‘Silent Screams’

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?