By Marco Alexandre de Oliveira
In his manifesto Non Serviam (1914)I, the Chilean avant-garde poet Vicente Huidobro creates the figure of a rebel poet who exclaims that he will no longer serve the “old enchantress” Mother Nature. In his words, this non serviam “was recorded in a morning of world history. It was not a capricious shout nor a superficial act of rebellion. It was the result of an entire evolution, the sum of multiple experiences.” It was, finally, a “declaration of independence from Nature,” a proclamation of emancipation from being a “slave” to imitation. The poet was now free to create realities in his own world, with its own “trees,” “mountains,” “rivers,” “sky,” and “stars.” From that moment onwards, a new era was beginning to take shape in art.
Interpreted from a (neo)humanist perspective, the manifesto by the founder of Creationism, a literary movement not to be confused with the homonymous religious movement, might be read as an allegory for an art not based on the crude material world of nature but rather inspired by the subtler mental world of the human being. The artist would no longer be bound to reproduce physical things but would rather be compelled to create psychic objects. In other words, art would no longer be simply mimetic (mīmēsis = imitation/representation) but rather purely aesthetic (aisthēsis = sensation/perception). As such, Huidobro’s “general aesthetic theory” would appear to reflect the tenets of an aestheticism that transcends materialism and grants art not only independence from nature but also autonomy from society, a condition that has been formulated in the (in)famous slogan “art for art’s sake.” A predominant or underlying principle in the history of modern and contemporary art, “art for art’s sake” was originally conceived to differentiate aesthetic judgment from moral value, and has since been understood as an apology for an art devoid of social purpose or any other practical use. However, in a world where both society and nature are suffering from multiple crises of human creation, one might question whether an “art for art’s sake” would be the true aim of art, or whether art might indeed serve another, higher vocation.
In “The Practice of Art and Literature” (1957)II, the Indian philosopher Shrii Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar – who elsewhere, in a series of discourses on Krśńa, theorizes on what he terms aesthetic science (nandana vijiṋána) and supra-aesthetic science (mohana vijiṋána) – rejects the aestheticism in vogue and offers an alternative: “The statement ‘Art for art’s sake’ is not acceptable; rather we should say, ‘Art for service and blessedness.’ ” Such an affirmation is consistent with the motto of his international organization Ānanda Mārga Pracāraka Saṃgha – Atma moksartham jagat hitaya ca (“self-realization and service to humanity”) – and is used by Shrii Sarkar to promote the spiritual and social role of art. The discourse begins with a definition of the art of literature based on the concept of sáhitya: “that whose characteristic is to move with (sahita = ‘with’) the trends of life.” Literature is then described not as superficial invention or enchanting fantasy but rather as “the portrait of real life, an external expression of the internal workings of the mind, a bold and powerful expression of the suppressed sighs of the human heart.” To do justice to its profound significance, according to Shrii Sarkar, literature must finally “maintain a rhythm that reflects the dynamic currents of society,” or in other words, it must not lose sight of the people.
Conceived as sáhitya, the art of literature is meant not only for individual self-expression, but also for social progress in the sense of movement. Elaborating on this idea, Shrii Sarkar proceeds to provide another interpretation of sáhitya: “sa + hita = hitena saha, ‘that which co-exists with hita [welfare].’ ” Such a definition implies that literature must embody an “inner spirit of welfare,” that is, it must be marked by an essential benevolence. Consequently, the “creations or compositions of those who proclaim, ‘Art for art’s sake,’ cannot be treated as sáhitya,” according to Sarkar, inasmuch as welfare is either lacking or is “relative” due to its being based on the “mundane world” and not on the attainment of any “absolute truth.” Art or literature would instead represent a “grand, benevolent flow of ideas with the common people on one side and the state of supreme bliss on the other,” or rather, a means for social and spiritual realization. Considering the aforementioned conceptions of sáhitya, the art of literature would ultimately be defined by Shrii Sarkar as “that which moves together with society and leads society towards true fulfilment and welfare by providing the inspiration to serve.”
A far cry from the non serviam of an “art for art’s sake,” Shrii Sarkar’s “art for service and blessedness” is a call for an aesthetics that serves in many ways, all of which end in happiness. For artists, the creation of art allows for self-expression and the sublimation of the interior psychic dramas of life, a process that may then be appreciated and understood by a public which is, in turn, moved by the artworks. Art also provides the opportunity to serve humanity by promoting the general welfare, which positively impacts artists and society alike. According to Shrii Sarkar, “[i]n that artistic movement towards welfare both the attainment and the bestowal of happiness find simultaneous expression.” Indeed, herein would lie the actual purpose of art: “the aim of all artistic creation is to impart joy and bliss.” In order for artists to be able to spread such happiness, in order for them to properly serve, they themselves should aspire to transcend the world of the senses on which their aesthetics is based. The “artist’s ideal,” therefore, is to be a “spiritual aspirant,” inasmuch as “[o]nly those who look upon all worldly things from a spiritual perspective can realize in everything the blissful Transcendental Entity.” Concomitant with the ideal of the artist, the aim of art is ultimately to serve for the attainment of universal happiness through the realization of the Cosmic Consciousness or “Transcendental Entity.” As Sarkar concludes:
“Art or literature is one of those sources from which common people get the opportunity to become established in the Cosmic Mind [….] The sádhaná [endeavor/effort] of the artist or the sáhityika [litterateur] has been continuing through the ages, and its aim is to see One among many, and to lead the many to the path of One.”
How to create an art that serves society and imparts bliss on humanity? Can the aestheticism of an “art for art’s sake” be reconceived or reframed as the aesthetic science of an “art for service and blessedness?” In sum, it would appear to have less to do with content than with intent (intentiō = exertion/effort), not only in terms of the artwork itself but also on the part of the artist.III In the creationist poem “Ars Poetica” (1916), Huidobro envisages both an art of literature and an artist or poet with a divine purpose: “Let the verse be as a key/ Opening a thousand doors [….] Let whatever your eyes gaze upon be created,/ And the soul of the hearer remain shivering.” Invoking the power of creativity with his summons to “[i]nvent new worlds,” Huidobro then ponders: “Why do you sing the rose, oh Poets!/ Make it blossom in the poem.” Such verses recall his aforementioned manifesto of creationism, with its call to invention instead of imitation and its evocation of the poet’s special gift or talent, which has been provided by Mother Nature. Yet for whom does the poet or artist create, and in whose name? After considering that “[o]nly for us/ Live all things under the Sun,” the vanguardist ultimately proclaims: “The Poet is a little God.”IV Thus, by recognizing the world or universe as belonging to humanity and identifying the poet or artist as a manifestation of the Creator, Huidobro unwittingly sees the unity in diversity and indirectly leads the reader to the unique origin and end of all artistic creation, whose true aim is thereby served, once and for all.
Marco Alexandre de Oliveira is a professor, translator, and writer who earned his Ph.D. in Comparative Literature and M.A. in Romance Languages and Literatures from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (USA), and his B.A. in Religious Studies from the University of South Carolina (USA). He is a member of the Liberating Humanities and Arts faculty at the Neohumanist College in Asheville and is the author of scholarly articles on Neohumanism. His alter-ego Gringo Carioca is a poet and visual artist based in Rio de Janeiro whose work has been published in books and journals and exhibited in galleries and museums in several countries.
I Huidobro, Vicente. The Poet Is a Little God: Creationist Verse. 2nd edition. Translated by Jorge García-Gómez. Riverside, CA: Xenos Books, 1990.
II Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan. “The Practice of Art and Literature.” In Prout in a Nutshell, Volume 1, Part 1. 2nd edition. Kolkata: Ananda Marga Publications, 2009. Retrieved from The Electronic Edition of the Works of P.R. Sarkar. Version 7.5.
III It is worth noting, in passing, that both sádhaná (in Sanskrit) and intentiō (in Latin) involve “a directing of the mind towards” something, in the sense of making an effort. See Lewis, Charlton T. and Short, Charles. A Latin Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1879. Available at: https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=intentio
IV Huidobro, op. cit.