Art in the Bahá'í Community Editors—When I first read the article, "Bahá'í Art: Fact or Fiction,"(1) it just made me angry, for many reasons, the most basic being that, according to the author, art being made by Bahá'ís "is failing to deliver," or that I should be "cudgelling my brains about the nature of [my] contribution." I've thought about a response to this article for some time, and debated on whether to write it in a "detached" manner, as is usually done in Bahá'í studies journals, but then felt it would be more accurate in this case to write as the involved artist that I am. Manocha's example of the folk singer artist is a poor one. It is the same as choosing a poor essay as an example of Bahá'í scholarship. There are many Bahá'í artists who are professionally engaged but, perhaps because they do not perform at Bahá'í events, may be perceived as not being Bahá'í artists. That is a question for the Bahá'í community to address, not for the artists, because they surely do exist. I know this because I edit a Bahá'í arts quarterly (Arts Dialogue) and I'm always having to find space for the contributions I receive, and I know that we are only touching the surface. However personally, I am very careful in general about showing Bahá'ís my art because, more often than not, they wonder where the ring stone symbol or the nine sided star is, and it is clear that they only see the arts as having an overtly didactic function. What if a doctor's profession was only valued by Bahá'ís for it's didactic function? Artists are generally sensitive people, and such a comment is enough to stop many from wanting to show their art in any Bahá'í setting. So Manocha's example of the folk musician as what is often heard as "art" in a Bahá'í context has some truth in it, but this is because that's what the Bahá'í community wants and asks for. It is not a problem of Bahá'í artists not "delivering the goods" but rather the Bahá'í community (and Manocha, though for different reasons) not being willing to invite and perhaps accept what the artists have to offer. The author sees art as a result of the individual struggling with the unknown. There is a place for this type of art, but it is just one perspective in the arts. Not only has he dismissed the variety of quality art which is being made by Bahá'ís, but in this article there is no mention of creativity or imagination. Rather the focus is on (self) expression, and this gives a one-sided, and rather tortured, picture of the arts. Art is so powerful in society because it works on many levels. Not merely a didactic level, nor purely an emotional level. Art is almost like magic because, while aspects of art can be explained or written about, its very nature of working both physically and spiritually means that there is always an elusive quality, whether it be the effect of a certain colour or movement, or a sense of time or space. The artist while working takes in all the influences from the environment in order to crystallise the art product. This is a transformative process and one that involves an effort, but it does not necessarily involve the suffering, loneliness and tragedy which permeate Manocha's article. Nor does it have to produce a consistent style or message. What I have learnt from my involvement in the arts and the arts world is that the loneliness or suffering comes more from being misunderstood by those around you, than from making art. It seems to me that the issue at hand is educating Bahá'ís about the arts. And this not only means involving the arts as part of Bahá'í events but also having educational courses on the arts, just as we have educational courses on other topics. Making art is fun! Actually it is scary and uplifting when you discover another level or a new area of perception, but mainly it is fun. In the Bahá'í Writings creativity is a continual process, an on-going act of God, implying not only ongoing physical creativity but also the creation of new essences or ideas–in other words "the creation" is not a fixed environment within which we live but an ever-expanding world in both physical and intellectual senses. All the wondrous works ye behold in this world have been manifested through the operation of His supreme and most exalted Will, His wondrous and inflexible Purpose. Through the mere revelation of the word "Fashioner", issuing forth from His lips and proclaiming His attribute to mankind, such power is released as can generate, through successive ages, all the manifold arts which the hands of man can produce....No sooner is this resplendent word uttered, than its animating energies, stirring within all created things, give birth to the means and instruments whereby such arts can be produced and perfected. All the wondrous achievements ye now witness are the direct consequences of the Revelation of this Name. In the days to come, ye will, verily, behold things of which ye have never heard before.(2) Humans are endowed with the unique potential of being able to manifest all of the attributes of God, although in a form and degree appropriate to our contingent natures. Since creativity is seen in the Bahá'í Writings not just as an act but also as an attribute of God, humans, and most particularly believers in God, are called on to develop their creative capacities, just as they are also called on to become good and just, and to acquire knowledge.(3) This points to a rather different way in which artists might see themselves, in fact we may be so busy trying to keep up with this ever-expanding miraculous universe, scampering after our prolific Creator to pick up the sweet things She lets fall, that there is no time to give expression to "history's greatest existentialist crisis" (or, perhaps, much point). The author wrote very beautifully about the idea of transcendence, and the plight of the lonely individual, (which I must add not all artists suffer from). Most of the article seems to indicate that artists "must depict not just the struggle of good against evil, but the 'new' human spirit that will necessarily insure the victory of all that is good." On one level we all do this. That is, aim to come to "new" understandings, and I agree with the author that "art" has a lot more to offer than depicting good against evil. However, I also feel we should be careful not to assume that art made by Bahá'ís is so very separate from art made by non-Bahá'ís. We all live in the same world, and art concerns society in one way or another. When Bahá'ís talk about the arts, I feel, it is wisest to avoid the word Bahá'í art, because its meaning is ambiguous. If we talk of art being made by Bahá'ís or inspired by the Bahá'í Faith this is not only more accurate, but at the same time takes away the need to then decide what Bahá'í art is or isn't. Then when we talk about Bahá'í artists or Bahá'ís who are artists, we can talk about artists who work in any medium or imagery. I'm not suddenly a non-Bahá'í when my subject matter does not contain some overt reference to the Bahá'í Faith. What I feel artists who are Bahá'ís must be careful about is not to wait for approval from the Bahá'í community. The development of the arts is a cumulative social process, and depends largely on the place which the arts are given in the life of society, but creativity and art is both a cause of, and a result of, individual spiritual growth. Finally, the whole tone of the article was difficult for me to read "neutrally" because of the excessive use of the masculine pronoun. A footnote stating that the intention in the use of the masculine pronoun was to include both sexes, indicated to me that the issue of equality was not important enough to that person in order for them to look for a better way of expressing an idea. The issue is in making the effort to change a habit. Sonja van Kerkhoff Maastricht The Netherlands

Inder Manocha replies Editors—As a brief response to Sonja van Kerkhoff's remarks on my article entitled "Bahá'í Art: Fact or Fiction," I will reserve my comments to the following points. First, Ms. van Kerkhoff explains that one of the reasons for her initial anger towards my article was that I apparently suggested Bahá'í artists "should be cudgelling their brains about the nature of their contribution." A re-reading of my opening paragraph will make it clear that such an imperative slant is of her own making. What I wrote in fact was that: "...the Bahá'í artist is left cudgelling his brains about the nature of his contribution." I do not mind criticism but I object to misrepresentation. Second, while criticising my article for being "one-sided," I cannot help but return the comment with regard to Ms. van Kerkhoff's assessment of my remarks. For example, the objection raised in her third paragraph that: "The author sees art as a result of the individual struggling with the unknown" simply neglects my discussion of art as a means of reflecting the contradictory forces at play in society. One can hardly describe these as "the unknown"; rather, they are disturbingly palpable. Third, given Ms. van Kerkhoff's objection to the overtly didactic (paragraph two), I find her remedy to my use of the (generic) masculine pronoun (namely, "The issue is in making the effort to change a habit") surprisingly instructive. I also wonder if she would extend her criticism and solution to those whose station in our Faith is incalculably more elevated than mine. Inder Manocha London, UK

|| CONTENTS BY VOLUME || CONTENTS BY TITLE || CONTENTS BY AUTHOR || REVIEWS BY TITLE || || ABS(ESE) HOME PAGE || MEMBERSHIP OF ABS(ESE) || Copyright © 199X, Association for Baha'i Studies (English-Speaking Europe)

End Notes (Use [BACK] to return to article.) I. Manocha, "Bahá'í Art: Fact or Fiction?" The Bahá'í Studies Review 3.1 (1993): 67-74. Bahá'u'lláh, Gleanings 141. Bahá'u'lláh, Gleanings 290, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf 26.

---