DO ARTISTS or cultural personae in a state enjoy freedom in expressing their thoughts and philosophy and in reflecting them in their creation? Does the state allow a free reign to artists to sail as they dream of? If not, how do these two reconcile or, otherwise, survive in a system? The debate has been long-drawn especially since the European Renaissance, but it is yet to be resolved. Answers to the questions are important to understanding cultural activities, their outcome and impact on society and the people at large, ultimately resulting in defining and redefining of the cultural identity of a state.
It is generally believed that artists are free with their work and world. They enjoy a great extent of liberty in exercising their thoughts and ideas that shape their works that sometimes uplift them to go beyond the boundary of time and the state. Artists live in an age but the time cannot ensnare them within its tentacles. Their brushes and strokes, wings of poesy, pen and voice make them ethereal, transcending them from their geographical location and time; they reach everywhere. It is more so at this phase of science and technology which we adoringly term the Industrial Revolution 4.0. Unlike a work of art now, drawing the milieu gets viral in moments, garnering millions of likes and applause which in the age of Michelangelo took four hundred years to reach the people of the then known earth, often creating controversies and reproaches by the establishments.
The other side of the story, the state鈥檚 role in this regard, is somehow not as straight to look into as that of an individual artist because many players 鈥� like the government, the ruling class, the audience and both repressive and ideological state apparatuses and so on 鈥� are involved in the process of cultural creation and re-creation within a state. The ideological state apparatuses, the government, its legal system, and educational and social institutions are not as free as individual artists. It is because in an ideal type of democracy and often through the supreme law of the land, culturally, a government is committed to people to let them exercise their freedom to the extent that it does not destabilise social cohabitation and harmony. This cultural pledge is akin to that of Rousseau鈥檚 social contact theory under which people, in exchange for sacrificing their freedom to an extent, came to be united under the king鈥檚 spectre on condition that the latter would ensure the security of lives and bread of the subjects. As such, the state does permit artists the liberty in their professional productions to the extent which does not threaten its being decried or jeopardised. The banning of Salman Rushdie鈥檚 novel or Charlie Hebdo鈥檚 satirical lampoons on political and religious leaders could be well perceived in this connection.
But sometimes, the history of artistic representations of the much-talked-about events such as war and famine are welcomed by the states concerned as long as they fit in with the authority鈥檚 intended hegemonic messages 鈥� be it to draw the attention of the world bodies or calling forth the citizens鈥� unity under some concocted nationalistic umbrella. These types of arts are, however, labelled by art critiques as politically biased. Picasso鈥檚 Guernica is an example of such representation.
In this context, it is relevant to draw from the eminent British cultural theorist Stuart Hall who propagated that the state sponsored cultural hegemonic productions often embark on encoding some messages to the artistic representations especially in the domain of media productions: film, news, documentaries, etc. But, he argued, while watching the same, the audience does the decoding and receives the messages with three meanings 鈥� the preferred, the negotiated and the contested. Of the three types of responses, the cultural awakening of the audience begins to happen among them when they are able to read and accept a hegemonic text or message by analysing the contents presented before them. They find the truth or alternative truth layered between an encoded text and, thus, negotiate with the right and the wrong, the fabricated and the fact which results in inculcating a negotiated meaning in them rather than blindly welcoming the imposed one whereas, the other two types of reception occur while the viewers are either passively relax and take the message of the artist for granted and completely oppose or, at times, come up with contesting, contradicting ideas about the message.
Interestingly, the audience鈥檚 preferred reading of a cultural product can lead the artists concerned to believe that they are the only mouthpiece of the government or the state and, hence, they might deliberately keep on distancing themselves from the other cultural activists or professionals of their time which might, if unchallenged, make the whole cultural practices into dictated ones and, thus, slowly poison the roots of free, non-biased cultural representations on different media. In this process, a cultural persona might prefer positions and fortune to that of freedom of expression through the works.
Moreover, Louis Althusser, the French philosopher, expounded that the ideology that the state often imposes on its citizens through the ideological state apparatuses such as the family, schools and churches do also constantly shape and reshape their thought processes and, thus, it is very likely that being apparently independent and free of the state鈥檚 ideological repressive apparatuses such as the army, the police and courts, artists might unknowingly, but certainly, end up creating works that materialise the state鈥檚 dictated narratives only.
Moreover, Antonio Gramsci argued that through its repeated and preferred story told to the common mass, the ruling class controls the latter鈥檚 worldview as they find the presented state of affairs is in conformity with their expectations in day-to-day life. They complacently consent to drag on their social position and, thus, no newer facades of cultural orientation takes place in their life. This powerful impact made by the state鈥檚 dictated cultural hegemony on the mass people in a country transcends some of the ruling class leaders to the height of demigods demanding to be constantly worshipped by ordinary people. History witnesses the cultural intelligentsia line up to chisel sculptures, compose hymns and chant them in a chorus, making a few larger than life heroes the most villainous of the fascists.
Hence, what the government or the state apparatuses often envision to convey to the audience through representations of events are not just copied in the viewer鈥檚 minds with the only one true meaning, they, rather, perceive the presentations with different meanings. Here lies the strength of the art with its various forms and representational genres. The audiences become aware that there can be more than one truth behind the visualised contents or text of a given art work. This discovery marks the starting point of their awakening of the cultural or artistic contents.
Evidently, it requires reciprocal efforts of artists not to compromise their free spirit to presenting unbiased products before the audience as well as the latter鈥檚 cultural orientation and awakening to the cultural practices within the state to uphold the freedom of artistic creations.
听
Md Mukhlesur Rahman Akand is a joint secretary to the expatriates鈥� welfare and overseas employment ministry.
