The petty bourgeoisie class that surfaced after independence never went for ‘critical and new’; it became modern by merely following the thoughts and ideas produced by great artists and thinkers of the west. It rejected the ancient Indian wisdom and virtues, art, literature and philosophy by just saying that it’s all produce of Brahmancal culture. Western intellectuals never rejected their heritage and culture; throughout the ages we see them from time to time going back to Greekan philosophy for newness since they believe that Greek is their mother. No debate is complete without talking Greek philosophy whether it is postmodern philosophers or modern philosophers. Heidegger after proposing his philosophy has written that “European philosophies have not traveled beyond Greeks” and almost same statement Derrida have said in his book Dissemination. The entire history of discourse on philosophy, art, and literature in west has been indebted to Greek philosophy. He says hitherto all western philosophy seems to synthesize the core classical doctrines. Discussing the question of Mimique he writes “let us reread Mimique. Near the center, there is a sentence in quotation mark. It is not a citation mark. It is not a citation, as we shall see, but simulacrum of a citation of explication:-“the scene illustrates but the idea, not actual action”….
This is a trap: one might well be tempted to interpret this sentence and the sequence that follows from it in a very classical way, as an ‘idealist’ reversal of mimetology. One would then say: of course, the mime does not imitate any actual thing or action, any reality that is already given in the world, existing before and outside his own sphere; he doesn’t have to conform, with an eye toward verisimilitude, to some real or external model, to some nature, in the most belated sense of the word. But the relation of imitation and the value of adequation remain intact since it is still necessary to imitate, represent, or ‘illustrate’ the idea? But what is the idea? When it is no longer the ontos on in the form of the thing itself, it is, to speak in a post-Cartesian manner, the copy inside me, the representation of the thing through thought, the ideality- for a subject- of what is. In this sense, whether one conceives it in its Cartesian or in its Hegelian modification, the idea is presence of what is, and we are not yet out of Platonism.
This reading of the tradition opens the gate for broader understanding of things and thought. It is because of this that western philosophers came out with new philosophies of art and literature. Without knowing one’s own tradition how one can reach anywhere. Indian modern art and thought from the very beginning rejected existing philosophies and started following western tradition of art and thought yet our left hand critic Gita Kapoor tries to find in it a kind of nationalist art. An art that rejected existing thought, art and philosophies and accepted western thought, art, and philosophy claimed to be representative of National. Swaminathan, Raza, Santosh, etc. and many Bengal and south indian artists Kcs panikar, A.Ramachandran, etc. had a different notion of art so they did not follow the Trend set by progressives. They were trying to get rid of borrowed language of art since only then they could have been proclaimed their Identity. Identity was not sought in the social field as for as art was concerned it was sought in the invention of ‘new art language’. Art was not a field of warfare for them as Marxist progressives wanted it to be; for them it was the field in which question of ‘truth of art’ had to be sought. Many artists have succeeded in it and shown the path to the coming generation artists. Swaminathan, Raza, Santosh, KCS Panikar, A.Ramachandran, Biren Dey, Manjit bawa, etc can be claimed Indian modern artists. Despite this that some artists succeeded in shaking off the borrowed identity yet Indian modern art had never had any discourse as such. Those who became champions of Indian art enclosed themselves in a style and lived on it. It is a fact that their style too was not entirely new it was synthesis of many visual languages. Some synthesized expressionism with tantra, some western figurative language with miniature art etc there was no innovation as such. And it was almost same like many western modern artists. In western art we find truly new aesthetics after invention of cubism and abstract art of Kandinskey and surrealism. These three streams are only truly modern as for as question of ‘new’ is concerned. Cubism died after a decade but Kandinskey and surrealism survived and is playing big role in postmodern art. It is their aesthetic strength that it is still alive and is being pursued by artists. I think Kandinskey was bigger then Picasso in many ways. Picasso could not revolve any movement that could last but his art did. Expressionism that is still alive owed a lot from him. He is first modern artist in whom philosophy and art converse. Surrealism too as a figurative art language stands parallel to it.
Indian modern art could not create any movement why? It is because of progressive’s approach that was by and large orthodox. Meaning of progressiveness for them was following and copying. It has petty bourgeoisie consciousness (that I call a parasitic consciousness) in disposal that rejected anything progressive. Because of parasitic consciousness it could not create anything that it could claim to the world their ‘own’. Progressives lived on exploitation of socio-political; they appeased existing Govts and created value in their art through false means…… continues
