The Gift of Innocence
- Diamond Zhou
- Nov 8
- 14 min read
welcome to our
SATURDAY EVENING POST
November 8th, 2025
To see the world without defence is not to be naïve but awake.
“What is innocence? When Agnes uses the word ‘innocence’, I believe she was saying the same thing I do when I use the word. Where she always used the word to express appreciation, even to the point of intoxication, she could be physically overwhelmed by innocence. In her late work, innocence has a more necessary ring to it. She meant it. A painting could be an expression, intent, embodiment, a soul of perfect mind. She strove for this and wanted to make innocence her gift to others as her purpose and her gift to show.”
— Richard Tuttle on Agnes Martin
There is something disarming about that word innocence. In the studio lexicon, it sounds almost embarrassing, as if it belongs to childhood, to the untrained, to those who have not yet learned that cynicism is the mark of sophistication. Yet when Richard Tuttle spoke these words about his friend Agnes Martin, he used the term with a kind of tremor. He meant not sweetness but severity. Innocence, for Martin, was a discipline, something she pursued as one might pursue silence in a room full of echo.
To speak of innocence in art is to step into a paradox: it is the most natural state imaginable, and yet it takes a lifetime to reach. Artists begin in wonder, accumulate skill, develop irony, and if they are very lucky, spend the rest of their lives unlearning what they know. Martin’s grids, drawn with the lightest graphite and washed in milk-pale colour, are less about geometry than about shedding interference. They whisper the same radical proposition as Morandi’s bottles or Twombly’s late lines: that the highest form of intelligence is a clear mind.
Agnes Martin once said her paintings were “about happiness, innocence, and beauty.” That trinity sounds simple until you realise how rarely art dares to invoke such words without irony. Born in Macklin, Saskatchewan, in 1912, raised partly in Vancouver and later a citizen of the United States, Agnes Martin arrived at her mature style in 1961 with the debut of her grid paintings at Betty Parsons Gallery in New York. She had watched the bravado of Abstract Expressionism crest and subside; her own gesture was to lower her voice. Those early grids, pencilled onto square canvases, already contained her lifelong philosophy: that beauty and truth were not properties of form but states of perception. The lines wavered because the hand was mortal, and that mortality was the condition of perfection.
The early 1960s were a moment when abstraction was torn between monumentality and dissolution. Barnett Newman declared the sublime to be “now,” while Rothko searched for transcendence in veils of colour. Martin shared their longing for spiritual clarity but rejected their theatrical scale. Her canvases remained human-sized, their silence not cosmic but personal. When she moved to New Mexico in 1967, leaving New York and its noise, she exchanged the rhetoric of transcendence for the geography of peace. The desert offered her what civilization would not: unbroken horizon and a silence dense enough to hear her own mind.
From there her work became ever more refined, bands of soft acrylic wash divided by graphite lines, colour almost immaterial. Each canvas was a meditation on a single tone; each title a declaration that feeling itself could be an aesthetic system.
In her collected Writings (2005 edition, D.A.P.), Martin called happiness “the goal of life” and described it as “a clear mind.” Clarity, for her, was not the absence of thought but the absence of interference. To make art was to practice that clarity until it became visible. In this sense innocence was both her method and her subject: she painted the condition she pursued. The critic Nancy Princenthal later noted that Martin’s grids, far from being cold, are “records of devotion.” Every line is an act of faith that stillness itself can be sufficient.
Her affinity with Eastern philosophy is often mentioned but rarely felt. Zen Buddhism speaks of wu wei, effortless action: the point where doing and being coincide. Martin reached for that state with ruler and brush, building order so perfect it disappears. She once said, “My paintings are not about what is seen; they are about what is known forever in the mind.” That forever is innocence, the mind before desire divides it.
When Tuttle recalled how she wanted to make innocence her gift, he was describing a moral impulse disguised as aesthetics. Martin’s goal was not purity for purity’s sake but transparency of spirit. She wanted to see through herself and offer that clarity to others. To stand before one of her later works is to encounter an invitation rather than a statement. You stand there, uncertain at first what to do with so little, and then realise that “so little” is exactly the right amount. The painting does not persuade, rather, it allows. It is rare art that expects nothing of you beyond attention and rewards that attention with the faint pulse of being itself. The “grid,” so often misread as formula, is a discipline of disappearance. She knew that once the artist vanishes, vision begins.
If Martin’s innocence is the art of withdrawal, Giorgio Morandi’s is the art of staying put. He spent nearly his entire life in Bologna, painting bottles, jars, and boxes in a single small room whose window looked onto an equally modest courtyard. The paintings of his final years, those from the 1950s until his death in 1964, reduce the visible world to a few tones of grey and umber, so close in value that edges tremble like the surface of water.
To describe them as still lifes misses the point. They are meditations on the condition of perception itself. Morandi’s repetition is not compulsion but devotion. He knew that by painting the same bottles over and over, he could test the boundary between seeing and knowing. Maurice Merleau-Ponty wrote in 1945 that perception is “the meeting of the body and the world,” that we see not as detached observers but as participants in being. Morandi’s studio became that meeting-place. His brush translated light into touch; each stroke recorded the hand’s negotiation with air.
Look long enough and you begin to feel the vibration between object and space, the bottle leaning into its neighbour, the shadow softening until it becomes a kind of tenderness. Morandi’s innocence lies there, in that tenderness. He does not seek purity by erasing complexity but by perceiving complexity as peace. Where Martin achieved silence by retreating from the world, Morandi found it at the centre of domestic life, inside the same four walls, through a patience so extreme it feels like grace.
He admired Cézanne’s insistence that the simplest motif contains the structure of the world, and Chardin’s ability to paint utensils with the gravity of saints. Yet Morandi’s restraint is more radical. Post-war Italy was rebuilding its moral vocabulary after Fascism; excess of any kind felt suspect. His art, austere but luminous, became a moral example. The philosopher Benedetto Croce called this semplicità morale, moral simplicity, a virtue of honesty in form. Morandi embodied it completely.
The Italian critic Roberto Longhi, one of his earliest defenders, described him as “a painter of infinite calm.” Infinite because repetition, carried far enough, becomes revelation. By the 1950s his paint had grown dry, chalky, transparent; the shapes almost merge with the air around them. It is not abstraction, not realism, but a third category, something like attention made visible. If you ask what these paintings are “about,” you miss their innocence. They are about nothing, which is to say everything that remains when nothing more is required.
The philosophers of phenomenology speak of dwelling, the human act of inhabiting the world rather than dominating it. Morandi’s studio was a dwelling in that sense, and his canvases its quiet records. He believed, as Martin did, that beauty was not invention but discovery, the uncovering of what already exists when the noise subsides. His innocence was therefore not ignorance but reverence. Each painting a small act of thanksgiving for the fact that light, falling on a bottle, can make the heart stop for an instant and start again changed.
If Morandi’s innocence is patience, Cy Twombly’s is surrender. Where Morandi’s brush whispers, Twombly’s line dances, falls, rises again, like thought catching fire. His canvases from the 1950s and ’60s, scrawled with names of gods and lovers, once looked like the graffiti of a brilliant adolescent. By his last decade they had become immense atmospheres of colour and gesture, where myth evaporates and only breath remains. In Camino Real series, 2011, crimson and yellow sweep runs across the green ground in a storm of chaos. The gesture is spontaneous, but it carries fifty years of memory.
Roland Barthes called Twombly’s line “a trace of the body’s emotion”, neither writing nor image but the physical act of meaning. In the late paintings that act becomes pure trust. The brush moves faster than intention, as if the body had remembered something the mind had forgotten. Innocence, for Twombly, is that trust: the faith that a mark can exist without apology, that beauty might still be made from the simplest motion of the hand.
Outside his studio in Gaeta lay the Tyrrhenian Sea. He worked with the shutters open so that light moved across the canvas like weather. Those paintings inhale and exhale with the water; colour becomes tide. The sea taught him what all mature artists eventually learn that mastery ends where surrender begins. The line that looks accidental is in fact the final act of discipline: letting go at the exact moment control would destroy the life of the work.
Susan Sontag once urged that we “recover our senses” and abandon the mania for interpretation. Twombly’s late art obeys that imperative. It refuses to be read; it wants only to be seen. The mind quiets, and what remains is sensation unarmoured by theory, the rarest kind of innocence in modern art.
Henri Matisse found his own route back to innocence through joy. Illness confined him to bed and the brush became too heavy. He turned instead to scissors and painted paper, discovering in limitation a freedom greater than any he had known with oil and canvas. The cut-outs that filled his rooms in Nice are the purest distillation of colour in the twentieth century.
To call them decorative is to miss their courage. These shapes: leaves, corals, constellations, were made by a man who had watched Europe destroy itself twice and chose, in the ruins, to create an art of delight. His blue dancers, his palm leaves and stars, are not naive; they are declarations that joy can be an ethical act. Matisse believed that art should be “a soothing, calming influence on the mind,” but serenity for him was not an escape, rather it was resistance.
Bergson’s notion of creative intuition, that creation is a direct participation in the flow of life, illuminates these late works perfectly. The scissors move as if carried by current; form and movement are one. What we see is colour as time, colour as forgiveness. Even the Chapel of the Rosary at Vence, completed in 1951, glows with that same luminous simplicity: blue glass and white walls forming a kind of earthly sky. There, as in the cut-outs, Matisse turns colour into spirit, and spirit into clarity. His innocence is not ignorance of suffering but a deliberate answer to it.
Pablo Picasso, by contrast, reached innocence through audacity. In the 1960s and ’70s, while critics expected monumentality, he gave them play. The Suite 347 etchings of 1968 spill over with lust, humour, self-caricature, and unfiltered invention. The hand that had defined modern art now drew like a child unafraid of being scolded. He told friends, “It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint like a child.” The line may be rehearsed, but the truth in it is unarguable.
That line, rehearsed so often it risks cliché, still rings true. The child in Picasso was not the beginner; it was the survivor. Adorno once described “late style” as the moment when art becomes simultaneously free and untamed, when the creator, beyond reconciliation, works only for truth. Picasso embodies that. His late canvases with thick outlines, bright eyes, sudden laughter, reject the burden of refinement. After seventy years of conquest, he paints as if rediscovering the pleasure of beginning. The mastery is there, but it hides beneath mischief. Innocence, at the end, looks like permission.
All these artists share one essential paradox: experience that aspires to forget itself. They are not pretending to be simple. They are refining complexity until it evaporates. The gesture looks spontaneous only because it has been purified of hesitation. In this sense, innocence is the final stage of mastery. It arrives not before but after sophistication, after decades of learning what to omit.
There is a spiritual dimension here that doesn’t require belief. Every tradition, from Taoist non-action to the Christian idea of the unclouded soul, carries some version of this truth: that wisdom is not accumulation but release. In art, that release manifests as restraint, the willingness to stop when the painting no longer needs you. The courage to be quiet is rarer.
Theorists remind us that there is no “innocent eye.” Gombrich said as much in Art and Illusion, arguing that every act of seeing is conditioned by what we already know. Yet the artists we have followed manage to thin that conditioning almost to transparency. They practice what Merleau-Ponty called “openness”, the moment when perception ceases to grasp and simply receives. Innocence, in this sense, is phenomenological: an unguarded encounter between self and world.
Born into the Ming imperial family, Chinese artist Zhu Da, later known as Bada Shanren, lived through the dynasty’s collapse and retreated into silence. A monk, then a recluse, he painted birds and fish with eyes wide in disbelief, their stillness haunted yet unresentful. Having seen the futility of power, he turned instead toward what could not be corrupted: line, ink, air. His late work carries a different kind of innocence, not the untouched, but the unentangled; the clarity that remains when one has stopped pretending to believe.
Minimalism later turned this into an aesthetic doctrine, art that “has its own reality and is not an imitation of some other thing”, but for these artists, purity was never a slogan. It was a form of ethics. The painting owed honesty to itself, and that honesty took the form of reduction. Less was not fashion; it was faithfulness.
Innocence, finally, is a collaboration. The artist can only prepare the conditions; the viewer must enter them. Standing before a late Martin or Morandi, a Twombly, a Matisse cut-out, or a final Picasso, we are asked for nothing but stillness. The works do not perform; they allow. They remind us that attention itself is a moral act. In a culture that prizes noise and novelty, to look quietly is a form of resistance.
There is a moral undercurrent here worth naming. Spectacle consumes attention; innocence returns it. In a culture of speed, the unhurried artwork is an act of resistance. It gives rather than takes. When Martin said her paintings were about happiness, she meant not pleasure but peace: the kind that comes from seeing the world as sufficient. These works trust us to look without instruction. They don’t argue their importance. They simply wait, and in waiting, they transform the viewer into something quieter and more receptive. The gift of innocence is not purity; it is permission to perceive without fear.
Of course, innocence can be faked. The art world is full of faux-naïve gestures, deliberate clumsiness, pale palettes, cultivated awkwardness. What distinguishes genuine innocence is necessity. When simplicity arises because the artist has no other choice, because every added element would lie, the work breathes. When simplicity is adopted as style, it suffocates.
We seldom acknowledge how brave simplicity is. In politics, in writing, in art, complexity is the safe disguise of competence. To be simple is to be vulnerable: to stand without explanation. Yet all lasting art tends toward that condition. Think of Vermeer’s quiet rooms, of Cézanne’s apples, of the vast colour fields of Rothko. Each reduces the world to a few sensations and trusts them completely. Innocence, in this lineage, is not weakness; it is conviction without armour.
Perhaps this is why the idea feels so urgent now. We live amid incessant commentary. Every image comes pre-interpreted, every opinion pre-armed. To encounter a work that withholds commentary is almost shocking. It leaves us alone with our own perception, and in that solitude, something human re-emerges.
Even Theodor Adorno, writing late in life (Aesthetic Theory, left incomplete at his death in 1969), grasped this contradiction at the heart of art: that mastery culminates in surrender. He called it “the voice of the subject in submission to the work”, a phrase that sounds severe until you hear what he meant. The artist, after years of imposing will on material, must finally learn to listen. The work has its own logic, its own quiet demands. To yield to them is not weakness but trust.
You can hear this in Glenn Gould, while playing Bach with superhuman precision, he cannot help humming under his breath (actually quite audibly in his recordings). The hum is no distraction; it is confession, devotion. It is the body acknowledging the spirit moving through it, the mortal answering the eternal. In that sound lies the same tremor that runs through Agnes Martin’s wavering lines or the hush of Morandi’s still lifes: evidence that perfection is never silent, that true discipline ends in permission. To create, or to look, with innocence is to accept that art, at its most lucid, makes room for what exceeds intention, that something larger has been allowed to breathe and to be graceful.
Innocence, finally, is not about being untouched; it is about being touched and remaining open. It is what experience looks like when it no longer fears itself. It is the mind, cleared. It is art’s oldest promise and its hardest achievement, it is to see the world again as if for the first time, and to share that vision without pride.
That is the gift. And like all real gifts, it cannot be bought, only received.
CURRENT
GROUP EXHIBITION
CONTACT US
4-258 East 1st Ave,
Vancouver, BC (Second Floor)
GALLERY HOURS
Tuesday - Saturday,
11:30 AM - 5:30 PM
or by appointment
我们提供中文服务，让我们带您走入艺术的世界。
