Over the last twenty and odd years, average urban Indian and their leaders believed amassing money is the goal of democracy and in this country of eighty percentage poor and middle class, between the rich man’s beauty and poor man’s hunger, they opted for rich man’s beauty.

 During the last 15 years Sheela Dikshit turned Delhi into an icon of rich man’s beauty with concrete and steel making city unaffordable for ordinary or lessor mortals and thereby edging them out from city limits.  What these leaders forgotten are under these super gloss surfaces concrete will brittle and steel will corrode and neither do they elect nor do they possess heart. 

Look at the constituencies Aam admi party won elections, it is the clear sign of natural order of human society that affluence can never become benchmark in any democracy.  History of human civilization proves it page after page and chapter after chapter, its not  for food, shelter comfort that men shed their blood and killed but only was for the faith- the faith in justice.

Its better every one from politician, business men to socio-cultural icons to  learn from Aam Admi Parti victory as a symptom of eternal human faith in justice.  Exclusivity and monopoly has never sustained in human history, even oxygen if we inhale more than what we can, will damage our brain.  It is the nature’s order.

So let this year be humane and for human…

Happy New Year friends.

Artist

Couple of years back when my art gallery friend from New York arrived here in India, he unwittingly asked me how does all these artists survive without working? 

When I suggested to him that they are artists and they are surviving on art, he could not believe that idea of so many artists is surviving only on art! He told me there are couple of lakhs of artists there in New York, but to survive their all of them work outside art or connected to art to keep their practice intact. 

Juxtaposing that scene with another happened during my visit to Cochin biennale, when I was introduced to a gallery enlisted artist by my another artist friend as I am also working with an design institute, he dismissively said “oh hobby artist..” By declining my handshake gesture offer as he walked away without even bothered to have a curtsey response. 

Although my friend artist felt very bad about it, I could not control my smile as I know him working two to three pieces of art work every year  doing a dismissing act about  persons like me who work 365 days and still do what I wanted to do as practice. 

Other day my colleague showed me a thick book of German expressionists having more than thousand names listed in it and told me “ strangely we know only a few!”

Do any of those names will make it any lessor artist than those celebrities because of my ignorance about them? Fortunately that history book does not differentiate them for their continued practice.

If you look at Indian art market it is very easy to find the carrier graphs of artists in terms of money and fame peaking for a period of two to three years and gradually decline there after. In comparison to contemporary artists, pre market modernists were better off as they did not have much market to count millions so they were surviving on establishments like academy for much longer time and hence had a longer practice to showcase. 

Unfortunately what many of our contemporary cutting edge artists missing is their practice that otherwise would have given them a longer sustenance against novelty value market demands. 

Other day my journalist friend jokingly said that the biggest spectator of Indian contemporary art is now storage vaults and the biggest appreciator is its blinding of dark. Like those artists, their art works also struggles to remain in limelight 

Three years back my art criticism student went to meet her art icon of contemporary art scene in Mumbai, whom she revered like a sachin Tendulkar of cricket but unfortunately had to came back after a week, furious and frustrated. He not only did not keep up his appointment with her but kept on changing his appointment to the extend that she had to be there in Mumbai for a week. Even after when finally she got the appointment he called her to an elite restaurant where he was with a film star and couple of media person, where this art student was made to sit through his theatrics. On her arrival the first thing the frustrated kid did was throwing all her collection of cut outs and printed material about that artist into dustbin. This artist did not realize the loss he made! 

The problem is what my American gallery friend pinpointed on his visit “ Indian contemporary artists consider “trade as their art practice and not their art practice for the trade”

He may be right or wrong I am no one to make the judgment but looking at the
Art students of these days who believe or the market make them believe that their first line is the stroke of genius and are incapable to differentiate between exploration and an artwork, networking and practice, I am losing the scope of alternate view point. 

Recently an art promoter friend with whom I have had a very long good friendship, quoting his newfound  friends told me that I don’t realize I am losing out on art and my works are not relevant. I did not take any offence on his comment, as I knew where it is coming from.

What these people are not realizing is that art is happening at many levels in this country. It not only operates from where things are ordered to produce and sell, but also takes place at road side posters maker’s place, in art teachers class rooms, in rural and urban schools, artists working for melas, films, theaters, temples, interior designers, artists working with establishments, around art camps, fellowships and academic or art practitioners who survive on universities and residencies . It is a vast avenue for art in this country. Everyone is contributing to art and earning even as they are far from those auction house and gallery catalogues. 

Artists who buy spaces in media and art magazines to print their name should not preach to those whose name does not reflect in those pages as being rudimentary. I am not against being successful in terms of money, fame and name or the necessary advertisement and propaganda networking associated with it, But that cannot be the benchmark to make judgment on others. Certainly Storage valut art cannot dismiss market art of public that are more visible and contributing to visual culture of this landscape. 

Let us accept every artist work towards what they understand and believe, give them their due, their space and if possible help them to continue. I have seen hypocrisy of many artists from India who love the money of capitalists, sell them their work and blame that poor art appreciator as social menace for the only crime of buying those artworks. 

More over contemporary Indian art any way is a flux where you can pick; photo realistic work, modernist work, pop art and conceptual art from same gallery/ art fair and all of them claim to be contemporary. Nothing wrong about it but should understand that art also happens beyond their glitter world. 

Among many art engagement invitations and information a small letter from an unknown museum curator of a small French town, to this irrelevant local artist fell from the table inviting to be participant in an art celebration to commemorate a poet who survived Nazi concentration camp. Artist in me felt happy as I don’t earn my life from my art work but from my art.

Gandhi’s non violence and the crucified Jesus

When I started study Gandhi as a part of my artistic enquiry on persecution, Gandhi’s Idea of non-violence put a huge question mark in my mind as I found him  subjecting his followers and himself to immense violence in search of a meaningful non violence. He inflicted violence unto himself many times by fasting and he ordered his disciples to undergo traumatising violence at the hands of imperial British police  in pursuit of  non violence as a method.  His idea of sacrifice and moralistic puritanism or activities towards moralistic puritanism again was at many levels highly violent in terms of practice and performance.  Also it was intriguing why would a Hindu nationalistic organization kill him as he was seen as a sage representing the ideal of the Great Indian culture?

As the days went by these puzzles got untangled at many level at least for me, even if it need not be the right answer for many.

His non-violent method  was completely different from the idea of non-violence Budhism or Jainism has been preaching in India for thousands of years. Rather we will see his overture towards Christian theological ideals of sin and morality where the violence of crucified Jesus becomes the inspiration for righteousness and the imagery of hell becomes the moral ideal to insinuate the sin.

The big question came to my mind was why would he import the Christian Church’s script of non-violence as a method of resistance to a country of non-violent Budhism and Jainism and most importantly to a society where eighty percentage of the population are Hindus?

Here I saw the pragmatic leader who understood the social narrative of India and the political exigency of the time.  Congress to a great extend at that time was a social elite’s political imagination, who under the great umbrella of cultural nationality were holding onto  many elitist  societal and community ambition and over an above there were very few of  leaders of the time had the complete freedom of people as their agenda.

Gandhi realized  that first he had to uproot the congress leaders from application of their social agenda,  especially the brahminical order that  alienated  rest of the India.  Secondly he had to include the people at large, read non Brahmins, whose understanding of religion is restricted to  stories from Ramayana and other epics,  into congress fold. Thirdly and most importantly he realised his political opponents were British who never understood India and its culture owing to their top-down approach.

As a pragmatic political leader he had to create a political approach that will deal with all these issues at one level  and he found Christian idea of crucified Jesus as non-violent imagery to negotiate Christian British’s moral.  To  draw support  for this in popular imagination, he found  Christian morality equivalent in Ram , Christian equivalent of society structure, sacrifice and belief in vaishnavism ,  and  to culturally  uproot the culturally educated elite’s disengagement with mass at large by importing a different set ideals that still finds equivalent in socio-cultural structure in India.

He recreated tortured Jesus in every Indian in front of Christian British to corner them into ethical dilemma.  He recreated Jesus as Ram in every Indian who believed the morality of truth and Raj dharma.  He recreated Christian ideals of compassion and inclusiveness that British and British educated understood in every social elite Vaishnava vasudaiva Kudumbam.  And through these acts he brought entire nation, including British ruler’s consciousness to an inclusive political struggle for freedom where every one felt they are taken into confidence and  at the same time Christian British is effectively Challenged on their ethics and morality.

My dilemma slowly got untangled,  his idea of violent non violence does not remain a paradox to me anymore.  Now it is also clear to me that his idea of non violence would have been completely different if  British were non Christian.  If British were Islam his non violence would have been prophet Muhammad or Ali, if they were Buddhist his non violence would have been Buddha,  if they were Jains his non violence would have been Theerthankaras. 

Gandhi was a political visionary and pragmatic to the core.  To prove the point a little more, if we look at his acts little more carefully we will find that he never challenged the biggest structural problem of Indian society, the patriarchy and caste system of Indian society that are an antithesis to his political  democracy. 

This becomes very important considering he found merit in the collective strength of moral dignity of the weakest to challenge the mighty British,  but unfortunately did not find the same merit in  the same people to challenge the caste discrimination   by  the upper caste.  Rather than organizing the equivalent vigour as in the case of freedom struggle, he chosen an easy path of  naming caste Hindus “Harijan” and pleading with upper caste Hindus to consider them equal.  This may be the contentious issue that  annoyed Dr. Ambedkar. Dr Ambedkar realised    that Gandhi’s position  on caste issue was not as sincere as it was on freedom struggle. Probably it could have been also  possible that he believed the first priority was freedom struggle than class fight among Indians that might weaken the freedom struggle.  Of course we will have to accept, if we put  all his other acts in life together, he did not ever questioned the status quo of patriarchy in Indian society as sincerely as he did it in freedom struggle.

Now I know the violence of Gandhi’s non violence, because he realised Indian cultural system was not enough to put Christian British rulers to moral dilemma, for that he needs the language of crucified Christ.

Now I know why Hindu fundamentalists killed him, because they realised it is not their Ram and Ramraj he is preaching and practicing.

Now I know why Islamic fundamentalists disliked him, because they realised  in his political poly Islamic structure would not fit in.

Now I know why Gandhi should not ever be looked at as an individual,  a father, a husband or a friend but should only to be seen as pragmatic public politician.  We will find fault in him as an individual, father, husband but will never the same as a public political leader and persona.

                                                                        

religion and science

Religion and science

Foundations for all braches of science are axioms, unquestionable self-evidence

Foundation for all religion are holy books unquestionable self-evidence

Science proclaims universal rules , invent codes/structures and instruct methods

Religion proclaims universal rules, invent codes/structures and instruct methods

Science believes divisibility and multiplicity of space

Religion believes divisibility and multiplicity of space

Science believes in all prevailing energy that acts

Religion believes in all prevailing God that acts

Science believes in first/beginning/creation

Religion believes in first/beginning/ creation

In Science one who knows the method is scientist the authority of science

In Religion one who know the method is saint the authority of religion

In science…

(Did you say religion or am I confused….?)

dialogue with a foundation student

Yesterday I received this letter from a foundation student with some very interesting questions on art for that I don't want answer but have a dialogue... Identity of this student is withheld.

>

> Just a few thoughts and questions on Art, I thought you might be able to discuss  What does art essentially do?

dear xxxxx,

I don't think I have answers to any of your questions or otherwise let me put it like this that   I do not understand answers anymore? I am not sure.

 There is this story of Buddha. One day Buddha was sitting with his disciple Padmapaada at one of his chaitya grihas. Then one of his follower turned up to ask some question to him. 

He asked Buddha   " Buddha, is there God?" 

 Buddha politely replied " yes there is God"

The person looked puzzled and went away without saying anything further. After a while another follower came and asked "Buddha is there God" and this time Buddha replied with an affirmative no.

He said " No there is no God"

 That person also looked puzzled and went away. By evening one more person came and asked Buddha " Buddha is there God?"

Buddha calmly told him " I don't know",

That person also went away puzzled.  But by then Padmapaada couldn't control his anxiety  and asked Buddha " Buddha my lord, the knower of all, I know you won't lie then why did you give such a contradictory answers those three?". Smilingly Buddha told him " I did not answer you Padmapaada, I answered them. The first man was confident there is no God and he wanted a confirmation from me - so i told him there is God. Second person was sure there is God, he also came to me for confirmation- So I told him there is no God. The third person was unsure of whether God exist or not but he was confident I will have the answers- so I told him I don't know. The fact is no one should remain in their confortable belief and expect reassurance from out side when there is an enquiry. One has to evolve with that enquiry as there is no one definite answer or solution for any one question or problem. Subject may be the same but enquiry can be different so are the answers.

So when you ask me what does art essentially do? I don't have answers, as my enquiry of art is different from yours. I certainly do not want to suspend the baggage of my 47 years of enquiry on your 17 year shoulder. My enquiry is history for you. Done it and may be over as historical validity of a subject relies upon the priorities of the explorer than the factual development.  

So you should expand and explore your query especially when it comes to art.  Since Art by practice is an act of human imagination that need not confirmative to time (but essentially an utilitarian one).  Keeping this in mind may I request you to rephrase the question what does art essentially do to why do we need imagination ? Probably you will have your resolve

> As far as I understand, one of the means of contemporary art is that, it instigates the ‘viewer to experience a particular line of thought, even if it maybe abstract. It is a method for reaching out, connecting yourself with someone else by creating the medium to allow them to experience, to share that experience with you.

Let us look at like this,  when you look at the mirror what do you usually see

An image? A reflection?  An aspiration? A manipulation? An idea? An understanding,? A negotiation?  The beauty?  or the fault?

Who is the viewer here and what is the subject and who is the creator?  What is the experience here, who is sharing it? And who decides the objective?

Will it remain the same next time when you look at the mirror keeping the wonderful phrase of zen “ you never step into same river again” in picture?

If you could resolve these questions probably you will widen your scope of understanding where many of these issues will come up. (Remember during the making even cave art was contemporary.)

> From what I understand, Design helps you focus, narrow things down, put a frame around it. It requires for you to find your target audience, understand them, and then cut, copy, paste and edit out what doesn’t work and put in replacements until time finds better solutions, be it utility or aesthetic.

There is this interesting story about Mullah. One day Mullah went to meet  a lawyer. He explained the case in detail to Lawyer.  After hearing the brief,  lawyer told Mullah with confidence that “ there is not even a case here Mullah, it is an hundred percent winning shot.. don’t worry I will take care of this..”  hearing this hurriedly  Mullah got up for leaving.  The lawyer was shocked and asked him what happened Mullah? It is an easy win!! To that Mullah dejectedly replied “ forget it … I briefed you my opponents case…”

So where do you think the solution lies? in the process  or in the approach?

Does  process defines the approach or approach defines the process?  If you reverse a process wouldn’t it be a design and if you reverse the approach again wouldn’t it be a design?   Do we have to always understand target audience? What does the word “manufacture” means?

>Is Art made to pertain to a target audience?

> How else are we to justify the space it is displayed in?

Let me ask you another question …can you design imagination?  What is the relevance of space in imagination? Can you be separate from your act? Can you separate audience from performance?  Is performance is the art or the rehearsal?

>The kind of crowd a gallery caters to in comparison with a Public space. A virtual space, a personal space?

I would like to take you to one another scenario; at home, conventionally in middle class, we divide the space into verandah, sitting room, dining room, kitchen, bedrooms and washrooms. They are public, personal, Private or virtual in nature.  What happens to the family member who is passing through these spaces many times a day?  Probably your question and resolve emanate from there.

>Does it work as an eye-opener to see certain things we have chosen not to see. Planting a thought process, or rather creating an opportunity or environment to explore that.

May I ask you to go back to Mullah story

Does communication of these ideas become art or are they just the form of communication?

Have you been to India Pakistan boarder ?  It is an interesting space.  Between two enemy states lies the no man’s land and between these nations one man’s freedom becomes another man’s threat and one man’s martyr becomes another man’s terrorist.  In other words in this no man’s land one  becomes martyr and terrorist simultaneously.  What is art here? , what is communication? and what is information here?

Is Art the medium to reach out to people or does the creative manipulation of a medium become art?

To make noise out of silence is one, to make music out of silence is another, but to make art out of music is simply to add another layer to the complexity of silence to bring out the idea by complimenting it, maybe. So does manipulating a medium become art or the experience created by the manipulation of the medium become art. Hence if Art is merely a perspective, does everything become art?

Is sugar  the sweetness or is it the cake made use of that sugar? If both of them are  not then what is sugar and what is cake?

>Then what really is the role of an Artist?

Why do we look at mirror?

> Hope you are having a good holiday, sorry to bother you with this now, its just that I've been really restless.

You are welcome with such botheration any time.  To be frank  with you I am happy that you are disturbed with such pertinent questions for that I have no answers. Probably that is one reason we all PRACTICE, which involves all forms of enquiry and no definite answers.

But hope you would have noticed by now  that I haven’t used any artistic or art theory argument to build this  dialogue with you. I resorted to Indian way of explanation -“the narrative decoding”. This is perhaps one answer I would like to try –

Since in art practice, theory never lead to  art; but art  practice leads to theory, So our theoretical understanding should always explore alternate method in  art Practice. Otherwise it won’t be art; it will only be a regimented assembly line production.

All the best