[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : Art of Freedom - The What And The How
-
Subject: Re: ARTICLE : Art of Freedom - The What And The How
-
From: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <jaldhar@braincells.com>
-
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 05:26:25 GMT
-
Apparently-To: soc-religion-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Newsgroups: soc.religion.hindu
-
Organization: Consolidated Braincells Inc.
-
References: <ghenDzotvv.19y@netcom.com>
ashok <ashokvc@giasbm01.vsnl.net.in> wrote in article
<ghenDzotvv.19y@netcom.com>...
> Title : Art of Freedom
> The What And The How
> Author : Soumitro Das
> Publication : The Statesman
> Date : October 16, 1996
>
> A society that codifies norms of artistic representation
> to make them conform to any other is not a free society.
> A free society is one in which artistic freedom is poten-
> tially absolute - it is up to the artist to use as much
> of it as he wishes. The demands of an artist's discipline
> must take precedence over collective or sectarian ideals.
>
> In reality, there are a certain pressures emanating from
> the milieu in which the artist operates, some of which
> may be law, but more often than not exist in the form of
> religious and ideological taboos and social conventions.
It is instructive to note Das has neglected to mention the true driving
forces of today's art world. Money and notoriety. The point of Warhol's
famous soup can paintings was to show that art is a product to be
merchandised like any other. I wonder why there are no outraged articles
in the Statesman about this?
After all this significantly impacts artistic freedom of expression.
[...]
> The problem is necessarily modern. There have been
> societies, in the past where no such confrontation took
> place. None was needed since there was a degree of
> consensus between the ethical and aesthetic choices made
> by the artist and the ethical and aesthetic universe of
> he public. Because both were part of a broader social
> consensus the public was restricted to an elite repre-
> senting an order on whom the artist conferred, by his
> work, a certain legitimacy.
>
This paragraph makes little sense to me. A broader social consensus meant
art was restricted to an elite? What consensus was this then?
>This is true, for instance, of all religious art.
A sweeping and unfounded generalization. Where are examples from the
Indian context?
Take Khajuraho for instance. The temples there were partly built to
glorify the Chandella dynasty. But are they the sum total of religious art
of that era? When the political might of the Chandellas waned, Khajuraho
declined too and eventually was swallowed up by the jungle. Today it means
nothing to living Dharma. It's only relevance is as a tourist attraction.
But does that mean all
religious art ceased? No, the elite formulization was only one of many.
If anyone is responsible for art as a vehicle for propoganda it's
socialism. It is ironic that censorship has become the issue du jour of
Leftists when they have the longest history of practicing it. Need I
remind Das that the architect of India's constitution Ambedkar was involved
in book burnings? That the very laws being used to suppress Hossain were
put on the books by leftists?
[...]
> What is surprising is that almost all major controversies
> over artistic freedom - with the exception of Salman
> Rushdie's Satanic Verses - over the last century or so
> have revolved not around political questions, but around
> representation of sex, above all, the female sex:
Another overgeneralization. Das conveniently ignores the entire history of
Communism which from it's very inception has been involved in the
manipulation and supression of art. And both religious and political
censorship pale in significance with the power of commercial censorship.
The free market beats the pants off any ayatollah or comissar when it comes
to destroying artistic freedom.
[...]
> The Husain case is interesting because it shows how
> content can be misunderstood and rendered controversial
> by form.
What is the "true" understanding? Das asks us to put aside the orthodox
understanding of Hindu iconography yet we're supposed to adhere to the
orthodox understanding of Hossains work. I have no problems with
understanding what Hossain has done I just don't agree with it.
[...]
> It is possible to understand artistic freedom - given
> that this freedom is potentially absolute to include ,
> the right of an artist to desecrate, deliberately and
> wilfully, "an object held sacred - including religious
> figures by any class of persons". But, more often than
> riot, it is not even necessary to go that far. It is
> sufficient that an attempt be made to renew or reinter-
> pret an icon or a motif, to give it a radical subjective
> twist for the orthodox to start brandishing their torch-
> es. The expression is vague and if it is taken to quali-
> fy freedom of expression, dangerously liable to misuse.
>
But this idea itself can be put to misuse. If there is a right to
desecrate, who says it's going to stop with religion? What if someone
starts desecrating the things the liberal holds dear? Equality? Property?
the sanctity of human life itself? Das would say we should trust the
artist not to go overboard. Well, I say he should trust religious people
not to go overboard.
[...]
> A final word on the abjectly apologetic tones in which
> Hussain's defence was organized, careful to render obei-
> sance to the weight of tradition and faith and to manage
> potentially inflammable religious sensibilities. This is
> the mistake that Rushdie made and paid for, "accepting
> the truth of Islam", going around shaking hand with
> treacherous mullahs in the naive belief that he would be
> let off on good conduct. This is hardly the manner in
> which one speaks to the rabble.
Rabble? That's not a word a defender of freedom should be using is it?
Of course Das isn't really about extending the rights to freedom of
expression to everyone. He is the spokesman for an elite. Perhaps not an
awfully bad elite but an elite nonetheless with a power structure to
defend. He wants permission to attact those who threaten this power
structure but doesn't want them to be able to fight back. This member of a
competing elite sees through such rank hypocrisy.
