Erotic viciousness of m.f.husain's art
"Culture is not a field of warfare, neither a discourse of power rather is ethical responsibility and obligation towards the other"
"When art becomes an instrument of political warfare it loses its sanctity, its loses it aura"- Adorno
"The picture is an event of being- in it being appears, meaningfully and visibly" – Gadamar in truth and method
Let me start with a question regarding an artist. Who is an artist? In general term artist is he who creates art? He, who uplifts the curtain of the hidden truth, is an artist. He who knows how to transcend illusionist appearances of phenomenal truths? In western modern art it was a hot debate that what is really art? Is it representational, imitational, and political or is revelation of truth. The great modernists like Paul Gauguin, Matisse, W. Kandinskey, Paul Klee, Newman, and J. Pollok took another turn; they having lost all hopes in modern wisdom started mediating on truth of art. Kandinskey's approach to truth is very important regarding discourse on language of art, when he said that propose of art is not to imitate rather to create. He was against all kinds of imitation and representation. These modernists understood the dangers of representation and dangers of objectification of art. They understood this danger too that when art becomes an object of manipulation and a tool for any political ideology to wage a war; it will lose it validity. People regard an artist not for his being political rather for his creativity, his passion to give people something new. An artist opens the gate of unexplored reality for the people.
If an artist becomes political, he sets a boundary stone; invests all his creative energy in the service of war and oppression. Gills Deleuge and Guattary says that ‘when one joins an ideology which is an expression which defines territory, one becomes territorial' as Muktibodh a Hindi poet puts it very beautifully ‘ taya karo ki tum kidhar ho”( decide in which side you are). Deleuge says that the repressive qualities we term aesthetic are certainly not ‘pure' or symbolic qualities but proper qualities, in other words, appropriative qualities, passages from milieu components to territory components'. Which is why an artist who expresses puts a big signature on his expressed idea, thus sets a territory. ‘The signature is not an indication of a person; it is chancy formation of a domain'. When one becomes ideationally expressive he is not forming individual domain but joins hands with a group of expressionists, who have already formed a rhythm of expressive qualities, a melody. Marx expressed his political ideology and set forth a discourse of territorialization. He invited every one, poets, novelists, actors, artists to create the bloody melody of Marxism in order to capture the capitalist territory. So in India too it happened and a hero of Indian modern art is invited for a crusade against dominating Hinduism. Husain with his expressive qualities has joined Marxist rhythm and melody of territorialization. When one does not find essence of art and life one turns his face towards territory formation.
When one does not find essence of life one enters in relation with the cultivators of power. To grasp on the mechanism of this aptitude of territory formation one enters in the relation with like minded individuals, groups, classes, thinkers etc. Husain being an artist in power since he has accumulated capital and celebrity status got real platform to play politics. He has formed a stage for this play on which drama of democratization of art and expression is being executed. With the light, sound and script of pseudo Marxists he like a monkey plays the drama: that he is being oppressed, that his freedom of expression is in danger, that because he is from minority community he is forced to live in exile in his own country. And lo, he aspires to see his mother country nude. He has joined Marxist orchestra because in this territory of so called progressives, who have not progressed a little bit in the eighty years of their history, he feels free to sing a song of anarchism. His abusing and sodomizing expression coming out on canvases are coming out from deeply rooted ‘hate instinct' since being a Muslim he hates idolatry.
In him and in the fanatic Islamic mentality there is no difference on this ground. Husain is doing the same thing what Islam did when it arrived on the Indian soil. As Sir V.S. Naipaul have said “They speak of the triumph of the faith, the destruction of idols and temples, the loot, the carting away of the local people as slaves, so cheap and numerous that they were being sold for a few rupees. The architectural evidence- the absence of Hindu monuments in the north is convincing enough.” Is M.F.Husain in the name of modern art doing the same thing? It seems so because he fanatically paints Hindu Gods and Goddesses as though enjoying his long cherished desire to humiliate Hinduism. His freedom of expression gets paralysis when he paints any Muslim saint like Muhammad sahib's daughter Fatima, fully clad so serene as though she is the goddess of knowledge having scripture in her hands. But see, how his brush enjoys the freedom of expression when he paints nude Saraswati or Sita etc, every one knows.
This communal expressionism which is cleverly executed should be stopped in order to create a democratic atmosphere of art. Tragedy is this that, he humiliates the Hindu community and when gets fierce reaction from them he starts lamenting and weeping -saying “I am from minority community this is why people are not giving me an opportunity to express, to wound”. He abuses the Hindu society because he feels oppressed by Hindu society. Like his ideal Marx who under capitalist regime felt oppressed, exploited and expressed his grievances in the form of abusive and spectral language [{' Specter of Marx is hunting Europe …) …he abused capitalist society in the form of (ma….bahin ki).] A specter in the form of Marxism appeared with an evil language to haunt the society and it ate flash of innocent humans, drank blood, and exploited women's, laborers in the name of democracy and liberation. This specter attacked religions, morality, and culture of the people in order to create its own religion of Stalinism kind. What humanity would expect from an ideology that was in the very beginning abusive? Like a plunderer Husain behaves, why not? over all plundering is also a form of expression which he has learned partially from his own religion and partially from Marxism. Intellectuals must criticize it in order to save the society either these kinds of people and artist intellectuals will create havoc in the society.
In India cultural arena is almost politicized, structuralized, and organized by these non-democratic forces. Culture is no more seen from the angle of celebration of the people in their normal course of life; it has been described as a discourse of power. As in above stanzas I have pointed out –as discourse of territory formation. This discourse shakes its hands from all social responsibilities and joins in the words of Levinas ‘Barbarism of Being.' Culture which was, a breach made by the humans in the Barbarism of Being'; is losing its sacred ties very fast and it is not from human side but from ‘Barbarism of Being'. No philosophy guarantees us against the return of this other side of humanity i.e. ‘Barbarism of Being' which is rooted in desire, in will to power. It has threatened the society in the form of Marxism, Freudian, modernism and still threatening in the form of specters. But humans have subsumed them all and gradually returning back to its sacredness. Culture is not a field of warfare, neither a discourse of power rather is ethical responsibility and obligation towards the other. It can be called love as Emmanuel Levinas puts it.
Without ethical responsibility and obligation towards the other there is no progress possible. If art frees, it gives responsibility and obligation too. Ambedakar understood it well that freedom can not be without obligation and responsibility; hence he added ten obligatory clauses in our constitution. An artist thinks his freedom is absolute which is wrong; if he is not living in the society than he can have absolute freedom but if he is an artist of the society he is bound by a relationship and obligation.
Further more, art is one, it can not be classified in bourgeois art, proletariat art, religious art etc. art is connected to the whole humanity. It is a political concept that true, authentic, progressive art is the art of ascending class. Art is human; absolutely human it is not limited to class consciousness. This Marxist concept that art is limited to a class gives an impression that it is no-democratic and dictatorial; Marx uses this term dictatorship of proletarians. Art is a creative consciousness devoid of any inspiration towards power. It is not a discourse on power or of power rather is a discourse, a longing in which artist puts being in to work, it is a realization of the work. It is autonomous in this sense only since without autonomy of ‘Being' art can not create anything new. In Indian modern art some artists like S.H.Raza, V.S.Gaitonde, Ramkumar, G.R.Santosh, Shyamal Dutta Roy, Bikash Bhattacharya, Satish Gujral, Himmat Shah, Ganesh Haloi, to name a few, did understood it and left the so called limited progressive consciousness of art. They moved forward to explore the truth of art; in order to give people ‘light'. These masters of Indian modern art give us some hope of democratic art environment, an environment necessary to create light in order to have light for the future.
