This is an attempt to understand the artist's relation with the society and his surroundings and the creative process as an outlet for the innate spiritual needs of the individual.
In collective societies, the mentality of a group trivializes the
importance of the individual. (The collective insists that) The individual’s
dependence on anything which is not ‘common’ must be taken from him. But, art
is the subtle form of one-to-one dialogue which can directly communicate with
the subconscious. Art is born out of the irrational facts of the human mind, expressed
through a medium. It does not directly
refer to the social and physical conditions, but more to the psychic attitude
of the individual towards these. Macbeth
or Rembrandt’s Danaë is as relevant today, as it was in the 17th
century. What differentiates these masterpieces from say, a Bible or a Quran is
the personalised depiction of the (collective) subconscious, with no claims to
be applicable to every person on earth.
A religious doctrine presents a statistical average
intelligible to the majority whereas the artist has his point of reference
inside him, enabling him to exercise his power of decision. He builds up his
reserve against the overbearing force of the circumstances as opposed to the
collective who lacks any ground beneath their feet apart from the approval of
the group. The assertiveness of his individuality estranges him from the world
in the same way as succumbing to the collective, estranges him from himself.
His ownership of himself makes him act in order to substantiate himself, above
conventional laws of the society.
Members of a group, in order to free themselves from the mundane
nature of their day to day life, design rituals. This is a natural progression resulting from
the sacrifice of the self, leading to alienation from oneself, because
independent thinking itself is not allowed or is limited at the very best. These rituals lose their relevance and meaning
over the course of time and become mechanical activities with the majority
completely unaware about the reasons behind them. The actions constituting a
ritual are ‘de-individualized’ and documented, so that they can be performed by
anyone, even those who are indifferent to them. Over the course of time, we
have an elaborate set of rules and definitions which carry little or no meaning
to another set of people, space and time co-ordinates. The promise of paradise,
preservation of tradition and love of fate are nothing but hollow arguments
urging the individual to contribute to the status-quo by inaction.
Inaction in order to
reduce the ever increasing noise can be justified – it is better to be quiet
than to shout. However, inaction which abets the major obstacles in the
development of the individual- say, the caste system is criminal. In the same
way, actions which promotes the status quo, like looking for mates only from
the same caste/religion/class arrests the development of the individual. This
is so primarily because, the objective reality is subjective and having caste
as the basis for choosing one’s partner leads to excluding other perspectives
especially in societies like India where the different compartments of society
are water tight, even to this day. Where
there is no respect for another perspective, where the basis of procreation is
mass-mindedness, how can individuals with different perspectives be born and
raised?
In societies (like India) where the externalities are so
widely prevalent and rigid, any form of ideology or propaganda cannot break the
shackles of collective mentality. A
revolution which is based on the collective class consciousness is not possible
due to the non-existence of such a consciousness. Every person is unique and attempts
to suppress this uniqueness, in order to create a unified consciousness are not
only foolish, but harmful to the development of the individual.
Artistic expression and understanding is one way to overcome
mass-mindedness. The world is viewed by the artist from his own perspective and
nobody else’s. For him, Marx, Mohammed and Buddha are just astute observers of
human nature who had their own shot at immortality. If Marx’s tool for
achieving immortality was political economy, Mohammed’s was religion, and
Buddha’s, spirituality. The artist does not invent, nor does he intend to force
his opinion on others, but his expressions are attempts at (re)discovering
himself and his surroundings. By
realizing the personalized nature of the collective sub-conscious within
himself, he gives an opening to his soul and uses a medium he is well-versed
with. He tells others, the unique nature of his way of looking at the world. He tries to be at peace with himself and his
surroundings by identifying the details and giving them new meanings. He
overcomes the very limitations that make him, to rise above himself. In this
process, he rises above the mass and the statistical meanness of their thoughts
and actions.