What struck me with equal plight as Ghosh’s demise is the intellectual poverty of those who (on the TV and in popular dailies) labeled Ghosh as ‘Renaissance man’. Back in 1992 Utpal Dutt had debunked the myth of ‘Renaissance man’, the title at that time been post-humously conferred upon Ray whom Ghosh was declaredly a fan of. Not only are our pundits keen to repeat the same mistake, but also serenely indifferent to Ghosh’s gender-fluidity. "That a man can be a filmmaker, designer, painter, writer of note, music composer, songwriter, book-illustrator and an acknowledged authority on the art and history of printing is inexplicable to them, and therefore they seek to explain it all by a convenient label—as if versatility is the principal characteristic of Renaissance men. But Leonardo da Vinci is not a universal model of Renaissance genius; he was an exception in his time. The other great exponents of Renaissance ideology were men who specialized in just one field, and yet moulded the thoughts of their age. One has never heard of Michelangelo doing anything but paint and sculpt, or Shakespeare doing anything but write plays, or Machiavelli taking time off from political pamphlets to sit down at the harp and compose a sonata. Single-minded devotion to a single art does not negate their claim to being Renaissance men." [Utpal Dutt, thebigindianpicture/2012/10/a-moment-in-the-conscience-of-man/]
Posted on: Sat, 01 Jun 2013 17:20:15 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015