Art for whose sake?

Depriving art of its social and cultural sensitivity will make it meaningless and perpetually controversial

Caste is often defined as a 8216;closed class8217;. It is considered closed, not only due to the lack of upward-downward mobility, but also because of the lack of acceptance, assimilation and tolerance inherent in the system. Today, it is amazing to find similar traits gripping a growing number of professional communities in India: art, film, media, trade, industry, NGOs. Self-obsession, aggressive assertion for rights, demand for unrestrained freedom, intolerance to criticism are making them similar to a 8216;closed class8217;.

The recent incident at MS University Baroda, where a fine arts student8217;s so-called artistic exploration led to conflict, tension and subsequent polarisation of artists may be seen in the same perspective. Artists rallied around the student to defend what they considered an attack on his freedom of expression while a section of society looked at his artistic exploration as a habitual and deliberate attempt by artists to denigrate the icons of Hindu religion and faith.

A group of artists, however, kept insisting that they must enjoy the freedom to artistic expression even if it hurts sentiments or sensibilities. These artists didn8217;t seem inclined to introspect or draw the line beyond which artistic expression becomes offensive expression. Such a gesture could have defused the crisis at an early stage and created better understanding for art and artists.

This is not an argument to curb the most cherished freedom of expression but an attempt to put it in the context of social order. Should we stand by the demand for unrestrained freedom by the various professional groups, no matter who they are, and precipitate perpetual confrontation? Or should we inculcate the culture of self-restraint to maintain social harmony?

Media-centric communication is rewriting the unwritten codes of 8216;moral values8217;. It has coined terms like 8216;moral police8217; which is but a euphemism for social reaction against behaviour in the public domain that many find unacceptable. Global trends suggest that wherever such confrontations take place it8217;s because people feel that their social space, purity of faith and value system is being threatened by an increasingly secular, consumer-oriented and media-dominated globalised culture.

In such conflicts, the role the media often play is of highlighting aberrations which would have been better ignored. This was apparent in the MS University incident too. Media cognisance is giving rise to the publicity-seeking behaviour which thrives on shock and awe. Artists who can portray the icons of faith nude are considered bold by fellow artists. Is art turning into a shocking experience?

No civil society has an organised cadre of 8216;moral police8217;. We all turn into the moral policing mode when it comes to defending what we consider as encroachments in our sacrosanct domain. In such situations, those who try to defend their faith or cultural-moral values are either branded radical or conservative. Those who shrug it off as a non-issue or try to deflect attention towards 8216;larger social issues8217; are considered progressive and modern.

Story continues below this ad

It8217;s strange that in a liberal, secular and largely considerate society, denigrating matters of faith is considered avant-garde while defending it is considered retrograde.

Life devoid of art will be drab and meaningless. But depriving art of its social and cultural sensitivity will make it meaningless and perpetually controversial. Artists must get rid of their 8216;closed class syndrome8217; and introspect about their freedom of expression in the context of society8217;s moral and ethical norms.

The writer is a communication professional associated with NID, Ahmedabad. Views are personal