Treatise 2010

The International Thought Challenge

Creative Freedom in Indian art should prevail over moral policing by Indian regulators

Posted by Team Manfest On January - 9 - 2010

In the hour of crisis, the mortals find solace in spirits and the men search for it in Karma. Long revered and worshipped have been those who have stuck to the legion and their common good, paving a path for justice to prevail over the dreary sands of countless deviations. This is how the less travelled path finally emerges after the winds start to settle. In a world where wisdom and opportunism are often considered synonyms, the lesser mortals trudge the easier road in the name of art and culture and vicariously disburse a feeling of creativity and thought leadership. The true leaders emerge out of practice, possibility, preparation, performance and poise. And they are the ones who we look up to as moral guides.

“The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society” – Daniel Patrick Moynihan

The rich Indian culture as we often address it has been thriving in the virtues of silence, tolerance and patience, keeping the world in awe of it. More often than not, these virtues have been considered as the chinks in our armour rather than the steel in it, and on every occasion that reckoned, we have shown that these are the strengths that have been ingrained into us. And those who thought the contrary have dropped their jaws in admiration of our moral and ethical victory. But wait for a moment, and take notice of how our virtues have changed the world and we realize that we would be travelling from the Black & White into the Grey. In the name of art and culture, we have been deteriorating to a nation seen more as a threat in this era of globalization than as an asset to this planet. Even when the whole world was applauding our ‘Slumdog’, there was no manifestation of the pride that we take in our economic and social development- They know that we are the ones who know the least about ourselves, and how true it is? Mockeries have been made of our Gods in the name of liberal arts and drama, and we have seen the ones we worship, reduce to mere characters and colours. Ironically and truly so in spite of all that we have achieved, we are always in a transition as we fail to accept that we are the leaders, because the rest show us a shaded mirror. Alas! We fail to accept that we are the gatekeepers of what our tradition has endowed us with. Who gave us the right to insult the conviction of the Mahatma, who gave us the roadmap that was paved with the alloy of culture, virtues and development, and whose last words were Hey Ram? A piece of art can at best make a statue of him, and to save time we choose to hire someone who could clean the morning ablutions of the birds on that statue, specially a day before 2nd October. However, we love to see more and more of him, albeit only in the form of currency notes in our account. Wait, ponder and decide- Where are we heading?

“Every age, every culture, every custom and tradition has its own character, its own weakness and its own strength, its beauties and cruelties; it accepts certain sufferings as matters of course, puts up patiently with certain evils. Human life is reduced to real suffering, to hell, only when two ages, two cultures and religions overlap.” -Hermann Hesse

As we try and swim to the opposite bank, we nominate the sergeants of our moral values and culture and inadvertently wrest the initiative with them- the onus to be caretakers of what we consider unimportant and secondary. Yes, we do. Yes, we are the ‘Cut, Copy, Paste Generation’, yes we don’t cast our votes ( for us the PAN card and Passport are the ID proofs and not the Voters Card), yes we are the next- gen, Yes We are proud of what we are, although only passively. Two pegs of scotch down in an Institute party and we shall be able to digest all of this and much more, to be ready to dance to the mindless music of the DJ and pass out all of it the next morning, just to rush to the morning lecture . Yes we are the cream, which melts faster than it freezes. Uggh! We are…We are…! So what if someone distorts the culture in the name of moral policing on Valentine’s Day, I have to run fast to grow and compete. Being liberal is in, being traditional is obsolete (Oh come on! Did you not see my ethnic couture in my friend’s wedding?)  Twist, malign and tolerate and if can’t do any of them, then just have another peg, we have bigger problems to tackle with our global view and competency.

Settling for the least worse is accepted in the garb of ‘Making the Best Choice’. The ‘Trickle Down Effect’ is hazardous for the society and our inherent Indian tradition, for what trickles down is just the residue of what we pour. Responsibility is for the capable, and liberalism is for the enlightened. In effect, where are we, still in a tryst. It makes sense to hold on to the previous step before we have put our foot firmly on the next- and the previous step is that of our rich tradition. It is and will always be the first step that we climbed and the firsts are always cherished and protected. To put it in perspective, let us analyze the current position of our culture in the modern context through a SWOT or a VRIO framework and the result would be evident. Regardless of what we do and where we reach, we shall always be Indians – then why not be proudly so with firm belief in our art and culture. For this very reason, we need to be the guardians of it. Awakened as we think we are, it is our duty to present it as our embellishment and let no one dare distort or misrepresent it. The regulatory authority is within each one of this awakened individual.

We often love to hear one of our friends whistle our favourite tunes, however whistling the same on the road may invite lesser appreciation. Thoughts, actions and their derivatives may be right in one context and detestable in the other. All of us have an equitable right to this nation, and hence an equitable responsibility towards each other. The reason why someone is allowed to indulge in policing is that we create a need for it. It is very much like asking the fox for the keys to the henhouse.

Awakening and Enlightenment are better alternatives to policing, whether that is for behaviour or for actions. The evolution of the world has seen the end of both extremes and the fittest remained so, because they could survive all conditions. No Government will ever be empowered enough to adjudicate if the citizens are not empowered to decide- A government is at best a sample of the large population. Paramount it is and will always be, to accept each other with clear definitions of public and private space. The regulation has to evolve from within, and in a manner that we don’t transgress these definitions.

Who is John Galt? As we out- trench and unleash our liberal self within clear space but demarcated boundaries, we would stand tall to discover him within us. So on, so on, so on….till then, who is John Galt?

Topic 6
10 COMMENTS
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

10 Responses

  1. Cartoons Says:

    “RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION” a fundamental right conferred to us by our constitution, was enshrined by the brightest minds of Independent India. The reason cited was that they ensure the holistic development of every citizen and these basic freedoms are imperative to make life worth living.

    But hold on… Does this right really guarantee you freedom?

    NO… it doesn’t… at least not Creative Freedom…

    A writer’s views in a novel were pronounced to be so instigating that she was issued ‘fatwa’ from the religious authorities. Another writer had kill at sight orders issued in his name. Another creative personality had to flee the country and go to exile. Innumerable incidents can be quoted where song lyrics or dialogues had to be changed. There are numerous incidents of movies posters being torn. All this in the pretext of hurting the sentiments of some or the other community. Sometimes its novels or articles, at others its movies or songs and dialogues.

    Creativity is indisputably under attack from moral policemen…

    Art, a form of expression of thoughts, does it really need to be censored? The bigger question in fact is should it be censored?

    Are our beliefs in our religion or our God or any other belief so feeble, that anybody else’s expressions can hurt us or weaken the belief? Why is it that we cannot give the other person the liberty to think and portray whatever he or she thinks or believes in? Why do we need to bring their expressions in line with ours and more importantly who gives us the right to do this?

    Creativity has no boundaries. But authorities try and build them and limit the freedom. How can creativity grow and flourish in this closed environment? Humans are different from animals because they are creative; they use their minds to create. But by making boundaries we are stomping creativity and thus rendering meaningless the existence of humanity.

    What is the purpose of living when there is some forcing authority to monitor and expurgate whatever one does?

    We need to understand that some words in a song or some portrayals in movies or even writings in novels or articles cannot and should not affect our belief and our deity in any sense.

    Why do we get instigated by such small incidents? Because we feel that somebody is disrespecting our deity, be it a country or a God.

    All religions and all Gods teach us tolerance; tolerance to human beings and this for sure encompasses their expressions too. Are we not disrespecting our own deities by being intolerant to other’s expressions?

    Are we waiting for the day when India becomes a barren land, where creativity is at its nadir?

    It is high time we understand the importance of tolerance as human beings and towards other humans. An intolerant attitude will lead us nowhere. Let us have our beliefs so firm that nobody can in any way disrespect them. Let our beliefs be so innate that we stop fearing their getting uprooted.

    Let Creative Freedom prevail…

    Let us give creativity the universe around, let it spread out and conquer the world…

    Let us become so strong that nothing external or even internal can hurt our beliefs…

    Posted on January 15th, 2010 at 8:35 am

  2. EaglesSecret Says:

    Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high
    Where knowledge is free
    Where the world has not been broken up into fragments
    By narrow domestic walls
    ……
    Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way
    Into the dreary desert sands of dead habit
    …….
    Into that heaven of Freedom, my Father, let my country awake.

    Rabindranath Tagore envisioned an India with freedom as its cornerstone, a nation where the ‘dead habit’ of tradition was not cited as a pretext for conservatism. The India of his dreams was one that engaged in cross-cultural interchange in a ‘world that had not been broken up into fragments.’

    Hysterical Verbiage

    The defending team seems to revel in verbosity with little reasoning to back their verbiage. The team debates that “Creative freedom is being misused and self-regulation is the need of the day”. Although there is little said in the way of moral policing or who the “Indian regulator” is, we choose to refute the topic in addition to disabusing the team’s conceptions.

    Creativity is a matrix for unraveling interpretations of reality. Creative freedom in modern art has been the essence of India’s culture. Reflecting without boundaries is not akin to mental corruption as connoted by the team. It is this space to explore without mental boundaries that has set the tenor for raising one’s awareness about the human life.

    Veritable fusion

    Indian culture is an amalgamation of a myriad influences, a collage of an assorted strain of thoughts, beliefs, religions, races and philosophies. There is no single voice which can seek to represent and therefore protect the fundamentals of Indian culture. For Indian culture has, ages ago, graduated into a timeless idea and as the Wachowski brothers would famously proclaim, “Ideas are bulletproof.” (Alan Moore, 2005). Every human being is endowed with free will and it is his/her prerogative to exercise the same in way of creative cultural expression. The individual is sacrosanct as ordained in the very scriptures (Yajur Veda, 1400 B.C.). Any argument in favor of curbing the rights of the individual, therefore, would amount to cultural treason.

    Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?

    Who will guard the guardians? (Juvenal) The team argues: “Regardless of what we do and where we reach, we shall always be Indians – then why not be proudly so with firm belief in our art and culture. For this very reason, we need to be the guardians of it.” The hole in this line of reasoning lies in the assumptions that morality can be defined; that there is at least one definition of the same that is deemed ‘correct’ and further that those who own that definition are the self proclaimed guardians of our culture and collective morality. Is it not a simplistic assumption that culture and tradition need guarding in the first place? Isn’t culture a continuously evolving entity that is but a creation of humanity and therefore subject to the vagaries of time and the winds of change? It is not the prerogative of any section to decide what is right for the collective. If there is anyone in need of protection here, it is the individual; she needs it to shield her from the ‘tyranny of the majority’ (Mill, 1859).

    Liberty: Empirical

    Indian history and culture abound in the advocacy of liberalism. We are a nation that gifted to the world a book of love (Vatsyayana, 500 A.D.) at a time when the most advanced of western cultures would have seemed prudish before our liberal values. The sculptures on the Sun temple in Konark and the Khajuraho Jain temples promulgate our deeply ingrained respect for sensuality. Our classical dance forms depict the human body in all its elegance. These creative expressions were not outbursts of moral corruption but the ramifications of a boundless mind. This exploration of sensuality was intended to understand the concept of sexual intercourse and its significance.

    Bigotry

    The team argues, “Even when the whole world was applauding our ‘Slumdog’, there was no manifestation of the pride that we take in our economic and social development.” Slumdog Millionaire was never a celebration of our economic or social development. It depicted a face of India that reinforces the world’s dated impressions of our country. There was, justifiably therefore, no reason to display ‘pride’ on the occasion. Further, they say: “Mockeries have been made of our Gods in the name of liberal arts and drama, and we have seen the ones we worship, reduce to mere characters and colours.” This is a dangerous ground to tread. Is Indian culture so weak as to forcibly command ‘respect’? Does it diminish the grandeur of our omnipotent ‘Gods’ to be ‘mocked’ by a couple of mere mortals? The last time we witnessed such chauvinism, the world was afflicted by a series of ugly riots when a Danish cartoonist exercised his freedom of expression. Also, isn’t it merely the team’s opinion that a certain DJ’s music is “mindless”. Every form of art is the deepest manifestation of an individual’s creative expression. To brand it mindless simply because one subscribes to an antithetic school of thought is a rather unfortunate act of bigotry.

    Conclusion

    India is the Vanguard of the world’s vibrant cultures. One of the foremost cradles of civilization, it is inhabited by people from almost every major religion. Protecting the identity of a culture that doesn’t have one is an absurdity. Regulation of creative freedom, either by a group or by an individual, is a retrograde ideal that cannot afford to be accepted in a tolerant, all-embracing nation. Creative freedom is not mental corruption. It is a Journey. There have been instances of sheer abuse of creative freedom in art but this cannot indict creative freedom in art per se. Blame the interpreter who abused the right. Don’t paint the town red because of a few bad pennies.

    Posted on January 15th, 2010 at 8:39 am

  3. Gotama's Men Says:

    As the story goes, when the first great compiler of the English dictionary Dr Samuel Johnson was congratulated by a delegation of respectable ladies of London, they told him “Dr Johnson, we congratulate you on not including any vile or indecent words in your lexicon”. “Ladies”, said Dr Johnson, “I congratulate you on being able to look them up”.

    Instead of piggybacking on the clichéd argument that the man responsible for the censorship of pornography is the one mostly likely to become debauched, we would like to take on the defense on their presumptuousness about the sanctity of what they perceive to be Indian culture (or for that matter, any culture at all).

    “I Disagree with what you say, but I will defend unto death your right to say it” – Voltaire

    At what point does a tradition or an idea attain the status of infallibility in the eyes of the defense? Was tradition established when the Purusha Sukta was composed? Did Gautama Buddha’s heresies disturb the ‘silence’ and ‘poise’ of India? Was the adoption of Vedic rites by the Pandyan kings a transgression of their proto-Dravidian culture? Were the Chandela kings deluded maniacs who dared to experiment with cultural expressions in Khajuraho? Where is the line drawn? Or rather, when do we know that while we were holding on to the ‘previous step’, the rest moved ahead by two steps?

    Of principles, tastes and debates

    Is art a matter of principle, rigid with dos and don’ts, replete with guidelines from a billion people? Or is it a matter of taste, fully subjective, always changing and evolving in new dimensions? We believe that the bedrock of this debate is this question. If one accepts that art is a matter of taste, which the defense seems to disagree with, then the question of regulation does not arise at all. As actress Nandita Das wrote, “The garb of ‘it is against Indian culture’ is always the smoke screen – convenient because it puts everyone on the defensive because no one wants to disrespect their own culture/religion/nation. However, almost always these strikes are against progressive ideas that threaten vested interests and seldom are they about any slight to Indian culture.”

    I am Enlightened, are you?

    Well, of course, liberalism is for the enlightened. The problem is, everyone thinks they are. Well, of course, regulation has to evolve from within. But that is exactly why nobody needs anyone else telling them what their culture is and what the right way to preserve it is. That is also why when faced with a claim that man may have first come into being in Africa (Well for now… wait till we get our hands on Colonial Biology. Right now we are busy with Colonial Prehistory) but culture first came into being in India, it must be left to the individuals to decide for themselves if they want to be proud for being just born as Indians, or to be simply interested in truth, or to just don’t care.

    The audacity of dissent

    John Stuart Mill famously wrote “If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind” (On Liberty). In fact, it becomes all the more important to listen to that one heretic since it would have taken him enormous efforts to come up with such an idea and the rest of us can only benefit from listening to him. A great many inventions and giant leaps in human civilization can be attributed to the audacity of their proponents, from Copernicus to Galileo to the troubled painter Van Gogh, to think beyond, and sometimes against, what their social and cultural milieu represented and demanded. But did their transgressions from the accepted norms of their times make the world worse or better? For that matter, how do we even know what is good for the country? Is there any society that can claim sole rights to knowing what is good for us, be the ‘regulatory authority’? So what if you come across a ‘Flat-Earth Society’ tomorrow? Come to think of it, how do you even know that the earth is a sphere? It always helps to go back to the first principles and understand how we know what we know.

    Prior Restraint, as the name indicates, works well when we know what we would be offended of, or what dents our traditions, even before we hear/see it. Is there anyone intelligent enough in this country who can tell me what that is? Is there anyone who is knowledgeable enough to make that decision FOR ME? Is there a nominee? Anyone? “FIRE FIRE!!”… are people starting to panic your honor Mr. Oliver Holmes? “FIRE FIRE!!”…

    And when the shadow fades and is no more, the light that lingers becomes a shadow to another light. And thus your freedom when it loses its fetters becomes itself the fetter of a greater freedom – Khalil Gibran

    But then why is freedom so easily hated? Why does difference bother us? Would this world be any better if suddenly every face were to look like ours and every lip to smile like ours? Do we all like the same people, have the same friends and fall in love the same way? Isn’t all this aesthetics subjective? Isn’t it man’s most visible link to his roots? Why is it difficult to understand that thinking alike is akin to silence? And when do we break that silence? Who are we guarding this territory for anyway – our Children and grand Children? Are we assuming then that they will be moral-photocopies of us, while we are not of our parents?

    Does the defense have a monopoly over the past? Do we need moral guides to study our history? Aren’t we selective and myopic when we project our present into our pasts? What if Gandhi was wrong once? Would recognizing that make him a lesser person? What if he had erred when he put his conviction to test by sleeping nakedly with teenagers (Mehta, 1993)? Should we accept him or reject him? Or more importantly, should we have prevented him from doing that? No. We do believe that civilization has learnt a lot in its long history, but the most important one among them has been to say ‘Yes’ to others even while it didn’t believe in it.

    Posted on January 15th, 2010 at 8:42 am

  4. India Says:

    “Art is never chaste. It ought to be forbidden to ignorant innocents, never allowed into contact with those not sufficiently prepared. Yes, art is dangerous. Where it is chaste, it is not art.”

    Pablo Picasso

    Purpose of Art

    Art confronts us to various infirmities, desires, trials, tribulations and other vagaries of the human condition. Art is not only to comfort us but to engage or even enrage us. The artist is an individual who challenges the status quo and “….disturbs the monotony of type, slavery of custom and tyranny of habit.” He has generally been regarded as a rebel and a non conformist. Antonio Gramsci cautions us about the cultural hegemony of the society and state. Art or any other creative expression cannot be rigidly defined by a certain section of the society. It takes on different forms and represents different ideas depending upon an individual’s perspective. Stifling creativity in the name of moral policing actually denigrates the standard of artistic culture. The artist as the devil’s advocate will cease to exist and show us the mirror to our own foibles.

    India: The Intermingling of Nudity and Divinity

    Proponents of moral police brigade vouch by the fragility of the Indian culture to justify their violent tactics they adopt in protecting it. But ironically, it is this culture that reflects the true spirit of artistic freedom. When the moral police brigade sets out to abuse a Chandramohan for allegedly drawing obscene paintings, they tend to forget that sexuality in Indian culture was never an object of vulgar countenance.

    Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul’s observation in the M.F. Hussain case sums up Indian art and issues of nudity, “Ancient Indian art has been never devoid of eroticism where sex worship and graphical representation of the union between man and woman has been a recurring feature. The sculpture on the earliest temples of (the) Mithuna’s image or the erotic couples in Bhubaneshwar, Konarak and Puri in Orissa (150-1250 AD); Khajuraho in Madhya Pradesh (900-1050 AD); Limbojimata temple at Delmel, Mehsana (10th century AD); Kupgallu Hill, Bellary, Madras; and Nilkantha temple at Sunak near Baroda (are examples of this)… Even the very concept of (the) ‘lingam’ of the God Shiva resting in the centre of the yoni , is in a way representation of the act of creation, the union of Prakriti and Purusua . The ultimate essence of a work of ancient Indian erotic art has been religious in character and can be enunciated as a state of heightened delight or ananda , the kind of bliss that can be experienced only by the spirit.” The famous treatise on sexuality was written by a Maharshi by the name of Vatsayan. Maharshi was not a title to be bestowed on sex maniacs but men of virtues. The Lajja-gouris of Ellora are a fine specimen of coalescing nudity and divinity.

    The Arbitrary Arbiter

    Most importantly, who are these regulators who seek to set standards and ideals in society? More often than not they are self-appointed religious fanatic groups like the VHP and Bajrang Dal who have politically motivated intentions to capture the limelight by resorting to violent means of “art attack”. The attack is not just on individuals but our shared values of respect for Humanism, Liberalism, Rationalism, Secularism….In fact, by taking the law into their hands such groups are more culpable to creating disturbance and showing disrespect to the norms and laws of society.

    Sense and Sensibility

    The team offers a reasons as to why “someone is allowed to indulge in policing is that we create a need for it”. We do not agree to the statement. The artists do not want to be disturbed by the mob who does not understand his work. The artist does not want them to feel offended. They do not drag people out to force them to see their works. If their sense of morality suffers why not stay at home and let others enjoy what they want to?

    God through the eyes of an artist

    The team also makes a charge about “….Mockeries have been made of our Gods in the name of liberal arts and drama, and we have seen the ones we worship, reduce to mere characters and colours.” Whom are they alluding to? Is it M.F. Hussain who is the culprit? Certainly, he did not ask us to stop worshipping our gods. Hussain has been a serious student of india’s syncretic culture and tried to explore it on his canvas. As Shakespeare remarked “Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder”. We can see nudity as the manifestation. It is not only Hussain who has used the naked form to express himself. Michelangelo too painted it at the Sistine Chapel.

    Citizen as Bulwark against Fanaticism

    The team’s submission that we as citizens need to take collective responsibility for the state of affairs in our country is well agreed to. We need to see that voices of protests are raised on every occasion when an artist is targeted for his alleged crime of ‘hurting the sentiments’. People may have their grievances but that does not give them a license to commit vandalism. ‘The Argumentative Indian’ does not need to attack artists using weapons of war but insightful debates and discussions.

    Conclusion

    Censorship in art will not make challenging images go away. The custodians of the so-called morality in society have to understand that suppressing creative expression has no place in a democracy which seeks above all to uphold the rights of an individual. According to A. Lawrence Lowell, the opinion of the community is never unanimous. All the same, the community has no right to curtail the strokes of an artist by imposing thought-controls through rabble rousing and disallowing the free movement of broad-minded tradition. Capturing the essence in Voltaire’s words, “I may not agree with what you say, but I shall defend to death your right to say it”.

    Posted on January 15th, 2010 at 8:06 pm

  5. Kurukshetra Says:

    SUMMARY OF TEAM 6’S ARGUMENT

    We would like to briefly summarize Team 6’s argument before proceeding to counter them and present our own views. The authors’ central thesis is that creative freedom in art has been used to abuse Indian culture; that this has resulted in the rise of moral policing by either the government or self-appointed regulators; and that a better and probably the only way to avoid this ‘abuse’ of Indian culture lies at the level in changes within individuals themselves who can figure out the limits of creativity and determine what is appropriate in a given context and what is not.

    RESERVATIONS AGAINST MANNER OF ARGUMENT

    Before proceeding to present our view, we feel obligated to complain against the manner of argument presented by the authors. The whole article is built up from a set of assertions without any kind of justifications. They claim that “mockeries have been made of our Gods in the name of liberal arts and drama”, “they know that we are the ones who know the least about ourselves”, “we are the leaders”, “we” have taken the “right to insult the conviction of the Mahatma”. When were mockeries made of our Gods? If so, why is it really wrong? Who is “they”? Foreigners? We are the leaders in what? Why should Mahatma Gandhi’s conviction taken to be true with respect to all aspects? Indeed, isn’t art about probing what “truth” really is, in light of one’s subjective reality? We believe that these kinds of assertions at the beginning of Team 6’s article have ended up making their whole argument circular. Another point to be noted is that for an essay which claims that the past is so important in guiding the future, that art cannot liberate itself or take potshots at culture (which can be seen as the embodiment of history in a society), it doesn’t even cite a single reference.

    CREATIVITY AS A REASON FOR EXISTENCE

    Man possibly attains the summit of mental satisfaction when he creates something and discovers new concepts and ideas. Creativity can be seen as the highest form of human expression and a product of the infinite possibilities of human capacity. If we personally look back at our own lives, one would surely rate the moments when we have been creative among the most satisfying of occasions. Regulating creativity in art or in any other field, whether by a government or by anyone else, is tantamount to regulating one of the powerful reasons for living itself. Regulation by self, which Team 6 argues for, is fundamentally incompatible with the process of creativity itself. We argue that as long as a creation doesn’t force anyone to do something that they don’t want to, such freedom should be available for individuals to showcase their creativity.

    CREATIVITY AS AN ASSUMPTIONS-BREAKING PROCESS

    According to Otto Rank, creativity is an “assumptions-breaking process”. This is true for any sphere of life. The biggest revolutions in science such as classical mechanics, relativity, and evolution have come from questioning assumptions and breaking them up leading to reality being revealed in a new light. Indeed, in these various fields of sciences, there existed dogmatism both in scientific and other circles at the points of time when the path-breaking ideas were first presented. The persecution of Galileo by the Catholic Church serves as a reminder to this. However, the benefit to society today from these developments need not even be mentioned here.

    There exists a close analogy between creativity in science and creativity in art. Both are expressions of similar processes in the human mind and in fact, have similar effects on society. Creativity manifested in art is an attempt to view the human condition in a different perspective. This has the capacity to change the way people think about themselves and about others. History provides us numerous examples of such changes in thinking have resulted in a better society. To cite one, Harriet Beecher Stowe’s anti-slavery novel, Uncle Tom’s Cabin , published in 1852, questioned the state of African Americans in the American society and had a profound impact on attitudes towards slavery in the United States, intensifying the conflicts leading to the American Civil War a decade later (Kaufman, 2006).

    THE QUESTION OF APPROPRIATENESS

    One of the main arguments made by Team 6 is that these creations in art aren’t always ‘appropriate’. However, we would like to ask who determines what appropriateness is? Freedom of expression can and should be guaranteed as long as anyone who takes displeasure at someone’s art can avoid being in contact with it. All the examples cited by the team – movies such as Slumdog Millionaire, and art possibly depicting ‘Gods’ in unorthodox ways – can simply be avoided by the persons who might find the content offensive to their sensibilities. No one has forced them to view or read these. Another argument that the moral police provide is that some expressions of art can result in a ‘detrimental’ change to society. Here again, who are these people to decide what is beneficial or detrimental to society? If a significant number of people like and adopt something, it is their choice and society simply moves towards the new state. The problem with ‘appropriateness’ is that it can’t be defined as can easily be abused by powerful people in order to safeguard their own terrain.

    CONCLUSION

    Based on the above, we would like to argue that regulation of creative freedom in art, in all its manifestations, should be seen with a suspicious eye.

    Posted on January 15th, 2010 at 8:11 pm

  6. XLent_warriors Says:

    Introduction

    Art spans the history of humankind from the prehistoric days to the twenty first century. One of the best works of art has the ability to express a million words in just a small piece of paper or a performance. It awakens the artistic consciousness in the viewers. The Renaissance movement, which was one of the greatest examples of artistic developments, would never have occurred if freedom was not given to legends like Michelangelo and Da Vinci. The creation of Adam by Michelangelo showed nudity and illustrated how God infused life into the first man, Adam. References to that work are still being made in today’s books and movies. Such classical works of art would have never happened if the creative freedom of an artist is restricted.

    Why force culture on someone?

    The article says that we are asking for the policing to be done by not following Indian culture. How can anyone force culture on a person who is not willing to accept it? India is a free country and every person has right to express through any art what they intend to convey regardless of whether others like it or not. Moreover culture is an ever changing phenomenon and one has to accept the changes in the mind set and attitudes of people.

    Does suppression work?

    The article mentions about mockery of Gods. Huge controversy shrouded MF Hussain’s paintings of nude Goddesses and Mother India. One need not subscribe to such artistic expressions of others and can show opposition. However one cannot dictate others what to do and what not to do. This will suppress the feelings of an individual who will try to express himself in one way or other when opportunity arises. When you bring something by force, it might work temporarily but for long term you need to argue and reason out to bring him to your point of view.

    Media coverage

    Gandhi’s last words “hey ram” created more attention than his teachings. “Slumdog Millionaire’s” portrayal of India created more furore and engendered enough publicity to make that movie a hit. Trying to protect one’s culture actually gives more media coverage to the opposite and generates curiosity in the minds of people. Hence regulation of art is an unnecessary one. The media coverage given to the attack on Bars and dance clubs in Karnataka by Shri Ram Sene was seen as a cheap gimmick to market the attacking organization to the world. Few State Governments have gone to the extent of banning night clubs and bar dances unfairly affecting the legitimate livelihoods of those dancers.

    Censor Board – is it successful?

    In spite of the numerous attempts of the Censor Board to delete scenes from movies and protect our culture we still find people shooting and watching pornography and reading obscene writings. This also creates misfits who are not able to adjust to a world where such kind of art is acceptable. The Government should do away with such regulatory authorities and allow freedom of expression so that the inhibitions will be lost. The people shall decide whether to watch a movie or not and one need not force the culture on the arts.

    Indians can be the world’s best artists

    India has a strong history of artistic works that dates back to the ancient period of 3000BC. Historical Indian art like the rock cut caves, the rock carvings at Sun temple and the Taj Mahal, and also some of the erotic statues at temples of Khajuraho are works of art that have come into existence due to freedom of expression given to the artisans. If our history never experienced moral policing, then why should we? Moral policing causes a waning of interest among young artists, who in the fear of a controversy getting associated with their works, never express their true sense of creativity. Art is in our genes, and we should not let it wane away due to obstacles like moral policing.

    Fear of loss of culture

    The actions taken by regulatory authorities are only due to the fear that the culture will be lost in the country’s citizens. Such fear is unnecessary if one has conviction about one’s culture. Taking regulatory actions will only cure the symptoms and not cure the disease if one were to think of it in that way.

    Taliban way of Moral policing

    When Taliban was in power, they were famous for their extremist form of moral policing. Their aim was to create “secure environments where the chasteness and dignity of women may once again be sacrosanct.” Women were given an extremely restricted environment in order to pursue education, they could not publically interact without wearing a burkha, and they were not given the freedom of expression and mobility. Such an environment where fear of getting caught in a controversy, kills even the slightest bit of creative inclination that a child or any person has.

    Conclusion

    Trying to regulate Indian culture in arts will only be a futile thing as people will find new ways to express themselves. Moral policing and snatching the freedom of expression from artists will make India no longer produce creative outcomes. India has a rich culture and artistic heritage structures, which came into existence, not because of moral policing but because of freedom of expression of the artist’s mind. Then why moral policing now? We should rather leave it to an individual to decide what is right and what is not.

    Posted on January 15th, 2010 at 8:14 pm

  7. Team Manfest Says:

    We stand tall as proponents of an alliance between Common sense, Respect for fellow human beings and Creativity and this is just to summarize what we put forth as an argument in our article. With the backdrop of a thorough brainstorming and a constructive debate, we reached where we did- Respect, Love and Peace are primary and then indeed everything else would fall in place. The virtues of tolerance, patience and acceptance would follow immaculately and so whatever is necessary the aforementioned Tripartite should prevail for a better and more fruitful tomorrow. In doing so we analyzed the verity and authenticity of samples from a multitude of disciplines and concluded that creative freedom is an uncompromising need. It has been and should be promoted by heart, mind and soul whether that is on social, artistic or scientific fronts. This is exactly how there would be better tomorrow. The very reason that I am writing this in an Email format is because someone dreamt of such a service somewhere a few decades ago. We salute the spirit of Creative freedom. However, are there no regulatory authorities to ensure privacy and safety over the internet? There are, Right? And so to say, every new step is built keeping in mind the importance of the previous one. This truly, is the purpose of regulation. In body and spirit, regulation is indeed a tool to promote creative freedom for those who contribute the way that is mutually beneficial and rewarding. With this very thought as the idea behind our stance, we supported the need of regulation. Prosperity and social welfare was a cause on which we took an unflinching stand as we tried to establish an uncontroversial unanimity and synergy in our sentences. The very idea of a social structure would be in shambles if there were to be no regulation. If Governments, Parliaments, Legislatures and Judiciaries failed to exist, where would we be heading? Is a parent not a regulatory authority at times, but with the idea of developing a child into a complete individual? As socially responsible citizens, we aimed to develop insights into the need behind Constructive Regulation and would have found ourselves hollow and shallow if we allow everyone but Art to be on one side. The reason was simple. The argument was clear.

    Reminiscent of the very view that we had taken, we find it utterly critical to reiterate that we accepted logic as our last standing foil. It was the immense sense of reason that guided us to where we reached with our thought in writing what we advocated. Whereas the mortals take a micro view and read each sentence of a paragraph and make meaning out of it on a solitary note, the wise look at a paragraph as a recollection of thoughts, events and arguments and rise beyond the monosyllabic views of mere words. That all and sundry nearly and visibly failed to understand the depth of the proposed argument is the greatest rendition of the necessity of regulation. Or else to say, the ones who fail to comprehend the meaning, would simply term it meaningless. Irony as it is, the series of rebuttals are the greatest proof of hypocrisy as they die hard and go deep to promote liberalism and how? They curtail us from expressing our viewpoint. Indeed the very, who are projecting us as tyrants in the face of their suppositions are vehemently shouting from rooftops to promote something that they themselves are indeed suppressing. Laughable though, it is indeed the best that they could have done to support us. They just proved it. Is quoting other people not a great testimony of self imposed creative regulation, whether the person is Voltaire?

    That the very purpose of a debate is to bring out the best amalgamation of creativity and argument is a long and forgone truth, for when you just criticize for the sake of it you may end up doing what you just did. Support in action and criticize in words.

    When we talked about regulation on creativity, we at no point of time endorsed the idea of limiting or curtailing anyone or anything. We indeed would be proud to accept that we as Indians have been torchbearers of creativity with our liberal and secular outlook. And did we not talk of Mahatma for the very same reason? Failingly though, it was taken in variable contexts. In a world where spamming is a crime, is it not hypocrisy to create art that violates the very social structure that is so valuable to mankind. When we say this, we fiercely promote a limitless world with greater sense and responsibility. We promote harmony and peace.

    Regulation is indeed a form of promotion, if addressed with consensus and synergy. It may go a long way in defining the Next-Gen social structure and the corresponding development thereof. One has to have open arms to welcome the idea of a limitless world with constructive regulation. A better tomorrow needs better seeds today. That the whole world is rising as one unit to address the issues of Global Warming, Terrorism and Internet Privacy is the best example of collective regulation. Much as we would like to believe that it’s an automatic, self-generating condition, freedom of expression is a lofty ideal and its only chance for preservation and growth is through a thoughtful critical, well-informed, well-educated populace. For artistic freedom to flourish, a citizenry well educated in arts is needed.

    Artistic freedom is a paradoxical aspect of the art world. In order to provide an environment that fosters maximum latitude and protection for artistic choices, the art world must sustain a positive, nurturing relationship with other segments of society. BY creating opportunities for free expression, however, the art world opens itself to the possibility that what is expressed will go against the grain of predominant social norms and mores. By encouraging and defending controversial pieces of art and works, it risks losing ground in its societal relationships hence; it slips in its ability to guarantee freedom of expression.

    One of the most potentially means of resolving this paradox is to engender a healthy environment for the arts through education. Dewey was a firm believer in education as a vaccination against censorship and other social ills. “ I shall begin to believe that we care more for freedom than we do for imposing our own beliefs upon others in order to subject them to our will, when I see that the main purpose of our schools and other institutions is to develop powers of unremitting and discriminating observation and judgement.”

    Aesthetic education, rigorous programs of artistic and aesthetic inquiry, can play central role in development of an art world with a sense of responsibility toward itself and society, as well as the development of society committed to freedom of expression. Aesthetic educators must be aware of that role plan for it, and advocate for the resources necessary to accomplish it.

    In conclusion, it’s worth noting that, if nothing else the recent controversies about art have renewed convictions that the arts are powerful catalysts for social change and that artistic expression can influence the thoughts and attitudes of people. Recognition of this power is a mixed blessing so long as there are those who fear and loathe that power and seek to suppress and control it. A comprehensive program of aesthetic education can be a vital force in turning a negative environment for the arts into a positive one, marked by understanding cooperation, appreciation and respect. The best guarantee of artistic freedom is the healthy relationship of responsible art world and a well-educated, vigilant citizenry.

    Posted on January 25th, 2010 at 3:39 pm

  8. Arun Raghav Says:

    @Team Manfest: A sesquipedalian and verbose argument is not necessarily a logical and coherent one. More often than not, its exactly the opposite and you have proven it here. You cannot say “we at no point of time endorsed the idea of limiting or curtailing anyone or anything” as well as “Much as we would like to believe that it’s an automatic, self-generating condition, freedom of expression is a lofty ideal and its only chance for preservation and growth is through a thoughtful critical, well-informed, well-educated populace.”, with a bunch of words filling in between and expect everyone not overlook the contradiction and tomfoolery inside it.
    The given topic is very clear in asking one to take a stand on whether or not Indian regulators should enforce regulation on creative freedom in India. Either you are for it, or against it. Giving arguments about “aesthetic” education (the word ‘aesthetic’ itself being highly subjective), only amounts to trying (miserably) to have it both ways.
    Coming back to your description of freedom of expression as a “lofty ideal”, I think you need a short crash course on the works of Thomas Paine, John Milton and other splendid Englishmen to see just how the modern idea of Liberty was grown among the Commons, and how it is essentially a story of the non-elite, by the non-elite and for the non-elite.
    I think I can safely summarize your world view with your ‘argument’: “By encouraging and defending controversial pieces of art and works, it risks losing ground in its societal relationships hence; it slips in its ability to guarantee freedom of expression.” But don’t in the next breath say “We indeed would be proud to accept that we as Indians have been torchbearers of creativity with our liberal and secular outlook.” Because to be torchbearers, all the greatest artists in the history of the nation should have resorted to creating offense to social norms at one point or the other. And thats exactly what Freedom essentially means- Freedom to Offend. If it doesn’t include that, then Freedom is meaningless.

    Posted on January 25th, 2010 at 8:42 pm

  9. Federico Sago Says:

    Good afternoon! You get to visit my blog.

    Posted on April 16th, 2010 at 12:05 am

  10. Denese Mcgraw Says:

    Fed up with obtaining low amounts of useless traffic for your website? Well i want to let you know about a new underground tactic that produces me personally $900 daily on 100% AUTOPILOT. I really could be here all day and going into detail but why dont you just check their site out? There is really a great video that explains everything. So if your serious about making hassle-free hard cash this is the site for you. Auto Traffic Avalanche

    Posted on August 31st, 2010 at 5:15 am

Leave a Reply