by Text of the lecture by Master Jalil Ziapour at the Fighting Cock (Khorus Jangi) Art Association; published in the magazine “Andisheh va Honar” (Issue 4), July 1954
Umberto Boccioni; “Dynamism of a Cyclist”; 1913; oil on canvas; 70×95 cm
Previously it was said that “Fauvism” eliminated the defect of the Impressionist school (which was the lack of design) by re-employing design in a more severe manner, and made use of the existence of design in a necessary but harsh manner; and it became clear that the jarring aspects of the Fauvist school “in terms of color and design” were due to a socio-psychological reaction of a society that felt deprivations and shortcomings, reflecting and presenting its violence and anger through the method of work and the manner of using color and design. But the vehemence of expression became such that it took the place of consideration and conservatism. This method of work, in addition to outspokenness, had crushed and mangled the natural form less, and had also provided a relatively sufficient power of expression for most restless people.
The period of Fauvism was a period of knowledge and intellectualism. Curiosity, attention, and penetration into the roots and veins of everything, scrutiny, inquiry, and infiltration were almost universal. Therefore, the era did not content itself with just this one school of Fauvism, and the sense of curiosity and investigation led to the emergence of the schools of “Passéism” (Passéisme), “Dynamism” (Dynamisme), “Crystallism” (Cristalisme), and “Futurism” (Futurisme).
A group for whom social conditions were not clear from the perspective of the philosophy of life, and who, so to speak, were still journeying in the narrow straits of mystery and secrecy, created the school of Passéism by utilizing the “Primitive” (Primitive) school (a clear and legible school that had bright and expressive, yet decisive, dry, and sharp colors and designs), and the clarity, legibility, sharpness, and dryness of this school were acceptable from the perspective of the era of the Fauvists. Because it explained the withdrawal from the era of the Fauvists and was a source of satisfaction for another contemporary group. If the Fauvist recounted wails and violence, the Passéist was deep in thought in mystery and silence (but with an impenetrable power). The “Dynamist” saw both of these as weak for the manifestation of pressures (it is true that they have much power of expression, but they are not yet capable of expressing the existing states).
The effort to find another form that could truly do justice to the subject and have no deficiency gave rise to Dynamism. In this style, objects and bodies are such as if explosives have been placed in their midst and shattered them, and this is the work of artists who had a driven-to-despair and volcanic state. This form seemed, in comparison to existing schools, to be the most appropriate form that could, along with the Cubist style, do justice to the subject.
In parallel with these schools, two other schools also emerged that satisfied the sense of investigation and the desire for novelty (while not being detached from expressing the states of the times), and those two schools were “Crystallism” and “Futurism”. Crystallism had a geometric basis and displayed power and penetration into depths, wishing that the beyond of objects and bodies also be seen like crystals and that nothing remain hidden from sight; in fact, with clear-sightedness, it wanted to show that all invisible things and concealments must be clear and visible. And this was an expression of clear-sightedness in the nature of thoughts from all perspectives in social life, which demonstrated power and ruggedness through planes and geometric bodies beyond the veil. Here, instead of dynamic clamors, outbursts, and defiances, patience, contemplation, and peace emerged with conscious power and persistence. The stillness and heaviness of the compositions of Crystallism became representative of the attention to and investigation of the life of its own time, and of advancing it in a new form that new knowledge had founded and advanced.
It is true that Dynamism did justice to the subject in expressing realms, but in terms of appearance, it had inevitably brought about a drastic change in nature. That is to say, in the course of expression, it did not utilize forms familiar to the people. Rather, for the sake of clear expression, it mutilated nature, and Crystallism confirmed and reinforced it, turning it into something complex and question-provoking. In this approach, thoughts and spirits found themselves very rapidly facing premature developments, and since they did not see in themselves the capacity to digest and accept such speed, they inevitably resorted to conservative withdrawal and objection, and then to explicit protest. But the protests led nowhere, and the schools (meaning the necessary forms of expression) had started rolling, and preventing their progress was beyond the power of individuals and society.
Societies were still busy with their minor protests; therefore, they wanted publicly understandable examples to express their intentions. But an enlightened and progressive society never remains bound and delayed by a protest over a minor matter (in contrast to which it has greater matters ahead that it must remove from the way) and considers them small and solvable in comparison to other matters. This is why, each time with more crushing and heavier blows, it advances its method and goal.
The foresight, far-sightedness, and precociousness of thought of a progressive group never compels them to get caught in the hooks along the way and halfway along of people whose thoughts do not reach far. But it gives a semi-calming answer to the protestors, and in any case brings about an intellectual elevation for them. For this reason, it calls unfamiliar paintings by the name of Futurism (meaning something that future generations will pay attention to) and makes it the focus of thought and of inquirers. Futurism means painting that is prepared for future generations. (This was the answer.) But we know that future generations create the works of the future based on their own temporal conditions, and nothing is created beforehand as it should be, except in a very rudimentary form that becomes a pretext for future generations. Futurism was nothing more than a name, and its paintings belonged to the very era in which they had been created.
