ArtnChina’s Treasures in BronzenDoes the nature of the creative impulsenremain the same as it wanders,nfrom artifacts in bronze, jade and terrancotta made by those artisan-artists whonlived along the Yellow River under thenXia dynasty (21st century B.C.) throughnEgyptian architects, Greek sculptors,nTrecento painters, Dutch masters,nFrench impressionists, the Bauhaus, allnthe way down the line to the—excusez lancomparaison—Wsih Disney studio?nMany have asked that question, and thenanswers—as found in libraries full ofnart history—are somewhat inconclusive.nYet, looking at items in the exhibit ofnThe Great Bronze Age of China at Chicago’snField Museum of Natural History,none feels amazed at the fact thatn4000 years ago people knew how toncreate the presence of beauty in objects,nand at the precision with whichnthey infused functionality with elegance—annallegedly recent need of thenhuman soul. Necessity defined the shapenof those vessels, wine jugs, cauldrons,npots, censers, but immediately an instinctnfor embellishment seemed to takenpossession of human effort. Practicalninventions became inventions of artnwhose refinement could grace Tiffany’sndisplay window even today, even if theynwere produced from alloys other thannthe rudimentary amalgam of coppernand tin.nIt is not for us to evaluate the methodsnof casting bronze or to judge where technologicalnprogress was best applied tonarts—in Shanxi province, Mesopotamianor Crete—to serve mankind most propitiously.nThe Great Bronze Age ofnChina makes it quite clear that newnessnis a suspicious notion in art. However,nthere is an element of artistic sophistication,nperhaps even perversity, whichnmakes the enigma of human existencenrelevant to every epoch—time and geographynnotwithstanding. In this respect.n42inChronicles of Culturenthe mind-boggling remoteness of thenages was more persuasively linked toncontemporaneity by the Tutankhamennexhibits a few years ago. Moreover, thenrealization that when the Chinese werenmaking such artifacts, Abraham was livingnin a tent, impresses us only moderately.nAfter all, the message of Abrahamntranscends everything that can be ascribednto the creative impulse in thenarts. DnBalthusnThe Museum of Contemporary Artnin Chicago recently housed a modestndisplay of the works of the French painternBalthus. It was an unsuccessful, ifnnot outright aborted, undertaking. Entitledn”Balthus in Chicago,” it featurednonly paintings and drawings owned bynprivate Chicago collectors. Thus, it wasnmodest, if not meager, in quantity—nand the first reaction after visiting itnwas a gnawing feeling of undernourishment.nTo one who knows anythingnabout Balthus, it was like promising ansumptuous gourmet meal and chasingna hungry guest away from the tablenafter giving him just one delicious bitenof a succulent hors d’oeuvre.nWho is Balthus.’ Although his worknhas been shown occasionally in NewnnnYork, Chicago and elsewhere in Americansince 1938, and he even had a retrospectivenat the New York Museum ofnModern Art in 1956, he’s little knownnin this country. In Europe, his positionnis towering, and still growing. His fullnname is Balthazar Klossowski de Rola;nhe is a Frenchman of Polish origin, annaristocrat “secretive and reclusive . . .nshunning publicity and living a lifenshrouded in mystery.” He is consideredna painter of the 30’s, but he is still alivenand his fame and prestige are growing.nPopularly, he is known as a painter ofnprovocative feminine puberty, precedingnthe Lolita-type novelistic exploration ofnthe same theme. Yet Balthus refuses tonput his teen-age girls into any slipperynsituations: they are not banally attractive,nand their murky eroticism is nevernclearly stated or boosted by tinsel nubility.nHe paints them in flat strokes, withnexplicit literariness, realistically, butnwith an accent on visual nuances thatnare meant to express stylishness in lieunof trivial charms—a neo-elegance forgottennin postimpressionist art. He findsnin them some kind of childish malicenwhich becomes an emblem of humanness.nIn their slouching bodies he discoversndrama.nHis main title to glory seems to benhis restoration of realism as a daringlynexciting mode of painting. For morenthan half a century, we have witnessednthe contention in which the opposite tonnonfigurative formalism is either complexnexpressionism or naive symbolismnor vulgar socialist realism. Through thensheer intensity of captured actuality,nBalthus makes figurative realism validnagain. That his medium of communicationnis that most exhausted of subjects,nthe adolescent female—fully clothed,nbut vexingly provocative and opaque atnthe same time—makes his work not justnfascinating but momentous. (LT) Dn