Religion, Philosophy, Ethics

Art, The Language of the Spirit-2

Spirituality of the Master Artist

By AMREETA SHANKAR

[Vijay Raghav Rao, the ace flutist of India, has a distinguishing bent of spiritual mind. He identifies his art with spirituality and God. To him his music is derived from whatever is divine, godly, spiritual--not in the narrow sense of being religious, but much much more. The master artist was in conversation with the writer, some time back, in this concluding part].

AS: What has been the role of God in your art?

VRR: To me God represents exquisite energy: immaterial, immortal, eternal energy. As I create, I seek recourse to that perennial energy. I can seek to perfect my expressions that way. Work becomes a form of worship. I am able to sustain my spirits for interminable lengths of time. My creations take on a completeness of meaning. I seek symmetries with pieces of nature. Can my interpretation of a Raga induce its natural mood in the ears and minds of my connoisseurs? I work within a divine frame of reference. I develop an aesthetic which is uniquely mine. I am more mature as an artist because I rigorously compare my creations with my concept of that which is perfect and unshackled by existence.

Na Jayate Mriyate Ma Kadachit, Na Ayam Bhootva Bhavitava No Bhoovyaha Ajo Nitya Shashvato Ayam Purano Nahanyate, Hanyamane Sharire.

[It never dies. It neither existed, nor is existing, nor will it. It is always permanent. It is the oldest one. Without death, it is only the body that dies...Bhagavad Geeta ].

I believe that such a spirit and God are synonymous with the brilliant, infinite energy I harken to in my artistic endeavors. With such an ideal to partake from, I am encouraged to strive, to take risks, to expand horizons, to contemplate, to find a microcosm of God in my creations.

AS: Is belief in God essential to the task of expression?

VRR: Creativity is what it is because it is very necessarily unique. Artistic expression is implicitly creative. The power and subtlety of a human being’s feeling--despair, triumph, love, wonder, hope--is the basis of creative works the world over. As an artist’s expression matures, his insights render him into a kind of isolation. He is more of an artist if he follows the dictates of his spirit; and what that invariably means is that he is forced to hone an extremely personal expression. Almost subconsciously, maturity leads one into pure and uncharted territory. Out there, in such new vistas, yardsticks of truth and frames of reference are hard to come by. Some seek it in mentors, others attempt to find a historical basis; me, I try to eliminate self definitive traits, allowing my soul to surface in the fullest of freedom. In any event, there is a consuming need to be close to a transcendent entity, a God. An exquisite ocean of perpetual resonance that is all relationships rolled into one: father, mother, teacher, friend. I need that absolute entity; I believe in it, and it is essential to my expression. It bestows an elegant articulation in the midst of much that is abstract.

AS: Are you religious?

VRR: I am religious inasmuch as it enables me to be spiritual. I was born into a religion and it has trained me to attain a faith in my own self, and a faith in the benefits of right action. I am religious in that it is a lifelong means to a perpetual domain: if spirituality is the domain of the soul, our divinity, then religion is a path leading to it. In that relativistic sense, I am religious. Now, as an artist, the expression of my truth is my ultimate purpose. My music is the essence of my existence. Over the years, therefore, the role of my religiosity in influencing my lifestyle has diminished. As I have matured, the purpose of religion in my ways of living has largely been accomplished; turning the focus on its affect on my spirituality. I am religious now in the manner of an unconscious act of living--like breathing air. I cannot claim that I owe any special nuances of my music or writings to my religiosity directly. They are enhanced by my spiritual endeavors, which may draw upon my religiosity. I believe that all religions tested by time are abundant repositories of guidelines for a meaningful way of life. That is but a good beginning to becoming a meaningful artist.

AS: Can religion and art coexist?

VRR: The answer to that lies in society’s interpretation of religion. Often religion is confused with points of view. Often it is not religion that is at issue, but one’s interpretation of it. When the line between religion and subjective opinion is violated, indeed destroyed so that one becomes the other, expression pays a price. Somehow, abstraction is viewed at odds with a narrow view of reality. Imagination is forced to work within boundaries. The artist then is viewed as a villain, bent on mischief, and his society then assumes the nature of a victim. The truth of the matter, however, is that under such circumstances, artistic expression and religion are both victims. There is hardly any discordance between them, if you think about it. For example, many Hindu gods and goddesses are portrayed as originators of art forms. Indeed, almost every musical instrument can be traced to a god or a goddess. To me artistic expression transports the artist and his audience from the self to the non-self, from the mundane to the subliminal, from the existential to the spiritual--which is often what religion is all about.

In a society that treats religion as a medium to foster values--rather than as an arbitrator of taste--the practice of art forms becomes a catalyst for mutual growth. People communicate better, there is much communality, and a sense of refinement pervades human interaction. Not only can art and religion coexist then, they are critical companions serving a noble cause.

AS: Should art be used as such, i.e. to serve causes?

VRR: Not until the artist is at complete peace with his creation. Often serving causes can become the cart that leads the horse, rather than vice versa. The true task of the artist is still the process of creation, not its dissemination or appreciation. If his spirit expresses emotions that mesh with his society’s, his creation will find a degree of resonance with causes dear to his society. If his spirit is restless, in a state of flux, in an evolution, he is better off staying away from reaching out to his environment. It makes little sense to embody conflicts--however honest they might be and yet harness them to serve a larger, unrelated cause affecting many. An artist can never hope to exercise any power over his society in a conscious way--his power is intrinsically without intention; it happens, it cannot be controlled. Therefore, art can serve society in very constructive ways if the artist enjoys a natural, unaffected connection to his environment. His art then becomes a rallying point for his society to converge around.

AS: Is art sensual?

VRR: As the air around us is made up of so many facets--pure and polluted, dense and rare, --so is art. Some express to appeal to the senses, some allow our senses their freedom to respond, and a few do neither letting their art find a place and meaning in our nature. Artistic expression isn’t sensual per se---the sensory experience or the lack of it lies with the beholder. Clearly, one who is sensitive in the ways of responding to life around him will respond with more sensitivity to another’s expression, especially an expression that is crafted with skill and represents the artist’s spirit and point of view. For many who have their own axes to grind, however, the ability to respond in sensitive ways is diminished. To them, artistic expression would appear to be more of a distortion of their own perceptions than an independent entity with subtleties of its own. Often, worthwhile expression of considerable innovation takes an inordinate amount of time to register any impact on people because of this: it is viewed in a context that is inappropriate to its appreciation, a context that is framed by what was, what holds, or who rules. The appreciation due the work is jaundiced by bounds on the senses imposed by mores of the times. Art suffers then because it is sensual. I would rather that art be spiritual more than sensual in any form. The spirit embodies permanency, a degree of fundamental, everlasting truth, while the senses live and change and die with the appreciator. Conversely, a work of art--music, painting, dance, whatever--is more likely to elicit immediate reactions and opinions if it appeals to the senses in very direct ways. That is the paradox of human nature--we seek what fulfills our immediate needs, while letting go of what nurtures our spirit. Art, any art, however, is married to the spirit. The senses arouse, the spirit procreates. Art and spirituality are to each other what water is to this Earth.

[Concluded. The first part was printed last week].

Copyright © 1997 IndiaWeb Post. All rights reserved.