Something about his paintings stirred me into writing this post. This in context with all the controversies surrounding his paintings. Well, that( the controversy) is not the point of my interest, but merely an input point as to why an 80 year old artist should endure so much resistance and still do what he wants to do. why is it imperative to him to be this rebellion and why is it important for his art. And thereby arrive at why does he do "art" in the particular way he does. And is there not any other aimless reason to do art? ( apologies, but I am not against or for him, i don't see any need to make either of the choices, i just want to look at the reason for this) Or probably to answer my question about, whether art could get boring, could i get bored of doing paintings and leave it ? hmm fancy thought.
If you see, well the first links i got to his paintings were all the controversial paintings( though i did'nt find them controversial , well that was'nt my aim, to get offended by looking at his paintings, also they didnt seem to be intensional to me. ) They were good, different, not the type i have been seeing so far. They were "expressionistic", well, i had wikied and googled impressionist style ( especially Monet, coz he was the pioneer of this style ) quite a lot and do have my own fair idea of what it is and that all it has to do is with how a thing "looks" , or how it impresses upon ur eye and eye alone . These type of paintings strictly stick to your visual senses. While expressionistic, come a lot further from this and attempt to "express feelings" in an abstract way. Like all the words put together to express your feelings, cut short by a bizarre spread of colors and abstraction of things to depict your feelings as art form. While the Monet impressionist did the same, it was restricted to only "visual" feelings. Not abstract feelings in your mind. Like thoughts.
 Grainstacks in the Sunlight, Morning Effect, 1890. Oil on canvas. Private collection. |  Haystacks, (Midday), 1890-91, National Gallery of Australia |  Wheatstacks (End of Summer), 1890-91. Oil on canvas. Art Institute of Chicago |  Wheatstacks, 1890-91. Oil on canvas. Art Institute of Chicago. |  Haystacks at the End of Summer, Morning Effect, 1891. Oil on canvas. Louvre, Paris, France. |
But why did they do this, why did art had to evolve and has to evolve further ? For this lets take three paintings which belong to different periods of art. Check this link it might help in understanding what I am trying to say and give a brief background to the point. http://www.harley.com/art/abstract-art/index.html#hahn
Please read the above link before going any further.
First , (coz i cannot trace back art beyond this, well thats the scope of my post and i decide it :D ) the photographic "representative art" , something like da Vinci's Last Supper or Monalisa or imagine anyother "portrait type" photographic art which were replaced by Photos during the modern era. The general need then was to reproduce visual input as it is as it was lacking then and was not easy as it was made in the later years by "cameras".
The next period of painting, the passage of time, or the Monet. Take the Monet Lillies, the main aim of the artist, as gathered by various accounts of great analysts, is to depict the changing light on the subject or rather the "time effect on the subject". It still stuck to the visual aspects of the subject. Could it be because of the lacking of an easier way to capture the "passage of time" like as in a "movie" ? This type of art persisted like untill the late 19th century, precisely the time the "movies" came and the ability to capture "passage of time", motion picture was invented. The general public and the artists lost interest in this aspect of capturing "passage of time" and this type of art form became boring.
Then the new need came. The need to capture "feelings", so far as i am concerned there is no "visual" media to capture feelings and express it (1). Like it was with how things look and how things are perceived to look visually by the artist. But "feelings" alone were never expressed visually. or could be captured visually. This great medium is only possible through the mind, no gadget could make this possible. Atleast till now. So hence evolved the "abstract expressionism" . Depiction of feelings.
Vincent's Starry Night was one such,
stuck in transition of two periods of painting, i could not understand what the artist wants to express, but clearly it was'nt a Monet, it was'nt impressionist, it wasnt expressing the visual impression of a subject, but something else. Then there is this more evolved, "scream" painting, expressing the feeling precisely. | |
| Artist | Edvard Munch |
|---|---|
Coming back to MF Hussain, why was he obsessed with Indian Gods in the first place, even after so much resistance? what was its importance in his life, the dominant hindu community in which he lives ( India) could not have escaped him though he was a muslim. So the fact that he is mocking Hinduism for his own religious agenda as an outsider has no weight. He is as intrigued by the whole Hindu culture as any nonfundamentalist, objective, not blinkered by bigotry, Hindu would be. His art wouldnt be any different if he was a Hindu. It merely is his feelings and the countless stories he heard about the culture during his life which did not escape him though he was a muslim, and that depicts the uniqueness he portrays of India, the authority with which he painted about core Indian culture icons, of Gods and Ramayana and the like, as if he was part of this culture and has a right to absorb this into him and not merely be an outsider. or be bound by the religious borders. I refuse to attribute anyother reason for his art and more importantly refuse to just stick to the visual offense ( of nudity and the like) and color it with religion bias, if there was any, in the first place.
Clearly, if you understand abstract art you can see that it was not the aim of the artist either!
"Blue #1" [2000] by Harley Hahn. Perfect "abtract", if you see what i mean ;)Its fun to watch how painting as an art form has evolved so "obviously" :) . My aim of the post was to try drawing a parallel to the need of the change and the corresponding ability of the humanbeing to "capture" things and give it to another sentient being. The complexity of what the artist wants to pass, evolved overtime, it was pure visual to feelings of visual sense, to pure feelings alone. Could a parallel be brought to the evolution of gadgets to achieve the same? no still images to still images to moving images ?!... so keep musing on what is yet to come....
Please pardon the digression if any, somehow it cannot escape me :( ( i could write a whole new post as to why digression is inescapable ! ;) )
It might sound totally crazy and un-understandable to some, but i enjoy it, so please dnt mind the "rubbish" if u so think ! FYI the analysis is not exhaustive and only superficial. :D ( oh yeah! I am protective and defensive about myself even before you comment :D )
P.S : 1) well you might argue, the movies could do it, express the feeling of the director . But is it efficient? 3 long hours to express, compared to a very personal medium of expression which takes hardly a moment to be passed on to anther being unlike the movies ?
