Authors: William H. Gass
Finally, in a world which does not provide beauty for its own sake, but where the loveliness of flowers, landscapes, faces, trees, and sky are adventitious and accidental, it is the artist’s task to add to the world’s objects and ideas those delineations, carvings, tales, fables, and symphonic spells which ought to be there; to make
things whose end is contemplation and appreciation; to give birth to beings whose qualities harm no one, yet reward even the most casual notice, and which therefore deserve to become the focus of a truly disinterested affection.
There is perhaps a moral in that.
Junichiro Tanizaki wrote that we “Westerners are amazed at the simplicity of Japanese rooms, perceiving in them no more than ashen walls bereft of ornament.” What he wrote is certainly true about Americans. We are amazed. Often, furthermore, we deeply approve; for simplicity—severity even—plainness—are pioneer virtues still held in high esteem by us, if rarely practiced now. Indeed, the simple, in our covered-wagon days, was directly connected, as a tool might be, to the hand and what the hand made. This simplicity implied less skill than it demanded determination, and it emerged from coarse necessity the way the vegetables we grew in the dirt near our farmhouse kitchen did: products equally of effort and rough chance, as crude as our first fence, and cultivated no farther than you would dig a well—not an inch beyond the reach of water.
The shelters we built were like the ground we broke and the implements we made—plain as their names: house, field, food, cloth, plough—simple as the simple liberties we enjoyed, though these were not freedoms from Nature, certainly, since Nature hemmed us in and made life hard; nor from thieves or Indians or illness, dangers common and recurrent as nighttime; but from society, from other people’s profiteering regulations, from laws we didn’t like, servitude, and our own past failures, from the exasperating complications of a civilization caught in the toils of Time, tied down by custom and privilege.
In a land whose very features were unfamiliar, where even the rules of life were strangers, where the past had been abolished so that everyone could feel they were starting life as equals from a line of opportunity which was the same for all; in such a land, with such a task, you had to learn to depend on yourself, to make a religion, as Emerson did, out of “self-reliance” and become a handyman, a “jack-of-all-trades,” as it was put. But it was also true that when you did need others, you desperately needed them—to form a posse, raise a roof, to bridge a stream—nor did you have the time or training to divine obscure intentions or engage in elaborate ritual games in order to discover whether another person was a friend or an enemy, a worker or a wastrel, dependable or weak, an honest man or a rustler; so you wanted to know immediately “how the land lay,” and the frank and open countenance was consequently prized, as were the looks of a man who had worked long and hard in the wind and sun, who appeared to fear God (for you were often beyond the reach of any other law), who had the confidence that came from overcoming many obstacles, who “put on no airs,” “wore his heart on his sleeve,” was entirely “up front,” and, as the salacious saying is now, “let it all hang out”—presumably his (his wife’s) wash. Nowadays, even a candid, blunt, abrasive boss can be admired because he has been “straight” with you, letting you know “where you stood.”
The simple, like the straight and the plain, is relatively featureless. It reduces the number of things with which you have to cope. After all, when crossing the country by covered wagon, you took winding trails only when rivers and mountains made the circuitous the shortest way. And in the Bible, didn’t God promise to make the crooked straight and the rough places plain? We liked the land we settled to be level, well-drained, free of rock. We often preferred the companionship of animals because they couldn’t talk at all and could be expected to act within their species as if in a cage. It was the body which dealt with the day’s difficulties. It was the body which built, which ploughed, which planted, and which, on occasion, danced and sang and played. The body baked. The body begot. It was not the brain.
So our breath was supposed to be too short for long sentences. Democracy didn’t encourage subordination, not in people or in any part of their speech, whether it was to fancy words or flattering phrases or complicated clauses. Honesty was suspicious of endless ramifications. Adverbs that didn’t contribute to their action were needless frills. If it didn’t matter to the bite of the blade what the color of the ax’s handle was, you didn’t write it down or say its name. Events were the chief ingredient in stories, and the main thing was not to dawdle but to offer up the verb and then get on with it. Ideas fuddled you far worse than alcohol. Theories couldn’t thread a needle. You read a bit from the Good Book of an evening because, otherwise, God might blight your wheat. And you went to the Sunday Meeting for the society of it, and for the same wary reason you read. What’s more, there was always another row to hoe.
How different this simplicity was from the sort praised by the subtle Tanizaki, and how misled we Westerners were when we admired an innocence we thought was our own. Those ashen walls, with their unadorned surfaces, the candles that lit them, the unpretentious wood that framed the windows, the plain mats that softened and warmed the floor, were there to receive the indefinite wavers of the flame, to grow uneven with revelation and concealment, to move, as if alive, inside their planes and provoke the profoundest contemplation.
While the walls of the American settlers existed to keep out the cold and be forgotten … existed to keep out the vast space of the prairie, which lay around every cabin like an endless sea … existed to keep out the high sky you could fall into like a pit.
The traditional Japanese room might give out onto a garden of gravel, a small raked space with one or two stones, which stood for a world or any mountain, each tame as a household bird. What of the planks whose grain will emerge only after years of timidity and suspicion, the mats that greet each footstep with a whisper which they pass among their fibers? and what of the corners in such a room, carved from darkness, where perhaps a thread of gold gleams from the flank of an otherwise invisible lacquer chest, where the
dimmest hint of an ardent desire may lie wrapped in alternating layers of shadow and silk so that an additional breath bends the candle flame? These conditions, these qualities, speak to us not of simplicity, not in our sense, but of the indirect and devious, and suggest—there is the word!—they suggest that these plain surfaces and impassive features are screens on which one reality plays while another lurks behind them, and may move, when it moves, in metaphysical earnest.
One kind of simplicity is reached, then (we cannot say “achieved”), when skills and means and time and energy are minimal. It is the sort of simplicity which looks not at the causes of things but only at their effects. Who cares, it says … who cares what drove the nail if now its head rests in the right place? When the larder holds only a bit of ground corn, a corn cake is what we shall have. Two “I do”s shall marry a couple as well as any cathedral ceremony.
Another sort of simplicity is reached by removal and erasure, by denial and refusal. It begins with features already played upon by the artist, with surfaces into which the candle’s flicker has been cut, and dark corners created with charcoal, so there need never be an actual niche or a real lantern, but only a steady, indifferent glare of light; for absences will have to be understood to be as solidly in place as any wooden headrest, waiting the head that will sleep. It begins by looking at decoration as if it were a disease, as a form of social mold, a sign of spiritual decay, another case of the showy bad taste of some nouveau riche, or the loud cosmetics of a whore. Beneath these excrescences, these layers of gilt, these scabs of fashion, is an honest beam, more richly grained and more interesting than all these distracting carvings; beneath this powder and this cream is a natural beauty who might again send the Achaeans against Troy; behind these nervous variations is a mighty theme; let us hear it. Just one time. So cleanly, so clearly, we cannot be confused, nor any flaw be disguised. We want to grasp the lines, follow the form, find the true source of our sensation. Then, when real simplicity has returned, when the essential has been restored
to disclose its few rightful properties, we may let fall upon it the pale light of our mind; we may shadow it with the darkness that lives in a few of our own thoughts; we may allow to cross it the slow movements of our meditations.
Let us reconsider, for a moment, the simple objects that our ancestors made: a plain wooden bowl, for example, hollowed from a sawed round of tree trunk. A chisel bites into the heart of that wood, eats into the center of its rings of yearly growth, so that shortly a spoonful of milk could be placed in it, and then a cup’s worth, although there will be bark remaining around the rim. The rind is peeled off, needless bulk is cut away, and by continued gnawing at the core, the tools of the carpenter create a basin we can begin to recognize as a bowl. Or perhaps hot coals burn the hollow in it. Its interior should be smooth enough to let liquids slosh, a spoon to scoop, a larger one to ladle, and it should rinse out easily. The wood must be hard and dense so that warm soup won’t penetrate its fibers. Beyond this, little needs to be done. For the utilitarian, the means cease the moment the end is reached. A little sand will scour the bowl; a little seasoning will secure the grain. If it were a size to conveniently stack—that would be a plus. Our sentences should similarly fly to the mark, deposit their message, and disappear, as if a pigeon were to become its poop, so when any one of us looked up to complain because our shoulder had been stained, there’d be no bird there.
Then why did we ever worry about the exact slope of the hollow our tools had chipped, the precise sheen of the wood, the slim line and smooth run of the rim? We certainly should have cared about how sturdily the dish sat, and how its sides widened so the soup could cool; but why were we concerned about the match of its rings, the quality of the grain in the base and bowl, the shape of the shadows which crept from beneath its sides?
This bowl is ceasing to be simple. Hardship forces the makeshift upon us; primitive conditions produce primitive results; urgent needs aren’t choosy; indeed, the sharp teeth of need close like a trap on any victim; but when circumstances are no longer as straitened
as they once were and a bit of leisure, some small level of satisfaction, has been reached, the mind can let go of the plough’s handle, can turn aside from its single thought and transform its lust into a little love.
The bowl has ceased to be simple. A word like “perfection” has us by the ear. Now we are seeking a smoothness, an evenness, an achievement in its completion that will take us days—months—beyond an efficient use of our time. We become obsessed (is it suddenly or slowly?) by geometry, by geometry’s deceptive simplicities, its lucent beauty, and we see how the bowl is but a nest of circles whose circumferences are steadily shrinking and whose diameters contract.
The bowl is a celebration of complexity. We’ve had to set several versions aside in order to start over, trying to improve its proportions, passing before our mind’s demanding eye, as though they were bathing beauties, images of other utensils whose alluring features may help us with the one we’re composing. What is this resulting bowl, then, whose shaping requires the failure of so many others, which devours this base and that rim, accepts a surface, adapts a form, distorts a tendency—acquiring qualities the way an actor takes on personalities in order to realize a role? what is this object whose making is directed by memory as much as by the pots that are broken when they fail to satisfy, or the bowls that are burned as kindling when the wind turns cold, or the words that are sent away from the sentence they were to serve in, and linger near it like disconsolate shades? what is this thing built so solidly of ghosts?
How reluctantly, in the United States, have we come to recognize that civilization is refinement; that it requires leisure, judgment, taste, skill, and the patient work of a solitary mind passing itself, as though it were both a cleaner and a cleansing cloth, back and forth across an idea, back and forth until the substance of it—wood or marble or music, in syllables seeking their place in some song—back and forth until the matter of it begins to gleam deeply from its buried center, deeply where thought and thing are one,
and therefore not solely from its surface, where a glitter may sometimes be glibly emitted, a glitter that comes just after a bit of light has struck, a glitter, a glit, before the beam has bounded off—a glitter, a glit—a spark, after which there will be only the light that has gone.
Apart from the simplicity associated with the pioneer spirit of America, we developed, also very early, a simplicity of a second sort, though certainly in some sympathy with the first: this was exemplified by the distilled designs, the purified life and even purer dreams, of a sect called Shakers (so named because of their custom of dancing during their religious services, and of being frequently and literally moved by their love of God). They were separatists, forming withdrawn and self-sustaining communities. They were pacifists like the Quakers (another name signifying uncontrolled movement), and believed in equality and in the actual, rather than the rhetorical, Brotherhood of Man. They were celibate and endeavored to live a life free of sexual tension and gender competition. They were undogmatic, preferring to follow their faith rather than preach it, drawing communicants not by argument and propaganda but by shining example. Since Shakers did not breed, they were never guilty of corrupting their children with their principles, and converts came to them entirely out of free choice and when in possession of a presumably mature mind.
“When a World’s Fair was held several years ago in Japan,” June Sprigg, a student of the Shakers, writes, “one of the most popular features was an exhibit of Shaker furniture. Chairs without carving, tables without knickknacks, the simplicity of Shaker stoves and baskets, even the white walls and bare wood floors—all these made sense to the Japanese, who recognized and appreciated the same simplicity based on spiritual principles that characterize traditional Japanese culture.”