Crisis
in Modern Indian Art
BY AUSTIN COATES
There is a very strong mentality growing among some
of the educated classes in our country, which urges them to despise the artist
for what they call his isolation from the reality of life. This is especially seen
among the Marxists and Materialists. Much of this materialism and realism is
neither real nor healthy but only impotent claptrap filling the empty minds of
some of our middle class “intelligentsia”.
They accuse the artist of enclosing himself in an insular
emotional make-up without being useful to the masses (an ugly word!) and being
divorced from reality. Unfortunately for them reality consists of only
economics with a capital E. Obsessed with a deified working class, they cannot
realize that a beautiful thing need not necessarily be useful. To satisfy whose
stomach does the Sun colour the sky with a gorgeous embroidery of gold and red?
Need one be a proletarian to go mad with
“This glorious light that makes the butterfly
Go staggering like a drunkard through the air
Till he lies dozed and panting on a stone?”*
They seem to have lost the sensitiveness to see
beauty in life unless it is bound and conditioned by moral and social
usefulness.
This reduction of art to its utility value and
judging its worth only according to the socially useful ideas it carries (if it
carries any at all) is mainly due to their misunderstanding the phenomenon of
art.
Art is the reflection of the extra-individual
universe from the individual in terms of the beautiful. In other words, the
artist expresses the reactions and conflicts created in him by his surroundings
in terms of beauty in colour or sound or movements. When the expression is in
terms of a beautifully balanced and unselfish life we call the artist a saint
or a Mahatma.
Now, when the artist in resolving this conflict
realises that there is in reality no conflict and he and his surroundings form
a part of the same power, he reaches the plane of experience which is usually
known as the spiritual experience. Here the formless Beauty vibrant with a
profoundly silent music is comprehended. It is impossible to express this
beauty in terms of any human language. Only a suggestion may be made; but this
is inadequate in comparison with the real emotion experienced.
There is another form of art which employs only
abstract forms to express the emotions of the artist. It is true that these
abstract forms may have been suggested by the concrete. But the ideas have been
abstracted in the concrete by the artist. The artist may use only blocks of
colour or patterns of sound to evoke the required feelings. This is very well
illustrated in the paintings of Ben Nicholson. No better example in music can
be cited than the Alap in our classical music. In literature it is
fairly well illustrated in the works of James Joyce when he suggest certain
thoughts finely by means of the sounds of the words. This is so well-known in
Indian literature that it hardly needs to be illustrated. The ecstacy of pure
rhythm is the basis of Kathak dance.
The third type of art is that in which a definite
subject is chosen. This is the case in the usual painting, music and other
arts. And it is only here the question of the social value of art comes in. But
why should an artist be always bound by the social utility of the subject of
his work?
It will be noticed that the attack by these
realists is leveled not at the form but the content of art. That is: what is
the painting or the song about? In answering this question they curiously come
to the conclusion that an art which does not deal with the objective reality of
the world is not good art. It is only one step from there to the opinion of our
pseudo-realists and Marxists that the subject of art must necessarily be of
general significance and carry a revolutionary message to the masses, From this
point of view decorative art has no meaning; the folk dances which have no plot
or story in them but only an exuberance of rhythm and movement have no beauty;
the incongruous dream of Alice in Wonderland is not wonderful at all.
From what has been said above it should not be
surmised that a work of art must be devoid of any social or moral value. One of
the most beautiful poems the world has known–“The Sermon on the Mount”–is
deeply religious and moral. Who dare deny that the writings of that master,
Dostoevesky, have a social message in them? But this choice of subject must be
left to the artist and not demanded of him; he should not be conditioned by
these. As Picasso said: “One must act in painting, as in life,–directly….We
must not discriminate between things. Where things are concerned there are no
class-distinctions.”**
It will be absurd to pretend that the artist and
society have no mutual influence. This influence is very strong and is
necessary. As a matter of fact, it is this very social stimulus that makes a
person an artist. Great artists and poets have left indelible impressions on
the society of their times. Similarly, social catastrophes and conflagrations
have affected the then contemporary art.
Since this question is important it will not be out
of place to refer to some aspects of the subject.
The first question to be considered is whether a
work of art is socially acceptable. Though in most cases it has been so, many
are the cases wherein the artist has been branded as an upstart and been
hounded out of ‘decent society’. A good
example in recent times is D. H. Lawrence. In our own country no better example
could be selected than Jayadeva. This poet’s work, the Gita Govinda, is
even today considered obscene in some learned circles. Centuries have passed
and many a philosopher and scholar has apologized that it was only an allegoric
drama of the soul in its struggle for fulfillment. Even today the poems of
Jayadeva are not read without a blush. But when society is quite accommodative
and plastic, such heretics are finally accepted and even canonised.
Another important aspect is the effect of the
social status of the artist himself and the conditions of society on art and
its content. As the surroundings of the artist are reflected in his work, this
aspect is naturally significant. This is obvious in the difference between folk
art and the more sophisticated types of art.
Social condition’s in general have great effect on
art. The works of Dickens, Hugo and Zola amply illustrate this point. In our
times we see the effect of war, famine and economic insecurity on modern art
and literature. But these aspects of the problem should not hide from our
thoughts the point that the personal element is what is predominantly reflected
in art. The same phenomenon may have different effects on different artists.
More over an artist who deals with social questions is not necessarily superior
to the one who sings the beauty of his love. Is Hugo necessarily a greater
artist than Kalidasa?
We have seen that art is intensely individual and
personal. That is why when we condition this process with emotions that are not
intense in the artist, his work is dead and insipid. Painting tends to become
cheaply propagandist and commercial. The same misfortune befalls literature and
music. Decay sets in the very soul of the nation. This is not an idle fear. It
will be clear to anybody who reads through the literary works of our usual run
of socialists and communists. What can one say about these social workers when
they teach the village maiden to decorate the front of her house with the
Hammer and Sickle with “Long Live Revolution” to spice it, instead of a really
beautiful design? “The pity of it Iago, the pity of it!”
This decadence is mainly due to the death of our
very souls. The sense wonder at the mystery of life has dried up and the souls
have become mechanised and
“it is a desperate age of hurry and hustle and
the lyric muse has to take her journey
to her tryst of hearts on trams and buses”.***
* “Light” by W. H. Davis
** Pablo Picasso: “The Painter’s object”, quoted by C. H. Waddington in
his “Scientific Attitude” (Penguin 1941.)
*** Poems by Rabindranath (Viswabharathi, 1942)