The Collected Works of Chögyam Trungpa: Volume Seven (84 page)

Q:
How much does inspiration, just pure inspiration, have to do with it?

CTR:
Quite a lot. It takes inspiration toward cheerfulness and celebration, and a sense of gentleness to oneself and others—a lot of things like that.

Q:
So there is no room for the expression of aggression in this kind of art.

CTR:
No, that’s not quite it. Dharma art could be offensive to somebody, you know. In that sense it might be aggressive.

Q:
Well, you were describing dharma art as harmonious and peaceful. Isn’t that just one particular state of mind that art in artistic surroundings can help create? Don’t you feel there is also value in art that unsettles preconceptions and inspires fresh perceptions, fresh reactions, fresh responses? Is that kind of unsettling quality any different than the peacefulness you were describing?

CTR:
When we talk about peacefulness, we are talking about some sense of intelligence. There is lots of room for that, definitely. There is no ideal pattern that we should follow; dharma art is not regimented that way. There is lots of room for individual identity.

Q:
Could you talk about that specifically, for example in relation to the piece you just created? Could you say something about the process you went through as you were creating it, and then the effect that it has right now, as we look at it?

CTR:
Yes. Sometimes your project confuses you to begin with. Then you have to look into it more and find your way, find out that there is some particular system for satisfying your inquisitiveness. There is a lot to learn from that.

Q:
When you use a word like inquisitiveness, does it have a different connotation than it does either traditionally or in current usage? Is it a different kind of inquisitiveness?

CTR:
You feel that you’re just about to get something, but you can’t quite get it. It is that kind of inquisitiveness: some sort of prick.

Q:
I’m sitting here, sir, with your piece of art, and at this point I feel very nervous about it: I feel like rearranging the entire rest of the room. Do you know what I mean? We have a nonaggressive arrangement in a very aggressive room, and that aggression is coming across. This arrangement really brings that quality of aggression out; I feel it. So if you were really to live with this every day—I assume what you’re getting at is that the word
art
means everyday life—you would really have to redo your entire house. So let me ask you this: If you were to arrange a piece specifically to be in this room as it exists, how would you do that differently?

CTR:
Well, I would change this room. Or change the world for that matter. You’re right.

Q:
Almost all of the different fields of contemporary art are very involved with art criticism. It’s very difficult to separate working in art from the whole critical world that surrounds it. Do you feel that what you are doing is somehow stepping away from that?

CTR:
Not necessarily. There is always room for intelligence, and practically speaking, criticism is very helpful. Working with criticism could be our way, as artists, to develop further intelligence. We can’t just rely on false security and feel that since we belong to some tradition, therefore we are okay.

Q:
But what kind of criticism would apply to a work like this? Historical criticism? Comments such as, “Well, that didn’t work,” or “That didn’t kill me,” or maybe, “That element works or doesn’t work”? Could we discuss it that way?

CTR:
Sure. We could.

Q:
What are the criteria?

CTR:
I suppose the criterion is whether the creation itself has enough harmony, or if it lacks something as a result of sloppiness and shortcomings of all sorts: not paying attention to the details, the balance and everything else.

Q:
So if you were a teacher of this kind of art and someone presented you with a piece, you could literally point to parts of it and say, “That does work and that doesn’t work”

CTR:
Absolutely. In fact, that can be done with this sort of art much more easily than most of the art in the traditional critics’ world. From that point of view, this art is very, very precise, extremely precise.

Q:
Do you think there is a set of general principles involved here that can be applied to any other artistic discipline?

CTR:
Definitely. We talk about three principles: heaven, earth, and man. There is the basic notion of joining heaven and earth and man together. In flower arranging, heaven is the main branch that we put in first; earth is the second branch that we put in the back; and then man principle is the flowers and any other paraphernalia that we might put in the front. There are those three things.

Q:
Does that apply to every piece you approach?

CTR:
It applies to anything you do: making a cup of tea, designing a building, whatever. You have to have the first thought, then the second thought, and then the final conclusion and whatever paraphernalia goes with it cosmetically. That makes things complete.

Q:
So when you approach a piece, do you first say, “Now I’m going to deal with the sky,” and then you go and do that; and then, “Now I have to deal with the earth part, and I’ll put this here”? I mean, do you actually approach it that consciously?

CTR:
Yes. There has to be some system of making it clear. Otherwise you just do anything, and that makes you very confused and angry as well.

Q:
What about intuitive art?

CTR:
Heaven, earth, and man are part of intuition as well. They are based on the system of how we think, ordinarily speaking. It is like turning on the engine, then putting the car in gear, and then driving. Everything goes in that threefold way.

Q:
Don’t you think somebody with a certain amount of highly developed intuition and perception could just do something without having been trained? Couldn’t someone simply instinctively create something?

CTR:
Well, I suppose the original founders of the tantric tradition did that, but at this point, their discovery has become our path.

Q:
If we took a look at a conventional painting, could you distinguish the heaven, earth, and man principles? It seems that in much of the contemporary Western art that we see, although the artists clearly haven’t been trained in or exposed to this system, somehow they have developed it on their own. They probably wouldn’t describe it in the words that you use, but they seem to have developed it independently. Or is that really not possible unless they have been trained?

CTR:
Well, they have to be trained somewhere. At least they have to know how to hold a brush and how to work with ink. Even at that level the three principles are involved. That is not necessarily Oriental at all. In all traditions, you learn how to start things. You have to go to school somewhere and ask someone how to do it, and then you get the point.

Q:
But isn’t there art that involves a different kind of training that doesn’t achieve these specific results?

CTR:
Sure, but still the artist sees the Great Eastern Sun, always.

Q:
So basically you are saying that any piece of art that has quality has these three principles, whether the artist is conscious of it or not.

CTR:
Yes, it exists in any culture; it is beyond culture.

Q:
In the presentation of these kinds of Oriental arts, is there always that understanding that the principles are beyond culture? Don’t you think it often slips and becomes a subtle propaganda for certain cultures, a certain way of doing things?

CTR:
I think there are a lot of trips involved with that. If there is too much emphasis on a particular culture, it ceases to be real art. There is that problem always. You will find, actually, that the way Oriental art is viewed in the West is exactly the same as the way Occidental art is viewed in the East. Exactly the same sort of perversion takes place.

Q:
Are you saying that without these qualities, art basically will not be effective on a deeper level, that it will not be more than just a pleasant picture?

CTR:
Well, that’s the truth of superficial art: it is purely something pretty. Then there is a deeper level, which is more than merely something pretty. True art brings out the basic goodness of human beings altogether.

Q:
Do you feel that art, such as this piece, is meant to affect people on a particular level, or is it just meant to be viewed?

CTR:
Ideally speaking, a work of art should have some depth to communicate to man’s insight, rather than being purely a nice thing to have in your house. It should have a profound effect. That seems to be the literal meaning of art, even from the dictionary’s point of view.

Q:
A lot of contemporary American art seems to deal with ideas; it is intellectual. Your piece, aside from being traditional, is more along the lines of what you see is what you get. There are not a lot of contemporary ideas behind it. It seems that the way in which ideas produce contemporary art is one level that your art does not work on, at least for me.

CTR:
Yes. I think it is a question of how much kindness begins to permeate a work as the artist becomes settled in his or her own particular discipline, how much softness and gentleness permeates the work. That seems to be the fundamental basic criterion for any art. Sometimes a lot of art creates frustration and destruction in a fundamental sense. Whether or not an artist is famous and has been around, whether or not he speaks the language of millions of dollars, still his art may have that bad message, which is a kind of pollution. Then there is other art that serves to clear the pollution. That is what we should aim for.

Q:
Isn’t there a danger that searching for the harmonious could create an idealistic kind of art, an art that has to stretch a little to produce the harmony and beauty? There have been periods of art that have done that, so that what you look at on the walls seems to be some kind of wishful vision.

CTR:
The main point is that in order to see the harmony in your situation, you have to study the chaos first. Even in the process of creating harmonious art, you have to experience what is not harmonious. That allows you to see every aspect of it, both sides, black and white. At that point you begin to respect both sides, chaos as well as harmony, so you can go beyond to something that is completely unconditional.

We are not talking about just trying to shut off the ugly part. We have to look at both sides at the same time. And actually to begin with, particularly when they try to create harmonious art, artists seem to end up producing more chaos. Beginning students always end up with more chaos, which is fine, good. They have to go through that difficulty. Then finally, because they have dealt with so much chaos already, they begin to realize what real harmony is. It’s a cycle they go through.

Q:
Isn’t there some value to an artist who explores certain aspects of the human condition that may not be all that pretty to look at? Isn’t it important for those aspects to be explored by some artists, and mirrored back to society, so that society can take a look at itself on some level? Isn’t that just as valid as creating art that does produce harmony and has good grace?

CTR:
Sure, I think so. But at the same time, the fundamental human quality is supposed to be good; it is not wicked. That’s what we are looking for.

An excerpt from a September 9, 1980, press conference in Los Angeles with Rinpoche and editors of Zero,
Ten Directions,
and
Wet
magazines.

Art and Education

W
ELCOME, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
I’m afraid I haven’t prepared any of my talk tonight. I am hoping that you can provide some reference point for me. I am putting my trust in you, which is perhaps another way of working with the concept of art and education. Now that you are all here, and now that I’m here, I feel quite comfortable, so maybe we could begin our talk.

This topic was chosen because the integrity of Naropa Institute is largely based on the idea of human development. Human development consists of discipline and the sharpening of insight. Hopefully the students of Naropa Institute could share what they have developed with the rest of the world.

In connection with human development, art is a rather vast subject. It includes the practice of meditation, learning about ourselves, and discovering the nonexistence of our ego (which begins with our discussing the existence of our ego).

We don’t regard ourselves as a strictly Buddhist institution; we regard ourselves as a Buddhist-inspired situation. Without that inspiration, there would be no basis for working with anything at all. It has been that Buddhist environment which brought us here. We could discuss everything quite frankly and freely: the way we grow up, the way we approach that growing-up process, and the way we relate with a further sense of discovery beyond the growing-up process alone. We could discuss how we can relate with ourselves as decent human beings, and how we can relate with our fathers, our mothers, our economy, our husbands and wives, our brothers and sisters, our friends, and the rest of the world.

I’m sure you have heard this from many other sources, from other traditions on this continent and in the world at large, but we might be so presumptuous as to say that our approach is unique. Our approach is very strange; it is unique. As a further accomplishment and as the fruition of the discipline of our students and of anybody who is interested in the practice of human decency, we have achieved, we are achieving, and we will achieve the shining forth of that decency to manifest as basic goodness.