The word ‘capitalisation’ has a significant articulatory impact that could possibly envision a certain infamous political ideology. But that is not always the case. If one displays the semantics of the terms, accelerating and finalizing one’s own ideological standards, one is also dissociating oneself from the popular platform. The socio-political impact that is being anticipated by the term ‘capitalisation’ is so natural since the days of Cold War. It is pitifully manifested as an attack on the free market economy, and other related liberal notions. Despite the ownership of the usage of the term, and his/her theoretical affiliation, somehow man will demonstrate and categorise the user as being rebellious to the emerging global trends. Or, on the other hand, the user will be simply acknowledged as an exponent of dictatorship. Curiously, we have rarely seen using the word, or the term, ‘capitalisation’ in public discourses. These days, ‘capitalisation’ is being substituted by the phrase – ‘playing with people for one’s own gain’.
What we witness in public platforms like social media, mass media, and other related platforms, people generally believed that they have the confidence and resources to materialize their confidence in persuading people to whatever ends they deemed right. This art of convincing is an unaccountable, unqualified blabbering that has been piling up like a heave of rubbishes for the last ten years. For instance, ninety percent of the artistic output is based on the cost-benefit-analysis, which ultimately arises from illegitimate reading of mass psychology, or mass emotions. If we failed to retain the artistic gesture that is being exhibited by some dedicated artists in a well-defined, and in a well-designed frame or scope, we are committing two different crimes simultaneously. First, we are using knife for a needle, and second, we are literally harming the public by destroying the fabric. But unfortunately, such seriousness has always been overlooked. The reason is simple, and that is, ‘what one yields in the form of a profit, is always self-explanatory’. There is a gross confusion between aesthetics and quantitative accumulation in the form of populism.
This is where I intend to focus, and reiterate the relevancy of the term ‘capitalisation’. The topsy-turvy approach of disseminating certain ideas, or of exhibiting certain capabilities, is like financing the goons of the time. Composing a work of art through a rigorous analysis of public demand, showing its leniency towards the superficial infatuation exhibited by a certain section of the society, is neither raising the standard of the art, nor following the footprints of any masters in the field. It is a low decision arising out of the sinister intention of trading people’s emotions, normally resulting in corrupting the minds of the delicate generations. The maestros, which is evident in the global scenario, have proved that aesthetic work is immune to the gross number game. Pure work of art transcends the limits of space and time. The quantitative evaluation of such work of art is always an appreciation by all, across space and time. One may find it strange and inconceivable, by certain people, in a certain epoch, but it will never cease to convince the same people in another slot in time. Therefore, wasting time, money, and talents in a mere pseudo-obligation towards the people, in the name of entertaining, is also greasing the substandard conception of the meaning of an artwork, so that it all rolls back downhill.
If there is the slightest implication, in the process of justification, that the approaches, though they are disorderly reversed in character, are practical and realistic in nature, then we are compelled to accuse them for prostitution. There is a vast difference between broadcasting information and occupying one’s emotion and mind through some artistic imitations. Journalism, generally, had renounces biasness, affiliation to conjectures, etc. and they have embraced the notion of objectivity and clarity. But, in the case of entertainment, it is entirely a new species. Indulging in entertainment business, if it is purely business, then tagging any kind of aesthetic or artistic sense will mandate the audience to also tag you as an obnoxious practitioner. Now, if that is the case, it also insists us to infer that you are also capitalising on the sentiments and emotions of the people. When things escalate in this way, the notion of market arises, and hence the unnecessary competition. Ideally speaking, there cannot be a competition between a poet’s poem against another poet’s work. This gross, possible, mistake should be distorting and defiling the sanctity of the work of art. If we are motivated by the concept of ‘box office collection’, if a talent is being judged by the number of viewers it attracts, then, I believed, the creators of x-rated adult content could be the winner.
Such is the conclusive alteration resulting out of the gross capitalisation of the man and its manhood. In this democratic society, no authority has the right to intervene on someone’s activity, as long as it complies with the law. But concerned citizens, also have the right to declassify the major violation of professional ethics, and more appropriately, the violations of the very nature of the functionality of certain professions. These violations denigrate the very sublimity of the profession, and consequently reduces the quality of the life of the audiences to the level of the creator. Buddha, among his projected path to liberation, also necessarily included the famous ‘Choosing the right livelihood’ among all other paths. This entails the aligning of human capability, and human responsibility towards other fellow humans and towards the profession, with the nature and functionality of the profession itself.
With all the attempts we can made, we also expect that no argument can convince the culprits to relieve themselves from such topsy-turvy approaches.
The writer is Assistant Professor, Imphal College
