18" x 24" Acrylic on Canvas I hadn't planned to blog this one. I wasn't particularly happy with the way it turned out but I got some strong positive feedback about it from people, specifically with regard to the concept behind it. My husband expressed that he liked the painting itself too, which in itself is a big thing. (He's my worst critic with respect to painting; were it not for that a. I wouldn't be angry and unsatisfied with myself as often :-) b. I'd strive a lot lesser for perfection when I paint - owe a lot to him, no kidding). The positive feedback, coupled with certain new ideas I was excited to share, prompted me to blog it.
This is intended to be an abstract representation of the Hindu god Krishna. Krishna is a symbol of love, charm and joy and may be seen as the embodiment of that element which helps us "live it up", forgetting momentarily the pain and drudgery in the world. As an avatar of Vishnu, one of the Hindu trinity, he is also the power of sustenance.
There are innumerable mythological stories about Krishna. His childhood with his mother Yashoda, who adopted him and was insane with her love for him are endearing. There are songs and dances based on those stories. As an adult, Krishna assumes a strong, didactic figure and becomes a pillar of support to many around him. The Bhagavad Gita describes the despondence of one such man, crippled by doubt and caught in moral dilemmas. Krishna takes on the role of leading this man, Arjuna, onto the path of Dharma.
The story of Krishna is so multifaceted and complex that when I decided to describe this figure visually, I was much overwhelmed. I asked myself what facet most appealed to me, and what was possible to depict cogently. In reading up a few resources, I also came across an interpretation of Krishna as the Earth itself. Krishna is depicted to be blue-bodied (the word 'Krishna' means dark or blue in Sanskrit), dressed in yellow silk robes. The blue may be interpreted as the oceans and the yellow, as land. As Krishna is believed to be Jagadoddhaarana, the protector of the world, I liked this interpretation. Moreover, my rational mind cannot stop probing how something in human form could have been blue and hence treating Krishna as a concept, rather than as something humanoid was more satisfying to my intellect. Aside from this, Krishna was believed to adorn himself with the feather of a peacock. My painting attempts to combine these two concepts. The fire and radiance around is also intended as the depiction of a cosmic phenomenon, something powerful at work. This piece is also meant to be my bit of tribute to cartography, in a very small way - yeah, I'm crazy about maps!
Krishna had many a lady love. He was the charmer, who played his enchanting flute and mesmerized innumerable damsels. As per popular allegory, this is believed to represent the concept of Jeevatma and Paramatma. The former is us- all we humans. The latter is the single cosmic intelligence that is supposedly the only absolute truth - people call it 'God'. The symbolism of the many love affairs of Krishna is meant, as per popular interpretation, to convey the divine romance between each of us and the absolute truth. This is the spiritual battle every person goes through - the existential battle. The story goes to say that if each of us (Jeevatmas) loved and aspired enough to attain that absolute truth (Paramatma), we will attain that truth, as did many of Krishna's loves, who were united in marriage with him (yes, he was polygamous by the face value interpretation, but as per allegorical interpretation it meant something completely different).
And now on to a bit of heresy. :-) These are some thoughts that just came to my mind recently. Peacocks use their beautiful plumage for courtship. Likewise, is it then possible that Krishna's love affairs were purely human and earthly bonds, and the author of the story of Krishna has perhaps intelligently hidden a hint to the effect, in a symbolic peacock plume- the brilliant peacock plume that the gorgeous male bird uses to attract and mesmerise the female? If Hinduism prescribes exploring the four-fold path of Dharma (righteousness), Artha (material acquisition), Kama (love and desire) and Moksha (salvation), why could Krishna not represent the Kama aspect? Was he the Pied Piper that played his flute and allured many?
9 comments:
This is really brilliant :). There are so many nuances that have gone into the painting. And yes, I think the peacock feather does symbolize Kama, but I think that is only part of Krishna. I've always thought Krishna as being the prime example of one following all the four prescribed aspects of Hinduism... Dharma and Moksha through Gita, Artha and Kama through his lust for cream, butter, desire for girls.
But here is something that will tickle you :). I decided to interpret the painting myself, before reading what you had to say. Krishna (the name of the painting) was a good clue to start with. I saw the world and then the peacock feather, and I was reminded of the story where Krishna opens his mouth to Yashodha and she sees the world inside his mouth. So, I thought the beginning of the feather (the feather's tip or mouth) was Krishna's mouth wide open showing the world.... and the feather itself as being the abstract embodiment of Krishna's form/body. That tells you about my ability to interpret art lol :)
Thanks for sharing your ideas, Neeraja! Yeah, the Krishna-showing-the-world-in-his-mouth-to-Yashoda story was also part of what I thought as the painting was evolving, although I didn't conceive of it solely from that point of view. It is along the same lines as his being Jagadoddhaarana - his message to Yashoda was that he *is* the world. I had wanted to mention this too in my post but forgot! :-) It's easy to forget things when you are overwhelmed with a flurry of thoughts! :-)
it is a lovely painting... luv it.
the post along with it explains it all.. even without the post it says a lot..
Brilliant!!
What Neeraja has pointed out was what came to my mind the very first thing too.
I was wondering why land was yellow as opposed to green, and ur post explained it.
While I entirely love and appreciate your symbolism, I was wondering if Krishna embodied the entire universe, not just the Earth?
Not sure how crucial this distinction is, from a religious/ mythological/ metaphysical (in this context) point of view, but just a thought...
Oh BTW, its my desktop background :)
Brilliant yes!
When I saw this painting, I kept looking at the colors and strokes put in to create this piece of art. Didnt read the title, so wasnt aware what the theme was. Called my hubby to look at it and instantly he pointed out the world. That's when I thought of Krishna and pondered -maybe it's "Me (Krishna) in all and all in me (Krishna)".
Read the post then, well written Sumi.
Thanks Oorjas, Sindhu and Perception! Oorjas, welcome here and thanks for visiting my blog. :-)
Thought provoking painting. I like the earth montage in the centre of the feather, and the fact that this somehow resembles a ball of fire (ignorance, hatred, greed?) forging on through space, while yet representing hope in what is to come (the feather).
The idea of Rama appealed to me more than Krishna, as an Ishta Devata. Most of all I hated Krishna's philandery and gluttony (100 points for heresy). There is something divine and sublime about Rama that surpasses words and something very grossly human about Krishna that just about manages to diminish my interest in Krishna. That said, I loved the Gita and the thoughts in it. Perhaps there are many manifestations of Krishna himself and I like the Krishna on the battlefield of Mahabharata the best. Our choice of Gods is telling on our choices in general and is somewhat illustrative of our societies in general, through the ages.
@philramble: haha you seem to hate him! :-) Yeah, Rama had a lot more austere life than did Krishna!
Post a Comment