Page 6 Planet of the Arts INTERVIEW by Sandra Lockwood nt rr me a ce ce a eee Henry Elder, former Director of Architecture at the University of British Columbia is one of Canada’s most creative and open-minded educators. He has been widely inf- luential in many different spheres in both the Arts and the Sciences. Professor Elder is often asked to come to Emily Carr as a guest speaker to help enliven our senses and pro- vide us with a historical and philosophical framework within which to tackle our artis- tic problems. Planet of the Arts interviewed Professor Elder in mid-December in his Victoria home. S.L. “We like look to artists to save the future.” Why is this? HE. The artist is a person who deals in values rather than facts. He uses facts but deals in values. Values are the most important part of life. Facts die as soon as they are proc- laimed. So that anything that deals with values excites the imagination for the future. This is the purpose of art, to ex- cite the imagination and make life worthwhile. How one goes about this depends upon two things: the artist’s interest in the type of art that he produces, and the recipient’s inter- est in the ability to absorb what is trying to be said. If you produce something which in itself is conclusive, like a fact, then you won’t inspire. You will inform, but you won’t in- spire. If, on the other hand, there is something open ended, the artist will create that new interest and excitement that might go in all sorts of directions. It creates the energy for not only looking at the future but creating the future. S.L. Albert Camus, in his series of essays, The Myth of Sisyphus, writes “The era of the armchair artist ts over... one of the temptations of the artist is to believe himself sol- itary.” We have a stereotype of the artist as an impoverished genius who lives his life alone. If the artist is to be the light of the future, how can he exist in isolation? H.E. There are one or two things whiclr arise out of this situation which are important. The first one is that to look at the future is a threat. There is a fear of the future. If the artist produces something which looks towards the future he must expect to be called a threatener. This is one reason why he is relegated to the attic. He enjoys the martyrdom of the situa- tion. And anybody who enjoys that martyrdom really seeks art for the sake of doing the art rather than the recompense. This is the noble part of art. There is no such thing anymore as that armchair artist. The artist has the purpose of hunting to find out what he’s got to say, what he’s got to illustrate which either deals with the past, the present, or the future. If he deals with the past, this is an historical document. If he deals with the present, it is a question of interpretation. Looking at the present is one of the most difficult things be- cause if the artist points to what is happening now it is a shock. We don’t like to think about the bad parts of our own life. But the artist has this ability. He also has the ability to paint a very rosy picture of what is happening now, and this is terribly important. It breeds contentment to those people who need this sort of therapeutic help. On the other hand, if the artist can see the bad parts of civilization then somebody might take notice to remedy them, and should they do that, they are looking towards the future. S.L. Aristotle defined art as an act of conscience. H.E. Yes, and an act of doing. To Aristotle anything that was actually consciously done was art. This is true as far as Aristotle was concerned. He didn’t divide art into crafts or various types but he actually saw it as the result of an activ- ity. We, ever since the beaux arts, have tended to break down art into ‘crafts’ and ‘fine art’, and belittle the crafts. It is rather sad because the crafts are therapeutic in them- selves, and have this tremendous advantage of creating a sort of rhythm in one’s work, where one identifies oneself with the material one is using to the extent that the material and yourself become one. This is the really profound part of craft. The artist, on the other hand, might go beyond that. “This is the purpose of art, to excite the imagination and make life worthwhile.” Although many artists prefer today to stay within the craftsmanship orbit. To go further is extraordinarily diffi- cuit and some people don’t like difficulties. S.L. More and more, technology is needed to define the | arts. I’m afraid that if we become too dependant on technol- ogy it will cripple the arts. H.E. No, it won’t cripple the arts. With the changes in civilization the first thing to collapse is technology. Tech- nology depends entirely upon the the resources available, and those resources are usually limited unless they can be recultivated. Roman society was a very technological soci- ety and accomplished a great deal, but collapsed just as quickly. One finds this limitation in technology results from the lack of technology being identified with man him- self. It is identified with things but not man. So your fear of technology is quite ill-founded although it is troublesome. Technology can become a substitute for art. Once it has be- come a substitute for art, it means the artist has become a technologist. That probably worries you. It certainly wor- ries me. S.L. However, many scientists must become artists if they want to be creative in their research. H.E. I had the priviledge during the war of working with some very eminent scientists in both England and America. I found that they were very creative people. At the level of the top scientist there was no difference whatsoever be- tween the artist and the scientist. As soon as you leave that top level, then you get into the worship of theories rather than ideas. This applies in many cases today to artists too, so that the scientist is searching for a creative solution, but his method of working doesn’t help him unless he reaches that wonderful state of being completely independant of his system of thinking. S.L. Is it possible to become completely independant of one’s system of thinking? H.E. It is one of those rare attributes that the artist posses- ses. To be independant of a system you have to be either convinced that there is a need for change or to be so frus- trated with the system you are in, that the time has come for change. Once you actually are faced with that you will begin to say “Right, I need to have something different”. Then you are becoming independant of change. The artist does it automatically. He searches for new solutions, new answers, even to old problems. He is quite prepared to rein- vent the wheel every time he works, whereas the scientist feels this is a waste of time. Pano ofthe As INTERVIEW ira Lockwood Henry Elder, former Director of Architecture at the University of British Columbia is one of Canada's most creative and open-minded educators. He has been widely inf- luential in many different spheres in both the Arts and the Sciences. Professor Elder is often asked to come to Emily Carr as a guest speaker to help enliven our senses and pro- vide us with a historical and philosophical framework within which to tackle our artis- tic problems. Planet of the Arts interviewed Professor S.L. “We this? c look to artists to save the future.” Why is HLE. The artists person facts. He uses fats but d Jno deals in values rather than ls in values. Values are the most ‘important part of life. Facts die as soon as they are pro laimed. So that anything that deals with values excites the imagination forthe future. Ths i the purpose of art 1 € cite the imagination and make life worthwhile. How one ‘goes about this depends upon two things: the artists interest in the type of art that he produces, and the recipient's int cet in the ability to absorb what is trying to be said. Ifyou produce something which in itself is conclusive, like af then you won't inspire. You will inform, but you won't it spire. If, on the other hand, there is something open ende the artist will create that new interest and excitement that ‘might go in all sorts of directions. It creates the energy for ‘not only looking atthe future but creating the future, S.L. Albert Camus, in his series of essays, The Myth of Sisyphus, writes “The era of the armchair artist is over. ‘one of the temptations of the artists to believe himself sol- itary.” We havea stereotype ofthe artistas an impoverished _genits who lives his life alone. Ifthe 10 be the light ‘of the future, how can he exis in isolation? HLE. There are one or two things whietr arise out of this situation which are important. The frst one is that to look at the future isa threat. There isa fearofthe future, Ifthe artist produces something which looks towards the future he must ‘expect to be called threatener. This one reason why he is relegated tothe attic. He enjoys the martyrdom ofthe situa- tion, And anybody who enjoy’ that martyrdom relly seeks art for the sake of doing the art rather than the recompense ‘This isthe noble pat of art. There is no such thing anymore asthatarmchair arts. The artist has the purpose of hunting to find out what he's got to say, what he’s got to illustrate which either deals with the past, the present, or the future he deals withthe past, tis an historical document. [fhe deals with the present, itis a question of interpretation. Looking at the present is one ofthe mos difficult things be- cause if the artist points to what is happening now itis @ shock. We don’t ike to think about the bad pars of our own life. But the artist has this ability. He also has the ability to ‘ant avery rosy picture of what is happening now. and this is teribly important. It breeds contentment to those people who need tis sort of therapeutic help. On the other hand, if the artist can see the bad pars of civilization then somebody might take notice to remedy them, and should they do tha, they are looking towards the future. S.L, Aristotle defined art as an act of consei HLE, Yes, and an act of doing. To Aristotle anything that ‘was actually consciously done was art. This is tue as Far as Aristotle was concerned. He didn’t divide art into crafts or various types but he actually saw its the result of an activ ity. We, ever since the beaux arts, have tended to break «down art into ‘crafts’ and fine art, and belitle the crafts. It is rather sad because the crafts dre therapeutic in them- selves, and have this tremendous advantage of creating a sort of rhythm in one's work, where one identifies oneself with the material one is using to the extent thatthe material and yourself become one. Ths isthe really profound part of craft. The atst, onthe other hand, might go beyond that “This is the purpose of art, to excite the imagination and make life worthwhile.” ~ begin to say * Ider in mid-December in his Victoria home. gh many artists prefer today to stay within the craftsmanship orbit. To go further is extraordinarily diffi- cut and some people don’t like difficulties, S.L. More and more, technology is needed to define the arts. I'm afraid that if we become too dependant on technol- ‘gy it will cripple the arts HLE. No, it won't cripple the arts. With the changes in civilization the first thing to collapse is technology. Tech- nology depends entirely upon the the resources available, and those resources are usually limited unless they can be recultivated. Roman society was avery technological soc y and accomplished a great deal, but collapsed just as ‘Quickly. One finds this limitation in technology results from the lack of technology being identified with man him- self, Itis identified with things but not man. So your fear of technology is quite illfounded although its troublesome. ‘Technology can become a substitute for at. Once it has be- come a substitute for art, it means the atist has become a technologist. That probably worties you. It certainly wor- S.L. However, many scientists must become artists ifthey ‘want to be creative in their research. HLE. {had the priviledge during the war of working with some very eminent scientists in bth England and America. ound that they were very creative people. At the level of the top scientist there was no difference whatsoever be- tween the artist and the scientist. As soon as you leave that level, then you get into the worship of theories rather than ideas. This applies in many cases today to artists too, so thatthe scientist i searching fora creative solution, but his method of working doesnt help him unless he reaches. that wonderful state of being completely independant of his system of thinking S.L. 1s it possible to become completely independant of ‘one's system of thinking? HLE. It is one of those rare attributes that the artist posses- ses. To be independant ofa system you have tobe either Convinced that there is « ned for change orto be so frus- trated with the system you ae in, that the time has come for change. Once you actually are faced with that you wil ight, I need to have something diferent. Then you are becoming independant of change. The artist does it sutomatically. He searches for new solutions, new answers, even told problems, He is quite prepared to rei ‘ent the wheel every time he works, wheteas the scienti feels this sa waste of time.