It is all about displaying the
interior. I sometimes wonder if a writer were building a house in his head when
he is gestating stories. If house-building sounds too stupendous and quixotic a
task, at least the writer would be envisioning a room of his imaginary house, and
adding furniture or adornments here and there as he plods away his writing. Day
and night, the room expands and shrinks. Day and night the writer is flushed
with excitement as he bustles about the room, but before long such childlike
enthusiasm will flag, and here comes the writer storming out in distress. Time
and motion do not desert the room. It is steadily yet soundlessly growing in
size, like flowers that suddenly blossom on an arid land.
Words are redundant when a story is
already narrated by pictures. Pictures are inconsequential when everything is
already visualised by words. Edward Hopper did nothing to solve the ongoing
dilemma, but further complicated it. Whenever one feels compelled to apply
words to one of Hopper’s paintings, he unwittingly puts the painting under the
risk of morphing into something it is not- some melodrama, some mystery, some sleazy,
hardboiled noir. On the other hand, should such painting be chosen to serve as
the pictorial accompaniment to any story, be it subtly written or frustratingly
opaque, these two will rarely advance in convoy, with the painting being the
most conspicuous laggard. Possessing within itself still many enigmas waiting
to be unraveled, the painting’s role to illustrate or complement a story
ultimately founders.
Hopper depicted a world that is
bound to be chastened by the pictorial reality. Time does not stand motionless in
Hopper’s paintings, nor are the subjects and objects thus endowed with an aura
of immortality. Once the painter introduces a character into his painting,
willingly or not he will witness his beloved Creation grows, rebels and
transgresses, until one day when this fearless child sets up a commotion in her
environs, the meaning and appearance of the painting are altered forever. The
painter will then find himself merely a photographer, taking snapshots of the
lives of his child on the periphery.
That is what happens every time a
stranger wanders into your territory unbidden. Reality should be like that and
every one’s life is more or less punctuated with people one never knows. But it
is to the painter always a vexation when his Creation develops into someone he
never knows, namely someone that speaks and acts contrary to the painter’s
expectations because somehow she gradually acquires her own independence and
soul. And what’s next? Maybe the house will have its soul, too, and so will
every flotsam and jetsam that scatter about the room. Because the character has
magic tinkling about her fingers, and everything she touches turns into something
like her, so every wooden heart suddenly starts pumping blood.
The biggest difference between a
photographer and a painter lies here. A photographer longs to be “shocked,” having
no compunction of dishing out images that succeed more in traumatising than
revealing. Such things a painter abhors and shuns. Every unpleasant or astonishing
matter should be well hidden away, insofar as the painter forgets that painting
is like walking on a bridge, that every bridge has its underside that is
invisible to its pedestrian.
Art convinces us that our world has
its reversal that most of the times we wilfully ignore. Even when, as the
horrific tale goes, the irate painter tries to efface the painting with his
paint-knife, tries to stop the noise of myriads heartbeats that whirl about his
ears day and night, there is another facet of the painting he fails to notice
and thus fails to annihilate. And that remaining side of the painting lives on,
even in the least perceptible way.
Comments
Post a Comment