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.
No comments:
Post a Comment