I said at the beginning of this paper that Zen is often mentioned
by writers on Far Eastern Art. The connection between Zen and art
is important, not only because of the inspiration which Zen gave
to the artist, but also because through Zen was obtained a better
understanding of the psychological conditions under which art is
produced than has prevailed in any other civilisation.
Art was regarded as a kind of Zen, as a delving down into the Buddha
that each of us unknowingly carries within him, as Benjamin carried
Joseph’s cup in his sack. Through Zen we annihilate Time and see the
Universe not split up into myriad fragments, but in its primal unity.
Unless, says the Zen æsthetician, the artist’s work is imbued with
this vision of the subjective, non-phenomenal aspect of life, his
productions will be mere toys.
I do not mean to suggest that Chinese artists found in Zen a short
cut to the production of beauty. Zen aims at the annihilation of
consciousness, whereas art is produced by an interaction of conscious
and unconscious faculties. How far such an interaction can be promoted
by the psychic discipline of Zen no layman can judge; moreover the
whole question of the artist’s psychology is controversial and obscure.
Perhaps it is not even very important that the artist himself should
have a sound æsthetic; but it is of the utmost importance to the artist
that the public should have some notion of the conditions under which
art can be produced--should have some key to the vagaries of a section
of humanity which will in any case always be found troublesome and
irritating.
Such a key Zen supplied, and it is in the language of Zen that, after
the twelfth century, art is usually discussed in China and Japan.