For a population of "massive billions", a piece of fictional work is definitely not going to create any kind of "social conflict" amongst the different communities and any kind of "emotional conflict" within oneself. So fiction is not a problem here.
Now, what we mean by history?
History is "a record of" and is declared as fact after doing various studies. An artist will have to have some boundaries in his/her work, he can't change the proven facts.
But there are few cases where the history is not complete in itself. There is conflict between the historians who define the events differently with their perception and reasons. If an artist is interested in such topics then what should be the "proper method" to depict this type of history, this is the question whose answers we seek, when such a case arises.
If we see closely, the previous statement is actually incorrect because there is never a "proper method" for an artist to depict his/her work. In such kind of controversial histories, a real work of an artist comes into picture. It is in these type of cases where an artist's talent and capabilities can be seen.
It is just like completing a jigsaw puzzle in which some pieces are missing and you have to first make those pieces and then fit them perfectly so that a meaningful and acceptable kind of picture can be made. If an artist does that, then it is a work of art, not work of fiction or work of history. It is art in its raw form.
The conflict arises when we are possessive of something, i.e. "we own it" kind of feeling. Okay, it is fine that you are very much connected to your historical characters, you kind of worship them but you can't force an artist to be adhered to your thoughts, because first of all there is conflict among the historians related to it and secondly that artist is providing you a new view of which the historians might never have thought of. Instead such artwork must be accepted more rather than criticising it negatively.
Everything is good until the artist is not offending anyone personally.
The thing is that, people become possessive and instead of seeing it as an historical event they attach themselves to those historical characters and let their "emotional reason" to allow and see the event themselves in their brains and become so attached that they worship them and declare possession of these characters within their brains. Well good! this is also art, but then you have to respect the other artist as well. The artist might have also gone through the same thing and then he/she is just depicting it the way they see it or sense it.
These conflicts can be avoided if we have an unbiased, unpolitical view of understanding art. A community, religion or region cannot and should not be so possessive of their history that they become inflexible to accept any kind of art work related to it specially when this history is in debate among historians itself. So this is a field of art and artist must be the only player here. If anyone feels offended in such cases then, he/she needs to see that, what they thought might have been the course of things is just not matching with that in which the particular artist sees. So, if it doesn't matches then it doesn't mean that your perception is right and that artist's is wrong just because you are related to the region of this historical event. You can't become possessive here.
It is art and should be accepted as just an artwork. People must be mature enough to accept the art.
-Chirag Maheshwari
Now, what we mean by history?
History is "a record of" and is declared as fact after doing various studies. An artist will have to have some boundaries in his/her work, he can't change the proven facts.
But there are few cases where the history is not complete in itself. There is conflict between the historians who define the events differently with their perception and reasons. If an artist is interested in such topics then what should be the "proper method" to depict this type of history, this is the question whose answers we seek, when such a case arises.
If we see closely, the previous statement is actually incorrect because there is never a "proper method" for an artist to depict his/her work. In such kind of controversial histories, a real work of an artist comes into picture. It is in these type of cases where an artist's talent and capabilities can be seen.
It is just like completing a jigsaw puzzle in which some pieces are missing and you have to first make those pieces and then fit them perfectly so that a meaningful and acceptable kind of picture can be made. If an artist does that, then it is a work of art, not work of fiction or work of history. It is art in its raw form.
The conflict arises when we are possessive of something, i.e. "we own it" kind of feeling. Okay, it is fine that you are very much connected to your historical characters, you kind of worship them but you can't force an artist to be adhered to your thoughts, because first of all there is conflict among the historians related to it and secondly that artist is providing you a new view of which the historians might never have thought of. Instead such artwork must be accepted more rather than criticising it negatively.
Everything is good until the artist is not offending anyone personally.
The thing is that, people become possessive and instead of seeing it as an historical event they attach themselves to those historical characters and let their "emotional reason" to allow and see the event themselves in their brains and become so attached that they worship them and declare possession of these characters within their brains. Well good! this is also art, but then you have to respect the other artist as well. The artist might have also gone through the same thing and then he/she is just depicting it the way they see it or sense it.
These conflicts can be avoided if we have an unbiased, unpolitical view of understanding art. A community, religion or region cannot and should not be so possessive of their history that they become inflexible to accept any kind of art work related to it specially when this history is in debate among historians itself. So this is a field of art and artist must be the only player here. If anyone feels offended in such cases then, he/she needs to see that, what they thought might have been the course of things is just not matching with that in which the particular artist sees. So, if it doesn't matches then it doesn't mean that your perception is right and that artist's is wrong just because you are related to the region of this historical event. You can't become possessive here.
It is art and should be accepted as just an artwork. People must be mature enough to accept the art.
-Chirag Maheshwari
