SCIENCE AND LIBERAL ARTS: AESTHETICS WITH SHILPA DAS Article submitted by Reuben D’silva Undergraduate Graphic Design Semester Six National Institute of Design/2012
It is perhaps dangerous to try and understand and furthermore generalise the ‘aesthetics’ of a culture. To dissect aspects of the understanding of beauty amongst a group of individuals who are united by those very aspects of belief can be challenging in itself. However, it is true that at some level any dominant philosophical belief that persists within a particular society would define the way in which they view themselves with respect to their environment. The average human has strongly associated it’s understanding of aesthetics with reference to a parallel understanding of the philosophy of art. I feel however that aesthetics has, most definitely, deeper roots. ‘Beauty’ does have a critical mention in even the theoretical description of aesthetics, but aesthetics is something that derives from all aspects of a culture. Limiting it’s understanding and attempting to view and learn it through the lens of art and it’s philosophy would only be one of many perspectives. Beauty, after all, is in the eye of the beholder and aesthetics is beyond beauty. It envelopes our entire perception of the world including our beliefs of religion, culture, behaviour and society, what is good and what is bad. The idea behind this article is to attempt to compile and therefore comprehend the basic distinctions between the understanding of aesthetics in two very broad categories; cultures that are worlds in themselves - the Western and the Indian. I would repeat that attempting to do this is subject to disagreement but the need to is rather personal. Before elaborating on the specific context/issue to which I will apply my understanding of the differences in western and Indian aesthetics, I wish to briefly revise some points that I think are fundamentally important. These are things that I have picked up over courses in SLA over the past two years (though mostly this course) and reference material that I have included towards the end of this article.
The Distinctions One of the first points of distinction is the understanding of the ‘self’. The work of Aristotle and Plato which are perhaps the pillars of all Western philosophy that followed them in the works of Aquinas, Copernicus and Galileo, speaks of a very empowered human self. The understanding that knowledge is human invention and a measure of our intelligence and evolution. That individuals are real and ontologically ultimate. Though the mind vs. matter issue, remains a difference of perception amongst the two, their common belief that the epistemological, ontological and axiological methods lie within the comprehension and capacity of human beings by virtue of reason is fundamentally different from what the Indian system has to say about the self. The Indian aesthetic that has most of its meaning in the Upanishads rests on certain beliefs about the self or jeeva. It devalues the self by propounding that the self and everything that surrounds the self including scientific reason is illusionary or maya. What is real is not what we see around us but something beyond us, and something unexplainable; an unified perfect reality called Brahman. Human nature is not restricted to jeeva and extends beyond one’s physical capacity of mortality. Our true original self was never born and will never die. This component is called the atman. It has no form and is omnipresent. Thus at one end, individuality is valued while at the other, the self is viewed as an obstacle. Another distinction is the emphasis in Indian belief on human intuition and absence of human will. In Western philosophy, emphasis is laid on opposite virtues of reason and will. Reason and will maybe viewed as instrumental values but any pure aesthetic form can only be attained when one extinguishes both reason and will. A third distinction is the belief of ultimacy as opposed to relativity. Hindu belief expounds the pursuit of ultimacy in the form of purity; purity of being, purity of awareness and purity that leads to ultimate bliss or nirvana. The atman as mentioned earlier is ultimate in Brahman. The basis of ultimacy is devoid of reason and will. The attainment of nirvana lies in one’s ability to dissolve one’s individuality. In Christianity however, the belief of eternal life is based on reason where one’s eternal rest will be granted upon the administration of divine justice by the almighty ultimate God who alone in which reason and will are identical. The classic example of Hollywood vs. Bollywood is an ideal one to explain the next difference which is that of the ‘distinct’. Hindu belief thrives on the indistinct and indistinctness. Right from the analogies used throughout it’s religious texts to the nature of characters throughout the Mahabharata, everything is gray. Nothing is defined as black or white. Similarly, the narrative theories are influenced by the
above mentioned distinctions. Non-linear vs. linear storytelling methods. The flexibility and comfort in traveling across space and time in Bollywood films very consistently contradicts the cause-effect method in Hollywood flicks. In embracing the indistinct, we attain moksha. Arisotle on the other hand, strongly advocates the need for man to look, observe, classify, learn and make distinct and understood that which is not through use of human intellect.
The Aesthetic fusion My fore fathers of Dravidian descent were inhabitants of the Konkan coast. Christian missionaries followed Vasco da Gama to the western coast of India to land up in Goa around 1498. The process of conversions began almost as soon as they touched shore and a wave of christian Indians was established. As these religious conversions spread so did cultural traditions that were so strongly attached to the religious ones. A feeling of opposition towards this change in cultural practices was felt amongst converts further south of Goa. To flee these cultural impositions, these converts headed further south beyond the reach of the existing Portugese missionaries. Thus, though they remained practicing Christians, they held on to their cultural roots that were deeply influenced by even present day Hindu beliefs. These settlements sustained themselves in what is presently Karnataka (Canara district). My fore fathers were these very people. Many people upon hearing my name assume that I am from Goa. But there is something more unique about the cultural identity of Mangalorean Catholics. So what does this have to do with aesthetics? The way I see it, the day Vasco da Gama led the Christian missionaries from Portugal to Goa and the very day that the first Goan Hindu was christened, a fusion took place. A fusion of not just culture and religion but a fusion of, more importantly, aesthetics. A fusion of all things that the west had experienced, learned, believed and knew with what we had experienced, believed and knew. And the distinction between the two communities namely Goan Catholics and Mangalorean Catholics is a matter of aesthetics. As an example, Goan ladies after conversion, embraced the attire of full-length dresses
Mangalsutra
Goan and Mangalorean wedding attire
Traditional Goan and Mangalorean houses
or two-piece dress suits. The traditional mangal sutra and gold ormanents were replaced by other precious stones used on jewellery items like chains and earrings. On the other hand the Mangaloreans retained the attire of the ever-Indian sari. The practice of wearing the traditional red sado (sari) is still essential to any wedding ceremony even today. Similarly, architectural works like churches, houses for religious that were constructed by the Portugese in and around Goa influenced the taste of cottages and homes of the local inhabitants. In Goa, the use of two-colour schemed painted walls (usually white offset by a bright hue of blue or yellow), the circular arches and simplistic cylindrical pillars, structure of living spaces etc. These were aesthetic senses that the Goans absorbed clearly from the architectural taste of traditional Portugese churches. On the other hand, the taste of architectural tastes of Mangalorean catholics can be associated with Hindu sensibilities. Bungalow-type houses with open portico on the front, a spacious hall in the center of the house interior with adjoining rooms on both sides and a large kitchen with dining hall.
As these houses are situated in larger complexes, there is sufficient space available to lay flower gardens around the house. The beliefs of Hindu vastu shastra are visible in houses further South Karnataka. To elaborate the point of behavioural differences, I wish to elaborate a not-so-delighting experience- On my first trip to Goa with my family, I visited my friend’s grandparents who lived in a lovely sprawling cottage in a small village in Madgaon, South Goa. In the course of the day, we felt the need to inquire about the whereabouts of a restroom. we were very hospitably directed to a room at the extreme rear of the house yet within it’s premises. Upon entering the room you see a row of wooden lids atop a raised wall section. Upon lifting these toliet seat lids, we were shocked to see an small shaft at the bottom of which sat a hungry pig with her little piglets along the outside wall of the house. Such things are unheard of in Mangalorean and originally Hindu practice. Visiting the restroom in my grandfathers household many decades back meant a good 10 minute walk to an abandoned farm by the river with a measured pale of water. The sacredness of the living space or home, behavioural customs while cooking, eating, etc are visible in the Mangalorean culture. These practices all contribute to a certain aesthetic- what is clean and what is unclean? what is good and what is bad? What I find fascinating about ‘taste’ in the context of aesthetics is this. That though we may draw so many distinctions through comparative aesthetics, in reality, what exactly happens when one pits these ideals against one another? Aesthetic understanding is always conceived within an existing dominant framework or system and in the case of both Western and Indian aesthetics the dominance of religion and morals in this system is rather clear. Therefore, aesthetics is not subordinate to religion but has always supported religion and helped people relate to religion and understand it. Aristotle never had a chance to witness what happened when my stubborn fore fathers from Goa settled in South Karnataka to resist aesthetic transformation. That his philosophy, which was designed so specifically in tandem with a religion called christianity that influenced a small population on another continent, could fuse and adapt to create something so beautiful as the Goan or Mangalorean culture that is so unique and valued therefore. The fusion of culture is a instance of overlapping of two very contrasting aesthetic sensibilities. And I personally feel that the ability of humans to adapt, embrace and construct something beautiful and meaningful from these sensibilities is what makes something aesthetic and not the it’s intrinsic beauty or value.
_
References: _JSTOR: The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Archie J. Bahm _Cambridge Scholars Publishing : New Essays in Aesthetics, Edited by Robert Wilkinson _Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy _Wikipedia.org _Images: Varied sources via Google image search + class notes and course reader material