88
PARTISAN REVIEW
something quite different. The light I speak of in Bonnard's work exudes
from the painting itself. In sculpture the light falls on the object from
the outside. But the volumes of a piece of sculpture
will
not begin to live
until they receive light in a favorable way. Therefore, they must be
composed with this aim in view. You may have a mass which is a volume,
but if it does not receive light in the right way, it will not exist from the
point of view of light. Light will demolish-disintegrate it with its glare.
But masses properly disposed can become a symphony of light. And to
this end forms in sculpture must be related in such a way as to create a
composition of reflected lights, shadows and voids.
"The great revolution in art in recent times was that of the impres–
sionists. And one of the great geniuses of Impressionism was Rodin. Per–
haps Cezanne was a greater intellect, but Rodin's artistic gifts were
superior. Rodin was the supreme master of light-composition in sculpture.
"And in our period Rodin has had a great influence on the leading
painters. For example on Matisse in his drawing, as well as in his
sculpture--in fact, on all the
fauves.
Yet Rodin is still an unknown man.
At Meudon there are some 1500 moulds never cast; some, extremely
daring representations; some, almost automatic expressions; some, forms
derived from the suggestions of ink-spots and stains. For me Rodin is
greater in his creative liberty and because of the doors he has opened for
sculptors to come. . . .
"It was cubism's reaction which broke the impressionist line for
our period. The younger generation will probably soon pick it up. Yet
~uch
as I admire the Impressionists, and Rodin, I always say 'I am a
cubist, I am always a cubist.'
"I am, of course, their Benjamin. My real association with the
cubists began in 1917. And cubism was always a painters' movement
rather than a sculptors': its viewpoint had little to contribute to sculp–
ture. On the other hand, sculpture brought cubist painting an emphasis
on clarity. This, I feel, was my contribution. Cubism, however, was not–
a school, an aesthetic, or merely a discipline--it was a new view of the
universe. Cubism sought a new way to represent nature, a manner ade–
quate to the age. Cubism was essentially a search for a new syntax. Once
this was arrived at there was no reason for not employing it in the ex–
pression of a full message. This is what I feel I have done and what I
am still trying to do. This is why I say I am still a cubist, but expressing
myself freely with all the means at my disposal from the cubist point of
view, not merely limiting myself to cubism's syntax.
"As for 'abstract art,' I was never an abstractionist, though I may
have given the appearance of being one. As a matter of fact, I do not
believe you can put the two words together.
If
you say art, you mean
something concrete. You may have an abstract idea. But art is creation,
not analysis; science is analytic, but art is of its essence synthetic. Art
for me is not a fragment, it is a totality.
If
you begin to abstract in the
