The generative force of Symbolism was a strong negative reaction to Impressionism, whose only merit, according to Aurier, was to provide a reproduction of the surrounding reality, which although aesthetically pleasing failed to grasp the underlying essence of the object depicted. Refuting the superficiality and the materiality of Impressionism, Aurier attempted to redefine the concept of art by appealing to mysticism. Based on Neoplatonic principles, he formulated a new artistic dogma which he presented in his essay “Symbolism in painting: Paul Gauguin”, published in 1891 in the Mercure de France:
In the eyes of the artist, in fact…objects cannot have value as objects. They can only appear to him as signs. They are the letters of a vast alphabet which only the man of genius can spell out. To write his thoughts, his poem, with these signs, remembering that the sign, as vital as it is, is nothing in itself, and that the idea is everything, this, then, is the artist’s task. (qtd. Solana, 45)
In this fragment Aurier contrasts the idea of art as mimesis with that of art as an esoteric activity which aims at revealing a completely distinct reality by means of a “vast alphabet” accessible only to the “men of genius.” Art offers the key for transcending the world of perceptions with its fortuitousness, its finitude and its shallowness and grants access to the realm of the infinite, permanent and perfect things. In this context, it becomes the artist’s task to provide the liaison between the two different spheres, that of matter and that of spirit. His possession of innate comprehension allows the artist to regard the material reality as a “metaphor of the authentic absolute reality” (Rookmaaker, 198) and to understand the subtle, deeper meanings of that metaphor.
The concept of art as the product of divine revelation and the mystic interpretation of the artist were addressed also by Charles Morice in his prominent La Litterature de tout à l’heure.
Art is nothing but the revealer of the Infinite: for the poet it is even a means to penetrate into it. He penetrates much deeper than any philosophy, he prolongs and re-echoes in it the revelation of a Gospel, he is light that calls up light… (qtd. Amishai Maisels, 73)
In this quotation, Morice concluded that the essential nature of art was religion. Similarly, the artist was envisioned as the means of penetrating into the mysteries of the infinite. He had access to the evangelistic light and was thus intellectually enlightened. Numerous passages from Gauguin’s letters and other writings prove that the artist adhered to the symbolist view. For instance, in the article entitles “Paragone”, Gauguin offers a personalized version of the thoughts Morice presented. He stated that the artist is the necessary intermediary between humanity and not only nature, but also thought. Therefore, this is how Gauguin envisaged his duty as an artist: as an instrument of the revelation of a higher reality. However, it would not be accurate to equate this revelation of a higher reality with divinity in the dogmatized sense. (see Gauguin’s Religious Writings) In a letter to Schuffenecker he lauds Christ and his creation and declares him a great artist: “What an artist this Christ who sculpted in all humanity” (qtd.Solana, 56). In another letter to Van Gogh he draws a parallel between the artist’s martyrdom and Christ’s passions: “What a long Calvary is the life of the artist” (qtd. Amishai Maisels, 75). Bearing in mind, Gauguin’s religious writings we may conclude that as he thought of Christ as the “Ideal type of mind” he also must have envisaged himself as a model worth emulating by the whole humanity. However, he set a contrasting example to that of Christ, for Christ’s path was an ascending one, while Gauguin’s was progressively descending into savagery.