SINDH COURIER

ARTIST AS A PONTIFF OF GOOD SENSE

Is it not necessary that the artist should be a good person, at least as good as his artistic creations? If there is a gap between the man and his creation, we shall stop believing what he says.

Dr. Jernail S. Anand

Points to Ponder                                        

The artist is only re-porting the original creation from his own point of view. And all his effort will go waste if the world disowns it saying that ‘art is for art’s sake’, and the artist created it for his own joy, that is all.

***                                     

Is it not necessary that the artist should be a good person, at least as good as his artistic creations? If there is a gap between the man and his creation, we shall stop believing what he says.

***

Art is a value a person adds to an event or a sentiment. In effect, it is imitation of an act or an object, which is not a photographic representation of a camera. When an artist produces an image, it is always the man plus the artist. What an artist thinks of a person, this is what we get when an artist makes his portrait. Ultimately, it is a matter of emotions which are created in the artist looking at an object, and then, when that artistic creation is set before the viewers, they too have a perspective. So, finally, the original object passes through two refractions- the poet or the artist’s, and the second of the spectator. Art thus modifies the factual material according to the imagination of the perceiver. All depends upon how the poet or the artist looks at it. We should not ignore the fact that, if the artist has made a painting or a poet has written a poem at one point of time, the very next moment, it will be all different. This is the protean nature of art. The object may not grow, but the eye that looks at it grows up or down, and creates an image according to its understanding of a person, an object, or even a phenomenon.

Can Art claim Moral Neutrality & Immunity from Ethical Systems?

A major issue with regard to art is that it is morally neutral. Art propagates artistic values only, and it has nothing to do with the moral order of society. If we look at artistic creations, they boldly tell what an artist wants to say. We often come across nude paintings also. The purpose of art is creative joy which emerges from the contemplation of beauty. And the artist tries to pass it on to the onlookers. This creative joy and beauty have nothing to do with being good or bad. This theory was also called Art for Art’s sake, in which an artist shows absolute immunity from ethical systems. His only concern is to create beauty, and dispense joy and happiness.

What Aristotle said

When Aristotle says that art is meant not only for entertainment but also for instruction, a new component was added to the idea of artistic creation. It has to be recognized that an artist lives in a society, and he must create artistic creations which do not violate the social code. Yes, the artist may use his colours or his pen to highlight anomalies in the society. Art critiques the society in which it is created. This automatically signifies the creative and socially affirmative role of the artist. Anyone who critiques his society is purposefully engaged with its well- being.

Of Art, Beauty and Truth

The articulation of beauty by the artists is fine, but when Keats adds truth to beauty, how can the artist shy away from his responsibility towards the society? Truth is a social doctrine, and if artist creates beauty, it is not possible without involving the truth of his times. Thus, instead of being an autobiographer of his personal rises and falls, an artist becomes a chronicler of his times. He is a critic of his times. A man of taste whose works show what is good and what is not good for society. When we say, art for art’s sake, we are enclosing art in a cocoon. A bird in a cage looks fine, but that is not its truth. The ultimate truth and beauty of this birds lies in escaping from the cage. In the same way, when art comes into close contact or even conflict with its times, it gains authenticity and immortality.

Read: The Arts as a Lens to “See Life Whole”

Moreover, I wonder if any artist makes creations only for himself. Art for Art’s Sake will be a fine thing, we are creating objects for our own consumption and personal joy. But if you plan to put them in the exhibition, which is visited by the people, they start flowing into the streets. Now, the artistic creation has acquired a social persona. It will be judged by the people in the society and the mark of judgement will not be just beauty and art, but its truth. For which, we need grit.

Comparing the Two Artists

What we expect from a poet or an artist? Great works of art.

And what is great in the field of artistic creation? Is it only beauty? It is half the truth. The total truth about a work of art is its relevance viz a viz human society. Because truth acquires its meaning in a social milieu. Even if we talk of eternal truth, it is not possible to skip the human society. We forget that God created man. Was it not a work of art? God created Nature, is it not a work of art?  If we paint a few trees on the canvas, and call it a work of art, what about the real trees? Are they not a piece of artistic creation? The artist is only re-porting the original creation from his own point of view. And all his effort will go waste if the world disowns it saying that ‘art is for art’s sake’, and the artist created it for his joy, that is all. When we think of the creation of this world, it is believed that God just created this world out of fascination. Here we can say, he was just enjoying his artistic creation. But, a man is a far inferior creator. He cannot afford to enjoy that artistic abandon which God could enjoy. The fact is he is wedded, not only to his work, but also to the earth in which it is born.

Take Away

We expect from art, be it poetry, films, theatre, or painting, a certain commitment to life. In one word, it can be said that art is committed to the betterment of life. Artists who interpret the phenomenon, in their creations, finally share the vision of a unified world, and also share the passion of serving the ends of creative justice.

The big question I am going to pose and address is: Is it not necessary that the artists should be a good person, at least as good as his artistic creations? If there is a gap between the man and his creation, we shall stop believing what he says. So many people are making films, writing poems, and professing in loud decibles they are doing it all for the good of humanity. How will good of humanity be achieved, if the actor [the artist] is not good in his conduct? I mean, a man who is preaching good for the wellbeing of the universe, must himself carry goodness.

A poet if he is not good himself can never sing of the goodness of his society. Nor can an artist who does not believe in goodness create immortality in his works of art. This gap between the word [brush] and the action is a deliberate deceit practiced by lesser men which affects the efficacy of art viz-a-viz human society.