and this unconscious (which is the praiseworthy pretext of showy novelty-seekers) will not cause those who step with dignity, look precisely, and think calmly and deeply to slip, nor will it be able to lead them astray.

We know that the painter’s means of expression are colors, and the sculptor’s means of expression are forms and volumes. Combining painting and sculpture, or these two with the others, as has been said, is a weakness of each, and a defect. Of course, it may be that someone, while being a painter, is interested in sculpture. Of such a person one cannot say that he has trespassed into the domain of other arts; and in this regard no eternal law has been laid down, and perhaps, after a long time, he may find a time when mixed art expresses feeling, which of course it does even now express feeling and enters into psychological interpretation. But it must be noted that the painter, sculptor, architect, and musician, provided they possess a specialized art, have personality; and it is obvious that specialized work is deeper and broader, and that making use of the ensemble of the arts is more becoming to a theater director.

Now, with the advent of Pop Art, artists acquainted with every craft have become jacks-of-all-trades, and asserting oneself as an artist has become suited to everyone. And we know that the answer of the supporters of jacks-of-all-trades is: what harm is there in the arts having peaceful coexistence with one another? But we know that in mixed arts, artistic understanding is more commonplace, more summary, and consequently insufficient, and in specialized arts there is a greater possibility for explanation and depth. One bears early pleasure, and the other bears depth and cultural-artistic cultivation.

Our “Rouin” had mixed the two arts of painting and sculpture, and my view on this matter is clear. In particular, he has an interesting passage quoted from “Kandinsky” that comes to my aid: “The great works of plastic art are symphonies in which the melodic element plays a secondary and subordinate role, and the essential element is the balance and principled arrangement of the various parts”; and it is here that one must say, if “Rouin” believes in these words—and he must have held this belief to have brought them in—he certainly should have proceeded in his works in such a way as to kill off the dangerous volume-making of the art of sculpture in his paintings, so that the essential element would be painting itself.

The works of “Parvaneh Etemadi” are also close to such a defect. We are not concerned that the work of “Parvaneh” and “Mousavi” belongs to the school of Abstract Cubism and is a kind of inspiration from the works of certain European artists such as (Juan Gris and Lipchitz) and others; but in any case, it indicates power and a principled confidence in the art they possess, and on this path they do not seek easy finds. And such seekers will, as soon as possible, pull themselves out of the contagious and dangerous coil of taking inspiration from foreigners, and will acquire artistic discernment.

But “Jowdat”—he must, as soon as possible, in collaboration with his dear colleague “Mousavi,” abandon this game of pouring colors and finding accidental forms (by means of smearing colors). When such a clear and enduring talent exists in them, why should they spend their time causing colors to flow and bringing out accidental forms, and hand over their agency to accident? The artist is a philosopher who must think about everything in the world of life (for accident is not always the spokesman of intentions); and a speaker, before he says anything, must know what he wants to say. And if he is to go unknowingly behind the rostrum, without knowing what he wants to say and waiting to take inspiration from accident or from the thoughts of others, it is clear what the speech will be. For seekers of art, it is never commendable to be the imitator of an inexperienced imitator, and the imitator of those who have themselves profited from the mistakes of foreigners, and to resemble a mirage that draws the thirsty for art toward itself and, like a short-lived, fleeting bubble, shines with splendor and is annihilated, and has nothing to give that may serve as a support. The search of others must not directly become an imitative search for us ourselves. We too must strive to pave a path from our own resources (not that every so often a youth who sets foot outside this land, without being aware of the artistic resources of his own people, returns to the homeland with a handful of imitations, and under the assumption that countries are far apart and discerning the situation perhaps impossible, brings the substance of others in the form of a very bad imitation as though it were a precious commodity, and, in order to preserve his baseless prestige, inappropriately defends his imitative imports). This is what our unfortunate people are now afflicted with, and they do not know what to do; and if these people are bewildered, it is no wonder. For they see that our young people, as long as they were in their dear homeland, had no art and knew no art; and when they set foot outside the country, they returned having become great and famous artists! Is this soil not a nurturer of artists? Greatness befits God, who made fruit-bearing trees grow, created land and sea, and sent down instantly-created artists who had taken no trouble.