(Picture Credits: AI)
It is one of the perplexing questions that many people have pondered and debated recently due to various allegations and rising issues.
Art is not just paint on a canvas. It is an umbrella term for all types of entertainment that bring pleasure, such as books, graffiti, different forms of visual entertainment, music, travel, solitude, and more. These vary in their forms, styles, and languages. Just as art reflects the ideas and stories of the age and place it originates from, it has also expanded beyond reality. We now explore futuristic arts that tell stories of the future, modeled with attitudes from the past, present, and what the future might hold. Sometimes, this is quite ambiguous.
On the other hand, the artist exists beyond the frame in which the person fits. An artist can range from a rebellious rebel to a naive passive character, and even include the grayer shades of humanity. It is fluid, and there is a life for the person beyond art, one that we sometimes forget. They change, times change, and so does attitude. Change is inevitable; rather, it is the mode of survival.
So, the question is, can we separate the art from the artist?
It is a provocative question because we enjoy seeing real-life characters just like the inspiring characters we see on screen. It's easy to give a face to the fierce fighter, the comedian, the protagonist who rises to the occasion. In reality, most of us attach ourselves to those characters. A person playing the role of an antagonist will be seen as an antagonist, and a protagonist will be viewed as an 'all-encompassing' person in real life. The stereotyping and typecasting of genders, characters, and individuals will continue.
In literature, the theory of separating the art from the artist is called Russian Formalism. It involves identifying themes, symbols, imagery, and every minute detail of the work, rather than examining it in relation to its historical background. It dismisses the idea of considering the circumstances under which the work was written and how it reflects the ideologies or the context of that era.
From my perspective, I first thought about this question in 2017, when news broke about an actress being sexually molested due to an actor's vengeance. Until then, he had played a hero—innocent and well-mannered, fighting for the truth. I liked his films too and would binge-watch some of my favorites. He was given the title of being a common man's actor. He even staged a show in a ground where all other Mollywood industry actors supported the actress. As the case unfolded, evidence emerged, and protests erupted. Even then, the audience clapped when the actor was released on bail, because of who he was onscreen. Even now, he roams freely without shame, supported by his PR efforts that frame him as the 'real victim'. Although the case isn't over and awaits final judgment, a recent article by Nidhi from The News Minute about the actress's sexual assault cases highlights the case’s severity.
Recently, his film 'Prince and The Family' gained attention when a minister praised it. His interviews and PR campaigns are escalating, portraying him as a victim falsely accused. His gestures, expressions, and everything else seem rehearsed, with all evidence in the spotlight except for the final verdict. Examining his recent films, I notice scenes that once earned applause for sexual innuendos and sleazy comments about women. But that wasn't different from films from earlier times.
It's hard to believe that these fabricated characteristics—designed to whitewash himself—blind people who are often regarded as 'progressive.' We rarely see the artist as a separate entity from their personal life. We tend to attribute qualities of the character to the individual, and this happens everywhere. Many are under scrutiny following the Hema Committee report and other cases surfacing again—some false, some genuine. Ultimately, it's hard to believe anyone is entirely good, because everyone has gray areas, except for a few whose shades lean more toward black than white.
The next important question is, 'Should we view art and the artist as two separate entities?"
When we merge the two, we blur the line between fiction and reality. People often portrayed as villains can appear contradictory in real life. Years ago, Spadikam George, a prominent villain of past films, recalled how he was verbally abused because of the antagonist role he played onscreen. When those lines are blurred, it becomes difficult to discern right from wrong in a person, because we are overly involved, praising or dismissing them based on their character.
Art is fluid as it can speak for two people with contrasting ideologies. It isn't fixed and often art can be corrupted by individuals to marginalize the perspective of others. It can be misused by individuals or actors to ensure only the good side or the protagonist-ic side of their remains. Art isn’t innocent; it carries political weight, and the roles portrayed by accused actors or the words written by a person in power or different forms of narrative, reinforce certain images. These images can influence the mindset of an individual and of an audience if they don't see art as a separate entity. There, art becomes the reality within one's life, where others write the script and we swallow it without thinking about it further.
Yet, there is a counter side to this. Aren't filmmakers also artists? Shouldn't they be responsible for what they create?
While the actor or the person who is a part of the process chooses to be a part of it intentionally, the exterior of it is quite different. It is the writer or the director who should be responsible for the making of the film if there is no external involvement. It is a question of accountability in this view. Aren't writers expressing their viewpoints or their experiences? Of course, there are films based on futuristic elements yet the values or the inner concept is humane, making them responsible for the views they propagate. This is the very reason why film makers should be accountable and be held accountable for what they create.
There is a thin line between viewing for entertainment and analysing and viewing it with a pinch of salt. While entertainment should carry on through an type of art, it is imperative that we should also look at other perspectives before making it our perspective. One perspective doesn't exist for art because art depicts the diversity of life, its contradictions, imagination, and worlds beyond the present. Conversely, an artist is a person with a life full of decisions and emotions, with the power to influence and change the narrative.
Comments
Post a Comment