Why Exhibit Works of Art?

by Ananda Coomaraswamy
Review by: Katharine E. Gilbert
The Art Bulletin, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Jun., 1948), pp. 157-159
Published by: College Art Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3047176 .
Accessed: 14/06/2014 16:05

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

College Art Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Art
Bulletin.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.20 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:05:46 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 BOOK REVIEWS
appendices, and in the warmth and sincerity with which Mr.
Johnson treats what is obviously his favorite subject. The book
has a very pleasant character.The ability to appreciateanother's
work so completely is all too rare. But because it is so uncritical,
it leaves most of the questions one has about Mies still un-
answered.The text is almostpurely a eulogy.
Today, no thoughtful amateur or professional in the field of
architecturewill deny Mies his great place in our contemporary
scene. More than most modern architects,he fits Herbert Read's
definition of the true artist. His buildings and drawings are the
"expression of the uniqueness of a personality." He needs no
defense. He does need understanding. He is, indeed, difficult to
understand. My own feeling is that Mr. Johnson has carried
his appreciation too far. Love can do almost as much to obscure
as illuminate. Not satisfiedwith his subject as he is, Mr. Johnson
insists that Mies is something which I for one suspect he is not.
The whole purpose of a book such as this should be to further
one's understanding of a unique personality. It is the quality of
uniqueness which makes the book necessary. Were he an ordi-
nary person, no further explanations would be required. Yet,
having finished the book, I had no richer or deeper understand-
ing of this very great architect than I did when I began.
There are two general types of questionswhich Mies van der
Rohe inevitably suggests. Like most questions concerning archi-
tecture, they are inextricablymixed, and so, very difficultto treat
separately. They have to do with his attitude toward getting
things built, and with the extent of his interest in those aspects
of building not having to do with pure form. Mr. Johnson insists
that "Mies is first and foremost a builder" (p. 34) and that he
is never "guilty of the solecisms of paper architecture" (p. 9).
Yet the impression of the whole is that, while certainly never
guilty of solecisms, Mies is very willing not to build. Certainly
no one who desired to build houses in America in any number
would propose such plans as the Resor and Farnsworth house
projects. One knows that Mies has built no houses here, and I
for one would guess that he does not want to. BecauseMr. John-
son is thorough, there are a few clues which would seem to bear
this out. We learn, for example, that Mies' personal motto is
"less is more" (p. 49) and again that the philosophy behind the
University of Illinois campus buildings is "almost nothing"
(p. 140). These two fascinatingscrapsof philosophy would lead
one to believe that the small number of Mies' permanent build-
ings (some twenty) are the result of a conscious and consistent
personal policy. I suspect that Mies' abstains from building as
he abstains from visible complexity of form, and that without
the one he could not achieve the other.
As for the question of the extent of Mies' interest in building
beyond structure, one again misses the author's evidence. Mr.
Johnson claims, for example, that the glass-skyscraperprojects
of the period 1919-1925 are, "unlike many of the projects
designed by contemporaries, . . . technically buildable"
(p. 34). Certainly they could be built, almost anything can, but
could they be occupied? In other words, could they be heated,
cooled, shaded, made to feel safe and private enough to be
livable? If experience with those structuresactually built which
most closely approximate the glass skyscrapersis any criterion,
they could not. But in spite of this I would not call them paper
architecture in a derogatory sense, and, I am sure, neither will
anyone else. Why not call them what they are - the marvelously
stimulating and valuablegropings of a very great artist toward a
new architecturalstyle?
Of much more current interest are the details for the new
buildings for the Illinois Institute of Technology. Mr. Johnson
has nothing but praise for their "extraordinary subtleties"
(p. I38), and their "notable refinements" (p. I39), and so
will every architect who has ever detailed a building. One of
their chief characteristicsis the use of a single piece of steel,
exposed both on the inside and the outside. There is much evi-
This content downloaded from 195.34.79.20 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:05:46 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
157
dence to show, and it is generally believed, that this is very bad
practice. One wonders whether or not condensation forms on
the inside, whether convection heat losses are not far greater
than necessary,whether the radiant loss of people to all the ex-
posed steel will not cause discomfort. All of the latest projects
and details bring up a similar list of problems, problems which
every architect, student, and historian would like to have answers
to. For most of the detailing here displayed is based on practices
studiously avoided by all architects, at considerable pains and
expense. There is so much interest in these details, and such a
desire to understand the inevitable limitations of their use, that
it is not enough simply to say, as Mr. Johnson does in his penulti-
mate paragraph,that all these projects are technically sound, and
leave it at that.
The net effect of the book on me was to make me feel that
the strengths and weaknessesof Mies van der Rohe arise from
the fact that he has given up architectureas it is ordinarily prac-
ticed, in favor of an art one might call "form in building." For
instance, after describing the BarcelonaPavilion as the "culmi-
nating achievement of Mies' European career" (p. 58), Mr.
Johnson goes on to say, "Here for the first time Mies was able to
build a structure unhampered by functional requirements or
insufficientfunds." Yet Mies himself, in a letter to Dr. Riesler
(p. I87), attacksform for form's sake, and even seems to depre-
cate the very essence of his own stand. One can only conclude
from the evidence in the present book that his writings, like
those of most architects,should never be comparedwith his work.
In spite of the fact that the book leaves these old questions
unanswered, it is one of those essential documents every archi-
tect and student of architectureshould know. Mies van der Rohe
is almost the sole modernist who has transcended the functional
and pragmatic approach to architecture so typical of our time.
This book is the only place where one can easily feel his unique
quality, and glimpse the penalty he has had to pay in order to
achieve that quality.
ROBERTWOODS KENNEDY
Massachusetts
Cambridge,
ANANDA K. COOMARASWAMY,Why Exhibit Worksof Art?, Lon-
don, Luzac & Co., 1943. PP. 148.
Figures of Speech or Figures of Thought, London, Luzac &
Co., 1946. Pp. 256.
These two booksare a first and second series of essays,lectures,
book reviews, and broadcastsdealing in rich and varied fashion
with aspects of the philosophy of art which the author himself
calls "traditionalor normal" but to which he gave an individual
stamp in his lifetime of erudite writing. In the sense of the word
which he wished to reinstate he 'ornamented' the tradition; i.e.
he filled out its meaning and strengthened its effectiveness by
supplying further equipment (Figures, pp. 87-97). No one else
living among us was able so to interweave the languages and
cultural perspectives of Sanskrit, Greek, mediaeval Scholastic,
American Indian, and modern western European, to this end.
The ornamental treatment does not result in the presentation
of any contrasting schemes of ideas or sets of postulates.There
is here hardly a comparativeaesthetics.Rather, as Mr. Coomara-
swamy himself says in the "Preface" to Figures of Speech or
Figures of Thought, "The subject matter of the whole is con-
sistently one and the same, and no other than that of my Why
Exhibit Worksof Art" (p. 5). It is wholly justifiable therefore
to summarize the main sense of the two books in a series of
succinctstatements.The doctrine is as follows:
i. The first excellence of art is its truth or 'iconographical
correctness,' i.e. its appropriate rendering in visible terms of
central religious teaching. Art is one kind of metaphysicalstate-
ment, and artists and true connoisseursare serious students of
final things.
I58 THE ART BULLETIN
2. An excellence of art, hardly second to the first becauseso
closely involved with it, is its moral instructiveness.Art is a guide
to right action. It is good in so far as it conduces to a happy and
useful life.
3. Artists are not first of all beings with a special sensitivity,
vision, or plastic power, but with a 'vocation,' i.e. a call to give
religious instruction through graphic means. In the larger sense
all men are artists who make things in the spirit of a vocation.
4. Art has a right to freedom, not from the censorship of
those responsiblefor the community'swell-being, but from com-
mercial pressuresand pulls. Art is bound and free as religion is
bound and free.
5. The beauty of art is to remind rather than to delight.
Aesthetic savour fulfills its function when it becomes a support
for contemplation. For example, the "aesthetic shock" of the
loveliness of the dewdrop passes properly into an awarenessof
the transitorinessof all living things (Figures of Speech, pp. 200-
211).
6. Just as there is only a minor distinction of accent in art's
truth as spoken by the spatiallyseparatedoriental, Thomist, and
American Indian, so the history of styles in its temporal succes-
sion yields only accidental variations. Truth is eternal, not pro-
gressive or conditioned, and art being the symbolic communica-
tion of truth, is alsoessentiallyidentical from age to age.
7. The current emphasison aesthetic surface, on formal ele-
ments in abstractionfrom 'literary' meaning, and on 'function'
without consideration of religious symbolism, is provincial--
"bourgeoisiefantasy" (Why Exhibit, p. 95).
We are in debt to Mr. Coomaraswamyfor the vigor and
unique form in which certain important ideas are here set out,
e.g.: that the referents of symbolic art are of consequence for
the habit of the work as a whole; that the function of art engages
with other life-functions and with what philosophy envisages;
that aspects of contemporary aesthetics are conditioned and
naYve.But even though he has emphasized what many neglect,
he hasneglected or even denied what many with justice perceive.
It is unfortunate that in fighting narrownesshe has himself at
times been narrow. Indeed much of the value of these essays
seems to lie in the rich and vivid aesthetic surface the author,
almost in spite of himself, has been able to give to the familiar
doctrine of Plotinus and St. Augustine. For example, "Samvega,
'Aesthetic Shock' " (chap. xii, Figures of Speech) certainly has
much in common with the "delicious troubling" of the soul in
ecstasy as described by Plotinus. But to know how Buddhists
handle the concept and to acquire the metaphor of the horse
struckby a whip for aestheticshock is agreeablelearning.
Since, as we have noted, the doctrine here promulgated is
repeated in different forms, and limited in extent, its validity
may be examined illustratively in a single context. The gist of
the title article "Why Exhibit Works of Art?" is as follows: An
art museum exists "to take care of ancient or unique worksof art
which are no longer in their original places or no longer used as
was originally intended" (p. 7). The museum has no direct
obligation to living artists. Furthermore, the exhibiting of the
ancient and unique works is not a primary function. However,
if the art treasuresare exhibited, it must be for the purpose of
educating the visitors, i.e. by giving them instruction in the
original intention of the worksand in pointing out how the com-
position is adapted to the conveyance of metaphysical truth.
"The Museum exhibition should amount to an exhortation to
return to . . . savage levels of culture" (p. 13), in the sense
that art on savage levels was made by expert craftsmen and was
fitted into the theory of a whole life. "If we are to offer an edu-
cation in agreement with the innermost nature and eloquence
of the exhibits themselves . . . this will not be an education in
sensibility, but an education in philosophy, in Plato's and Aris-
totle's sense of the word, for whom it means ontology and the-
This content downloaded from 195.34.79.20 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:05:46 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ology and the map of life, and a wisdom to be applied to every-
day matters" (p. 20).
Let the examinationbegin with the phrase:"not an education
in sensibility." One may believe that the author means: "not an
education in sensibility only." Often such a qualificationis made.
But often also this champion of ontology opposes education of
the senses, feelings, and emotions through discipline in the arts.
Surely, however, this is to omit one of the primary opportunities
and blessingsof art. In a sophisticpassage(p. 20) Mr. Coomara-
swamy suggests that to teach men to feel is (i) to teach them
what they already know because they are not "hard-hearted
animal[s]," and (2) to make the materialsof education "spec-
tacular," "personal," "anecdotal," or "flatter[ing] ." But it was
Mr. Coomaraswamy'sown favored Plato who taught that the
end of education is to learn to feel rightly, i.e. to have pleasures
and pains in the right objects and in the right way. Refinement
and sharpening of the senses and emotions is at least as much
needed as iconology. It is needed in itself, and for the sake of
that very "whole or holy man" that is Mr. Coomaraswamy's
ideal (p. 81).
Next let us note Mr. Coomaraswamy'sposition that if a mu-
seum exhibits its treasuresit does so by grace and not by primary
vocation. Here again there is a false opposing of two interde-
pendent functions: caring for and enjoying the use of. It is at
least as frivolous to save for saving's sake as to rejoice the eyes
without understanding the original intention of a picture. It
is surely contraryto any ideal of 'wholeness' to be entrusted with
things of extraordinaryvalue and efficacy and not to let their
light shine.
Mr. Coomaraswamysays the museum has no obligation to
living artists, and that exhibition of their works amounts to
giving them free advertising. Their only grounds, he says, for
wishing to be "hung" would be vanity or need - presumably,
financial need. Would not a fairer judgment be that the best
among them have something to say which is a little ahead of
common apprehensionor in a special idiom so that the mediation
of a patient and intelligent explicator is indicated? In interpret-
ing and presenting to the public Turner and Marin, neither
Ruskin nor Stieglitz thought his artist merely vain or needy.
The interpreters found a fresh and important vision deserving
to be shared.
Mr. Coomaraswamy'sbite noire is aesthetics. Since he fixes
the meaning of the term by its etymology, and does not believe
in progress, it would seem futile, for one who believes in the
history of aesthetics as precisely the progressive enrichment of
understanding in matters relating to art, to argue with him. He
thinks of Pater and Valery as typical exponents of aesthetics.
Unquestionably their refining analysisof the sensuoussurface of
art belongs to the aesthetician's field. But there also belongs to
it a rich literature dealing with art's symbolism stemming from
Ernst Cassirer'snotable volumes on Symbolic Forms, and in-
cluding now the whole wealth of the Warburg Institute's out-
put; also such subtle analyses of musical symbolism as may be
found in the writings of Susanne Langer and Kathi Meyer.
Again, exact definition of critical terms used with respect to art
has been a primary concern of most recent writers in the field,
as witness C. J. Ducasse'sdiscriminationof art, beauty, ugliness;
Theodore Greene's and John Hospers' examination of meaning
and truth as related to the arts, and R. G. Collingwood's study
of the place and function of the imagination. Art's moral effects
and obligations are also the subject of many recent studies such
as Herbert Read's Art and Society and D. W. Gotshalk's Art
and the Social Order. The answers are not all in traditional
terms and therefore would not be acceptable to Mr. Coomara-
swamy, but the authors are aware of the traditional problems,
and the answers only differ because the authors think more is
now to be taken into account than tradition acknowledges.Mr.
Coomaraswamyopposes the aesthetic approach to the anthro-
 BOOK REVIEWS 159

pological in favor of the latter; and yet a great deal that is im-
portant in Milton Nahm's recent The Aesthetic Experience and
its Presuppositionsis due to the incorporationof anthropological
matter.
Most of all there belongs to aesthetics Kant's hard-won in-
tellectual conquest, the idea of disinterested pleasure or free
favor as characteristic of aesthetic contemplation. When our
author says: "Disinterested aesthetic contemplation is . . . pure
non-sense" (Why Exhibit, p. 16), he has not taken the trouble
to learn what the sentence means. At his best Mr. Coomara-
swamy teaches that the right functioning of art is inseparable
from a just organization of society and from personalwholeness.
It is to be regretted that he often cut himself off - perhaps
becauseof preoccupationwith his own languages- from many
able allies.
KATHARINE E. GILBERT
Duke University

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.20 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:05:46 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions