New-York tribune., 1922-06-04
Paul Gauguin
Drawn by Himself

was fine. 7 saw some Msmlings a
Bruges what maryels. my dear fellow
and afterward. on seeing Rubens len
,erinr into naturalisml. us come
down" Only n man with authentic
taste would have registered that dis
eliminating touch. But. again. Rubcnl
might have aided him through showing
him tho value OF discipline and con
struction. The truth is that there va
l'flc Z anything reflected in Gauguin''
cosmos. T. is PRETTY 20 visualize hin
as a man Of ideas Withdrawn 70 ar
exotic solitude and there spinnin:
masterpieces out Of his entrails. bat
though j., Be- pretty il ia not exact
He was q haphasard type. His char
tcferistie mood is thus hit OF TO Mon
froid:
u nm going % iet YOU into my
secret q bit There is a great deal
of logic In 70 ard act methodically.
From thc outset knew that Il would
he dav-to-dav existence; 20. natur-
ally. Two had % G,clstom my tenn.
noramcn' % that. Instead of vast
ing my strength working and worry.
ing about tomorrow ! put every
thirc i.to tire present. ike
fighter who does not move until
;hc moment % struggle. When !
20 % bed az night sag 20 myself
ono more day gained, tomorrow !
liav hc dead.
m mv wors Of painting IT is the
same thing. only think % the pres
cn,. But the methodical way j. 20
arrange matters so that things fol-
low smoothly. ard not do on the
5'h what should be- done on the 2Otn.
THO maIrcrorcs do the same and
at tho end quite a lot Of ground is
covered. II only people did not
spenf go much time IN useless and
unrelated work. Ore stitch day
that tho great point
Is i, the program Of philosopher
or % bcachcomber, Does j, spell
heroic concentration. or, az bottom, AZ
incarable irfesponNbility! The an
swer lies IN the broad drift OF his let
,ors. "scc what I did with my house
hold,' no cxclaims. 81 cut loose from
n without warning Ny family vii
get out ~ Us scrapes by itself, 50 IA
"a I am concerned want to hnls'
ms life here. IN this house, in perfee
uuict. All. yes. am a great crlminal'
What does il matter, So Was Michae
Angelo: and am not Michael Angelo.
We ignore the question Of criminalitl
and look solely to the question Of art
The difference between him an'
Michael Angelo was not a matter o.
morals. out one Of aesthetic principle
We see in him the beaehcomber rathei
than tho philosopher, because we se'
not man OF IDEAS, but creature o.
impulse. $50 far" he writes in 1899
Il have put nothing on canvas but in
tention and promises" lie was no'
precisely ashamed Of the avowah i
was better. he thought, than "thi'
eroa. fault Of treating all canyases a.
easel pictures" lie had no pstienc'
with the men who try 10 excuse then
.ack of Imagination, OF creative power
by the ancsse and perfection Of theii
craf,smanship.r II is a good saying
but. We repeat, Gauguin would have
been the better for more Of the verl
fnesse and perfection Of craftsmanship
which he condemned.
The explanation Of his failure lies II
4 fact which, by implication, is mad
sufficiently clear in this book
Through IN inevitable association o
IDEAS We assume that man who burie
himself among savages in the Soutl
Sea islands must have something prim
tive about him. Gauguin wasn't eve
in n rudmentary sense primitive
lie was as worldly-wise and sophisti
Gated a being as ever trod the pave
ments OF Paris. There is much tai
about his preferring the natives to IN
whites in Tahiti. about his adoptini
native dress and habits. Almost an
hard.bitten habtue OF Nontmartr
might have done the same thing II h
had had the same self-indulgent i'm
pulses. II Gauguin made a mess OF HI
life in Tahiti IL was because he hadn
the courage. hadn't the nature, to "g'