The value of the opinion of an artist

The fundamental question is, can an artist have an opinion. Of course she can is the ready made, yet, in my opinion, an unsustainable answer.

I have seen this many times. Someone writes a literary piece and I offer my opinion (not that anyone asked me for it) on it. The prompt resposne is, “That is your opinion!” There is no opportunity for a dialogue, like, “Let us sit and put our interpretations together, see where we converge on, if anywhere at all, or where and why we diverge.”

It is always, “Let us go our own ways and if we meet elsewhere, so far so good! Bye!”

No, I am not picking on literature though it offers the best opportunity for me to throw stones at as I do not live in that glass house. Literatteurs do not agree on what is literature. The only thing they agree on is literature reflects on the nebulous, indefinable “human condition”. For example, fiction can be literature but science fiction cannot be. Because, ostensibly science is not human and therefore will have not a whole lot – indeed anything – to say about the “human condition”. The implict of exclsuion of science marks arts, all arts.

What is worse, at least from my perspective, is that the “human condition” is not necessarily fungible across various artistic endeavors. This is not because they do not have a common language, but because each one refuses to acknowledge the distinctness of the other languages. A piece of literature can be studied only be a litterateur, not by a sulptor, not by a danseuse, not by a musician … definitiely not by a scientist. This is the exclusivist thinking that permeates all arts, not only literature.

OK, you can say each artist interprets the “human condition” in his or her own way. This is OK with me, but I throw at you the question: Then, is it not true that the value of any art form is exclusively in its independent interpretation? That is, arts throws up avenues of interpretation, but giving no clue as to where any particular interpretation could lead.

Ironically, this indeed is how science acts, groping in the dark. But, science knows when to stop. Though there is a Flat Earth Society you would not mention them in polite society! Science knows when to put a fullstop. In the theory of evolution, we had the Darwinian version and also the Lamarckian. Now, adherents to the Lamarkian can be counted on the fingers of one hand, not quite a full stop, but at least a semi-colon.

Can you say that of any artistic endeavor? Does any artist about his own work, “Stop! No more interpretations!” I have not heard any such instance. It is always, “More the merrier.” What happens is, the value of art, including literature, gets diluted to zero.

Yes, an artist is entitled to have an opinion and may indeed have one. But, unfortunately, its value is zero, thanks to the “Human condition”.

Raghuram Ekambaram