The politics of a paintbrush

In September of 2024, Zainul Abedin's name made headlines across all leading newspapers; one of his pieces, 'Untitled' (1970), created with white and black melted wax and watercolour, had sold for a whopping $643,690.

At a time when life has been whittled down to materialistic and tangible subjects, conversations around art have only been pushed to glistening art galleries nestled in wealthy locales.

However, in reality, the piece that sold for a record-breaking price was actually a part of the artist's 'Monpura' series, which was originally painted to record one of the most devastating natural disasters in Bangladesh: 1970's Cyclone Bhola.

Throughout time, art has always played a part in recording history, showing future generations more than just what is written in textbooks.

Before the times of the great world renowned artists, we had cave paintings that give historians insight about life in prehistoric times. Among the many things we can gather about their way of life, we also learn that creativity is an inherent part of human nature, and reality is our biggest inspiration.

In a way, the concepts of art, history and even politics have this uncanny hold on each other, unable to exist without the other.

"Essentially an artist's surroundings compel them to create art, reflecting their thought process. They're also human beings living in a time," shared Goutam Chakraborty, director of Galleri Kaya.

It was not until July of last year that I witnessed, first-hand, the role art played during a political shift. People desperately created art. Digital art, wall painting, and so on, expert or novice, everyone wanted to protest and document what was happening.

Can art exist outside of politics?

Among the many artists who were active during the July Uprising, the artworks of Debashish Chakrabarty's famous yellow-red artwork stand out. During the internet blackout in Bangladesh and when protests were silenced on global platforms, Debashish's works still circulated. Through art, he managed to keep the protests alive online.

This was not Debashish's first time challenging the government; he has been vocal about his surroundings through art for many years.

This begs the question: Is art always political? Debsashish certainly believes so.

"In modern times, yes. Our lives are decided by political institutions and political agendas. You cannot be apolitical. People who claim that there is such a thing as apolitical art should understand that such art serves people who are in power. It [apolitical art] can be used to divert collective consciousness from the power structure," commented Debashish.

He continued, "Unless you're standing with a small group of elite people, then your life is decided by political and economic factors. How can you remain apolitical then?"

Even artists such as Quamrul Hassan were no stranger to using art as a form of protest. On 2 February 1988, the artist drew a sketch mocking Hussain Muhammad Ershad before passing away. Titled, 'Desh Aaj Bishwa Behayar Khopporey' (The country today rests in the clutches of the utter shameless), the piece became a symbol of resistance against the military dictator.

However, not all artists agree that all art is political. 

In the essay, 'The Decay of Lying – An Observation' by Oscar Wilde, the writer provides an argument for aestheticism emphasising that art never expresses anything but itself. Oscar Wilde was only one of the many writers and artistes who believed in 'art for art's sake'.

The motivation behind this is to value art based on its beauty and aesthetics over its function. 

In a similar fashion, artist Sanjib Das also believes that while art is a result of the artist's experiences, it does not need to make a big statement to be deemed as art—as long as it can stop you in your tracks with its beauty.

"Sometimes we grow tired looking for the meaning behind art, especially in abstract art. But even if you hang a piece on a blank wall, created with no deeper intention than simply filling the space, and it brings you joy, that alone is enough for it to be considered art. At its core, the purpose of art is to make you pause for a moment and draw you in," shared artist Sanjib Das. 

In the end, once an artist shares their work with the world, its impact is ultimately shaped by the people who experience it.

Art vs documentation

Artists such as Zainul Abedin had stripped his style to the bare essential — black strokes on white paper to bring forth the pain and suffering he saw around him. Among his works, his simplistic yet harrowing 1940's 'Famine' series based on the Bengal Famine.

Many may believe, though the brush does a good job, the camera is better at documenting events.

However, according to Debashish, the function of art and photography are much different, even when both aim to document history.

"Photography is seen as an art form but it still has a documentary-like quality to it. When something happens, it can stand as the documentation of those events," shared Debashish. 

"Art and culture is the mirror of human life. So, as people have a lot of hopes and aspirations they cannot express, art can give language to those aspirations."

Similarly, though photos can offer evidence of the Bengal Famine and the sufferings of people, Zainul Abedin's sketches captured the peoples' sorrow in a way a camera could never achieve. In the photos, the people are evidence but in the sketches, they are human.

In an interview with Al Jazeera, Palestinian artist Sliman Mansour shared, "I think our fight is to rehumanise ourselves. There is a kind of dehumanisation of the Palestinian people — that these people, the Palestinians, are not fully human beings. They are less than human beings, so they don't deserve full rights and so we can take the land and we can kill them."

His art does just that as it not only depicts the emotions of countless Palestinians, but it is also reflective of his own philosophies of 'Sumud' or resilience.

Moreover, one of Pablo Picasso's greatest works, 'Guernica' depicts the brutality of war. 'Guernica' is a powerful political statement created in direct response to the Nazi's brutal bombing of the Basque town of Guernica during the Spanish Civil War. 

The painting captures the horrors of war, especially innocent civilians. Over time, it has achieved iconic status as a timeless reminder of the devastation of war, symbolising peace and serving as an enduring anti-war message.

Similarly, the grief and suffering of history were ingrained in the brushstrokes and colours of Zainul Abedin's works. In fact, the artist had made creative choices with his art, such as the simple black and white theme and dark, bold strokes for the figures.

The reason for doing so was to strip these art pieces of their grandeur and portray their grim reality.

Similarly, Debashish also took a similar decision. If you look through his collection of works, for many years, he has stuck to the same red and yellow palette.

The signature colour palette was a strategic decision for him. While he had been creating political art for years, he decided not to sign the pieces for the fear that he would be targeted by the previous government. So, he chose to stick with a style that would act as his signature instead, a style that would immediately tell the viewer that it was his piece.

Furthermore, he describes how common people might, in general, feel distant to the grandeur of art. However, as his art has always been for the people, he wanted it to be consumed by the people.

"They [common people] will feel like art is out of reach and can't celebrate it since their reality is different. They struggle with basic needs and they can't communicate that with art. I wanted to bridge the gap between my art and the people," concluded Debashish.