This is interesting:
The fundamental teaching of Buddhism is that one must shed away worldly attachments and desires in order to attain enlightenment. This created a conflict with the culture of every society into which Buddhism was introduced. If one is to shed worldly pleasures and attachments, this requires that such flowers of culture as poetry, literature, and visual arts be discarded. By claiming that the phenomenal world is not distinct from Dharma, Tendai doctrine allows for the reconciliation of beauty and aesthetics with Buddhist teachings. Poetry, which once was a sin to be cast away, now in fact can lead to enlightenment. Contemplation of poetry, provided that it is done in the context of Tendai doctrine, is simply contemplation of Dharma. This same thing can be said of every other form of art. Therefore, it is possible to construct an aesthetic that is not in conflict with Buddhism.
Tristan Tzara, the Dada, later in life turned to Buddhism (Jerome Rothenberg has called it "proto-Zen"). Joseph Jarman, a member of the Art Ensemble of Chicago (who were blowing my mind the other night) left the AEC for Zen. He's a Shinshu Buddhist priest. I'd like to write about these journeys.
What is the aesthetic viewpoint that evolves from Buddhist practice, or complements it? I draw a division between the arts that engage in matters of what Buddhism calls relative reality -- the social constructions of our world, that emanate from constructions of the mind -- and art that seeks to show what is beyond relative reality, the ultimate reality at which point all is one. The former camp would include social realisms, protest art, political statements, etc. The latter camp would include many artists I am particularly fond of: Chagall, Klee, Kandinsky, folk artists, "visionary" artists.
Where would Diebenkorn go in that taxonomy? Or Alex Katz? They may be among another class: artists who engage with form and color and composition for their own sake.
Posted by nedlog at August 3, 2006 3:51 PM | TrackBack