Extract from: Beyond the Stage of Time, Volume I Realised Realms. The Master of the Water, Pine and Stone Retreat

28 29 But the most pervasive subjugation, albeit the least obvious, was to science; or rather the inherent, scienti fi c focus of the western mindset, since so many discover- ies were made long before science was recognised as a precise, separate endeavour. Th at subjugation dictated that whatever was depicted as art must increasingly be recognisable to the intellect in a way commensurate with how the rational, reasoning faculties of mind viewed reality. Even the impressionists, when they began to blur the edges of haystacks and cathedrals, and play with e ff ects of light and colour as quasi-autonomous languages, were subject to ridicule at fi rst. Th e very term ‘im- pressionism’, now well understood as a badge of honour, was originally intended as a critical insult. So now we get to the heart of the matter. It was liberation from this long-standing subservience that was the fundamental goal of the modern western revolution in the arts. Th e various -isms involved were merely skirmishes in the greater battle; it was the liberation of art from servitude that was the underlying revolutionary aim, and particularly from its servitude to the scienti fi c mind. Th is, in turn, freed the lan- guages of visual art—line, form, colour and texture—so that each could become the autonomous subject of a painting, rather than merely a means to create a speci fi c religious or political image. Th ese new languages created a whole new way to approach the visual arts. At the same time, a similar revolution was taking place in all the other arts; a revolution that allowed James Joyce and Jack Kerouac to turn existing literary traditions on their heads, and John Cage to compose a musical work where no instrument was to be played. G So when precisely did the Chinese reach the same stage in the evolution of their arts? You’ve hinted that they got there a long time before the West did—is there a widely-accepted point? M Th e precise beginnings of true maturity in Chinese art are di ffi cult to pinpoint. Like most cultural transitions, the revolution was really a gradual evolution. Silent music was already in discussion at the time of Confucius, more than two and a half millennia ago, and by the twel ft h century was a widely understood part of art theory—which is more than we could claim for the West today, I suspect. Calligraphy transcended its lexical meaning to become a linear art form with its own language of line nearly two thousand years ago, while pictorial art shi ft ed from straight depic- tion to expressionism of line and form, particularly, in a gradual evolution between the Han dynasty ( 206 bce – 220 ce ) and the fourteenth century. Painting materials, tools and formats expressing this maturity were developed fully long before the Song dynasty ( 960 – 1280 ). Finally, in the period between the Song and the Mongol Yuan dynasty ( 1280 – 1368 ), the art of painting evolved to its most recent state of maturity with the so-called ‘three perfections’—painting, poetry and calligraphy, combined as a single mode of expression and forming more than the sum of their parts. G Can you tell me more about the signi fi cance of this? What role did art play for Chinese individuals and society once it reached this level of maturity? M Th at’s a big question. Its signi fi cance can be traced back to the ru scholars of the Zhou dynasty and the teachings of the Six Arts, when it played an important role in encouraging the sons of aristocratic families to become morally complete human beings. Th e concept and de fi nition of the arts were very di ff erent then than they were in a later age. Th ey included archery, for instance, and interestingly not painting. But as they evolved, they were seen as serving the same higher purpose as the things that are broadly considered art today. It was not until the post-Han era that poetry, music, calligraphy and painting became established as the high arts at the centre of moral cultivation. Th is understanding of the highest function of art, however mildly threatened in the last century, has been alive and well in China for a long time, and is in fact making a major comeback. G I can understand why these ideas might be harder to impress upon a western audience than a Chinese one! How well have these ideas been received by the wider arts community? Some of the facts seem indisputable, but even you still recognise that this is a theory. M Well, gravity is still just a theory, and don’t even get me started on quantum me- chanics—but they’re both working out pretty well for our broader understanding of the universe. To answer your question more directly, the reception has been decided- ly mixed! Th e fi rst edition of Th e Art of Understanding Art is close to selling out, so it has been successful from that point of view, but that might be in no small part due to the extraordinary illustrations by Peter Suart, which have met with universal approv- al and admiration. Th e feedback so far seems to come from two very distinct groups of people, and almost suggests they were reading entirely di ff erent books. It is rather bizarre, to say the least; but this is the way of all theories that challenge the status quo in any fi eld, I suspect. One problem is that what I am suggesting is su ffi ciently iconoclastic to the western mind that I am in danger of sounding either messianic or utterly deranged, or possibly both. When anyone challenges conventional and well-received ideas, it’s easy for critics to claim that they’re deluded; look at Galileo for just one of countless examples. I’m clearly no Galileo, but if I’m right I suppose that I am facing the same meta- phorical problem; trying to explain the movements of the planets and stars to those who still believe that the sun revolves around the earth. I am somewhat molli fi ed by the support of many people I respect in the arts, particularly and perhaps unsur- prisingly on the Chinese side. Generally, the response has been that westerners, and particularly the academic community, have tended to dismiss it. Th e more aestheti- cally sophisticated Chinese have been more inclined to wonder why I am bothering to even try to explain it, because they get it anyway—even if they seem to have lost sight of it under the in fl uence of the twentieth-century West in all spheres of Chinese life. I have one friend from academe, a Ph.D. and specialist in Chinese culture, who disagreed with my theory vehemently but read it all the way through anyway—that’s friends for you. He then dismissed it on the grounds that in his opinion not only was what I was saying questionable but that pretty much everything that happened