(source net)
How do we come to know about art? How do our art critics and
writers compare the locally produced art with the international art that they
have seen only in digital mediums or in books? In that case is it possible to
review a work of art without seeing it in the real time and space? If we extend
this question, is it possible for us to even talk about what has been happening
in Marina Beach in Chennai where the supporters of the rural sport Jellikkettu
have gathered? Is it necessary for the cultural commentators to be in the
actual space of happening? Does the physical proximity with the work of art or
an event give the cultural commentators and critics an added edge of legitimacy
than those people who have seen it in digital mediums or books? Where exactly
this kind of authenticity parts ways with the cultural commentary that takes
the event/work of art as a point of departure to speak about a larger
socio-cultural or political phenomenon? We see both the cases in the
newspapers; journalists reporting from the actual field of events and the
experts analysing and deducing critical factors of the same from the already
reported events. If we go by the physical proximity equals to legitimacy, then
we have to always look at the commentators with a fair amount of suspicion and
have to go by what the reporters have said. Then, what about art? Will you
listen to a person who has visited the show or a person who has seen it in one
of the mediums and makes some comments on it?
I am that kind of an art critic who would like to write on
art/things/events that I have directly/physically experienced. I walk many kilometres
to visit a gallery (this helps me to combine my health walk with my aesthetic
adventures) and spend considerable amount of time before the works of art.
Generally I do not prefer to converse with the artist if he/she is present
there. But if he/she would like to have a word with me, then definitely I give
a patient ear to what they have to tell. I am put off by many an artist when
he/she explains things to me because their art may look brilliant and their
explanations absolutely lame. So it is always safe to be away from the artists’
explanations. At the same time I earn to listen to the artists who actually
make you feel whether their works brilliant or their words. Excelling both in
verbal explanations and in execution of the works, such artists are rare ones
like the Kohinoor diamond. I am equally sceptical about those artists who excel
in their words but fail miserably in their works of art. To put it in nutshell,
I prefer to see the original works of art and comment than to look at them in
some digital mediums and dare to make comments. This, why I say is because the
feeling of being in a place and before a work of art is much more intense than
seeing it at your desktop in a digital medium.
(source -net)
At the same time I have been faced with certain doubts;
suppose if I am reading a book by say, Orhan Pamuk in Kindle and reading the
same book in paperback or hardbound, taking equal amount of time, is there any
fundamental difference between the aesthetical experience? I could argue that I
am reading the same book, written by the same author. In the former I could
have it whenever I want by just clicking a button on. In the latter I can have
the same by picking it up from the desk and reading it. The only palpable
difference is that in Kindle, one page goes and the new one comes; I know that
the previous page is there but not yet there. But in the real book, it is like
feeling the previous pages that you have gone through. Like a terrain that
demands climbing and each level you could see the areas that you have covered.
You can have a sense of elation. Reading in Kindle is passive and reading in
book is performative. All the conventional acts of art enjoyments are
performative. I walk miles to buy my books. I enjoy the days when I go out to
buy the books. I could literally imagine the books waiting for me in the
shelves of the book stall. Each step I take towards the book stall, each visual,
the honking of the vehicles, the hand holding couples, the bikers, courier men,
security guards, the bulldozers that bring down old buildings to make way for
the new ones, the house maids going home in the evening, girl in western
clothes eating very traditional ‘chat’ from the wayside vendor, the woman in
traditional saree dragging at a cigarette and what not; nothing escapes my eyes
because I am on the way to buy books. I get the books and walk back as if it
were all a dream. Then I get back to my home, I start reading. This is an event
in itself; an experience; my marriage, right from seeing the girl to my nuptial
night and more. But Kindle? A click, she is all nude before me, yes, the book.
It is applicable in the case of looking at the works of art
displayed in a gallery. You drive or walk to the gallery. See the works if possible
even without the gallery assistants, executives or the owner herself not
disturbing you. There you go; you are alone with the work of art. You wonder
and wander, you drag yourself back to the work. Read the captions , move
forward and backward. At times you nod your head in approval; sometimes you
shake in disgust; sometimes your eyes sparkle and at times you pout in sarcasm.
There are a whole lot of things happening in there; your very viewing of a work
of art. Then it is a pleasure to write about it. But.....it is a real ‘but’
here. A work of art is not like a book. A book published elsewhere could be
made available here digitally or physically. But a work of art cannot always be
bought here. If the artists are not locally placed or if it is not a travelling
show or if the show is not opening in your city, then it is difficult to see
the works physically. So you have to see them digitally. Once you see them, now
with the help of 360 degree digital mapping, you get an idea about the work of
art. You may be doubtful about the size because a low angle shot could make an
ant a dinosaur. But you keep looking at it from a variety of angles; from
various posts, reports and sharing etc. You see and you finally get the work of
art you want to see.
(source net)
Does that render you an inauthentic critic or commentator?
In my view, in this world of digital reproduction, we cannot say that we should
be seeing the original work of art even if it is not possible to physically get
there. If I again make a comparison with the books, I would say we are not
reading the manuscripts of the authors even if we are reading the same book in
print or in digital format; nor are we reading the first copy of the printed
book. Though there cannot be an accurate comparison between books and works of
art, the aesthetical experience could be imparted through looking at the digitally
reproduced works. Hence, the claim that everyone should be looking at an original
work of art/event before making a comment does not hold much water. Even the
idea of legitimacy and authenticity imparted to the people who have been the
actual witnesses of the event/work of art could be disputed for the actual
analysis and in depth study may come from those people see the work of
art/event over digital mediums. In fact most of the theoretical studies are
done using expanded methodology to include international events and works of
art in its field of discussion. Therefore, I would say, while I always remain a
stickler to the idea of going to see a work of art physically in real space and
time, I would not discount people talking about the works of art that they have
seen in digital media and making critical comments on it. Only thing is that
there should not be too much of a distance between what is seen online and what
is said in ‘real’ time. That needs training, sensibility, sensitivity and the
rare ability of inner vision.
No comments:
Post a Comment