QUESTION
Dear Robina,
I’m thinking about art. Am I right in thinking that the cause of an art object is the mind of the creator, and the conditions are materials etc.?
I thought I’d ask you because you often draw examples from music or art. For example, when Picasso painted a portrait of Marie-Therese, the cause was Picasso’s intention/inspiration and the conditions would have been the opportunity or demand, the availability of materials (canvas, paint etc.), his physical capability to paint etc.? When Bach composed a piece, the cause was his mind and conditions would have been a church commission, the musicians and instruments that were available for him to perform?
I know these are very simplistic pictures, but I just want to understand the cause to be unique to the product and conditions to be those that support the production.
I’d be most grateful if you could give me an answer.
Warmest wishes,
I
ANSWER
Dear I,
To your question: the cause of the art object is the mind of the creator, yes, and the conditions are the materials.
But it’s good to think about what art is at the most fundamental level: what part of our mind drives it.
Actually, everything in this samsara we live in is just naturally a product of attachment or one of the other delusions. Certainly art, music and the rest are the product of attachment.
And not just the attachment of the artist to the product but attachment in the most bare-bones sense of its being a conceptual thought that exaggerates something, embellishes it or, as Lama Zopa Rinpoche says, decorates it.
Specifically, a painting or a pot or a sculpture is nothing other than the embellishment of the objects of eye consciousness — and the objects of eye consciousness are precisely two: shape and color. In other words, we could say that “creativity” is literally the embellishment of the objects of the five senses: shape, color, sound, smell, taste.
That’s it!
From the Hinayana point of view there is no wriggle room: the only art that’s of any benefit, that has any meaning, is what depicts the holy beings; or texts beautifully written. The only use of art is to bless the mind, create merit. And look at those early Christians, too. Degenerate times now!
But from the Mahayana point of view, because mundane actions can be transformed by a virtuous motivation, we can make art beneficial by doing it with a bodhichitta motivation: that redeems the action.
And then depending on the person, you add intelligence to the mix. Look at Bach! Look at how he embellished sound: unbelievable intelligence. He might well have had compassion, but certainly it was his devotion to God that lifted those sounds, made them beneficial, wouldn’t you agree?
Love,
Robina