Mythic Archetypes and Superhero Aesthetics: Graphic
Reinterpretations of Hindu Deities
Dr. Rashmi Sharma,
University
Institute of Liberal Arts and Humanities (UILAH),
Chandigarh
University, Gharuan, Mohali,
Punjab, India.
Hindu
Vedic Mythology has always born a strong affinity to the illustrative,
especially for those tales and sagas deeply rooted in devout religious thought,
such as the apocalyptic struggle of good versus evil or the myth of a savior or
the destroyer. Graphic art, just like theology, thrives on symbols and their
disparate connotations. In the context of comics and graphic novels,
hermeneutics, especially analytical, are an assertive force within and beyond
the meaning of caricature and offer the readers a remediation of the
fundamental misconceptions that encompass visual communication. Graphic Novels
and Comics have deciphered and advocated an idiosyncratic reception of World
Mythology through their distinct artistic panels and grids. Hindu Gods and
Demons, too, are revelling in these malleable understandings and mutable
comprehensions or miscomprehensions found only in the synaesthesia of graphics
and visual images. In these multi-modal renditions, does mythology loses more
than just its obsolescence?
The
metamorphosis of graphic/digital art still exists in limbo and, in sombre
earnestness, is looking at mythology to escape this scholastic oblivion. It is
looking to provoke and inspire the primordial proclivity to art forms which is
an integral core of the relationship of humans to images. The provenance of
Graphic Mythology lies in the cosmos of art traditions, whose impulse continues
to sustain in scant measures, having suffered many ruptures and
discontinuities. The frescos depicting the shamanistic practices of the Bushmen
of the Ice Age and the digital/graphic art of today have the same
preoccupation: i.e., producing a panorama or an immersive image space that penetrates
man’s psyche and soul. The graphic narrative and the digital tableau are still
embodied in the physical, cognitive, visual, emotional, and embodied strategies
and capabilities of interactivity and transference of myths and parables.
Mythology
has always been a sanctum of aesthetic pleasure that sustains itself on
awareness and conscious recognition of the symbols and motifs it contains. In
graphic form, it becomes a delusive kaleidoscope where the synchronized
deception and isolated perfectionism seduce and delight the connoisseur with
their complex synergetic effects. It becomes a visual opiate that triggers an
influx of an infinite number of possible perspectives and becomes a visceral
collective hallucination. The paper seeks to deliberate and examine the
ontological and epistemological bearings of these orthodox antiquated and
somewhat agnostic digital/graphic portrayals, which have granted a renewed
existence to the antiquity of Myth. The paper also seeks to examine the
philosophic feasibility of the ambitious project of rendering mythology into
comics or graphics, especially in light of its hermeneutical ramifications,
especially those of Friedrich Schleiermacher and Martin Heidegger.
Religion
has always been a strong embodiment of the illustrative, especially in Hindu
philosophy from Sankhya to Vedanta schools of thought.1
The only constant has been various artists' musings and pundits' musings on the
various gods and goddesses and the meditations on their allegorical and
symbolic significance. These reflections via art aid not only subjective
reception of religion but also represent the spiritual affinity of myth and
pictorialisation, as evident from the artistic renditions of the Mahabharata and the Ramayana in the venerational lithographs of Raja Ravi Varma
(1848–1906) to the avant-garde conceptual art dominating the digital web at
present.2 It is still contentious that the screen rather than paper
facilitates better understanding and aids the possibility of comprehension or
miscomprehension, especially in the domain of web-based graphic illustrations.
The
Hindu pantheon of Gods and Goddesses has always been the leitmotif of both
angelic and demonic pride and ambition, a veneration of divine grace, both to devas (angels) and asuras (demons) alike. The congregation of Hindu Gods has now found
a rejuvenated resurrection in the graphic medium, both in aetiological and
conceptual modes. The comic/graphic/ digital illustrations in contrapuntal to the antiquated calendar art compete
for prominence in web culture, and the ontological and
epistemological bearings of these orthodox antiquated prints and the somewhat
agnostic digital portrayals are both immense as well as complicated. While the
philosophic feasibility of the ambitious project of rendering religion into
comics or graphics has already been widely contested and debated, these
renditions embody the hermeneutical ramifications, especially those espoused by
Friedrich Schleiermacher and Martin Heidegger. They are vociferously redefining
the Hindu Vedic print and web culture.
Like
all great ancient religions of the world, Hinduism is a spiritual culture that
has its own gargantuan share of myths and legends. It is through the puranas wisdom of knowledge that the
community preserves and decodes the creation and manifestation of the universe,
the genealogies of the gods and sages, as well as ancient genealogy of worship,
history, philosophy, and theology. Hermeneutics, on the other hand, is often
presumed for a set of interpretive rules designed to clear up difficult textual
passages of theology. But in substance, hermeneutics is more than just the
interpretive principles or methods scholars resort to when immediate
comprehension and acumen fail. In the contour and context of art, hermeneutics
asserts itself as the art of understanding and of making oneself understood
through illustration and graphics, for understanding requires an instinctive
art rather than some rule-governed knowledge. Understanding in art is
perception in the deeper sense of grasping not just components but their
integration into a meaningful whole, the kind of practical agency that provides
knowledge in the sense of deep familiarity with something. Gods, Heroes, and
their mythologies fall under this purview.
The
amalgamation of visual images and text, the synthesis of philosophy and
theology with the graphic form, are still treated with pedagogical disdain and
scholastic contempt. Heroism has been a major preoccupation of human
civilization since its inception. Symbols or Art, especially religious, have always
been an anthropological constant, reminiscent in the cave paintings of Chauvet,
Altamira, and Lascaux. The frescos depicting the shamanistic practices of the
Bushmen of the Ice Age and the graphic art of today have the same
preoccupation: i.e., producing a panorama or an immersive image space inducing
a sacramental trance where the divine meets the human. Archaeological
excavations, the hieroglyphic tablets, and totems they have unearthed are
testimony to man’s eternal inquisition of deciphering the metaphysical. Gods,
demi-gods, angels, and demons serve as beacons of valor and courage, evil and
grace, and salvation and retribution, which sustain even when the mortal flame
is extinguished. Man is constantly damned to seek his Maker.
The
mythology of the Mahabharata is
religious, while the art dedicated to it is not overtly so. The graphic artist
is aware of this variance of meanings that results from this inconsistency and
does not exert their art to be perceived as religious. Even though mythology is
inescapably spiritual, it does not refute nor hinder the graphic abstract
expressionism and the explicit motifs and stories of digital storytelling while
preserving religion's incommunicably private and nonverbal gestures (Hinduism).
Mythology is bound to graphic art not because it seeks prominence and eminence
but because they share the same attribute of heterogeneity where each
representation is equal to the others. Even though all compete for influence
via replication, it is not religion but relevance which decides which image is
approbated or denounced. The Mahabharata does
not exclude religion from its art because it never sought to do it in the first
place. This ambivalence makes the reception of graphic Mahabharata very intriguing since one is unsure whether one is
enticed or deterred by the image because of the art or the religion. This
intersection runs deeper, breeds a discord of taste and purpose, and is endemic
to the constitution of graphic art and the Mahabharata.
The epic belongs to the earliest religion and civilization dominated by rituals
of veneration of Gods via art. Rendering these Gods in graphic keeps the
religious purpose of art the same. Art has and will continue to serve religion.
Mythology might rebel against this stance, but art shall always comply.
Religion and art in Hinduism have been inseparable since the inception of its
creed in the ancient Indus valley civilization. The graphics are merely
continuing the tradition. Even though one might feel that they are insidiously
trying to sneak away from religion, in fact, religion is so inherent and innate
that it exerts itself in its absence as well. Art interceding with religion
does not make it bigoted, but rather it sublimes it to the pious sentiments of
divinity while also elevating the manifestations of the artist’s skill and
intention.
Over
time, the gods have been adapted as superheroes who have ascended the
fallibility of human morality and mortality. The graphic novel has become the
site of this transcendence and the sanctuary of Hindu Gods who are desperate to
be part of the millennial culture of popular literature. The philosophies,
adages, and axioms of Gods also accompany them in the grids and panels of
graphics. Philosophies, especially of religion, can be life-altering, but when
a god or a superhero personifies them, they become empirical and hence
attainable. Theology and philosophy are often presumed pedantic and must be
rendered in familiar terms, however generic or banal they might be.
Philosophers hence illustrate their complex theories with examples of the
physical world, such as Plato’s (428–348 BCE) allegory of the cave3
to Descartes’ (1596–1650) Deceiver.4
Mythology
is not always anthropology. Myths and folklore may not be true or even
realistic, but they still inspire and resonate. Gods in mythology often
juxtapose the paradox of punitive justice and redemptive mercy in the context
of Divine justice and benevolence. Hence, in graphics novels and even comics,
the Hindu God is a sort of benign aggressor who torments to elevate. The Hindu
Gods are neither wholly benevolent nor completely just and are venerated by
both the pious and the wicked (both Rama and Ravana venerated Lord Shiva in
Valmiki’s the Ramayana).5
Graphics, too, have picked up on this disparate ambivalence and seeks to
incorporate it in its illustrations. Graphics are sort of a progression in
making an engagement with the theistic, which seeks to discard its scriptural
esoterism. The dialogue between religion and art is multifarious, which spawns
further myriad perspectives. All deliberations and assertions lead to a single
collected wisdom.
From
its genesis in Greek antiquity, philosophical hermeneutics aimed to discover
the truth about human predicaments and the wisdom they leave in their wake.
Since ancient times, philosophers and theologians have argued that discoveries
about the nature of things should enhance understanding of what men are we are
and how they live their lives. Plato, Socrates, and Descartes all thought that
all understanding is ultimately self-understanding. In his philosophical
dialogues, Plato taught that human knowledge is principally about
self-understanding and moral formation. He epitomizes the figure of Socrates,
who embodied this philosophical attitude. Before drinking from the poison cup,
Socrates triumphantly proclaimed that life’s highest goal is to be a soul
perfected by wisdom and virtue through rigorous rational self-examination, for
an unexamined life is not a human life. He lauded Homer’s poetry for it taught
courage and striving for excellence but also warned against vain pride.6
Aristotle famously argued that poetry was the most elevated art since poems
went beyond mere facts to imagine the purpose of human development and deduce
universal moral truths. Poetry shares this distinction with art, for it
inspires and persuades, if not based on cogent reasoning, than by alluding to
sublime sentiment. Unlike rhetoric, which both Aristotle and Plato cautioned
against, art does not degenerate into emotional pleading or verbal pyrotechnics
to win an argument at the expense of truth.7 German philosopher
Hans-Georg Gadamer developed his hermeneutic philosophy by interacting with
several major figures in the history of hermeneutics, such as Friedrich Daniel
Schleiermacher, Wilhelm Dilthey, Martin Heidegger, Rudolf Bultmann, and Paul
Ricoeur in his book Truth and Method
(1960). Subtitled Fundamental Contours of
a Hermeneutic Philosophy, the book preoccupies itself with “understanding
understanding” and has since become an imperative tool for deciphering the
anatomy, agency, and oncology of hermeneutics.8
As a
philosophical discipline now converging in religious graphic art, hermeneutics
examines and describes what happens when the most rudimentary understanding of
any illustration takes place. Hermeneutic philosophers often contend that our
primary mode of perception is not theoretical but practical and that our modern
consciousness has been carved in such a way that we imagine ourselves like
Vishnu in the cosmic dream, as solitary islands, alone but self-aware, floating
in the grand ocean of life, disconnected from our psychic selves. One tends to
think of the mind as something which only has an interior existence and is
oblivious or separated from the outside material world. From this inner kernel
of mind, we reach out to others and seek the tangible world around us. But
Shiva has transcended this mind-body limit and has become complete, while
humans still live divided in fragments. The community or tradition to which we
belong and ascribe gives us the lenses through which we see the world. In
Abhishek Singh’s (b. 1982) art, disengaged reason embodied by the nonchalant
Shiva is a kind of abstract, theoretical view of truth deciphered through
primal instinct rather than any scientific validation.9 Art is not
the result of method and empirically verifiable discernment via disinterested
observation. In hermeneutics, knowledge is more than comprehending and
describing objects; but also involves understanding and acknowledging
meaningful structures we already adhere to. Disengaged-self Shiva personifies
that one should suppress one’s personal beliefs or prejudices to escape
tradition's ideological blinders.10 The art that seeks to embody
this champions a hermeneutic view of truth, where past relics and artifacts of
religion and mythology continue to assert their meaning because they belong to
that enduring tradition that connects us to the past in a meaningful way and
will never cease to be relevant.
It is
but natural that one apprehends and assimilates the world through the
spectacles that dominant, assertive cultural tradition stains for us. Without
these conceptual glasses, which we must wear to gain meaningful access to
reality, we would be ignorant and blind. Hermeneutic thinkers contend that one
arrives at truth because one participates in something much greater and eminent
than one’s own existence, and it conveys a divine truth to us, which one tries
to elucidate through language, art, and cultural tradition one inhabits. It is
therefore deluding to pretend that such influence does not exist in graphic art
and even defrauding to repress it for the sake of supposed objectivity. Such
repression blinds one to the silent guiding influences, biases, and prejudices
and thus inhibits one from understanding why one believes what one believes.
Hence, an obsession with objectivity can entrap one in subjectivism.
B.G.
Sharma’s (1924–2007) art is one such long-lasting influence. Its prominence
lies in its infinite replication and the steadfast devotion it elicits amongst
its admirers. This reverence makes it that dominant cultural knowledge that
cannot be bypassed or ignored. This predominant art encompasses any wayward
attempt to override it.11 Heidegger,
in Being and Time, meditating on the early phenomenological inquiries,
concludes the sense of the being of human existence as hermeneutical, i.e., a
matter of self-interpretation. Within this context, Heidegger argues that such
hermeneutical research is itself only possible because human beings are, in
their very being, interpretive. Understanding is a projective possibility of
human existence and is oriented towards the interpretive possibilities
available in a specific spatial-temporal context. Accordingly, through art, both
Singh and Sharma are inquiring into the sense of the being of human existence,
enacted in painting Shiva, which is nothing but an attempt to understand one’s
own being, one’s relation to others, while navigating the course of mundane
affairs of life. Shiva is extensively meditated upon since he successfully
surpassed this and became free of all interpretations. All philosophies of
human existence and interpretation that shall allude to him will be validated
and revoked by another philosophy that spawns from him. Shiva has hence broken
the hermeneutical loop. Any understanding of Shiva is achieved not on the basis
of already securely founded beliefs (Sharma’s art) but also by navigating a new
understanding which is achieved through renewed interpretive attention to
further possible meanings of those presuppositions (Singh’s art) which tacitly,
inform and certify the understanding that one already has. Graphic has tamed
the elusive and rendered a form to the transient.
Hermeneutics
affirms that one must always be wary and ever vigilant about how common wisdom
and prejudices distort and malign one’s perception and judgment, and even the
most established knowledge (Sharma’s art) shall become obsolete and will be in
dire need of reconsideration (Singh’s art). But this finitude of understanding
must not be lamented as a regrettable fact of the human condition but must be
embraced as an important inception for the pursuit of new and different
meaning, as we can see in the art of Indra Sharma, which is antiquated like B.G
Sharma’s but still possess a small measure of contemporary vestige like
Singh’s.12 Given this positive affirmation toward the finitude of
human understanding, it is but natural that hermeneutics opposes stationary
foundation, especially when the subject is as volatile as the iconography of
Gods.
Shiva
and His art have now crossed the barrier of paper and brush and have come to
reside in the digital realm of the web. The web-based interactive and digital
caricatures may be deemed as violent transgressions of the pious and the holy,
but it is this profanity that allows art to escape the pedantic epistemological
structuralism. While B.G Sharma’s beliefs may be deemed as distinguished
foundations since they depend on no former antecedents for their justification,
Singh’s art may be considered founded or dependent for its justification
influenced by the foundational beliefs of B.G. Sharma and Indra Sharma.
Hermeneutical inquiry is hence an ascent, an upward pursuit of building and
adding new meanings to the edifice of knowledge of what we already know.
Heidegger
reiterates that phenomenological inquiry should begin with considering
theological structures of being in the world as they come into our
comprehension through our own individual engrossments and reflections. Hence
phenomenology of Shiva’s art unfolds as the explication of that which we engage
with at a particular instance, in a particular context. It is highly likely
that we may stumble upon B.G Sharma’s art as wall hangings in temples, and
Singh’s art may be more perfect as a mobile screensaver or a web-based profile
picture. But they invoke the same God. Shiva and its art can be grasped in its
idealness, utility, or meaningfulness. This refers to a process of
poly-mediation, by which a claim of truth laid forward by an artwork comes into
prominence through the simultaneous repeated projection of the competent and
supersession of the inadequate interpretations until such mediation becomes a
self-sustaining synthesis.
Since
the beginning of humankind and its religions, philosophers have deliberated on
the role of reason and emotion’s reason in the human engagement of moral
deliberation. In Vedic post-Aryan Hinduism, morality strives to achieve a stoic
character with the practical pragmatism to do what’s right, even at the expense
of self-denial or sacrifice (Socrates embodied this by drinking the poisonous
hemlock).Lord Krishna, an avatar of Lord Vishnu in his cosmic theatre of the Mahabharata, acknowledged that emotions strongly influence human actions;
realizing how immensely powerful they are, he harnessed the rage of the
Kauravas and the amity of the Pandavas in waging an apocalyptic war to usher in
a new world order. Lord Krishna’s graphic caricatures are not a vaporous dreamy
illusion, like Shiva, but He isn’t the archetypal hyper-masculine superhero
either. The graphic renditions rather prioritize the series of spectrums of
emotions or individual character traits Krishna exemplifies. In Mukesh Singh’s
art, Krishna portrays the two extremes, an excess of human emotions at one end
(rage, deceit, and a cruel shrewdness) and a deficit of humanity or rather a
divine grace at the other.13
The
Machiavellian portrayal is justified since Krishna is revered as a paragon of
the most apt (not ethical) conduct of human character and behavior. Being an
incarnation of Vishnu is secondary to the imperative lessons of grit,
perseverance, and resistance that he espouses throughout the narrative of Mahabharata, especially in the Gita
Sermon. He harnesses the right amount of empathic emotion and cold rationale of
reason to depict how humans can survive in the dog-eat-dog world and still
fulfill their destinies. Aristotle regarded this amalgamation of temperance and
assertion as the foremost virtue of human existence and actions, manifesting in
the subjective awareness of art. William Irwin, in Superheroes: The Best of Philosophy and Pop Culture, elucidates:
Aristotle thought that the key to achieving the proper
amount of each emotion is reason, which gives moral agents the guidance needed
to temper their emotions and to use them in service of the good. Without
reason, agents will act in service of their own appetites, controlled by their
passions rather than by a desire to do good. Reason is the cool, unemotional
component of our psyches that can carefully assess each situation and determine
how much of each emotion is called for (Irwin, Superheroes, 55–56).14
Just like Plato, Krishna also gives a very
pertinent analogy for this temper of equipoise. While Plato referred to mind or
reason as a general leading his troops or soldiers of emotions towards the
fulfillment of action, Krishna likened the senses to wild stallions, which are
reined in by reason or logic to lead the chariot of the mind smoothly. Hence,
the superhero strength of Krishna, as acknowledged by the graphic renditions,
is his virtue of deliberation, to commit to action and adhere to inaction, as
dictated by the supreme mind. Krishna must not be assumed as a nonchalant
coward but rather is an exemplar of the virtue of courage, which is the perfect
middle between the extreme emotions (or vices) of foolhardiness, angst, and
vengeance (portrayed by Duryodhana and the Kauravas) and meekness, cowardice,
and gullibility (portrayed by Arjuna and Kauravas).In fact, Krishna had to
placate Arjuna and give an onerous sermon to him to act decisively in the face
of fear and reluctance in annihilating his own clansmen, while running away
from battles which you are destined to fight and capable of winning is not only
cowardly but a blatant disregard of one’s moral duty. In contrapuntal, Krishna
even goes to Duryodhana as a peace envoy to advocate that rushing headlong into
wars and destruction where one is bound to lose all is not only impetuous but a
moral aberration. Krishna is that spiritual reason or wisdom which espouses
valor in times of danger and inhibition in times of strife. He is not an icon
of deferment but a hero who champions dispassionate rationale over all else.15
Lord
Rama, another avatar of Lord Vishnu from the epic Ramayana, also
encapsulates this equipoise temperance. Despite being sent to exile, having his
wife Sita taken away from him through treachery and conceit, and suffering
every calamity and adversity in getting her back, He neither acknowledges nor
succumbs to any anguish or torment. He lived in misery and woe, yet his story
is one of hope. His strength is not stoic endurance but a strengthened unity of
virtues like forbearance, empathy (even for his arch-nemesis Ravana), and a
steady resolve of righteousness at the expense of all personal happiness and
solace. Trials and tribulations mar his countenance, but his temperance is
resolute and fixed. The graphics dedicated to him often portray him as an
archer poised in a militant stance, armored and indestructible.16
But the story being narrated is of moral fortitude and spiritual tenacity. The
antagonist of Ramayana, Ravana, is
also reveling in his graphic resurrection and prominence.17 In
narratives dedicated to him, he exemplifies the reckless ambition of a demon
king who aspires to be the ruler of all cosmos and nearly succeeds.
Through
him, we can decipher that superhuman strength and divine grace can easily make
one a villain as they can make a hero. What differentiates Ravana and Rama is
the instinctive consciousness and the ethics of righteousness, which Rama
adheres to, and which Ravana condemns. Consciousness is the sieve through which
emotions are to be filtered. While pride for Rama was his honor and integrity,
for Ravana, pride was his ambition for power and the zeal of his desires.
Graphics in their grandeur and embellished caricatures tend to gloss this over.
This veneration of emotions undermines the importance of right action, which
brings happiness and soothes suffering, not for one self but for others too.
Heroism lies in obliterating the self (not just the emotional but, at times,
even the physical) so that virtue and justice can thrive. It takes more than
will and valor for good to triumph over evil (if that be the case, Ravana had
plenty). It is almost a stubborn aggressiveness not to falter and give in to
the fallibility of being human. Art facilitates
a hermeneutical experience of meaning,
brought about by an esoteric yet simple understanding that Rama and
Ravana are essentially two sides of the same coin, two incarnates of the same
temper–valiance. What sustains or remains, in the end, are the repercussions or
the ramifications of what their actions accrued. Hence, the graphic renditions
have conveyed that in the trial of moral decision-making, the intent is
everything, and the will is nothing.
Paul
Ricoeur claims that the hermeneutical journey to self-understanding passes
through a probe of a broad range of symbolic forms, in the case of graphic
adulation and criticism, from the cosmic symbolism of Shiva revealed by the
phenomenology of Hindu philosophy to the symbolic truths of human predicaments
revealed by the actions and decisions of Krishna and Rama, as depicted by the
art dedicated to them.18 Hermeneutics does not function merely to
expose the repressed or distorted meaning which lies hidden beneath the surface
of commonly accepted meaning. It is accepting all the meanings unearthed and
allowing them to reside concurrently. The mediating role of art to establish
critical distance (religion) in interpretive experience (digital) allows a
plurality of metaphors. Veneration and denouncement are merely subjective stances
art assumes as per the artist's sentiment and the onlooker's temperament. The
consecrated can be vandalized, and the smashed can still be worshipped. Hindu
Gods are superheroes not because of their immortality or divine attributes but
because they lived amongst men, experienced and endured the torments, anguish,
and atrocities that men suffer, and still triumphed. They lived not as Gods
reigning over humans but as weak mortals who must abide and bear the trials and
tribulations of fate. From the cosmic Shiva to the ingenious Krishna and the
honorable Rama, all are ideal paradigms of human strength and ability, albeit
in different incarnations and expressions. The spiritual consciousness remains
the same, where the gods or superheroes dwell.
Notes
1. Hindu philosophies, worldviews and teachings
that emerged in Ancient India include six systems (shad-darśana): Sankhya,
Yoga, Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Mimamsa, and Vedanta.
Samkhya or Sankya is a dualistic school
of Indian philosophy that
views reality and human experience as composed of two
independent principles: puruṣa (consciousness or spirit); and prakṛti (nature, including the human mind and emotions).
Literally meaning “end of the Vedas,” Vedanta reflects ideas that emerged from,
or were aligned with, the speculations and philosophies contained in the Upanishads, specifically, knowledge and liberation. See
Theos Bernard, Hindu Philosophy.
Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, 1996 and King, Richard. Indian Philosophy:
An Introduction to Hindu and Buddhist Thought. Delhi: Maya Publishers,
2000.
2. Raja Ravi Varma was an Indian painter and
artist, considered one of the greatest painters in the history of Indian art.
Raja Ravi Varma is known for his amazing paintings, which revolve mainly around
the Puranas (ancient mythological stories) and the great Indian epics (The Mahabharata
and the Ramayana). Ravi Varma is one of the few painters who
accomplished a beautiful union of Indian tradition with the techniques of
European academic art. Varma was also responsible for taking Indian art all
over the world with his impeccable technique. While the Europeans and other art
lovers admired his technique, the laymen of India enjoyed his work for its
simplicity. He also improved art knowledge and spread art’s importance among
Indian people. He achieved this by making affordable lithographs accessible
even to the poor. See Shobha Tharoor Srinivasan, Prince with a Paintbrush: The Story for Raja Ravi Varma (Chennai: Westland Publications Private Limited, 2021),
and Raja Ravi Varma and E.M.J.Venniyoor, editors, Raja
Ravi Varma: The Most Celebrated Painter of India,(1848–1906).1.ed. (Bangalore: White Lotus
Press, 1970). Varma’s
art can be viewed at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Depiction_of_scenes_from_the_Mahabharata_by_Raja_Ravi_Varma.
3. Plato’s Allegory of the Cave is a concept
devised by the philosopher to ruminate on the nature of belief versus
knowledge. The allegory begins with prisoners who have lived their entire lives
chained inside a cave. Behind the prisoners is a fire, and between the fire and
the prisoners are people carrying puppets or other objects. These cast shadows
on the opposite wall. The prisoners watch these shadows, believing this to be
their reality as they’ve known nothing else. Plato posits that one prisoner
could become free. He finally sees the fire and realizes the shadows are false.
This prisoner could escape from the cave and discover there is a whole new
world outside they were previously unaware of. This prisoner would believe the
outside world is so much more real than that in the cave. He would try to
return to free the other prisoners. Upon his return, he is blinded because his
eyes are not accustomed to actual sunlight. The chained prisoners would see
this blindness and believe they would be harmed if they try to leave the cave.
See Kenneth Dorter, “The Ion:
Plato’s Characterization of Art,” The
Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 32, no.1 (1973):65–78. On Plato’s aversion to art, see Thomas Gould, “Plato’s
Hostility to Art,”Arion: A Journal
of Humanities and the Classics 3,no.1(1964):70–91.
4. According to Descartes,
God’s existence is established by the fact that Descartes has a clear and
distinct idea of God; but the truth of Descartes’s clear and distinct ideas is
guaranteed by the fact that God exists
and is not a deceiver. Thus, to show that God exists, Descartes must
assume that God exists since one makes judgments of true or false (good or bad)
even when one knows that he does not have sufficient knowledge to make these
judgments. Descartes conceives
epistemological and ethical mistakes to be a result of self-deception. Hence,
a deception is an act of falsity, and falsity deals
with what is not. Thus, by Descartes’s reasoning, God cannot be a deceiver
since he is supremely real and does not
participate in any way in nothingness. See Nicholas Rescher, “Descartes’s
Deceiver,” A Journey through Philosophy in 101 Anecdotes, 110–12
(Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2015).
5. See
Dasgupta, S., Singh, A., Chopra, D., Kapur, S. (2014). RAMAYAN 3392 AD (Series 1), Issue 3. New
York: Virgin Comics, 2007.
6. Socratic dialogue does not elaborate on the
formation of art, rather than on poetry. But the genesis of both lies in divine
inspiration. The artist while being a conduit for divine communication (as with
the poet or rhapsode) or being transported by the divine experience (as with
the audience moved by the divine art) is a wondrous and sacred thing, one may
not claim that experience as proper to one’s own human nature. It is, properly
speaking, not one’s own virtue or excellence. The highest form of piety,
therefore, would be that frame of mind in which divine inspiration is rightly
credited to its source. The artists have sought this inspiration in Mahabharata
as well. The divine piety is eminently compatible with the philosophy of
Mahabharata, which credits the divine with its portrayals of proper human
virtue. The epic tries to arrogate the divine to the sphere of properly human
virtue and hence its philosophy and art dedicated to this philosophy is pious
and even divine. See Ballard, Edward G. “Socrates’ Problem.” Ethics 71, no. 4 (1961): 296–300.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2379645.
7. Plato didn’t look too fondly on art.
Regarding all art forms as instances of ‘mimesis’ or imitation, he criticized
them for failing to depict the eternal ideal realities that he referred to as
‘forms’ or ‘ideas’. Since life itself was just a mere and poor copy of perfect
ideal forms, the art as a copy of a copy was simply a third removal from the
reality and truth. Similarly, Aristotle traces art back to the love
of imitation and recognizing likenesses which characterizes humans. But for
him, art was not mere copying. As a realization in the external form of a
true idea, art idealizes nature and completes its faults seeking to grasp the
universal type in the individual phenomenon. The theory of art as an imitation
of beauty or nature was persistent throughout the history of art. See Marshall, John S.
“Art and Aesthetic in Aristotle.” The
Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 12, no. 2 (1953): 228–31.
https://doi.org/10.2307/426876. Also see Gadamer,
Hans-Georg. Plato’s Dialectical Ethics. Trans. Robert M. Wallace.
New Haven, Connecticut:
Yale University Press, 1991.
8. Gadamer in Truth and
Method (1992) develops four
key concepts central to his hermeneutics: prejudice, tradition, authority, and
horizon. Prejudice literally means a fore-judgment, indicating all the
assumptions required to make a claim of knowledge. Behind every claim and
belief lies many other tacit beliefs; it is the work of understanding to
expose and subsequently affirm or negate them. Tradition, like prejudice is one
which can never escape from but it must not be endorsed blatantly and without
prejudice. Authority seeks an active implementation of and reflection on the
meaning of that authority for oneself—one based in knowledge not
ignorance. Horizon suggests the limits that make perspective possible and
is marked by the situated and perspectival nature of knowing which provides the
boundaries that allow one to see, as well as
the epistemic horizon provides boundaries that make knowledge possible.
Refer to Gadamer, Hans-Georg. Truth and Method. Trans. Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G.
Marshall. London: Bloomsbury 1992. Also
see Davey, Nicholas. “Art and the Art of Language.” In Unfinished Worlds: Hermeneutics, Aesthetics and Gadamer, 140–64.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2013. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3366/j.ctt9qdrzb.11 and Dostal, Robert J. Gadamer’s Hermeneutics: Between
Phenomenology and Dialectic. Illinois: Northwestern University
Press, 2022.
9. As per Gadamer's account of truth, one
deduces Shiva not only by losing oneself and getting caught up in something
larger than oneself (Shiva) but also by returning to oneself. The return to
self means the ability to grasp the meaning for oneself in a way that changes
one’s perception irrevocably. Abhishek’s art facilitates this trance. See
Shoemaker, Marla. “Manifestations of Shiva.” Art Education 34, no. 3 (1981): 31–32. https://doi.org/10.2307/3192492. Abhishek’s art gallery can be viewed at https://www.abhishekartstore.com/collections/original-paintings/products/adi-shiva. His paintings have been collected in Abhishek
Singh, Namaha–Stories From The Land Of Gods And
Goddesses: Illustrated Stories (Noida: Wonder House Books, 2019). His
paintings can be deciphered via engaging in the hermeneutic circle which refers
to the idea that one's understanding of the text as a whole is established by
reference to the individual parts and one's inference of each individual part
by reference to the whole. The circle is a metaphor for the procedure of
transforming one's perception and gradual understanding of the part and the
whole through iterative recontextualization. See Martin, Wallace. “The
Hermeneutic Circle and the Art of Interpretation.” Comparative Literature 24, no. 2 (1972): 97–117.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1769963.
10. Hermeneutical experience of
truth is not only valid in its own right, but that it is distinct from, the
sense of truth gained via knowledge secured through the norms and methods of
prevailing ideology. Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics focuses on a
hermeneutical experience of truth that cannot be derived from any
method but from inference alone. In Abhishek’s artwork too, validity of the
truth is derived from an interpretive experience rather than religious
ideology. Refer to Abhishek’s art gallery at
https://www.abhishekartstore.com/collections/original-paintings/products/bhu-deva-shiva-earth-god.
11. B.G. Sharma’s art fulfils Heidegger’s concept of
understanding which he described as a fulfilment, realization, or enactment of
some divine truth. Despite that it fulfils the edifying or educative
purpose of religion which Gadamer propogated. Also see Dalferth,
Ingolf. “Theological Hermeneutics and Hermeneutical Theology.” In Radical
Theology: An Essay on Faith and Theology in the Twenty-First Century,
55–82. Minneapolis, Minnesota: 1517 Media, 2016.
https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1b3t6tc.8. B.G. Sharma’s art can be viewed at https://hinducosmos.tumblr.com/post/620778961530765312/lord-shiva-artist-bg-sharma-publisher-sharma.
Also see Pinney, Christopher. 'Photos
of the Gods': The Printed Image and Political Struggle in India. Delhi:
Oxford University Press, 2004.
12. Indra Sharma’s art while
being educative is also an interpretive experience, where Shiva is a medium
which instigates a cerebral meditation on us, the world, and others. The
understanding is facilitated by an analytical introspection rather than a
repeatable scientific experiment or an indubitable epistemic foundation and
hence is an intuition, elusive and fleeting. See Jeanrond, Werner
G. Theological Hermeneutics:
Development and Significance. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan
UK, 1991 and George, Theodore. “The Responsibility to Understand.” In The
Responsibility to Understand: Hermeneutical Contours of Ethical Life,
29–46. Edinburgh University Press, 2020.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3366/j.ctv136c4mc.6. Indra Sharma’s art can be viewed at https://www.thevarartgallery.com/product/shiva-family-16/.
Also see Bae, James H. In a
World of Gods and Goddesses: The Mystic Art of Indra Sharma. New
York, Mandala Publishing, 2015.
13. Hermeneutics in the
Mahabharata are at once epistemic, existential, and even ethical and
political—toward the finitude of human understanding, that is, the fact that
one’s understanding is time and again bested by the things one wish’s to grasp,
that what one understands remains ineluctably incomplete, even partial, and
open to further consideration. See Kennedy
Schmidt, Lawrence. Understanding
Hermeneutics. New York: Routledge, 2014 and Bätschmann, Oskar,
and Ton Brouwers. “A Guide to Interpretation: Art Historical Hermeneutics.” In Compelling
Visuality: The Work of Art in and out of History, edited by Claire Farago
and Robert Zwijnenberg, NED-New edition, 179–210. University of Minnesota
Press, 2003. Mukesh Singh’s art can be
viewed at https://www.deviantart.com/nisachar/art/MBX-Vol-01-22-Battle-Krishna-sketch-312934450
, https://www.deviantart.com/nisachar/art/MBX-Vol-03-04-Convincing-the-hero-312931540
and
https://www.deviantart.com/nisachar/art/MBX-Vol-02-11-Pandava-Conch-313008475
14. Irwin reiterates that comics are vivid thought experiments, just like philosophy. Graphics
like comics too don’t aim at convincing the reader of anything; instead they’re
sustained imaginative exercises that involve both visual imagination and
narrative, and that readers engage for fun rather than for the purposes of
inquiry. This is both their strength and a weakness. Their philosophical is
drawing out the consequences of their own assumptions in a detailed, unbiased
way while engaging the reader’s emotional capacities, which can provide an
important means of understanding. But their hermeneutics are marred by extravagant
details which may be are irrelevant, distracting or misleading at worst. See
Irwin, William. Superheroes: The Best of Philosophy and Pop Culture. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley, 2011.
15. The character of Krishna in the Mahabharata
depicts a life of perfect unselfishness. He always carried out actions that
helped others but never helped him in any way. In the Mahabharata, Krishna is
almost omnipresent; making his presence felt at the most crucial moments in the
epic. His role has been discussed vividly in Hiltebeitel, Alf. “KṚṢṆA AND
THE MAHĀBHĀRATA (A Bibliographical Essay).”
Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute 60, no. 1/4 (1979):
65–107. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41692297 and Balakrishnan, Purasu. “The
Theme and The Teaching Of Mahabharata—A Revaluation.” Indian Literature 41, no. 1 (183) (1998): 193–99.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/23341327.
16. Just like Krishna, Rama too is an
extraordinary mortal who becomes a divine being by choosing to remain among the
mortals in order to accomplish the task of destroying evil and evil-doers and
giving security of divine protection to the right and the righteous. His life
has been discussed in GONZÁLEZ-REIMANN, LUIS. “THE DIVINITY OF RĀMA IN THE
‘RĀMĀYAṆA’ OF VĀLMĪKI.” Journal of Indian
Philosophy 34, no. 3 (2006): 203–20. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23497361. Graphic art depicting him can be
viewed at https://alchetron.com/Ramayan-3392-A.D.
17. Just like Krishna, Rama too is an
extraordinary mortal who becomes a divine being by choosing to remain among the
mortals in order to accomplish the task of destroying evil and evil-doers and
giving security of divine protection to the right and the righteous. His life
has been discussed in GONZÁLEZ-REIMANN, LUIS. “THE DIVINITY OF RĀMA IN THE
‘RĀMĀYAṆA’ OF VĀLMĪKI.” Journal of Indian
Philosophy 34, no. 3 (2006): 203–20. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23497361. Graphic art depicting him can be
viewed at https://alchetron.com/Ramayan-3392-A.D.
18. For Ricoeur, human
subjectivity is primarily linguistically designated and mediated by symbols or
motifs (Rama and Ravana in Ramayana). He states that the problematic existence
which resides in language must be worked out in language itself. Graphics are
aiding the discourse and changing the hermeneutics. His hermeneutic method is
of suspicion rather than inference since discourse both reveals and conceals
something about the nature of being. Graphics seek to
resolve this ambivalence. See Jahnke, Marcus. “Revisiting Design as a
Hermeneutic Practice: An Investigation of Paul Ricoeur’s Critical
Hermeneutics.” Design Issues 28, no. 2 (2012): 30–40. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41427824.
Works Cited
Baumgartner, J., G. Lanczowski, and H. Fries.
“Myth and Mythology.” Philippine
Quarterly of Culture and Society, vol. 2, no. 4, 1974, pp. 195–200.
Beaty, Bart. “Superhero Comics.” Fueling Culture: 101 Words for Energy and
Environment, edited by Imre Szeman, Jennifer Wenzel, and Patricia Yaeger,
Fordham University Press, 2017, pp. 333–337.
Brunet, P., B. Davis, and T. Robbins.
“Superhero Comics.” Comic Book Women:
Characters, Creators, and Culture in the Golden Age, University of Texas
Press, 2022, pp. 21–54.
Freeman, J. M. “Myth and Metaphysics in
Indian Thought.” The Monist, vol. 50,
no. 4, 1966, pp. 517–529.
Galvin, Brendan. “Superhero.” The Sewanee Review, vol. 117, no. 4,
2009, p. 539.
James, E. O. “The Nature and Function of
Myth.” Folklore, vol. 68, no. 4,
1957, pp. 474–482.
Kirkpatrick, Erin, and Suzanne Scott.
“Representation and Diversity in Comics Studies.” Cinema Journal, vol. 55, no. 1, 2015, pp. 120–124.
Klock, Geoff. “The Revisionary Superhero
Narrative.” The Superhero Reader,
edited by Charles Hatfield, Jeet Heer, and Kent Worcester, University Press of
Mississippi, 2013, pp. 116–135.
Maddi, Salvatore R. “Myth and Personality.” The Journal of Mind and Behavior, vol.
1, no. 2, 1980, pp. 145–153.
McSweeney, Terence. “The Mythologies of the
Contemporary Superhero Film.” The
Contemporary Superhero Film: Projections of Power and Identity, Columbia
University Press, 2020, pp. 38–54.
Saunders, Ben. “Superhero.” Keywords for Comics Studies, edited by Ramzi Fawaz, Shelley
Streeby, and Deborah E. Whaley, NYU Press, 2021, pp. 200–204.