First of all, Part I of this two part series has become my most read blog post. It is my first blog post to reach 200 page views. So, yaay! And thank you. And finally, here is the second line of thought I had while sitting there at Open Sky Slam.
Art has always had an interesting relationship with political engagement. There are artists who believe that it is the responsibility of every artist to have political opinions and to be opinion leaders. Then there are artists who believe that an artist is not obligated to anyone, except to her/his own art. I personally believe that people as individuals need to be socially and politically aware, especially in a democracy. Whether their art engages such issues or not is secondary, and it is the personal choice of every artist on whether to do so or not. However, irrespective of whether a person is an artist or not, I believe people in a democracy should be aware and active in issues that their community faces.
The urban Indian educated in English medium institutions sometimes tends to be isolated from social and political happenings around him/her. This often comes due to a privilege enjoyed by the middle and upper middle class educated Indian, which ensures that local political events and decisions do not inconvenience the said person in a big manner. This is especially so in Bengaluru, which has a culture of political indifference. One indicator of this indifference is that voter turnout in Bengaluru for elections is dismally low when compared to the rest of the state. (I also am culprit to this as I will not be voting in the upcoming Assembly elections, having missed the January 22 deadline to apply for an ID card. As you can imagine, I am very ashamed of this.)
In this context, Open Sky Slam, and similar art platforms are playing a very important role, although maybe unknowingly. These platforms are creating a community that is beginning to engage with political and social realities around it. In the many performances I witnessed on 24th, I saw various issues being spoken about, such as the controversial statement by Goa CM, Manohar Parikkar about girls drinking, the stigma around mental health, the complexities of the narrative around prostitution, and other such issues. There was one performance where a rape victim brought out her narrative, and in doing so, subverted the power structure. There was another performance by Aditya Kedia, where he spoke on the promises of politicians, and the subsequent failures to live up to the promises.
Though, some of the performances were intentionally dealing with political and social issues, such as the commentary on the statement of the Goa CM, and the one by Aditya Kedia, most performances did not do so. However, they are still largely significant. Building a collective of individual narratives builds a collective narrative. And many of the performances that did not deal directly with issues also did so in their personalized narratives. For instance, the poem of the rape victim was highly personalized, and yet offers a strong commentary on the prevailing rape culture of our society. Similarly the poem dealing with prostitution was also a very personal narrative. One of my personal favourites among the performances was the one by Cipun Mishra. I mentioned his piece in my previous post dealing with poetic techniques. However, I also love his piece for how intensely personal it is, and yet offers an incredible layered commentary on the socio-economic context in which he grew up. Having to sell the house to afford education for the children, foregoing lunch and saving ten rupees thereby are images that haunt the listener by opening a window into the lifestyle of middle and lower middle class Indians, and also at the same time offer a commentary on accessibility of higher education in India. Poetry in its most melancholic beauty!
Democracy is governance by the people. It happens when people engage with issues in public spaces. OSS and other such art platforms are creating public spaces where such narratives are being dealt with. They also bring people from different contexts together. I witnessed performances in English, Hindi, Urdu, Hindustani, Tamil, and even French. Each of these people are from different contexts. Bringing together different contexts enables narratives and discussions to be more nuanced, than if all the people were from the same context. That is not all. The public space, in this case, is merged with the historic role of the storyteller bringing about an interesting dynamic. In European history, we see that the court jester (the fool in Shakespearan plays for instance) offered political commentary, even often mocking the King and his subjects. Poets in India often offered social critique. These roles have been brought together in these art spaces and merged with the public space where opinions and ideas are discussed.
This is why I think such art platforms are important. Because they offer a means for political and social engagement for people who might not otherwise engage with such issues. Though there needs to be more of an intentional effort by individuals towards awareness and subsequently towards engagement, this is a start. And for now, I am satisfied with baby steps.
No comments:
Post a Comment