OH GLITTERING SOUL POUR SOME LIGHT INTO MY DARKENED HEART
TAKE ME UNDER YOUR REFUGE SO THAT I CAN CRY.....
IT HAS BEEN A LONG TIME I HAVE CRIED....
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
GOLDEN LIGHTS
OH GLITTERING SOUL POUR SOME LIGHT INTO MY DARKENED HEART
TAKE ME UNDER YOUR REFUGE SO THAT I CAN CRY.....
IT HAS BEEN A LONG TIME I HAVE CRIED....
Friday, August 22, 2008
Let The Educated Class Come Forward
Let The Educated Class Come Forward
Posted: 21 Aug 2008 01:54 AM CDT
MS Karoly
The Muslim educated class is a mostly unnoticed section of the Muslim society. The role of the educated class and intelligentsia in protecting the interests of and providing dynamic guidance for any community cannot be over-estimated. In any meaningful discussion on the progress and revival of the languishing Indian Muslim community, the role to be played by its educated class deserves prime attention.
Even though today the Muslim leadership is invariably associated with the clergy for some reason, the realities - including the account of whatever progress the Muslim community has made in modern times – do not warrant this. It is not hard to see that any headway made so far by the community in the fields of Social, educational and economic fields, and even its religious awakening, owes most to the modern education as well as the movements initiated by the educated class. For example, had it not been for the role played by the Aligarh movement and other similar movements, the profile of the Muslim community in India could not have been worse.
The role of the intellectually empowered section of the community in sustaining a community is so pivotal that it would not be grossly wrong to say that the intelligentsia deserves whatever blame or credit for the state of the community. Unfortunately in the case of Indian Muslims, the intelligentsia is simply not there in the picture even to take some blame. No wonder that the community is in practically leaderless, with no one to take any accountability on its behalf, and the community simply being unable to put to use its vast human and material resources for any collective advantage.
If we look at the Muslim community in India we cannot ignore its stark contrast with the other backward communities. It is the glittering of talent in the maze of utter backwardness and retardation. It is not possible to see another community which is so backward and still has so many individual achievers. That a community which has produced such stalwarts from APJ Abdul Kalam, Azim Premji, Muhammad Azharuddin and Muhammad Rafi to Sania Mirza and Shah Rukh Khan has been relegated to a state comparable to the Dalits is indeed disgraceful. And it certainly does point to one fact – the utter inaction, indifference and unconcern of its intelligentsia.
At the same time, I am not over-looking the significance of the religious leadership, considering their clout with the masses. Nor do I commit the blunder of advocating the damned “separation of religion and the state”. But one is left to wonder if it is the religious leaders who should deal with even affairs over which they have little command or can offer no solution, again aren’t we facing the difficulty associated with the separation of religion and the mundane here?
Moreover there is no point in turning a blind eye to the many inherent drawbacks of the hierarchy assuming the religious leaders as the sole leaders of the community. For example consider the issue of the Muslim unity. Everybody is concerned about the lack of unity in the community and is so vocal about it. No one has any doubt that Muslim unity is a must and that it should be brought about as soon as possible. Still why no one is pointing out the reason why it is so eluding us?
The religious groups surely do a great job of keeping together the community and protecting its identity. They keep alive our tradition and legacy, and sustain the basic institutions like mosques, madrasas and orphanages despite the absence of any central leadership, organized structure or profit motives. However we should not overlook the fact that the interests which sustain each such group– which are essentially faith-based – also prevent any conciliation between them. This is a general social psychology applicable for any community, and not just the Muslim community. In other words, on a functional plane the religious groups do not represent the community, rather the divisions in the community.
However unity would be possible if we can find and energize a section of the community which can act as a common representative platform and can also effectively shoulder its responsibilities. Consider the case of Hindus. No community in the world is so heterogeneous than the Hindu community. Even the so-called high castes have sub-castes which have further sub-castes, even to the exclusion of intermarriages between them. Still Hindus have been able to achieve political unity, thanks to their intelligentsia who fare well to represent and protect their common interests, keeping the seditions under the carpet. There are lessons to learn for Muslim community from this, which is far more homogenous than Hindus but still are unable to find unity within itself.
There is little doubt that no particular religious group in the community can provide this common platform for the reason I mentioned above. Nor can the atheists or communists or any such group who do not conform to the theistic aspirations of the Muslim community. Only the religious-minded educated class can take up this challenge, with their equi-distant approach to all religious groups, and at the same time being never anti-Islamic either. Moreover they can also serve to provide the core intelligentsia to take care of the community affairs.
These are some of the factors I think why should move more towards in this direction:
As already said, only the educated class can bring unity for the community, as they are the only group that has the potential to gain the common acceptance of the entire community. Surprisingly, we can see that even in overtly religious Muslim countries like Pakistan the secular parties are making hay in elections while the religious parties are side-lined.
As it is the educated class who dominate all the practical fields like governance, economy, health care, law and order, technology and so on, they can naturally assume leadership and provide functional support in every field. In any case it is the educated class who handles affairs in all these fields even in Muslim countries.
The educated class can gain more acceptance with the government as well as other communities as they do not project a overly religious or fundamentalist profile, and can help mitigate the negative stereo-typing of Muslims as displaying a too communal character by always being represented by the Mullas (despite the so little gains usually made out of it). Hopefully this will also lead to better understanding between Muslims and other communities, besides imparting the Muslim community a progressive outlook.
Speaking further on the inter-community relations, terrorism is a contentious issue which the Indian Muslims have to deal with. No one can deny the roles of some narrow-minded and short-sighted Mullas and Mulla ideologies in their followers undertaking dangerous or retrogressive stances and acts. The intelligentsia should come forward to give mature guidance to the Muslim youth and utilize their energy creatively for the benefit of the community and the nation.
Next comes the role of the Muslim women. It goes without saying that without the active contribution of this half of the community the progress of the community will remain a distant dream. Certainly women have a lot to contribute, especially in the fields of government representation and education. Only the educated class can provide a viable platform to facilitate the same.
The importance of the political representation of Muslims as the largest minority in the country cannot be emphasized enough (especially looking at the leverage which the Left parties have gained with their few seats in the parliament, for example). If ever there is any chance for the political unity of Muslims, the educated class has to take the lead and representation. Similarly only educated class can protect and put to use effectively the Waqaf properties for the benefit of the community.
It is worthwhile to re-iterate that any such common platform represented by the educated class should be equi-distant (or rather equi-proximal) to all the religious groups within the community in general, and at the same time it is imperative that they be loyal to the Islamic ideology too. Moreover the Muslim intelligentsia should, much like their counterparts in other religions, take the onus of providing the necessary ideological support and defense for the community. Hope that more discussions, guide lines and practical steps to improve the participation and contribution of the educated class and the intelligentsia in the affairs of the community will take place.
Posted: 21 Aug 2008 01:54 AM CDT
MS Karoly
The Muslim educated class is a mostly unnoticed section of the Muslim society. The role of the educated class and intelligentsia in protecting the interests of and providing dynamic guidance for any community cannot be over-estimated. In any meaningful discussion on the progress and revival of the languishing Indian Muslim community, the role to be played by its educated class deserves prime attention.
Even though today the Muslim leadership is invariably associated with the clergy for some reason, the realities - including the account of whatever progress the Muslim community has made in modern times – do not warrant this. It is not hard to see that any headway made so far by the community in the fields of Social, educational and economic fields, and even its religious awakening, owes most to the modern education as well as the movements initiated by the educated class. For example, had it not been for the role played by the Aligarh movement and other similar movements, the profile of the Muslim community in India could not have been worse.
The role of the intellectually empowered section of the community in sustaining a community is so pivotal that it would not be grossly wrong to say that the intelligentsia deserves whatever blame or credit for the state of the community. Unfortunately in the case of Indian Muslims, the intelligentsia is simply not there in the picture even to take some blame. No wonder that the community is in practically leaderless, with no one to take any accountability on its behalf, and the community simply being unable to put to use its vast human and material resources for any collective advantage.
If we look at the Muslim community in India we cannot ignore its stark contrast with the other backward communities. It is the glittering of talent in the maze of utter backwardness and retardation. It is not possible to see another community which is so backward and still has so many individual achievers. That a community which has produced such stalwarts from APJ Abdul Kalam, Azim Premji, Muhammad Azharuddin and Muhammad Rafi to Sania Mirza and Shah Rukh Khan has been relegated to a state comparable to the Dalits is indeed disgraceful. And it certainly does point to one fact – the utter inaction, indifference and unconcern of its intelligentsia.
At the same time, I am not over-looking the significance of the religious leadership, considering their clout with the masses. Nor do I commit the blunder of advocating the damned “separation of religion and the state”. But one is left to wonder if it is the religious leaders who should deal with even affairs over which they have little command or can offer no solution, again aren’t we facing the difficulty associated with the separation of religion and the mundane here?
Moreover there is no point in turning a blind eye to the many inherent drawbacks of the hierarchy assuming the religious leaders as the sole leaders of the community. For example consider the issue of the Muslim unity. Everybody is concerned about the lack of unity in the community and is so vocal about it. No one has any doubt that Muslim unity is a must and that it should be brought about as soon as possible. Still why no one is pointing out the reason why it is so eluding us?
The religious groups surely do a great job of keeping together the community and protecting its identity. They keep alive our tradition and legacy, and sustain the basic institutions like mosques, madrasas and orphanages despite the absence of any central leadership, organized structure or profit motives. However we should not overlook the fact that the interests which sustain each such group– which are essentially faith-based – also prevent any conciliation between them. This is a general social psychology applicable for any community, and not just the Muslim community. In other words, on a functional plane the religious groups do not represent the community, rather the divisions in the community.
However unity would be possible if we can find and energize a section of the community which can act as a common representative platform and can also effectively shoulder its responsibilities. Consider the case of Hindus. No community in the world is so heterogeneous than the Hindu community. Even the so-called high castes have sub-castes which have further sub-castes, even to the exclusion of intermarriages between them. Still Hindus have been able to achieve political unity, thanks to their intelligentsia who fare well to represent and protect their common interests, keeping the seditions under the carpet. There are lessons to learn for Muslim community from this, which is far more homogenous than Hindus but still are unable to find unity within itself.
There is little doubt that no particular religious group in the community can provide this common platform for the reason I mentioned above. Nor can the atheists or communists or any such group who do not conform to the theistic aspirations of the Muslim community. Only the religious-minded educated class can take up this challenge, with their equi-distant approach to all religious groups, and at the same time being never anti-Islamic either. Moreover they can also serve to provide the core intelligentsia to take care of the community affairs.
These are some of the factors I think why should move more towards in this direction:
As already said, only the educated class can bring unity for the community, as they are the only group that has the potential to gain the common acceptance of the entire community. Surprisingly, we can see that even in overtly religious Muslim countries like Pakistan the secular parties are making hay in elections while the religious parties are side-lined.
As it is the educated class who dominate all the practical fields like governance, economy, health care, law and order, technology and so on, they can naturally assume leadership and provide functional support in every field. In any case it is the educated class who handles affairs in all these fields even in Muslim countries.
The educated class can gain more acceptance with the government as well as other communities as they do not project a overly religious or fundamentalist profile, and can help mitigate the negative stereo-typing of Muslims as displaying a too communal character by always being represented by the Mullas (despite the so little gains usually made out of it). Hopefully this will also lead to better understanding between Muslims and other communities, besides imparting the Muslim community a progressive outlook.
Speaking further on the inter-community relations, terrorism is a contentious issue which the Indian Muslims have to deal with. No one can deny the roles of some narrow-minded and short-sighted Mullas and Mulla ideologies in their followers undertaking dangerous or retrogressive stances and acts. The intelligentsia should come forward to give mature guidance to the Muslim youth and utilize their energy creatively for the benefit of the community and the nation.
Next comes the role of the Muslim women. It goes without saying that without the active contribution of this half of the community the progress of the community will remain a distant dream. Certainly women have a lot to contribute, especially in the fields of government representation and education. Only the educated class can provide a viable platform to facilitate the same.
The importance of the political representation of Muslims as the largest minority in the country cannot be emphasized enough (especially looking at the leverage which the Left parties have gained with their few seats in the parliament, for example). If ever there is any chance for the political unity of Muslims, the educated class has to take the lead and representation. Similarly only educated class can protect and put to use effectively the Waqaf properties for the benefit of the community.
It is worthwhile to re-iterate that any such common platform represented by the educated class should be equi-distant (or rather equi-proximal) to all the religious groups within the community in general, and at the same time it is imperative that they be loyal to the Islamic ideology too. Moreover the Muslim intelligentsia should, much like their counterparts in other religions, take the onus of providing the necessary ideological support and defense for the community. Hope that more discussions, guide lines and practical steps to improve the participation and contribution of the educated class and the intelligentsia in the affairs of the community will take place.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Parade of bachelors
Nightwalkers are daydreamers
Daydreamers are nightwalkers
After. He’s gone. He’ll walk down. Down the hall.
Look for him at night. And dawn shall fade in,
and decide, do you walk, yourself.
Down. Down your voice less throat,
Down your throat less voice.
A thunderbird. Of lost wing, in an invisible distance. Flying.
Down your days. Nights. For you a dream walker.
Deepankar. Angshuman. Sukanta.
Daydreamers are nightwalkers
After. He’s gone. He’ll walk down. Down the hall.
Look for him at night. And dawn shall fade in,
and decide, do you walk, yourself.
Down. Down your voice less throat,
Down your throat less voice.
A thunderbird. Of lost wing, in an invisible distance. Flying.
Down your days. Nights. For you a dream walker.
Deepankar. Angshuman. Sukanta.
4
Four.
I’ll pick some girls from the streets. From the ATM.
Streets. Black.
You can not decipher. Can not see yourself.
It’s not the cause of your eyes, that you cannot go ahead of yourself,
May be you have chosen.
One.
One in the ATM.
And others are lucky 7.
7=1+1+1+1+1+1+1
Seven equals. one plus one plus one plus one…
You might be one of all seven….
Lucky are all ones.
Ya-ali ; ya-ali; ya-ali.
Deepankar. Sukanta. Angshuman. Baba.
I’ll pick some girls from the streets. From the ATM.
Streets. Black.
You can not decipher. Can not see yourself.
It’s not the cause of your eyes, that you cannot go ahead of yourself,
May be you have chosen.
One.
One in the ATM.
And others are lucky 7.
7=1+1+1+1+1+1+1
Seven equals. one plus one plus one plus one…
You might be one of all seven….
Lucky are all ones.
Ya-ali ; ya-ali; ya-ali.
Deepankar. Sukanta. Angshuman. Baba.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Tonight I'll weep: Samudra Kajal Saikia
Tonight I'll weep. Weep a lot. Weep for the night long.
I'll weep to the bottom of my desire.
If I have no grief to weep
Then I'll weep claiming why I don't have any grief.
Just I'll weep.
Don't try to console me.
Because
If you try to console, I'll weep even more.
Only I'll weep.
I don't know why I'll weep, but I'll do.
If I am bound to show a cause for weeping
Then listen:
Tears clean-up the eyes, as you know, and so I'll weep
(Is it okay, are you satisfied with this answer?)
In this night of late autumn, Hemanta, I'll cry as much as I wish
And I'll try to speculate that the wet cloth of fog-dark sky
Had saturated by my tears only.
Looking at the sky covered up with mist, I'll try to think
Each drop of my tears had put off the stars one-by-one.
I'll weep and weep. Cry and cry. I won't loose my heart.
You are not here with me. I may weep for that.
I might weep much more, even more, if you were here with me.
Whatever it be, tonight is a night for me to weep.
For God's sake, let me weep.
I'll weep to the bottom of my desire.
If I have no grief to weep
Then I'll weep claiming why I don't have any grief.
Just I'll weep.
Don't try to console me.
Because
If you try to console, I'll weep even more.
Only I'll weep.
I don't know why I'll weep, but I'll do.
If I am bound to show a cause for weeping
Then listen:
Tears clean-up the eyes, as you know, and so I'll weep
(Is it okay, are you satisfied with this answer?)
In this night of late autumn, Hemanta, I'll cry as much as I wish
And I'll try to speculate that the wet cloth of fog-dark sky
Had saturated by my tears only.
Looking at the sky covered up with mist, I'll try to think
Each drop of my tears had put off the stars one-by-one.
I'll weep and weep. Cry and cry. I won't loose my heart.
You are not here with me. I may weep for that.
I might weep much more, even more, if you were here with me.
Whatever it be, tonight is a night for me to weep.
For God's sake, let me weep.
Monday, August 4, 2008
Friday, August 1, 2008
“Who” Are You Looking At?
What does a viewer do in front of a work of art? Is he a passive receiver or an interceptor of a smooth given narrative? Samudra Kajal Saikia, drawing examples from the discourse of spectatorship, attempts to qualify the viewer as an ‘issue’ rather than receiver of the given. The spectator is a troublesome agent, says the author
“The art historian requires a conception of the spatial position of the spectator, and her conception of the spectator’s position influences her strategies of emplotment.”
--David Carrier 1
Spectator is the troublesome agent everywhere.
More than the issues and discourses around the word “spectatorship” my attempt bends towards the word “spectator2". Spectator’s physical presence and location were my first hand objects of curiosity, but, it is different from that kind of “physical location” David Carrier analyses in his “Principals of Art History Writing”. If we search for the spectator against the performer then the whole thing shifts from a perceptual or philosophical or spectatorial field to a sociological one, because, the spectator is not a mere individual but a group of people, a society, and beholder of some similar kind of acceptance or taste. At the same time one cannot avoid the need of a conceptual speculation since the act of perceiving is an individual act and the dilemma of the performer-spectator relationship contains some psychological dimensions as well. The power-relation between the performer and the spectator is also to be raised. Notably, in all the cases the presence of the spectator destabilizes or dismantles the existing notions, beliefs and comforts. So we shall see, a shift of objective choice also insists some methodological shift.
Bringing elements from theatre into visual studies I am in front some questions. My theoretical attempts are recognized as “offbeat” in art historical practice, and the same happens in theatrical discourses. So I prefer to say it a study of the interfaces. Notably, drama as a part of the literature studies is never questioned, whereas, privileging the literary text (the script) over the spatial discourse the departments of literature mostly do injustice to the art of performance. Again theatre is largely can be a part of Anthropology. (Victor Turner, the writer of Acting in Everyday Life, Everyday Life in Acting is an anthropologist. Egenio Barba, follower of Jerzy Grotowski and the writer of Four Spectators is the founder director of ISTA: International School for Theatre Anthropology). In similar ways is not the visual art or fine art a part of Anthropology? (Is there any existing methodology within the so called fine-art-history domain to analyze or articulate North-Eastern Indian tribal or non-tribal textile art without applying anthropological studies?) Simultaneously we keep in mind how after Foucauldian intervention the definition of Archeology shifted or broadened. Under such circumstances can we believe any orthodox disciplinary boundaries? In Preziosi’s words: “Art history…has never been the name of a science. It is a form of cultural practice necessarily interwoven with other forms of social and cultural practices….”3
The second cause why I have been often put into questions lies here; I frequently drag objects from performing art forms not from the performance arts. The ideological clash, formal tension and the phenomenal encounter between the performing forms of the larger public domain and the performance art inside the “high” art would insist me for another discussion.
My recent works are grounded upon some impossibility of enquiring the spectator’s subjectivity. The presence of a spectator problematizes a performer’s self-consciousness and his/her narcissism. It dismantles the whole notion of the self since the spectator is always the other. It leads us to the matter of an actor’s conscience to the presence of somebody else (be it inside him or outside). Remembering philosopher Gadamer’s observation: “Artistic presentation by its nature exists for someone, even if there is no one there who merely listens or watches”4. Spectator is the third person. The only thing a spectator can do is intervention. The constantly varied position of the spectator multiplies the actors’ self and hence, dismantles the monolith.
Other than David Carrier, the other most important art historian to draw our attention to spectator is Donald Preziosi. Preziosi comments: "…if we look at the paradigm more closely in the history of the discipline, we can identify five constituent elements that play a role:
A. maker/artist
B. process of production
C. object
D. process of reception
E. User/viewer………..
(Associations with the "E": reader; consumer; receiver of a transmission that may or may not have been aimed at her; critic; connoisseur; worshiper)
Then Preziosi points out: "Close attention to art historical writing reveals fewer metaphorical variants for "E" than for any of other component terms in the paradigm, for by and large the viewer has been seen largely as a passive reader or consumer of images: the end of the line, so to speak, the targeted audience or inadvertent interceptor of a transmission…"
Preziosi continues: “this logo centric paradigm is given a characteristic slant or trajectory so as to privilege the maker or artist as an essentially active, originary force, in complementary contrast to the essentially passive consumer or reader of works. It involves no great leap of the imagination to see that the paradigm simultaneously serve as a validating apparatus to privilege the role or function of the historian or critic as a legitimate and unvested diviner of intentionality on behalf of lay beholders”. 5.
The subject position of the creator is well discussed through so many existing methodological practices, whereas, the spectator is remained untraceable and untouchable. We even do not know whether it makes any sense if we try to say about a spectator’s subject position. In fact, the search for an actor’s subjectivity is crucial also. It happens because the actor is always directly confronting the spectator physically, containing a spectator within him. Again an actor does not produce any object but turns his own body to an object within which the subject dissolves. However in the art-studies the creator not as a mere conceptual entity but also as a human being is specifically located through biographies, skill-oriented-appreciations, personal-attributes and historical accounts. The spectator is always a conceptualized unite, beyond time and space, without having any subject position. While thinking of some space-specified spectator (as audience) we cannot keep ourselves away from reminding Pierre Bourdeu’s emphasize on distinction, classification and interest in taste production6. I assume there might be some melting point where the conceptual speculation, perceptual study and the sociological frameworks merge.
Jan Mukarovsky, in the similar tone of Preziosi drew our attention to the creator-centered method of criticism, saying: “it is becoming increasingly clear that the framework of the individual consciousness is determined, even in its most intimate levels, by contents that belong to the collective consciousness.”7 And then, “The work of art,” Mukarovsky states, “can neither be identified (as psychological aesthetics claimed) with the creator’s state of mind, nor with any of the states of mind that it provokes in the subjects who perceive it: it is clear that every state of subjective consciousness has something individual and momentary about it that makes it ineffable and incommunicable in its totality, whereas the work of art is intended to mediate between the author and the collectivity.”8 So the semiotic model offered by Mukarovsky denies the individual from both sides: the creator’s and the receiver’s.
Reading the work of art as a sign Mukarovsky also denies to reduce the work of art to its simple status as a “thing-work”, for it may happen that a “thing –work” completely changes its aspect and its inner structure when it moves in time and space. Refusing to identify the work of art with the subjective state of mind, Mukarovsky says that we are also rejecting at the same time any hedonistic theory9. Confronting Mukarovsky’s opposition to the “thing-work” I remember Grant H Kester’s positive insight towards some late modernist artistic projects. He mentions, “There are, however, a number of contemporary artists and art collectives that have defined their practice around the facilitation of dialogue among diverse communities. Parting from the traditions of object making, these artists have adopted a performative, process based approach. They are “context providers” rather than “content providers”, in the words of British artist Peter Dunn.”10
However, in the semiological proposal of Mukarovsky he refuses the subjective recognition of both the sides, the emergence of the spectator is there behind the sign-theory, who deciphers.
Earlier I mentioned, David Carrier’s account of the spectator’s spatial location within art-history writing is little different from my enquiry. Carrier makes an account of the methods of Gombrich, Steinberg, Fried and Foucault, and while doing so these most powerful thinkers of our times are the spectators in front of their objects. When Steinberg writes on Caravaggio or Foucault writes on Velazquez, Steinberg and Foucault are the spectators for those two painters. Each of those four writer’s methodological frameworks are different, as different as their physical positioning as spectators. But when we are reading those spectators’ writings, we are the spectator of those “spectators”, and those are the performers in front of us. So, somehow we have to be aware of who is writing it – Steinberg, Gombrich, Fried or Foucault (“Steinberg, Fried and Foucault analyze the spectator’s role differently. They are systematic thinkers. Once we know how they deal with this issue in one text, we can predict what they will say elsewhere.”)11.
All the discussion by Carrier around the four art writers roams around some point upon the canvas surface. Along with the horizontal and vertical axis of the canvas, the discourse deals intensely with the third axis, with which the inside the canvas-narrative and the outside space interwoven. Precisely, it is all about where (and when) the spectator’s position is. Till now everything is dealt regarding some figurative representations upon a canvas surface, be it Caravaggio, Courbet or Velazquez. We do not know even the similar methods are in any ways applicable to a non representational (or non-figurative) art work or not. Severe discomfort arises if we ask, not ‘where the spectator is’, but ‘who the spectator is’.
In terms of dealing with some performative circumstances inside an art-institution (bringing examples from Santiniketan and Baroda) we got to do with the process of contextualizing the “spectator”. The geographic and linguistic diversity that the state exhibits, lack of linear historiography, and the non-even education system of our continent never allows us to think of an absolute or standardized spectator anyhow. Next, the tailored sense of modern art in India is so complicated (and in many region-wise accounts seems to be imposed) that one cannot adopt any single art historical methodology unquestionably if s/he once becomes conscious about the presence of the spectator. Thirdly, the contemporary art practice precisely grounds in some multicultural, nontraditional sphere, where the issues like regional identity, nation-state discourse are inevitably surrounded. In fact the case of “public art” defines its “public” in its own terms. It is understood that, under such circumstances “who is the spectator” is an obvious question.
1David Carrier, “Where is the Painting? The place of the Spectator in Art History Writing”, (Principals of Art History Writing), p.159
2Spectator: viewer, watcher, witness, eyewitness, bystander, observer, onlooker, receiver, consumer, outsider, the other.
3Preziosi continues” “...Inexorably linked to social and ideological needs and desires. Its future survival s a discipline will be read in its ability to understand its own complex and contradictory history.” P. 52, Rethinking Art History, Meditations on a Coy Science.
4Hans George Gadamer, Truth and Method, Continuum Impacts, p.110
5Donald Preziosi, Rethinking Art History, p. 46
6Referring Pierre Bourdeu, Distinctions, A social Critique of the Judgment of Taste ( La Distinction, Critique Sociale du Judgement, translated by Richard Nice, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, Melbourne and Henley, 1979)
7Jan Mukarovsky, Art as Semiological Fact, P.1
8Ibid
9Ibid, p. 2
10See introduction of Grant H Kester, Conversation Pieces: Community + Communication in Modern Art.
11Carrier, p.163
“The art historian requires a conception of the spatial position of the spectator, and her conception of the spectator’s position influences her strategies of emplotment.”
--David Carrier 1
Spectator is the troublesome agent everywhere.
More than the issues and discourses around the word “spectatorship” my attempt bends towards the word “spectator2". Spectator’s physical presence and location were my first hand objects of curiosity, but, it is different from that kind of “physical location” David Carrier analyses in his “Principals of Art History Writing”. If we search for the spectator against the performer then the whole thing shifts from a perceptual or philosophical or spectatorial field to a sociological one, because, the spectator is not a mere individual but a group of people, a society, and beholder of some similar kind of acceptance or taste. At the same time one cannot avoid the need of a conceptual speculation since the act of perceiving is an individual act and the dilemma of the performer-spectator relationship contains some psychological dimensions as well. The power-relation between the performer and the spectator is also to be raised. Notably, in all the cases the presence of the spectator destabilizes or dismantles the existing notions, beliefs and comforts. So we shall see, a shift of objective choice also insists some methodological shift.
Bringing elements from theatre into visual studies I am in front some questions. My theoretical attempts are recognized as “offbeat” in art historical practice, and the same happens in theatrical discourses. So I prefer to say it a study of the interfaces. Notably, drama as a part of the literature studies is never questioned, whereas, privileging the literary text (the script) over the spatial discourse the departments of literature mostly do injustice to the art of performance. Again theatre is largely can be a part of Anthropology. (Victor Turner, the writer of Acting in Everyday Life, Everyday Life in Acting is an anthropologist. Egenio Barba, follower of Jerzy Grotowski and the writer of Four Spectators is the founder director of ISTA: International School for Theatre Anthropology). In similar ways is not the visual art or fine art a part of Anthropology? (Is there any existing methodology within the so called fine-art-history domain to analyze or articulate North-Eastern Indian tribal or non-tribal textile art without applying anthropological studies?) Simultaneously we keep in mind how after Foucauldian intervention the definition of Archeology shifted or broadened. Under such circumstances can we believe any orthodox disciplinary boundaries? In Preziosi’s words: “Art history…has never been the name of a science. It is a form of cultural practice necessarily interwoven with other forms of social and cultural practices….”3
The second cause why I have been often put into questions lies here; I frequently drag objects from performing art forms not from the performance arts. The ideological clash, formal tension and the phenomenal encounter between the performing forms of the larger public domain and the performance art inside the “high” art would insist me for another discussion.
My recent works are grounded upon some impossibility of enquiring the spectator’s subjectivity. The presence of a spectator problematizes a performer’s self-consciousness and his/her narcissism. It dismantles the whole notion of the self since the spectator is always the other. It leads us to the matter of an actor’s conscience to the presence of somebody else (be it inside him or outside). Remembering philosopher Gadamer’s observation: “Artistic presentation by its nature exists for someone, even if there is no one there who merely listens or watches”4. Spectator is the third person. The only thing a spectator can do is intervention. The constantly varied position of the spectator multiplies the actors’ self and hence, dismantles the monolith.
Other than David Carrier, the other most important art historian to draw our attention to spectator is Donald Preziosi. Preziosi comments: "…if we look at the paradigm more closely in the history of the discipline, we can identify five constituent elements that play a role:
A. maker/artist
B. process of production
C. object
D. process of reception
E. User/viewer………..
(Associations with the "E": reader; consumer; receiver of a transmission that may or may not have been aimed at her; critic; connoisseur; worshiper)
Then Preziosi points out: "Close attention to art historical writing reveals fewer metaphorical variants for "E" than for any of other component terms in the paradigm, for by and large the viewer has been seen largely as a passive reader or consumer of images: the end of the line, so to speak, the targeted audience or inadvertent interceptor of a transmission…"
Preziosi continues: “this logo centric paradigm is given a characteristic slant or trajectory so as to privilege the maker or artist as an essentially active, originary force, in complementary contrast to the essentially passive consumer or reader of works. It involves no great leap of the imagination to see that the paradigm simultaneously serve as a validating apparatus to privilege the role or function of the historian or critic as a legitimate and unvested diviner of intentionality on behalf of lay beholders”. 5.
The subject position of the creator is well discussed through so many existing methodological practices, whereas, the spectator is remained untraceable and untouchable. We even do not know whether it makes any sense if we try to say about a spectator’s subject position. In fact, the search for an actor’s subjectivity is crucial also. It happens because the actor is always directly confronting the spectator physically, containing a spectator within him. Again an actor does not produce any object but turns his own body to an object within which the subject dissolves. However in the art-studies the creator not as a mere conceptual entity but also as a human being is specifically located through biographies, skill-oriented-appreciations, personal-attributes and historical accounts. The spectator is always a conceptualized unite, beyond time and space, without having any subject position. While thinking of some space-specified spectator (as audience) we cannot keep ourselves away from reminding Pierre Bourdeu’s emphasize on distinction, classification and interest in taste production6. I assume there might be some melting point where the conceptual speculation, perceptual study and the sociological frameworks merge.
Jan Mukarovsky, in the similar tone of Preziosi drew our attention to the creator-centered method of criticism, saying: “it is becoming increasingly clear that the framework of the individual consciousness is determined, even in its most intimate levels, by contents that belong to the collective consciousness.”7 And then, “The work of art,” Mukarovsky states, “can neither be identified (as psychological aesthetics claimed) with the creator’s state of mind, nor with any of the states of mind that it provokes in the subjects who perceive it: it is clear that every state of subjective consciousness has something individual and momentary about it that makes it ineffable and incommunicable in its totality, whereas the work of art is intended to mediate between the author and the collectivity.”8 So the semiotic model offered by Mukarovsky denies the individual from both sides: the creator’s and the receiver’s.
Reading the work of art as a sign Mukarovsky also denies to reduce the work of art to its simple status as a “thing-work”, for it may happen that a “thing –work” completely changes its aspect and its inner structure when it moves in time and space. Refusing to identify the work of art with the subjective state of mind, Mukarovsky says that we are also rejecting at the same time any hedonistic theory9. Confronting Mukarovsky’s opposition to the “thing-work” I remember Grant H Kester’s positive insight towards some late modernist artistic projects. He mentions, “There are, however, a number of contemporary artists and art collectives that have defined their practice around the facilitation of dialogue among diverse communities. Parting from the traditions of object making, these artists have adopted a performative, process based approach. They are “context providers” rather than “content providers”, in the words of British artist Peter Dunn.”10
However, in the semiological proposal of Mukarovsky he refuses the subjective recognition of both the sides, the emergence of the spectator is there behind the sign-theory, who deciphers.
Earlier I mentioned, David Carrier’s account of the spectator’s spatial location within art-history writing is little different from my enquiry. Carrier makes an account of the methods of Gombrich, Steinberg, Fried and Foucault, and while doing so these most powerful thinkers of our times are the spectators in front of their objects. When Steinberg writes on Caravaggio or Foucault writes on Velazquez, Steinberg and Foucault are the spectators for those two painters. Each of those four writer’s methodological frameworks are different, as different as their physical positioning as spectators. But when we are reading those spectators’ writings, we are the spectator of those “spectators”, and those are the performers in front of us. So, somehow we have to be aware of who is writing it – Steinberg, Gombrich, Fried or Foucault (“Steinberg, Fried and Foucault analyze the spectator’s role differently. They are systematic thinkers. Once we know how they deal with this issue in one text, we can predict what they will say elsewhere.”)11.
All the discussion by Carrier around the four art writers roams around some point upon the canvas surface. Along with the horizontal and vertical axis of the canvas, the discourse deals intensely with the third axis, with which the inside the canvas-narrative and the outside space interwoven. Precisely, it is all about where (and when) the spectator’s position is. Till now everything is dealt regarding some figurative representations upon a canvas surface, be it Caravaggio, Courbet or Velazquez. We do not know even the similar methods are in any ways applicable to a non representational (or non-figurative) art work or not. Severe discomfort arises if we ask, not ‘where the spectator is’, but ‘who the spectator is’.
In terms of dealing with some performative circumstances inside an art-institution (bringing examples from Santiniketan and Baroda) we got to do with the process of contextualizing the “spectator”. The geographic and linguistic diversity that the state exhibits, lack of linear historiography, and the non-even education system of our continent never allows us to think of an absolute or standardized spectator anyhow. Next, the tailored sense of modern art in India is so complicated (and in many region-wise accounts seems to be imposed) that one cannot adopt any single art historical methodology unquestionably if s/he once becomes conscious about the presence of the spectator. Thirdly, the contemporary art practice precisely grounds in some multicultural, nontraditional sphere, where the issues like regional identity, nation-state discourse are inevitably surrounded. In fact the case of “public art” defines its “public” in its own terms. It is understood that, under such circumstances “who is the spectator” is an obvious question.
1David Carrier, “Where is the Painting? The place of the Spectator in Art History Writing”, (Principals of Art History Writing), p.159
2Spectator: viewer, watcher, witness, eyewitness, bystander, observer, onlooker, receiver, consumer, outsider, the other.
3Preziosi continues” “...Inexorably linked to social and ideological needs and desires. Its future survival s a discipline will be read in its ability to understand its own complex and contradictory history.” P. 52, Rethinking Art History, Meditations on a Coy Science.
4Hans George Gadamer, Truth and Method, Continuum Impacts, p.110
5Donald Preziosi, Rethinking Art History, p. 46
6Referring Pierre Bourdeu, Distinctions, A social Critique of the Judgment of Taste ( La Distinction, Critique Sociale du Judgement, translated by Richard Nice, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, Melbourne and Henley, 1979)
7Jan Mukarovsky, Art as Semiological Fact, P.1
8Ibid
9Ibid, p. 2
10See introduction of Grant H Kester, Conversation Pieces: Community + Communication in Modern Art.
11Carrier, p.163
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)