(Review- For illustrative purpose only)
This article does not intent to hurt anybody; any journalist
or any artist. Today morning, in the newspaper, Hindustan Times I happened to
read a small report on an exhibition that is currently on in Delhi. It speaks
of an artist working from Dharamsala, a spiritual retreat in North India where
the Tibetan government in exile is headquartered. This unsigned article had a
curious title which in fact attracted me to it. It read, ‘Artworks Explore Link
between Creativity and Meditation’. As an art critic, I am a bit uncomfortable
with the word ‘spiritual’ when it is loosely applied on the kind of works of
art, which either has a Buddha head or purely abstract. But this title sounded
a bit scientific and the assertion that the said works of art ‘explore the link
between creativity and meditation’ made me think that reading it would help me
to understand the ‘link’ (which I have been missing for so long) between creativity
and meditation. Let me tell you, the reading left me disappointed for it was
the usual stuff; artist is spiritually inclined and he paints spiritual
subjects. Period.
I could have left the article there but two things struck me
while reading it; the writer/reporter’s blind faith in the artist who speaks as
the ‘author’ of these ‘spiritual’ works and the deliberation that the
writer/reporter has taken to keep his/her name obscure. It goes by ‘HT
Correspondent’. As I used to be an insider I know that this kind of a byline
means either the writer is a cub reporter or the report itself does not have
any fresh or authentic views which make the reader curious about the identity
of the reporter/reviewer. Hence, this report/review appeared more or less as a
PR exercise or maximum a result of the page editor who looks for a filler in
the page stipulated for (here in this case) South Delhi. The gallery where the
show is on is located in South Delhi and perhaps that is the only justification
that I find the relevance of this story. But the danger is whether the reporter’s
name is known or not people have a tendency to believe in what the newspapers
generally say. So layman would definitely think that this artist has found out
the ‘link’ between creativity and meditation. False.
(Review 2 - For illustration purpose only)
Personally speaking, I do not have any problem with any
artists who claim that their works of art come from deep meditation or an
intense sense of spirituality. I know for sure that reading a few self-help
books would not make you a professional trainer or reading a few spiritual
discourses (whether it is of Osho or Dalailama or Jiddu Krishnamurthy or
Sadguru or anyone like that) would not make one a spiritual guru. A person who
has understood the link between creativity and meditation would never be able
to say so because once that link is established the very life would become a
deep meditation where painting or sculpting or anything of those so called
creative activity ceases to exist. If you look from a different perspective, if
you are creative and provided you are making a thing or conjuring up something with
your mind and execute it through your hands then without this preamble of
spiritualism and meditation, it is a deep meditative state. There is no link;
because it is. If you are creative, in the very act of creation, you are
meditative. But you could be meditative and be less creative where you would
remain meditative but not creative. So the choice is left with you; Do you want
to become creative therefore meditative or meditative and believe that you are
creative too. I prefer the earlier one.
Those people say that they are very meditative and their art
is linked to their meditation, are actually doing some self-deception. The
state of mind in which the artist says that he/she is meditative and spiritual
therefore the creativity that they have springs from that particular state of
mind is a way of defining their creativity and seeking legitimacy for that. The
fact is this that when you are creative, you could be nothing but meditative.
You may be making a lot of noise; still you are meditative. You may be jumping
around; still you are meditative. You may be sitting in the middle of the
market; still you are meditative. You could be all in chaos and create something
which could look quasi-spiritual or quasi-mythological and could call it
meditative; still it would remain as a result of your confusion. So if someone
claims that he/she has found out the link between creativity and meditation, it
is all humbug. You cannot find out creativity in meditation. If you are creative,
that is mediation. There could be a meditative state which is utterly inert and
static, which blocks the nerve endings of creativity and make the whole being
stand still or throb with the music of the universe. But it is not creativity.
It is just finding rhythm with the universe. Great sages have done that. Once
they have achieved that state of mind, they could hear what others could not
(sruti) and they could remember what others could not (smruti). This is not
creativity. It is just becoming a medium of the collective knowledge.
(Review- for illustration purpose only)
Therefore, the article that tells me about an artist who has
read some spiritual literature, done fairly good yoga practice and has lived
far away from the maddening crowd, and if the article claims that he has found
the ‘link between creativity and meditation’ it is a false claim. It is as good
as saying a quack had found out the complicated scientific truths about neuroscience.
The jargon which is used without responsibility like in this press report, even
barring the name of the writer, the fourth estate does a great disservice to
the culture in general. The people who read and believe in it would perhaps
tomorrow paint some Buddha head and some abstract stuff and say that they too
have found the fresh springs of spirituality, meditation and creativity. It can
never happen. The page fillers in this sense could kill the beautiful concepts
of Indian art. When a famous newspaper like Hindustan Times publishes something
like this, they could adopt a policy to say that ‘it is a promotional article’
or ‘the newspaper does not believe in the claims the artist has made. It is
purely his personal views.’ Such disclaimers would help the reader to discern
the good from the bad. The original from the fake. Otherwise, tomorrow the same
jargon would be used for Subodh Gupta and Nikhil Chopra for they too explore
their kind of spiritualism in their works. But in my view if they are doing
something good, then definitely they are in a meditative mood. If any artist
produces junk and it repels people both the initiated and the uninitiated, then
be sure that the artist was just managing his/her art or just faking a
spiritual orgasm.
No comments:
Post a Comment