Crisis in Modern Indian Art

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)