Something About Artistic Freedom

Last week I happened to watch a TV show on artistic freedom debating M.F. Hussein’s portrayal of Goddess Saraswathy as nude. As we all know it was debated enough and dismissed a few months ago and I was a bit surprised how it surfaced again as a hot topic. But controversy always sells! Since the heat and dust over the matter has subsided, it helped me to take a fresh look at the issue from a wider perspective.  Looking through the colored glass of religion would make one skeptical about the intentions of the artist.  But living in a democratic secular society, the compulsions we face are quite different as the demarcations are too close and any mix up will trigger a controversy. Freedom of ex-pression is an easy escape route to the artist but a true test of tolerance to the others.   So initially I formed my opinion that artists should also exercise restraint, least bothered about the compulsions of creativity.  But one of the arguments made me think it from another perspective.One of the panelists opined that art should conform to contemporary morality. Initially I found the viewpoint quite appealing. It sounded to be a quick fix solution to this entire hullabaloo and more than that it satiated my irksome feelings that Hussein should not have done it.  But then what is artistic freedom after all? Every artistic work bears the indelible imprimatur of the artist’s passions, choices, predilections and prejudices, and it is the manifestation of his/her wildest dreams and fantasies. Artists are dreamy mortals trying to visualize what is beyond the reach of human capabilities and limitations. We cannot expect them to be realistic and conforming all the time.   If he/she is asked to get in to the straight jackets of contemporary morality, it is like asking a sculptor to chisel the statue to fit in to a particular mould, a shape agreed to by every one.  But then is the notion of contemporary morality reflects such unanimous choice or a collective conscience of the connoisseurs of art? I don’t think so. How can it be for such a diverse and distinct society? An artist cannot always please the aficionados. Similarly all those who are connoisseurs of art do not belong to the same level of artistic appreciation. There are of course individual levels of perception and appreciation. What I cannot figure out from all these debates is that why are we so hypocritical and are so eager to join some opinionated bandwagon and to be politically correct? I don’t understand why we should keep picture perfect notions. What are we afraid of? That Hussein’s portrayal will become a trendsetter? Then it is not some thing new. It was and is there for all these years. It is pervasive in our temple architecture and cave paintings.

  What is contemporary, as far as I understand is some thing having its roots in the past and wings to the future.  Our own cultural tradition testifies this, and no one can deny the fact that contemporary art owes a great deal to the past. India, as a melting pot of cultures is home to a vivid and versatile artistic tradition, which is subjected to all sorts of experimentations. And what Hussein did is no departure from the past nor is a postmodern experimentation. Our temple architecture is replete with portrayals of gods and goddesses in semi clad and nude postures and they are appreciated for their artistic perfection and not for the element of nudity. What do we look for in apiece of art?  Why do thousands of tourists throng the Ajanta and Ellora caves every year? Obviously, to enjoy the beauty of art rather than to watch nudity. Art is the celebration of creativity. If we go standardizing it to fit into the moulds of public opinion, the creativity element suffers, and artists will be forced to churn out calibrated version of artistic works. It is interesting that many of the artists who participated in the debate came out openly to share the way society has dealt with them. I think not too many artists will agree that society’s role in their growth was significant. Artists draw flak whenever they stray away from the trodden path. And an artist cannot travel through the path dictated by the society. He is in a constant search of identity and in an endeavor to redefine it every time. I’m a bit confused the way the society playing moderator. Art is some thing that transcends the confines of time and places. We cannot insist that it should neatly fit in to some pigeonholes of contemporary notions. The society should criticize, debate and discuss an artistic work and should very well decide to accept or reject it. But I feel they can never interfere with artistic freedom. I would like to know what you guys think about this.