Death of a Singer

 

Vedan and ‘his’ Voice of voiceless (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPzY3ekoIrA) touched a raw nerve. The depth and choice of words, the uncompromising aggression felt new - pure and raw. Awe and sympathy naturally followed. Then, a #MeToo made the hunter, the hunted.

The society bayed for blood but I asked myself, is there really a relation between an artist and his actions to his creations? From a fan’s perspective, maybe yes, but then, are you a fan of the artist or his work?

Because more than 50 years ago, literary theorist Roland Barthes, argued brilliantly that an artist has no right over his creation. In his seminal essay, The Death of the Author, Barthes destroyed the belief on placing too much emphasis on a creator’s right on his creation by virtue of his ‘intent’ of creation. He argued that “The explanation of a work is always sought in the person who produced it, as if it were always in the end,…the voice of a single person (the author) confiding in us”.  In reality however “A Text is made up of multiple writings, drawn from many cultures and entering into mutual relations of dialogue, parody, contestation, but there is one place where this multiplicity is focused and that place is the reader, not…the author”. Note the focus shift to reader.

Perhaps we got it wrong completely. It has always been us - the fans. Vedan did create a great work. It was an honest outpouring of angst against many ills. He made no explicit efforts for recognition either.

The ‘Star-Fan’ social contract is strange and unequal in nature. It is a fan’s prerogative to trade his admiration and for a star to reject it rudely as well, as intrusion of privacy!

Why do our admiration always move on to the creator from his creation eventually? Is it because creations are abstract and cannot engage us enough after a point? Is it because we feel incomplete unless we shower our admiration on its creator? Why does the ‘Fan’ in us want to identify ourselves with the creator? Why do we swallow our pride and seek contentment in hero worship? Are our expressions of affection, an unconscious effort to boost our own self-esteem by usurping the creator? In this lop-sided relationship, once you submit your admiration, trust, respect and pride, why is that you feel betrayed when the artist did not live up to ‘your’ expectations? And finally, can you demand responsibility from the artist on account of a betrayal of trust which you willingly gave? 

When a #Metoo happens, the towering image falls; some feel disappointed, others channel their envy into anger. We all reason, the artist did not have the moral right to create such a work and betray our trust. But, as Barthes asks, was not the artist already dead?

It is indeed a sad limitation that, once an artist stakes claim for his creation a responsibility is born too. It is like, the creation represents you and when you are tainted, the lapse in your morality suddenly sully the ‘purity of intent’ of your work too. This is because we live in a subjective world of envious imperfects, where unrelated acts cannot be viewed in isolation. Vedan’s Voice of Voiceless and his misdemeanors are unrelated but for us they must be.

A modest suggestion in hindsight would be to publish anonymously - like Elena Ferrante and Enigma. Anonymity does guarantee a re-focus on the creation itself but I wonder how a culture would have evolved without father figures to point to. Interestingly, giving credits to artists is a modern construct. For, do we know who wrote the Vedas and the Upanishads?

Perhaps, we all seek meaning in art and unconsciously assume we can understand more from the artist and his intent. Why we love Voice of Voiceless or any creation, is because of an alignment (of our values) with the creator's, such that, we track down the creator, explore the purity of his intentions and register our solidarity, unconditionally. We seek our answers in his inspirations, those that triggered his creative expression. 

Without ourselves knowing, the artist becomes a casualty of our relentless quest for meaning. We must realize that an artist is ultimately an ‘idea-mixer’ of his own influences. And we the viewer interprets the artist’s work from ‘our own frame of influences’ and then falls in love with it for own own reasons.  The relationship should have ended right there!

Alas, to twist Eleanor "Great minds see the idea; average minds see the art; small minds see only the artist."

But sometimes I also wonder, am I a victim of the ‘Halo effect’ cognitive bias? To dig up so much to just root for him? Whatever. I must admit, watching ‘Voice of the Voiceless’ has never been the same again.