HVK Archives: Artistic freedom vs social responsibility PART - II
Artistic freedom vs social responsibility PART - II - The Times of India
Arpita Singh
()
13 October 1996
Title : Artistic freedom vs social responsibility
PART - II An artist must be guided solely
by his/her conviction
Author : Arpita Singh
Publication : The Times of India
Date : October 13, 1996
We are back, it seems, to those dark times when, the
Muslim invaders damaged the temples. Religious . senti-
ments blinded them and they were unable to appreciate the
sheer beauty, the unequalled excellence of the sculptures
that adorned the structures. All they could see was the
sensuality of the figures carved in stone. But they were
not the only ones to be blinded by religion. Catholics
too, unable to appreciate the innocence of Michelangelo's
angels in the Sistine Chapel, covered them with layers of
paint!
What the invaders did was unpardonable. But they were
outsiders who had no notion of beauty as understood by
the aesthetes of the Vedic age. They were alien to
Indian culture, the mode of dressing in unstitched
clothes, the way of life. What excuse do the present-day
Ghaznavis have for the senseless destruction of priceless
works of art? The ludicruity of their argument hits you
harder when you know Husain's are not realistic paintings
in the academic mode. His concern is with design, lines
and colour. The only sensuality apparent is in the
application of colours. How then, can anyone take um-
brage at them on moral grounds?
As for an artist's responsibility to society and its
sensibilities, any artist - painter, writer, dancer or
musician - is a product of the society he is in and he
uses his art as a tool to give expression to dreams and
desires. Not his personal desires, for no art is pure
fantasy. He depicts society the way he sees it, the way
he wants it to be. Where then is the question of his
being answerable only to his muse?
At the same time, an artist has to assert his freedom to
chart a new course, if necessary, by striking at the
accepted norm. It needs courage to do what is not done,
to show what has not been envisioned. But that is what
art is all about. That is what gives the artist an
identity that is different from a craftsman's. Artists
are the torchbearers, their role is to lead, to throw up
ideas. How can such a person 'lead' as per the dictates
of others? It is a contradiction in terms.
All this goes hand-in-hand with discipline. But this has
to be self imposed, and for a specific purpose: to help
the creativity of the artist. Let's not talk about
exercising discipline so that an artist does not hurt
others sentiments. An artist at work is like a soldier
on the battlefield. He cannot think of those on the
other side. Sentiments have no place in such situations.
Work is his sole concern. To vary the metaphor, artists
are like yogis doing sadhana. Should a yogi pay heed
when people tell him that his is not the right posture,
or that his gown is not the right colour?
An artist must be guided solely by his conviction. This
does not, however, denote indifference or insensitivity
to society. The concern is very deep, and that is what
his art is giving expression to. And therefore, an artist
cannot be tied up by opinions and instructions. That is
not the way to create art, a primary condition of which
is originality.
The artist is responsible for his art, and he acknowledg-
es it when he puts his signature on the canvas. He may,
however, hurt a viewer's sentiments. In such a situa-
tion, it might be helpful to have an artists' guild, with
representatives from every sphere of the arts. In the
given clime of intolerance, perhaps there is need for
such a body, whose primary objective should be to clear
misunderstandings and safeguard the interest of the
artist. Not to enforce a code because there can be no
code for an artist. An artist creates fresh experiences,
and that is not possible by sticking to codes or norms.
Back
Top
|
