by The text of the lecture by Master Jalil Ziapour at the Fighting Cock (Khorus Jangi) Art Association; the year 1949
“Ant Riding”, Jalil Ziapour, 1949, Expressionism, oil, 60 × 40 cm.
The roots of all kinds of thoughts and ideas exist in a latent and weak manner in the depths of human life. Despite the complexity of the cerebral and psychological structure, each of these ideas, whose awakening and cultivation are stimulated by general developments and deterministic turns or the law of reaction, appears in its own due time. These manifestations are always accompanied by the successes and needs of an environment and, often due to unfavorable conditions, inevitably appear and take root after a period of wandering and lack of success.
Surrealism (Surréalisme) also, after a series of weak manifestations that had occurred at various, not entirely suitable times, failed to establish a firm foundation. But in these very occasional manifestations, it sowed its seeds until it was able to achieve relatively greater success in its recent manifestations. Those who are informed know how Cubism, by having more conscious and far-sighted proponents, changed the course of destiny. However, because in its general thinking it was still bound to elements that involuntarily and more than expected connected it to the past, and had not only failed to distance it from external nature but had rather bound it more to it, Surrealism, which had for some time been moving alongside Cubism in step with the times, pushed aside these constraints of the predecessors that still clung to Cubism and, in its own words, rescued itself from their clutches. Unaware that in thought, it was entangling itself in an old ideology in a newer form, namely, dressing Romanticism in new clothes (with the difference that Romanticism engaged in a kind of storytelling linked to the ideals and desires of the people, whereas here the Surrealist only engages in narrating and explaining their own inner characteristics).
“André Lhote” (André Lhote) says in this regard: “Talking about Surrealist ideas is a wasted effort. For merely astonishing people and stimulating their minds and nerves cannot be called taste and artistry.” And regarding the durability and survival of this school, he says: “I do not know whether it will endure for a long time or not.” But he regretfully states that “the period of sublime inspirations of the Van Gogh era was short, and it was a pity that it ended so quickly! And the intended artists, such as ‘Rimbaud’ (Rimbaud) and ‘Lautréamont’ (Lautréamont), who could have left significant and deep works behind, because they died in their youth and did not reach old age to deliver the ripe fruit of old age, their death thus brought a greater loss to future generations than the inspiration of this period. For elderly artists, as they near death, acquire a strange mental clarity and possess an abundant wealth of artistic maturity and success, which, if the works of this period remain for posterity, will certainly be valuable documents and results for beginners.”
“Lhote” wants to say that from a longer duration of the artistic inspirations of the Van Gogh period, it would certainly have been possible to make better and more correct use of it to the benefit of new painting, Surrealism, or anything else! And he says again: “It seems strange that the Surrealists, not in jest but very seriously, say that their paintings are pleasing only to a small number of people, and no more! How can they please a small number, and that for only a tiny moment, and not be able to keep the viewer before them for a longer time? It is true that all masterpieces are mixed with a kind of exaggeration and lie, but why should the artist not construct a lie that pleases a larger number? And lie in such a way that is not jarring and unacceptable? If we refer to artistic masterpieces, we see that the most sublime and pleasing exaggerations and lies that can be willingly accepted exist in these very masterpieces. Thousands of types of lying that create pleasure and desire in a person exist, which can be put to good use.” In response to Master “Lhote,” it must be said: If the Surrealists had started another of the thousands of types of lying according to the liking of you masters, would you not have attacked them, saying that there are thousands of other types of lying that create better pleasure, why do you Surrealists not use them as the predecessors did? Assuredly, such objections were always leveled against pioneers.
In any case, in one of the meetings concerning Surrealist ideas organized against the Surrealists in October 1929, Dr. “Clérambault” (Clérambault) asks Professor “Janet” (Janet) about the relationship between the subjects of the artist’s mental world and the outcome of the work manifested by him. Janet replies: The Surrealists believe that reality is ugly and beauty exists outside of reality. Moreover, reality in itself is not beautiful; rather, human beings have caused the creation of beauty and its implementation in the world. It is the human being who has been able to awaken and cultivate the sense of beauty-worship in another human being; otherwise, beauty actually has no meaning. And in order to be able to create beauty, one must, as much as possible, avoid the people’s search for truth and their definition of truth. The Surrealists’ entire effort is to create temptation, a sense of curiosity, and doubt in the viewer. By creating this temptation, they want to lead the viewer for a time through a world made of the past, present, and future, in a bittersweet purgatory, in the conscious and unconscious realms, and this stage in itself is beauty.
“Clérambault” says: “No, no, these extremist artists who, by means of such manifestations, insolently trample upon all firm artistic laws and conventions, presenting themselves as pioneers and dismissing and deeming everything futile—their action must be interpreted as wanting to provide a way to escape from the firm artistic laws and conventions that are beyond the capacity of these negligent individuals, and to evade the burden of thinking correctly so as not to be caught in the harsh criticisms of critics. These pioneer gentlemen, who imagine they have brought about something unprecedented in this era, are unaware that the ‘Gongorists’ and ‘Concettists’ were pioneers in the sixteenth century. This action of the Surrealists is, in truth, a matter related to past centuries, not an initiative and fresh work.”
“Janet” says: By relying on predecessors and using their existence as a means to reject Surrealist manifestations, Mr. Clérambault fails to notice that if, due to unfavorable environmental causes, a group under the name of pioneers or any other name cannot penetrate society with their new ideas and work, and their work is not followed up, it does not mean that these beliefs, thoughts, or tastes are completely wrong. Rather, because they were not understandable to the people of that time, they did not progress. Now, if today a group follows up on their work, should it be said that because they had no success at that time, today too, for the same reason, the continuation of their thoughts (despite the environment’s response, however limited it may be) should not be taken up?! Let Mr. Clérambault take into consideration that Surrealist operations are associated with a series of historical currents, not with mere manifestations.
Here, Clérambault refers to the actions of Monsieur “Abely” (M. Abely) against Surrealist ideas regarding the book “Nadja” (Nadja) (by “André Breton” André Breton, the famous Surrealist) and says: Where “Breton” said that if I were a madman, and if they detained me, I would certainly make use of these few days of detention set for me, and by this means employ all my nightmares and delusions to kill one of the most distinguished doctors of the asylum who fell into my hands, so that perhaps in this way they would leave me alone and let me rest in peace in some corner—do you know what Monsieur “Rodiet” (Rodiet) says about this? And how he attacks the protective body of asylum doctors, shouting: Why do they allow the press to publish such writings and do not control them, so that such dangerous writings do not fall into the hands of the insane and produce the danger of death for the doctors? Do you know that “Rodiet” shouted that under this sentence of “Breton” in the book “Nadja,” a line had been drawn in blue pencil by one of the madmen in his own ward, and this matter severely threatened the body of doctors? Certainly, our carelessness in this regard will cause the threatening actions of opponents or the insane to gain strength. Monsieur “Abely’s” actions have well shown the scandal of Surrealist operations. This matter not only threatens us but inevitably forces us into a fierce struggle. Clérambault adds that this matter must not be taken lightly and certainly requires complete explanations.
The session ends. But in principle, the Surrealists, without giving up and with the utmost obstinacy, explicitly reject the chatter of critics who are gasping under the pressure of anger, and continue their operations. And those whose work has gone beyond criticism to abuse, and who seem likely before long to tear at the artists’ collars in hand-to-hand encounters, they nevertheless leave to their own devices. And where they attribute insanity to them and consider the Surrealists a handful of melancholic and deranged people, relying on Freudian beliefs and in their own words as the latest scientific and practical theory of the day on the subject of producing illness, they say this: If a person looks a little more closely at a nervous patient, he draws closer to the means that connect him to the natural events and conditions of life, and in this course, he particularly encounters a complex relationship where access to such a means seems impossible at first sight, and the person, despite his own opinions, discovers the existence of truths that are in themselves a means of gratification, though apparently they themselves were never intended. That is, the person realizes that in any case, a kind of life also exists by the name of fantasy life which gives reality to human desires. It is at this very time that he must abandon the inadequate beliefs of the past and judge more correctly and precisely about the various states of a patient. For in the state of illness, if the patient loses his fantasy world which he certainly possessed in the normal state, and whenever in a suitable and exceptional situation that sometimes arises for the patient, he regains that fantasy world of his, in this particular state too, if the patient possesses artistic talents, he can certainly transform his intellectual works and fantasy dreams into artworks just as in his normal period (that is, in a state of healthy temperament), and in this way, these persons also escape (meanwhile) from a nervous incident.
Relying on these reasons, the Surrealists believe that even in an exceptional state, an artist-patient can make use of the existence of his fantasies, let alone in the normal state. Then they say: Regarding the attribution of melancholia, illness, and insanity to the Surrealists, who is there who in his own turn is not insane in some way? And again, in the words of “Freud” (Freud), they say: A powerful and successful artist is one who can bring the fantasies of his imagination into real form and give them materiality; and whenever this transformation of the fantasies of imagination into material reality disappears due to mistakes, errors, external factors, or personal weakness, in truth such a person, in addition to the use of external pleasures, has also been deprived of another true pleasure hidden within himself.
Concerning experiences and their results, the Surrealists say: People do not know that by following the results of the predecessors’ experiences (which today are accumulated as a series of errors upon one another, or the exigency of the times considers their existence redundant and futile), they are in fact officially signing the document of a kind of limitation. Again they say: It must be known that those who rely on certain established sources and say that placing the foundation of work upon the results of the predecessors’ operations is for the sake of being guided more correctly, are people who, under the pretext of guiding, draw people toward misplaced limitation only by repeating a handful of groundless and empty words (for the sake of preserving what they have learned), and they forget that the results of the operations of the people of an era are so bound to the majority of results of experiences—which can only satisfy human needs for a certain period (short or long, but not forever)—that they deem them as revealed and eternal truths! Unaware that making the results of past experiences the basis of present action is, in truth, paralyzing the new action, and certainly the result obtained from such action will be the same as what past operations yielded in their own time. And here, one must join in voice with “André Gide” (André Gide), who said: “One who is constantly in the state of creation and discovery is a truly living person; that is, one who has to do with life, otherwise having to do with conventions means exhuming corpses, meaning dead truths.”
This is why the Surrealists, as far as possible, have kicked aside the conventions and operations of predecessors and discarded the broken and patched-up wheels of its experiences, which now only hold the form of keepsakes for them, and no longer wish to roll them on the road of art for their artistic purposes, saying: “These experiences and results, this elixir and guide of aspirations, as much as they were valid and showed capability for a group for a few days, have in the same measure proven their invalidity to us.” It must be noticed that every new life requires a newer experience and result of experience. Old experience belongs to old life; one must draw a newer result from the results of others’ operations: whether it was bad or good, sufficient or insufficient, necessary or unnecessary. If it was good, necessary, and sufficient, by the mere virtue of being good or sufficient, one must not forget the intense and weak temporal changes of an environment, and must consider that human temperament and taste, like a thermometer that is subject to the nature of atmospheric changes, is always subject to the nature of changes in the economic, educational, and political conditions of an environment and, naturally, subject to the nature of its connection with the global situation. Being good and sufficient must not cause the repetition of repetitiveness and lack of diversity, which is the Azrael of beauties.
The Surrealist says: “The fine arts must be a means of pleasure, which is among the inevitable needs, and must particularly become the motive for a wonder (a fresh wonder), for it is wonder that is beautiful. This wonder, in whatever form it may be, is in any case beautiful. There never exists any kind of wonder that is not beautiful. A mere slight breeze of wonder reaching the nostrils is sufficient to make a place alive and fresh. Those who run so much after the experiences of the predecessors, and by rearranging various critical words and gradually dissolving the conventional rules and laws of predecessors (in their conservative and slow operations) drive themselves forward with caution, tiptoeing, and heavily, imagining that in this way they bring about something more correct and at the same time newer, have always stamped in place; or else, to consolidate the foundations of their position, they have gone after the pioneers with murmuring, sophistry, uproar, and clamor, showering them with a storehouse of abuse, insults, curses, and blasphemies, and with all this shouting, self-righteousness, and conservatism, they have never accomplished anything.”
According to the Surrealists, these people have never been able, by any means (which humankind has been searching for from of old), to explain their spirituality as they should, and because of their intense attachment to the chain of constraints, they have never dared to cast their hidden elements into the circle and show the precise points of their souls. (In principle, caution and conservatism to this extent—such “they should not have done thus” and “one must not do so”—are the enemy of art.) Why all these constraints and limitations of thought?! Why should the artist not give essence to their intellectual entities? Why must they draw the firm walls of past constraints and experiences around them? Why must they show only things that appear only externally to the eye? Do thoughts themselves not have truth? Is the world of imagination not a real world of its own? Do the intellectual entities that are an inseparable part of the home of the soul of artists and everyone else not have the same value as the entities around them? Just as some wish to show the external aspects of the life of objects and people around them, these too wish, and in essence must, show this relationship, this bridge, which connects them to their imaginary life (in your opinion) but to their real life (in their own opinion). They want to show this world whose life is more turbulent and perceptible to them than the clamour of external worlds, and to empty themselves. In any case, because this environment and the effect of its factors (whatever they may be, bad or good) weigh upon the back of their soul and thought and take them under their pressure, it inevitably causes a reaction in them which they cannot avoid. For this reason, the Surrealist says: If my thoughts are not reality to you, to hell with it. All of them are reality to me, me who have not been separated from them for a single moment. These events must exude from me. For retaining them is out of my control. I praise these fantasies of mine. I worship and admire them. For they are admirable to me. What is admirable in these fantasies of mine is particularly that after they acquire materiality through me, they no longer possess mere imaginary existence; rather, they have come to life through me, and thereafter in my external and material life, they mingle with me. Imaginary or non-imaginary, real or unreal, it is all one. All and everything are reality to me. Which of the material truths of life is there whose beginning was not immaterial and daydreaming? Whatever becomes a motive of longing in me, I do not flee from it, and until I obtain the necessary result from it, I do not turn away; and whatever stimulates my mind in a wondrous way, even if it drags me into the most terrifying and revolutionary spiritual stages, it is impossible for me to overlook it and leave it under the ashes of oblivion. If a spark illuminates my mind even for a single moment, scenes awaken in the secret chambers of my conceptions, which inevitably become the pretext for their manifestations through me.
This is why “Abstraction” (Abstraction), or the ambiguous way of thinking, which is among the essences and characteristics of the way of thinking of advanced artists, and is the very thing that defines the inner being of humanity, has greater activity in the field of Surrealist operations. It is intensely prevalent in the daily life of people generally, and in the life of artists particularly (not only in ordinary life). Since this way of thinking is a habit for all, no time is devoted to the manner of its activity and intervention in thoughts. Millions of people, from the first light of day until night (even in sleep), deal with ambiguous and fragmented thoughts that are inappropriately patched together, and outwardly, these thoughts are completely disjointed, with no subject and predicate among them; and rarely is a time found for people when their thought, while reviewing matters they are carefully engaged in, does not leap from branch to branch and the thread of their connections does not break. Hence, due to the absence of external relations, all these thoughts appear mute and ambiguous to others. It is right here that the opponents of the method of ambiguity, due to lacking breadth of discernment and not knowing the necessity of fantasies for the pleasure that is the root of the concept of the fine arts, reject them under the name of abstract, private, and isolated thoughts. However, with a little attention to the principles of the association of ideas and reactions, we realize the reality of the existence of seemingly complex thoughts without subject and predicate. And we understand the cause of the appearance of these disjointed thoughts, which has arisen from the desire for quick conclusions (due to the speed of the current of life); and if we see that its comprehension is now possible only for a few people and has a private character, it will certainly have generality for most people in the near future and will emerge from the shroud of ambiguity. It must be known that ambiguity, or in the words of today’s humanitarians, abstract and individual thoughts (which they themselves are directly afflicted with under various titles, and for the sake of demagoguery beat their breasts for altruism and social feeling) always exists inevitably and involuntarily among the people, and has been and is a reality more true than the daily events of the people.
“Gaston Diehl” (Gaston Diehl), the author of the book (The Enigma of Painting), says: If a painting is to truly possess artistic value and also possess public instincts fully and completely (so that enjoying it becomes general), naturally something will come into existence that will be named abstraction, and only in this state can the artist be like a mirror reflecting the spirit of their society. By this means, “Gaston Diehl” in principle acknowledges the existence of abstraction in every ordinary individual and its necessity in art, and even considers the perfection of art to lie in its existence. But he establishes boundaries and limits for abstraction in painting and believes that one must not let the reins of control slip from their hands, and says: The fact that today some step beyond the limits of public understanding and mind, using incomprehensible ambiguities in their art, is not correct. Is it not true that design, form, and color are things that can always be transformed under various headings and novelties created in them? Of course, all of these are means of giving form to objects and transforming them. But what is real and eternal is other than these, and it must be known that beyond the play of design and color, and so on, art includes other things as well, which are internal, and an inner thing.
From the opinions of “Gaston Diehl,” it appears that art revolves around mysteries, and for the salt or charm of the work, and beauty and pleasingness, or depth, or whatever else from which the artistic work is in any case created, he deems the play of design, color, and form as insubstantial compared to inner essences! And he considers their changes whimsical and a kind of superficial play! As if he cannot recognize the necessary and direct relationship between these two, that “without the existence of one, the other does not exist and does not manifest.” Is it not true that the very same inner thing itself causes the creation of a particular and specific design, color, or form? And does not every inner being that has been cultivated through perseverance, study, and precision in the realms of life require, in order to show more mature, more meaningful, and deeper works, a more suitable mold, so as to correctly represent those very hidden contents that the artist wishes to introduce? Otherwise, how can spiritual manifestations be formulated and made visible? This question may arise: if we have skillfully prepared the necessary molds but have nothing to pour into these molds, what can we bring to manifestation?
It must be said, first of all, that it must not be forgotten that even if someone possesses sublime manifestations but does not have the necessary molds, they can never show their spiritual effusions as they should. (How many people there have been who possessed inner secrets but, due to lacking the necessary molds, were as if mute, deaf, or blind. How many poets who, due to tonguelessness—meaning lacking the necessary mold to formulate their poetic manifestations—left no work behind or left incomplete works. How many painters who have slept in the dust and, due to not having the necessary molds such as form, design, and color, were unable to show their inner secrets. How many musicians who, due to lacking technical skill in composition, were unable to express inner secrets, and we only perceive their spiritual manifestations to the extent that their technical skill has been able to show us). Every stroke, every line, every color, and every sentence represents the measure of the artist’s knowledge and depth. However deep and sensitive an artist may be, if they do not have the necessary technical skill to create suitable molds to express this depth and feeling, they have value for us only to the extent of those very works they have poured into their existing molds, no more. For there is no more complete document than this present mold that can reveal the measure of their contact with the various factors of life. So this mold, which is the recipient of spiritual manifestations, is valuable to us to the same extent that the mold has been able to present the inner secrets. Moreover, since the manifestations of the interior are observed by means of external factors, if changes are perceived in the external factors, it is proof that the inner factors have undergone changes and new desires have arisen in them. Inner factors do not change except by the pressure and influence of environmental factors, meaning needs. As soon as new desires take shape in the person, the mold also begins to change its shape, and the faster this action of changing shapes is, to the same degree it indicates the rapid change of desires. Therefore, if desires change infinitely at the demand of time, naturally the shapes will also be changing infinitely until the end; meaning in any case these two have a direct and inseparable connection with each other.
The point here is that since a worthy mold is certainly necessary for inner secrets, and this mold itself cannot change its shape infinitely (except under the pressure of inner factors), therefore, for the reasons mentioned, one must not deem this mold of spiritual states insubstantial and must not imagine that the play of design and color is superficial, causeless, whimsical, and worthless. Rather, it must be known that neither of these two is ever separate from the other, and they are always accompanied together. Moreover, that inner thing which cannot be interpreted by Gaston Diehl and makes the matter look complex in his view, and directs thoughts toward supernatural factors, is nothing but a handful of jumbled knowledge and contradictions (which it has acquired along the chain of heredity over millions of years of its life). It is these million-year-old human contradictions (archetypes) that form the interior or core of man, and are manifested in the mold of ambiguity, abstract thoughts, and so on in the works of the Surrealists.
In summary, “Gaston Diehl” says: The artist must be very careful not to fall into the abyss of error. He particularly emphasizes that the works of predecessors were also abstract but were not submerged in obscurity to this extent. Just as the ambiguity in the works of predecessors was understandable, the works of today’s painters must also be comprehensible in the same manner. Diehl, with his statements, presents today’s abstraction as a kind of superficiality in painting! He is unaware that in the time of past artists too, their artistic ambiguities were not comprehensible and understandable to the public. Have painters, writers, musicians, and so on not always suffered from these difficulties, namely being caught in muteness and bewilderment and in the attacks of a group of people of their era (just as they are afflicted today)? Have the artists and pioneers of every era not always been exposed to showers of abuse and curses? Why, the situation has always been thus and will always be so. There is always a group of such protectors of laws and conventions who heap thousands of unbridled and misplaced spittings and curses upon artists. This group always whispers the murmur of conformity and uniformity into ears, presenting themselves as lovers of social interests and enemies of abstract thoughts; whereas for the Surrealists and pioneers, it is quite obvious, and they know well, that thinking individually is meaningless in the lexicon of life, and thinking socially is even more meaningless than that. For they know that what the individual thinks is only the product of an individual brain (since such a thing is never possible in the modalities of social life), and on the other hand, they also know that what they think is solely the thought of society. For they can never manifest any other emanations except what comes from the accumulations of their brain and thought by means of them, and has been resolved, settled, modified, and adjusted within them. The Surrealist knows well that those who beat their breasts for being popular and people-loving, and who, in the name of necessary logic and decisive rational and practical proofs!, have become stones in the path and thorns in the feet of pioneers by accusing them of being insubstantial, deviant, decadent, and with other excommunicatory words, have not truly grasped the real meaning of public benefit in art.
The artist must never become the instrument of the hands and thoughts of this or that person, or of anyone else. For a pioneer, abstraction and generalization are one and the same, and every kind of art is a work that, due to the contradictions and opposing currents of the society of every era, is necessarily created at the hands of the artist, and in any case it depends on the ideology of each period, and is not controllable, nor should it be. Therefore, the pioneer, regardless of the criticisms and abusive language of critics and hypocrites, continues his work based on the requirements of the times, and it is established for him that knowledge, rules, laws, conventions, and experiences, each and all, come into existence in pursuit of these needs of the times and after them. That is, action is always prior, and the rest always follows. The result of action, too, is certainly the result of environmental influences, and especially the influence of international events.
Although most of the views of the Surrealists that were presented in their proper place are completely appropriate and relevant to artistic thinking, merely holding such a view—that by whatever means possible (assuming individual or social, rational or melancholic thinking), ideas alone must in any case be made explicit—is not sufficient in the field of art and its aim. To explain an idea, which in principle from a specialized point of view pertains more to writers, one must not completely trample upon the artistic foundation of the various branches; for every artistic idea (whether music, painting, or writing), in order to explain itself in the best way, certainly requires a specialized foundation suited to its own condition, which each of them personally possesses to a large extent. Surrealism can be criticized from this point of view: that in it the “idea” is considered more important than the specialized foundation, and the Surrealist proceeds with his work without observing his own position, whether he is a painter or a writer, and in his work there is no trace of color, design, form, and composition (that is, the “mold” of spiritual manifestations and the principle of artistry), which must absolutely possess a complete predominance over the idea in order to acquire a technical and specialized aspect. Whereas in painting, a picture, even without having an ordinary subject, can explicitly represent the spiritual states, knowledge, and feelings of an artist or, in general, (a nation) by means of its technical principles. For the analysis of colors in terms of the psychological effects of colors, and the intense and weak, harsh and gentle movements of lines that surround a subject, are themselves complete representatives, and are the best means of creating beauty and the eloquence of subjects (not in the form of narration).
The Surrealist, who now, due to intense emotional reactions against economic difficulties and the consequences of war, has opened his mouth and cried out, and from great suffering has taken refuge in introspection, presents himself as “rightful,” makes a reality manifest, and considers every kind of obstacle and deterrent as disruptive to his cry, his deliverance, and his freedom from bonds and restraints.
