Ananda K. Coomaraswamy's The Door in the Sky is a treasure for a general reader interested in art and philosophy of traditional societies or a scholar whose field of specialty can range from Indian symbolism to medieval philosophy to Zen Buddhist art.

Coomaraswamy was an extraordinary scholar and teacher and philosopher of art with complete mastery of thirty-five ancient and modern languages (a count his son relayed in an interview). including ancient Greek, Latin, Sanskrit and Pali, as well as expertise in the arts and philosophical literature produced by dozens of ancient and medieval cultures and civilizations.

The way Coomarasawmy's writing fluidly combines insights and quotes from such sources as Rg Veda and Upanishads, Buddhist and Jain scriptures, Plato and Aristotle, Eckhart and Ruysbroeck, to name several, is truly remarkable. For the purposes of this review, quotes are taken from one essay: The Nature of Buddhist Art.

Coomarasawmy has no patience with any view that sees traditional art as somehow inferior to more modern or contemporary art, as if the traditional art represents an earlier, less sophisticated phase in human evolution. Rather, he views our modern world, with our emphasis on "realism" and "expression" in art, in some important respects spiritually inferior to traditional societies. We read: "Above all, must we refrain from assuming that what was an inevitable step, and one already foreshadowed by the `historicity' of the life, must be interpreted in terms of spiritual progress. We must realize that the step, of which an unforeseen result was the provision for us of such aesthetic pleasures as everyone must derive from Buddhist art, may have been itself much rather a concession to intellectually lower levels of reference than any evidence of an increased profundity of vision. We must remember that an abstract art is adapted to contemplative uses and implies a gnosis; an anthropomorphic art evokes a religious emotion, and corresponds rather to prayer than to contemplation."

Coomarasawamy emphasizes the role of art for traditional societies: art as a support to spiritual contemplation and spiritual vision. In other words, if all people in a society were at a point where their consciousness and experience of life developed to the level of spiritually realized ancient rishis or enlightened Buddhas, then there would be no reason to go on creating works of art since the reason for art in the first place would have been accomplished.

With this in mind we read: "It is otherwise in a traditional art, where the object is merely a point of departure and a signpost inviting the spectator to the performance of an act directed toward that form for the sake of which the picture exists at all. . . . to see the Buddha in the image rather than an image of the Buddha."

Stated in more general or universal terms, it is this transformation of vision, this seeing the enlightened spiritual essence in the image rather than seeing simply a static surface image that is the purpose of traditional art.

Here is a quote at the end of the essay capsulizing a major part of Coomaraswamy's philosophy of art: "We may have to admit that it is beyond the competence of the rationalist, as such, to understand Buddhist art. On the other hand, we are far from maintaining that in order to understand one must be a Buddhist in any specific sense; there are plenty of professing Buddhists and professing Christians who have not the least idea what Buddhist or Christian art is all about. What we mean is that in order to understand one must be not merely a sensitive man, but also a spiritual man; and not merely a spiritual man but also a sensitive man."

Coomaraswamy challenges us modern people to completely reevaluate our view of art and aesthetics - there is no mention of Picasso, Van Gogh, Monet or Renoir; there are no references to post-17th century enlightenment philosophers writing in the field of aesthetics such as Kant, Hegel, Schiller, Schopenhauer, Shaftesbury, Dewey or Santayana. Why? Because, according to Coomarasawmy, the very concept of aesthetics with its emphasis on taste, feelings and expression is an outgrowth of a way of looking at the world that has lost its spiritual, contemplative depth and is rather fixated on the outer sensual shell.

---------------------------

A personal note:

I attended a evening performance in a college auditorium of Tibetan Buddhist monks chanting. Prior to the monks entering the stage, the translator who accompanied the monks on their tour said a few words about the performance: how the monks' chanting is done in the same way as in their monastery; how their chanting is done for the benefit and enlightenment of all beings. ----- This is the traditional view Coomaraswamy alludes to in his essays: art is a tool or means, the end being spiritual growth.

Two weeks prior, I attending a performance in the same auditorium of a string quartet, music of Mozart and Schubert. The musicians simply came on stage, bowed and played. ---- This is our modern world. The music is performed and the value is in the music itself, including the creativity of the composer, the expert artistry of the musicians and the aesthetic experience of the audience. In a way, 'art for art sake'.

I myself very much appreciate both approaches. Hey, why not? This is the 21st century, we can be eclectic. ( )

Ananda K. Coomaraswamy's The Door in the Sky is a treasure for a general reader interested in art and philosophy of traditional societies or a scholar whose field of specialty can range from Indian symbolism to medieval philosophy to Zen Buddhist art. Coomaraswamy was an extraordinary scholar and teacher and philosopher of art with complete mastery of 35 ancient and modern languages (a count his son relayed in an interview). including ancient Greek, Latin, Sanskrit and Pali, as well as expertise in the arts and philosophical literature produced by dozens of ancient and medieval cultures and civilizations.

The way Coomarasawmy's writing fluidly combines insights and quotes from such sources as the Rg Veda and the Upanishads, Buddhist and Jain scriptures, Plato and Aristotle, Eckhart and Ruysbroeck, to name several, is truly remarkable. For the purposes of this review, quotes are taken from one essay: The Nature of Buddhist Art.

Coomarasawmy has no patience with any view that sees traditional art as somehow inferior to more modern or contemporary art, as if the traditional art represents an earlier, less sophisticated phase in human evolution. Rather, he views our modern world, with our emphasis on `realism' and `expression' in art, in some important respects spiritually inferior to traditional societies. We read: "Above all, must we refrain from assuming that what was an inevitable step, and one already foreshadowed by the `historicity' of the life, must be interpreted in terms of spiritual progress. We must realize that the step, of which an unforeseen result was the provision for us of such aesthetic pleasures as everyone must derive from Buddhist art, may have been itself much rather a concession to intellectually lower levels of reference than any evidence of an increased profundity of vision. We must remember that an abstract art is adapted to contemplative uses and implies a gnosis; an anthropomorphic art evokes a religious emotion, and corresponds rather to prayer than to contemplation."

Coomarasawamy emphasizes the role of art for traditional societies - art as a support to spiritual contemplation and spiritual vision. In other words, if all people in a society were at a point where their consciousness and experience of life developed to the level of spiritually realized ancient rishis or enlightened Buddhas, then there would be no reason to go on creating works of art since the reason for art in the first place would have been accomplished.

With this in mind we read: "It is otherwise in a traditional art, where the object is merely a point of departure and a signpost inviting the spectator to the performance of an act directed toward that form for the sake of which the picture exists at all. . . . to see the Buddha in the image rather than an image of the Buddha." Stated in more general or universal terms, it is this transformation of vision, this seeing the enlightened spiritual essence in the image rather than seeing simply a static surface image that is the purpose of traditional art.

Here is a quote at the end of the essay capsulizing a major part of Coomaraswamy's philosophy of art: "We may have to admit that it is beyond the competence of the rationalist, as such, to understand Buddhist art. On the other hand, we are far from maintaining that in order to understand one must be a Buddhist in any specific sense; there are plenty of professing Buddhists and professing Christians who have not the least idea what Buddhist or Christian art is all about. What we mean is that in order to understand one must be not merely a sensitive man, but also a spiritual man; and not merely a spiritual man but also a sensitive man."

Coomaraswamy challenges us modern people to completely reevaluate our view of art and aesthetics - there is no mention of Picasso, Van Gogh, Monet or Renoir; there are no references to post-17th century enlightenment philosophers writing in the field of aesthetics such as Kant, Hegel, Schiller, Schopenhauer, Shaftesbury, Dewey or Santayana. Why? Because, according to Coomarasawmy, the very concept of aesthetics with its emphasis on taste, feelings and expression is an outgrowth of a way of looking at the world that has lost its spiritual, contemplative depth and is rather fixated on the outer sensual shell.

---------------------------

A personal note:

I attended a evening performance in a college auditorium of Tibetan Buddhist monks chanting. Prior to the monks entering the stage, the translator who accompanied the monks on their tour said a few words about the performance: how the monks' chanting is done in the same way as in their monastery; how their chanting is done for the benefit and enlightenment of all beings. ----- This is the traditional view Coomaraswamy alludes to in his essays: art is a tool or means, the end being spiritual growth.

Two weeks prior, I attending a performance in the same auditorium of a string quartet, music of Mozart and Schubert. The musicians simply came on stage, bowed and played. ---- This is our modern world. The music is performed and the value is in the music itself, including the creativity of the composer, the expert artistry of the musicians and the aesthetic experience of the audience. In a way, 'art for art sake'.

I myself very much appreciate both approaches. Hey, why not? This is the 21st century, we can be eclectic.

( )