MURDERS IN THE LAND OF THE NAÏVE – 4
Note: In this analysis, as in the
previous, Peter’s words are in Italics and mine are in Roman.
Peter’s
Attitude and Approach–D):
(1) I first encountered Aurobindo [in
an April 1950 photo] in 1968 in a yoga
center on 57th Street in Manhattan…I did not find it particularly
remarkable…. A few months later…I found myself in another yoga centre…on Central Park West. Here there were just three
pictures on the wall, one of them the standard portrait of Aurobindo (Figure 1).
I was struck by the peaceful expanse of his brow, his trouble-free face, and
fathomless eyes. It would be years before I learned that all these features owed their distinctiveness to the retoucher’s
art…. (2) Figure 2 is photograph of
Aurobindo taken around the same time as Figure 1. Note the dark, pockmarked
skin, sharp features, and undreamy eyes. (3) As far as I know, it did not appear in print before 1976, when I
published it in an ashram journal. (4) To me Figure 2 is infinitely more appealing
than Figure 1. (5) There is hardly a
trace of a shadow between the ears, with the result that the face has no
character. The sparkling eyes have been painted in; even the hair has been
given a gloss. As a historical document it is false. As a photograph it is a
botched piece of work. (6) But for
many, Figure 1 is more true to Aurobindo than Figure 2. (7) In later life, his complexion became fair
and smooth, his features full and round. Figure 2 thus falsifies the “real”
Aurobindo. (8) It is the task of the
retoucher to make the photograph accord with the reality that people want to
see. Hagiographers deal with
documents the way that retouchers deal with photographs. Biographers must take
their documents as they find them.