Annadasankar Roy :
Art is free in all conditions, and in all time. But artists are not so. The extent to which the country and time give freedom to an artist, he is free to that extent -- not more than that. To broaden the boundary of freedom, to make freedom meaningful, to be independent and unchecked in the work of creation, the artists, across time, have made lots of efforts.
What have been achieved by too much labour, to preserve this one has to keep awake. Freedom of a creator is needed for the fullness of his/her creation.
Otherwise, the thing that will be created, there will not be completeness of life. Some organs will remain hidden in darkness. Will not that be freed from the closed prison of darkness at any time? Who will rescue it by demolishing the wall? Upon whom but artists is this responsibility?
What the Alchemists of middle ages did in fear, the modern scientists are doing these with pride. Life has become free from darkness to a great extent for scientists' freedom being unchained. Science, especially, psychology has opened hundreds of closed doors. The confined truths in those dark wells have come out after such a long time.
But there is no entrance of scientist into the world of beauty. And there is an inner yard of truth where there is entrance only of artists. Yet freedom of artists is not equally acknowledged as that of scientists. Lest, freedom is abused and frantic artists make the society insane. Common people's idea is that scientists do not make abuse of freedom, nor the politicians and others. Only the artists abuse freedom.
To make the whole insane, so various and so many powers are working, that if the artists keep sitting inert folding their hands, the spread of insanity will not stop. There might be a slight difference. Contrarily, if artists keep active at large, then the society will be excited seeing its face in the mirror of art; will be watchful, it will reign in the insanity. This can be desired.
The ancient people got an explanation of life by imagining gods and demons. In the same way they wanted to control humans and hells. But the modern see humans as gods, they are demons, heavens and hells are in the human heart, and this is same in the outside also. Now, if artists do not say this then who else? If we need to say then say frankly/openly. Say the whole. Not through implication and symbolism.
Human race needs to be told for their own sake that life is like a floating avalanche. Its top above the sea is visible. The rest is beyond the sight of the people of ship. The passengers are dancing and singing with great joy and the crew also running the engine without any fear. Suddenly, Oh! What is this! Where, where is Titanic! Titanic has gone for the search of Atlantic Ocean, leaving some women and children on life boat.
Human beings should be made understand that the visible part of snow flack is not life. If I can see what remains behind their sight, then it is my humane duty to show them that. With this they may be shocked to such an extent, that they may slap me calling me liar. But by what power of necromancy will they live! Only truth can make them live. Complete truth.
The real force of modern literature is here. Modern literature is investigative. It does not suppose that what is to know has been known, and what is to say has been said. It does not suppose that the crew are omniscient, the captain infallible. It is not out of anxiety to mix with the other passengers to enjoy. It has a kind of engine of its own, through which he can see the sunken other half part of the avalanche. What he has seen, if he does not tell about it, then who else will say? He must say. That is his humane responsibility.
Finding and giving the complete picture of whole life is the adoration and object of worship of modern litterateurs. This is their goal and emancipation. None can be mature or ripe if they do not go through different experiences, and different tastes. In the same way, none becomes skilled without experimenting with language and beauty. A quack may often be a healer. This principle is applicable in case of Art also. Aim becomes infallible by failing over and again. There is no highway of Art or Literature.
Sexual passions are parts of life i.e. literature from the primitive age. Abandoning these or trifling them, there cannot be life or literature. This is acknowledged in all countries and all ages. What new has happened in our contemporary age is that Psychology and Psychoanalysis have touched literature. Deep rooted prejudice or inhibitions have broken down and are breaking one by one. It will break more. A necessity for purification/embellishment of literature has arisen. It will be seen more. Otherwise, the mystery of life could not be unveiled. No one will agree to accept the so called old religious explanation or the moral interpretation of last century with incomplete knowledge of life.
Curiosity about life once made a group of our literature homeward. After forty years such a group is drawing to the underground of the mental world. If they can rescue such repressed truth that is worth knowing and remembering, then their questions of life will be complementary to the questions of life of others. Thus, completeness will come to the world of literature.
The truth named 'Human' was as simple before the Renaissance, but it is not so in the later chapter. How different Shakespeare is from Dante! Yet it is too much from the point of view of complexity. The same is before and after Freud. If the modern fears to go down stair of the psyche, I will not be surprised. The reason is that I myself am not out of fear. Who knows when we have to be bitten by snake while excavating the earth-worm of the unconscious? But if anyone wants to be advanced, I will not pull him/her from behind. But I will remind them immediately that as while dealing with diseases one has to be healthy, so before stepping the underground one has to gather strength from heaven beforehand. Nectar is applicable in the treatment of poison.
For those who have nothing called spiritual life, nothing has been gathered in their life. It will not be appropriate for them to deal in such dangerous matters. For this reason, their freedom should not be hampered. If some people were not advanced then newer truths would not have been discovered. No closed door would open. And literature would stroll with some mere rhymes of the 18th century. Or it would be confined to wife-read and school syllabus.
As modern philosophy is mixing you with modern science, so will modern literature harmonise you. If life is indivisible then this indivisibility would tie in one rope the divisions of philosophy, science; literature etc. But that does not mean literature will become Philosophy or science deviating from its own nature. It will evolve maintaining its mutuality.
What fits the mouth of science unquestionably, hearing that by the mouth of literature, the preservers of society chase with hue and cry? The courts exempt it as science books, but if this is literary book on the same themes, then counts sentence it. Do science books harm less? The facts of life are descent in science, and in literature these are vulgar -- is this an agreeable reason? If this reason is not abandoned, then the growth of literature will stop.
"Truth never can be descent/decorous or indecorous. But their representation may be." This is a statement of one of our famous writers. She has no objection to the subject matters. Objection is to language and style. I could not agree with her on this point. Then on epoch-making writers such as James Joyce, D.H. Lawrence etc., ban would have been imposed or we would have to agree on their sentences. Later their bad deeds have become matters of feat. What was lacking in literature, they first brought it, brought some truths to light, immediately caused theirs and others liberation. Imminent readers will judge through this line. They will not object to the freedom of style of representation.
What is labeled as decorous or indecorous in literature is the imposition of social principles on literature. What is holy for the society, is decorous, and what unholy, is vulgar. With this there is associated the question of taste also--the taste of gentlemen and gentlewomen. The artists are also social beings, their taste is the taste of the gentle, but to which demand will they give preference? To the demand of truth, or that of social welfare, to the demand of beauty or gentle taste? Of course, to the demand of truth and beauty.
As there are not only two colours called black and whites in the middle there are many others i.e. blue, red, yellow etc. So there are not only two qualities called holy or unholy, good or bad, of good taste and bad taste; in the middle there are some other qualities or stages. So is between vice and virtue. The world or life of whom we talk about that world or life cannot be drawn with only two colours. If drawn, we do not do justice to it. If we sit for drawing focusing on the wholeness, we have to abandon the principles of righteousness, taste and drawing. It does not mean throwing way the demand of morality and taste. As social beings we are bound to abide by the principles of righteousness. The same way the gentlefolk, the demand of taste. But while we are creator, then we are another of the creator of the universe. Then before us there is a bigger demand.
Chastisement or reward, scepter or royal palace, considertion of all these is irrelevant before creators. Who will live how many years of these people! The life-span of creation is much more. The creativity with which we are bestowed let us make a proper use of this. Otherwise, who has given this, will take it back. Is it so simple to gain the sympathy of goddess of art! Who will conquer her with vulgarity and who else with decorum! n Transcripted by Md Harun