Reflections on the paintings of Sathish Thoprath
M.
P. Balaram
One need not be a studied art
scholar or an experienced art critic to read and say some thing about
Sathish Thoprath’s (ST) canvases. Even a literary critic (and a
poor one at that too!) can read and re-read the colours and forms of
his (hard worked) art work and make some hypothetical observations.
'Hypothetical' because these paintings are very challenging; 'final'
sayings and 'neatly finished' view-points are not easy. Appropriate
tools are necessary
for that. Now we can only attempt to make some timely, casual,
impressionistic observations with all their limitations and
imperfections.
ST's works are unique
artistic case studies and so they can also be subjected or treated
as cultural case studies. Here
‘illness is’ not at all ‘a metaphor’.
Not even death! You cannot see even a passing glance of death or
tragic fate here. But the huge structure of hospital erected like
walled jail with no windows or ventilators, intended not to treat but
to kill you, the ambulance, the hospital bed waiting for a prisoner
patient are all seen here. Everyone seems to be waiting for a human
made calamity or accident! In one simple and natural looking frame,we
wonder how many cases are there awaiting our attention for treatment
(or cure )! Anguish, not mere anxiety, is the correct word to express
the mood of the work.
So ST' s pictures are
not at all fatalistic, spiritualistic or naturalistic. No 'seen or
unseen' God-made tragic events are either happening or awaited in
these frames. Men and women are there everywhere. But the problem is
their form and size. ST's human figures are very problematic.
Look at these figures closely. Surely we can differentiate them and
their faces. Each man and woman in the picture is doing some thing.
They are either talking or acting. But then, why are these figures
drawn tiny? Microscopic? Huge canvas and tiny men! This negates the
conventional (or comfortable?) belief in 'Humanness'. How can we
believe that these petty, tiny, shadow-like men shown in the
pictures are our saviours? ST's silences (and screams) signify
many problems!
In these works, fire and water
are most prominent. So red, the true colour of fire flame, is glowing
everywhere. It reminds strongly of our mother earth's womb. Nobody
dares to go near or approach the glowing red flame. It looks like
sun. An encircled ring is formed around the 'melari' flame. Red, the
colour of the fire flame, represents life and death in ST's
paintings. Not just that, it is what really generates life and death.
So, the encircled men and women are insignificant in their petty
forms, foolish talks and absurd actions. Who is willing to approach
fire? Who is willing to raise the basic issues of life and death?
That is the fundamental question raised by these paintings. Surely,
there are some answers. What
are the solutions?
In ST's paintings,
green and blue are shown as 'remedies'. But the problem is this: can
we come out of red flames?, from the all pervading colour of Red?,
from the problems of life and death? In ST's picture frames,
'our' nearest colour is red; green is always distant! And blue is far
far away in the distant sky. There are exceptions. The
'theyyakkolam', covered with green (leaves) is stepping boldly
towards the 'melari' or the red flame. One or two budding leaves are
already grown on the other side of the 'bleeding' trunk, while the
fencing work is still undergoing. Two or three very small red flowers
are seen near the traffic point, near the crowded cars. Yes ,they
are there, but negligible. Greenish trees, mountains, bluish sky are
distantly present in almost all pictures. Nature mystiques or
eco-friendly groups can claim their copyright over the greenish
forests and bluish sky in these canvases! Is it truthful? Is it that
red and all puzzles of life and death belongs to 'us', 'tiny' common
men?, and that nature and sky belongs to the 'privileged' nature
lovers? Is there any such division of colours (and
viewers) in ST's paintings?
These reflections about
ST's paintings will be inconclusive if it does not say any
thing about the presence (or absence?)of 'carnival fests' in his
works. ‘Carnivalesque character' of an art work is defined and
described in a specific sense by Bakthin. Whenever or wherever a
popular village festival is seen or read, our 'poor' theorists apply
Bakthin's theory of carnivalisation blindly. Art theorists, political
analysts, literary critics, film and TV specialists are all in
jubilant mood; they are now confident that every social, political,
literary and artistic problem can be solved by applying Bakthin's
theory. Our 'theorists ' are not aware that Bakthin himself corrected
or revised his early theory in his later days. It was in the 1920's,
under the autocratic regime of Stalin, that Bakthin developed his
theories of carnivalisation, polyphony etc and used them in his
critical studies about Rabelais and Dostoevsky. But, after his years
of imprisonment, the whole theory was rewritten. ST's
paintings are most often typical case studies of village carnivals;
his colours and figures minutely follows popular festivals. But the
imagery or theory of 'carnivalisation' (in Bakthin's sense) cannot be
applied here.If we go behind Bakthin, our reflections will be
misguided. So the social and political significance of 'village
fests' in ST's canvases are to be explained.
Just like as every truthful
work of art, ST's paintings are multidimensional. We are not
interested in the 'ultimate' question usually raised by 'prominent'
art scholars or critics: whether the work of art is 'great' or not.
'Glorification' is merely a marketing tactic. We are not 'reading'
and 're-reading' it for the purpose of art marketing. We are only
interested in ST's art, in it's genuineness as a cultural
creation (and not a product). So, hypothetically as a first point we
raised the clinical dimension of his works. Manifestations of calling
for 'emergency ' treatment and cure are seen and heard from each and
every part of his frame. ‘We' are bound not only to see and hear
but also to cure the 'screaming' being. It may be a man, a river, a
tree, a hill or a mountain. In ST's art, 'culture' is the
cause of calamities. So, pictures raise emergency calls for
'cultured' man's attention. The 'Humanness' or 'Greatness' of man is
a myth, these painting say. Then what is the truth? 'Tinyness',
smallness, pettiness, is the ultimate truth. Most of ST's
figures are tiny, or mere shadows. Institutional structures, trees,
mountains, rivers, fire flame etc are huge. Here Man's presence is
insignificant. He is in agony. It is his own making! As a second
aspect we put forward the 'philosophical' dimension: fire and water
are the basic elementary forces in his work. They represent mother
earth's womb; the embodiment of life and death. Man is insignificant
here too. Thirdly, the artistic dimension: selection and choice of
colours in his art. Nearness of red in the frame. Distant green and
blue being presented as remedies. The ideological ambivalence is
expressed as an artistic problem of ‘near/far’ presences (or
absences) of colours in his paintings.As a fourth and final
hypothetical observation, we can now put forward the social and
political dimension of ST's art works.
What are the political
implications of ST's art? What, which or whose politics are
implied in the artist's big canvases? A keen observer could see and
feel the political undercurrents in every aspects of his painting.
Actually politics itself takes different forms and shapes in his
art: clinical, philosophical, artistic and carnivalistic. Formerly,
we identified these forms as various dimensions of his art. It makes
no real difference whether it is seen as a form or dimension, the
core issue is the underlying politics. An hierarchical power
relationship is inscribed and asserted in the 'Silent Screams' with
very minute details. The glowing fire flame in the centre of the
canvas is imagined as the real power centre. In its extreme heat and
light it truly represents aggression and destruction. Men (not one
woman!, women are only distant onlookers, only 'gossip-mongers')
encircled around the central fire enact the role of true, obedient,
good 'subjects', or good 'citizens' in the modern sense. But out of
the encircled ring, there is darkness. Actually, power is asserted
not only by the repressive forces of light and heat in the
foregrounded centre; it is applied forcefully through the agonising
darkness seen in the ‘backgrounded’ outer ring. Now an ideal
hierarchical political power relationship satisfactorily takes shape.
The Ruler or Ruling class is in a God like (God sent!) position. It
is the real and only SUBJECT. All other tiny insignificant figures
are small subjects! They are bound to obey. Convicted to be ruled!
Hospital that looks like a
jail with it's huge walled structure shows the murderous violence and
naked aggression written on every apparatus of power represented
here. People are not in a mood for celebration. Only fear is seen in
darkness and in the fiery heat and light, in people's faces (and
minds!), in the inmate's faces seen distantly through the windows of
the repressive hospital, in the ambulance or in the hospital bed
waiting for a casualty or a calamity. A mob surrounded by all the
repressive instruments of power! A mob willingly or unwillingly
subjected to the repressive forces of power! A lone idol is seen,
awaiting people's attention (for salvation!). Only a 'deity' is seen
stepping boldly towards the central fire, ready to take any risk and
one or two other deities are getting ready. People in the encircled
ring reminds us the colosseum spectacle of the Roman past. Sathish's
canvas is pregnant with contemporary politics with all it's meanings
and absurdities!
Finally, this 'observer' is
forced to ask the following question: Is it possible for the people
to come out of the inner and outer rings of dominating power forces?
Is liberation from the ritualistic silly 'acts' 'and 'talks'
possible for the labouring 'tiny' people ? Freedom- Is it a
possibility or a reality for the common people? Or a hollow myth
created for the only purpose of exploitation?
