2nd Issue
Art : As Reaction Or Act In Itself

Editorial by: Noor Aziza 

We are at a juncture of defining or rather creating pathways for ourselves where we could look at artistic interventions as part of a larger structure. These interventions today certainly come from an individual level of art making. A few decades ago, however, the characteristics already evident in these early productions were the result of the collaboration between the artists as an attempt to work together while following some similar agenda. This sense of sharing and collective creation is one of the main reasons for the cohesion of artists who subsequently joined these groups which were formed as a reaction to specific socio-cultural advancements of the time.

The decade of 90s witnessed a change in the scenario where these socio-political agenda began to fall apart in the field of art as well in all other fields. The tremendous economic forces changed the structure and form of the act of art creation as technology became the key in the act of making. The role of artists also transformed and that is the reason why this question becomes relevant today: whether art is a reaction or is an act in itself? Therefore, the second issue of Discerning dialogue focuses on the inert processes of creating art. The title certainly creates a dilemma, as there is always subjectivity to an issue that we need to take into consideration while deliberating upon the issue of art and art making. This binary opposition mentioned in the title, one wonders whether to look at art as an ‘action’ or a ‘reaction’ to something else that exists outside the realm of art. This definitely arises from the question what role does art play in the society. Since creativity is a complex process with relationships among people, processes, products, and social and cultural contexts relevant to a domain of knowledge, it propels the complex and subversive nature of art.

In this issue, the contributors have discussed the issue from personal as well as philosophical point of view. As practicing artists, most of them face this situation on a day to day basis where they have to deal with the issues of relevance of their artistic practice in the contemporary world. The bilingual nature of the e-zine has also given the writers to write in Hindi as one could see in this issue. Some of the articles may seem like diary notes or jottings, but I feel that is the nature of the process of creativity which should be given some space in the world of art writing.

Article by: Vinayakumar Rudraswamimath

As reading manipulates the reader to think after a story, reaction or an article and act within the reaction to the article, similarly artist’s reactions are directly linked with creative matters of nature with manipulated things. Most of time establishes the idea of certain possibilities to artists mind into reactions, on the continuation reactions turns into an act and becomes a work of art in itself. The same conversation or act happens with each and every creative mind or a person. On the creative engagement artist assets are more conventional and optimistic but on the overview of the recent era of new breed of artists, one could witness they are turning into different possessiveness with so called creative act, those are turning for more different ways and making some non affirmative sounds. The act of making sound is taking different dimensions within the puzzle of modernity and post-modern context.
After all they are more conscious about reaction but not on creating art but on creating an action other then act in itself. In course of discussing the reaction of art as action according to effectiveness of sibling sounds of global hybrid knocking and its action into reaction. It would be read consciously then only the realization point is reached according to the reaction and act of art, here the reaction and act are the integral part of a complete art work.

Article by: Rajesh Patil


कृष्ण और अर्जुन संवाद मे एक शब्द आता है "तो",यहाँ कृष्ण भी अनुत्तर हो जाते है,कहते है यह शब्द "तो' अनंत संभावनाओ से  भरा है.
यहाँ कुछ भी घटित हो सकता है और नहीं भी.
किसी भी अर्थ या विचार को तर्क की कसौटी पर कसना हमे कहाँ पहुचाता है,प्रश्न  के जो हमे उत्तर  मिलते है   वे हमेशा प्रश्न बन कर खड़े हो जाते है,प्रश्न अनुत्तर ही रह जाता है,तब हमे जो है जैसा है उसी स्वरूप मे स्वीकार करना होता है,उसके अच्छे-बुरे के साथ. यह सर्वविदित है की जो जन्मा है उसकी  मृत्यु भी निश्चित है,यह जन्म-मृत्यु ,काला-सफ़ेद ,सच-झूठ,क्रिया-प्रतिक्रिया, ये सभी परिधियाँ जहाँ  हर चीज या विचार अपनी विरोधी सीमाओं तक जाता है और वही से फिर गति करता है,यह एक अंतहीन चक्र है.
 यहाँ यह कहना की कला स्वत: क्रिया है तो उसको करने वाला "कलाकार" कारक  जो स्वयं  किसी क्रिया या प्रतिक्रिया की वजह से जन्मा है ,उसका कर्म क्या कहलायगा ? समय और प्रकृति मे मनुष्य स्वयं एक रचना है कृति है.तब यहाँ निर्धारित करना कठिन है की कला स्वत क्रिया है.          
भूख की आकांक्षा हर कृति के जन्म मे होती है,भूख का यह मिथक काल उसके समकालीन मे आँखें गडाये रहता है,कृति की असम्पूर्णता ही उसे गतिशील बनाये रखती है,सम्पूर्णता का यही आग्रह हमे एक कृति से दूसरी कृति के गढ़ने ,करने,बनाने होने ,आदि के लिए बाध्य करता है..मुझे नहीं पता की कितने कलाकार किसी भी कृति को करते वक्त सचेत होते है,की वह क्रिया है या प्रतिक्रिया है.चूँकि हर कलाकार का बोध स्मृति ,मिथक,परम्परा,प्रकृति,संस्कृति

,सभ्यता,इतिहास,राजनीति,आदि से मिलकर बनता है,इन वृतियों और बोध मे रहते हुए वह जाने अनजाने किस प्रेरणा से वह कृति का निर्माण करता है, यहाँ कृति के निर्माण मे "प्रेरक तत्व " मौजूद है. 
यह एक चिर -फाड़ का विषय है.क्रिया-विषय -कारण-जन्म -मरण.
कोई भी क्रिया बिना कारण की नहीं होती,कारण बिना विषय के नहीं होता ,विषय का जन्म होता है मरता है......
"विषय का चयन" एक क्रिया मेरा उस पर लिखना प्रतिक्रिया.......... क्या है?
विषय का चयन क्या है?
यह संदेह ही हमें समग्र नहीं होने देता ,वह हर चीज या कृति की सम्पूर्णता को,पवित्रता को नष्ट  कर देता है,हम उसे सम्पूर्णता,समग्रता मे नहीं देख पाते,हम उसे अपने अपने तर्कों पर परखते है तौलते है,हम सबके पूर्वाग्रह है,हम अपने पूर्वाग्रहों के साथ सुनते ,गुनते,मनते,देखते,है.
तभी हमे राम पर संदेह होता है,सीता को अग्नि परीक्षा देनी पड़ती है.
हम सब अँधेरे और प्रकाश के साथ है,हर कृति क्रिया-प्रतिक्रिया  के  साथ है,वह सच-झूठ साथ है,उसका अपना अँधेरा और उजाला  साथ है , जैसे ही अँधेरा घना होता है,प्रकाश का अभाव होता है,तब हम प्रकाश को खोजते है,हर अँधेरा अपने मे प्रकाश छिपाए रहता है, यह अभाव ही हमे जीवन मे झूझने के लिए  प्रेरित करता है, "जीवट" बनाता है,
सफ़ेद कागज या कैनवास पर हम सफ़ेद खोजते है! हम उसे पहले रंगते है,गहराते है और गहरा करते है और फिर  वापस लौटते है,सफ़ेद या काली रेखाओ मे,रंग ,आकार,रूप,मे हमे लौटना होता है.एक सत्य उसके विपरीत ध्रुव तक जाता है -वापस लौटता है,...........
काला सफ़ेद की ओर ,  सफ़ेद  काले की ओर.     

Article by: Pramod Gaikwad 

क्रिया-प्रतिक्रिया मनुष्य की होती है, खुद कला की नहीं.

कला खुद एक प्रक्रिया है उसका अपना जीवन  धडकता रहता है.

प्रतिक्रिया : पंचेंद्रियो द्वारा महसूस की गई सवेंदना (सुखद,दुखद और असुखद, अदुखद) के प्रति मनुष्य प्रतिक्रिया   करता है.जैसे किसी ने हमे कुछ कहा और कान द्वारा सुनते ही मन यह परखता है की यह शब्द  तारीफ के है या निंदा के और मन प्रतिक्रिया करने लगता है.

कला में प्रतिक्रिया : 

 * कलाकार के लिए प्रतिक्रिया व्यक्त  करने का माध्यम है कला.

  * प्रतिक्रिया कलात्मक होती है. 

  * प्रतिक्रिया सापेक्ष होती है 

  * प्रतिक्रिया सकारत्मक नकारात्मक होती है.विरोध है, सहमती असहमति ,अच्छी-खराब  

  *प्रतिक्रिया से अमानवीय कला का जन्म हो सकता है, हुआ है.

वह हमें प्रकृति से  अपने होने से दूर भटकाती है. मनुष्य प्रतिक्रिया का इतना आदि हो गया है की वह क्रिया और प्रतिक्रिया के भेद को समझ नहीं सकता और कलाकार इस से अलग नहीं. 

आर्ट फॉर्म प्रतिक्रिया से उपजते है.वर्तमान समय में कला में  प्रतिक्रिया हो रही है मगर प्रभावशाली कम सपाट ज्यादा संवेदना   मोथरी लगती है.राजनेता के बयान की तरह, समाजसेवी के प्रण की तरह, नकली संतो की मुक्ति की घोषणा की तरह.

प्रतिक्रिया कलात्मक होनी चाहिये.. प्रतिक्रिया कलात्मक हो तो वह हमे  जीवन को देखने  का नया आयाम दे सकती है.

क्रिया : एक तरह का होना,शुद्ध  रूप में होना, कर्म करते रहना.बिजली कौंधती है, बारिश, हवा,प्रकृति  आदि. क्रिया है.कला में केवल सर्जक क्रियाशील होता है, अगर वह निरपेक्ष होकर कर्म करता रहे तो वह क्रियाशील होता है. मेरा अपना अनुभव है की निरपेक्षता से कला कर्म करते समय मै सिर्फ क्रियाशील होता हूँ, और सापेक्ष होते ही प्रतिक्रिया करने लगता हूँ.

 दुःख से मुक्ति के लिए बुद्ध ने क्रिया को रचनात्मक कहा है.बुद्ध को ज्ञान  प्राप्त  हुआ. और मनुष्य इसे फार्मूले की तरह उपयोग करता रहा  है, और कलाकार भी. 

आज के समय की भयानक सच्चाई यह है की हम क्रिया-प्रतिक्रिया को कला में फार्मूले की तरह इस्तमाल करते रहे, कर रहे है. और कला कोई फार्मूला नहीं है,वह खुद एक फॉर्म है.

कला क्रिया-प्रतिक्रिया से होकर जरुर गुजरती है, मगर यह रूकती नहीं क्रिया-प्रतिक्रिया से उठकर मनुष्य की सारी अछाई-बुराई,+ -. से इतर एक ऐसा आकाश देती है जहाँ सर्जक,दृष्टा-दर्शक, पंछी

की तरह अपनी  चेतना के पंख खोल कर उड़ते रहते है. जहाँ कोई सीमा नहीं, कोई इज़म नहीं, कोई ideology    नहीं, इतहास नहीं, धर्मान्धता  नहीं, मै नहीं , तू नहीं  पीछे छुट जाते है हमारे दाव-पेंच, तू-तू मै-मै ,                

Article by: Veryan Edwards

What is the source of Art?   Is it merely what we experience through our senses, react to and then translate into art?  “Experience” however, is not comprised of incoming information from the senses only:  Psychological, sociological and philosophical research has shown that what we experience/perceive initially is filtered through our feelings, values and thoughts.   Research shows that our brains exclude a great deal of incoming data so that we can focus on our preferred perception, such as managing to conduct a conversation with only one person in a crowded, noisy room.  This indicates how we choose our experience, which is thus an act and is not merely a reaction.  We decide or choose what we experience and then filter it again more consciously through those same feelings, thoughts and values. 

Art is based on experience (even the latest Turner Award, while eschewing an image, provides an experience of the sound of a Scottish lullaby in an empty room).  In Fine art, we do not work in a vacuum but rather work with many sources, one of which is Nature (choosing what we value (have a passion for and understand in terms of our overall view of life). More consciously we decide what is it we want to say and the artistic expression becomes a metaphor for experience.   Other sources are various such as art itself, current issues and thoughts in society, dreams and meditation. 

Another aspect of the act of art is the creation of something new: we can transform the given, surprising ourselves and others.  According to Edward de Bono, creativity is going beyond our mental set and “right” or “wrong” answers.  Through accident and inspiration, we can step into the void through art and discover that which we had not previously supposed. For many of us, the act itself then becomes an act of Spirit.

Article by: Madhvesh Pandurangi

 

Before intervening in to the discussion of notion called A (a)rt, it’s better to have an overview glance of the terms as above titled as ‘Reaction’ and ‘Act’. Then what is Reaction? Is there any kind of differences lies within the Reaction which has been reacted in the various parts of the (about) world, time, context, community, classes, gender, religion, caste and society? Again this presupposes the intention that, role of reaction as conscious as a reaction- considered under way of method or discipline practiced as art. (Consciously institutionalization of art)  Or else in other way round the reaction of an individual behavior in mundane life is in itself a reaction. Though the reaction is particular and of conscious but not as an institutionalized mark. (This includes conversation in a metro train or local transportation or people under a tree, etc). This brings forth the concept of act in to the form of re-act or reaction. However, the act of a reaction is outer projection of inner experience of an object/satiation performed in particular juncture of social system. Although the differences between institutionalized reaction as art and casual social behavior as re-act again lays in the knowledge power relationships which legitimizes the significance in the act of speaking (writing/art making) for who is not spoken about. Herein, current art practice or reaction has quality of being and becoming.  Although the reaction and act could be dealt with further involvement of physical or other medium entities to the formation of reaction in its full form as act. Moreover, an act itself is subject matter of reaction. If one is framing art as reaction or act in itself which activates the past in present and present in itself of past and present concurrently. To put it in a simple way so for any reaction language (the medium) takes the role of mediator to communicate experience and its response. However, one cannot differentiate the processes of act when it is at act of reaction vice verse.  

Article by: Jitendra Suman 

Present discourse entails certain basic issues regarding the nature of artistic work and the role of individual artist’s life in the process of creation of an artwork. First position ‘art as an reaction’ situates artistic work under the larger scheme of social life where both, meanings and the process of creation of that meaning is determined or shaped by the forces outside the artistic domain.

Second position, ‘art as an act in itself’ indicates towards the autonomy of artistic act, an issue which is in perennial debate through the modern period. In this perspective, meaning of artistic work is described as immune from other area of human life, essentially non artistic.

 In both these diametrically opposed positions, notion of individual freedom or the freedom of an artist is central. Nature of this freedom needs to be discussed.

Dissecting the Debate:-

 The question of art as a reaction or as an act in itself compels us to question what precisely an artistic act is. How it is different from other non artistic human acts and if there is a relationship between these two positions, what is the nature of that relationship?

What precisely an artistic act is? In order to investigate the nature of an artistic act we have to take into considerations the historical perspective attached with this issue. As Luckas hold the view that in order for us to know that where we stand and where we are going; we must have clear perspective….we must know ‘where we have come from’. What road we have traveled.

In determining the nature of an artistic act we have to differentiate it into two categories: Pre modern and Modern artistic acts. Same is applicable to human acts in general. Pre modern artistic acts can only be defined under the larger notion of human act.  In pre modern society there was no such differentiation of scientific, religious and artistic mode of reflection as distinctly different one another. Human act at this stage is indistinguishable. It has unity in its mode of operation as well expression.

During later stages, up to the end of medieval period…some development occurred regarding the separation of artistic and non artistic acts. This movement appeared explicitly in ancient Greece where freedom of individual as a citizen of city republics led to a unique development in this regard. It symbolized the pride of the people in their city and enhanced their unity. Through art, human ideals were represented. But it was still a freedom fight. With respect to the eastern world artistic activity was largely done for ritualistic purpose. There are examples of non religious art but they are meager in no.

However the most remarkable development occurred with the initiation of modern period. Here the notion of individual freedom emerged as the defining condition of human existence based on the notion of equality of all human beings. Artist’s life has taken totally new dimensions – radical and anarchic. These two mentioned attributes are largely determined by the human ecology of a particular cultural area. As explained above pre modern artistic activities were subsumed under the general human activity. Artist’s life was the part of community life as mentioned in Ferdinand tonnies gemeinschaft or community life. Community life was the manifestation of consensual value system of the society.

But with the modern period a mark shift occurred regarding this aspect. Modernity questioned consensual value system. In this questioning modernity derives logic of its existence and its sustenance. Such opposition of general value system appeared inventible when we review the course of human history, especially the west European history during post renaissance period.  This questioning became the deciding character of the notion of individual freedom. Thus emerged notion of atomistic individual alienated from his community struggling to accomplish the idea of absolute freedom. These atomistic individuals segregated from society and congregated with his own fellow crusaders of individuality formed their own micro communities. This was the case, especially with modern artists. Members of these micro communities share distinct framework of self evolved meaning system. Chief characters of this meaning system were the idea of innovation and novelty. Innovation itself became major value shaping both the artist work and his life. Social context of artistic act was denied especially regarding the impact of artistic creation upon the general social environment. Artist refute that his work has any other objective except the artistic one. From here we could derive second argument of our present discourse that art is an act in itself.

But as far as my view is concerned this is not a true condition. No act can be enacted without having strings attached to it, explicitly and implicitly from the areas contradictory to that act. Art is not for the arts sake.

Thus many a time art is a reaction. Like the first major modern artist –Manet , in 1860 challenged the traditional assumption of art cannon in a number of ways. Impressionist like a micro community formed a closed group of fellow artists who organized their exhibitions following the scandalous exhibition, the ‘Salon des Refuses’ held in Paris in 1863. Similarly Surrealism and Dadaism emerged as a reaction to the anarchic conditions of first and Second World War in Europe. Their exhibitions were intended to bemuse and outrage. Shock element or alternative reflections with uncommon meaning were the primary deriving force. One could find similar pattern of development in other fields of art like Music, sculpture, literature, architecture etc.

In my opinion artistic act is a part of social act. Obsessive sense of individuality led to the formation of many hallucinatory assumptions regarding the relationship between individual and his/her society. I believe that act in individual life cannot be atomistic as we don’t have compartmentalized consciousness.     

As it emerged out that how the notion of freedom in democratic societies were proved to be an illusion when it is juxtaposed with other necessities of human conditions. Like in a market oriented the meaning of an art work is greatly compromised with respect to its potential to be saleable.

Artistic experience comes under the general consumerist pleasure. Thus freedom of an artist is ruled by the laws of the market place. Whereas the pre modern artist was in direct and fertile contact of his audience, modern artist…with the sense of unlimited freedom experience a severely loosened and sometimes completely eliminated contact with his community. This situation emerged due to the denial of social context and highly impulsive orientation. Emmanuel Kant‘s philosophy in large, measures the theoretical foundation of modern concept of freedom. He suggested that an act should have clear direction from the conscience of actor and that conscience must have social context of the community.

In the end I would like to say that we cannot return back and we shouldn’t. Although it is worth appreciation that in the idea of freedom human society recognized the value of each individual. But this freedom should not be impulsive. It must have the backing of human conscience. I don’t want to use the word reaction in artistic creation. Instead I would like to use the word reflection. Art is a reflection which intends to interpret the relationship between individual and his community as well as the nature around him. And this reflection is shaped by the artists conscience.