Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2010, Page 138
endowed with perfect knowledge and has been authorized to bestow wisdom upon the
ignorant masses. But there is a sweeter, saner pleasure in knowing that the universe and
individual consciousness are immeasurably vast, full of rich complexity, poignant mystery,
unexpected revelations, and that it is possible for human beings to be creators of beautiful
and wondrous things.
************
By definition, cultic groups center the individual‘s attention on a common truth, a common
goal, and a common mindset. As an ―intentional‖ community, the thoughts, needs, and
desires of the individual are subsumed under a group ethic and mode of life: ―We are
Krishna‘s devotees, and it is our duty to serve Him and to spread Krishna Consciousness
throughout the world.‖ Because it is the group‘s work that is center stage, individual or
idiosyncratic thought and behavior are discouraged, either by direct edict or by inherent and
pervasive social pressure. Inasmuch as artistic creation is an individual pursuit, inspired by
the unique, personal vision and talent of the artist, such pursuits are not likely to conform
to the group‘s purposes and therefore must be devalued and discouraged. In light of the
compelling spiritual work of the community, which serves the highest cosmic purposes, a
devotee who remains attached to such private, individualistic pursuits will be viewed as
being egoistically self-absorbed and lacking sufficient devotion to God and guru.
To focus more closely, for a moment, on the notion of the artist as nonconformist: The point
is not to fortify the stereotypical notion of the artist as eccentric, rebellious, bohemian, and
the like, but rather to highlight an essential characteristic of artistic creation: that it is an
expression of a personal, subjective view of reality, the product of an individual
consciousness that stands apart from normative constructions and definitions of reality in
order to tune in to an inner world of individual perception, emotion, insight, and inspiration.
It entails apprehending the world afresh, and forming a new articulation of human
experience.
The most hospitable a cultic group can be to the individual artist member is to ―dovetail‖ (a
well-worn term in ISKCON) his talents to serve the higher cause of the group. Thus, a
painter might be encouraged to paint illustrations of Krishna‘s holy pastimes, the musician
to compose music glorifying Krishna, filmmakers to make bright and cheery propaganda
pieces about the Krishna movement, and so on.
Such narrow accommodations of individual artistic talent may, however, remind one of
other forms of institutional art. The art approved and sponsored by totalitarian regimes does
not generally take the form of expressions of individual vision, but of corporate ideals. One
thinks of ―Socialist Realist‖ art posters depicting heroic, hammer and sickle-wielding men
laboring joyfully in the bright fields of the Worker‘s Paradise, or of National Socialist (Nazi)
art celebrating the wholesome, racially pure Aryan family—or, for that matter, of the
graphic art produced by any regime promoting social, political, or military goals. Art
produced under the auspices of religious institutions depicts a particular theological view of
the world, an ideologically circumscribed corpus of myths of gods and saints, and the
historical struggles and achievements of God‘s chosen people. However inspired the
participating artist might feel—whatever elevated sense of purpose he or she might possess
that helps to concretize and make visible the grand vision and purposes of the Holy Cause—
the role of such an artist is essentially that of a propagandist.ii
What I‘m offering here, I should point out, is in no way a general criticism of religious art.
The expression of spirituality in art is, in fact, a strong and consuming interest of mine.lll I
cannot help but marvel at the momentous works of religious art created by artistic
geniuses, even those laboring under the watchful eyes of megalomaniacal monarchs and
pushy popes. In the hands of a genius, or in fact anyone whose primary source of
endowed with perfect knowledge and has been authorized to bestow wisdom upon the
ignorant masses. But there is a sweeter, saner pleasure in knowing that the universe and
individual consciousness are immeasurably vast, full of rich complexity, poignant mystery,
unexpected revelations, and that it is possible for human beings to be creators of beautiful
and wondrous things.
************
By definition, cultic groups center the individual‘s attention on a common truth, a common
goal, and a common mindset. As an ―intentional‖ community, the thoughts, needs, and
desires of the individual are subsumed under a group ethic and mode of life: ―We are
Krishna‘s devotees, and it is our duty to serve Him and to spread Krishna Consciousness
throughout the world.‖ Because it is the group‘s work that is center stage, individual or
idiosyncratic thought and behavior are discouraged, either by direct edict or by inherent and
pervasive social pressure. Inasmuch as artistic creation is an individual pursuit, inspired by
the unique, personal vision and talent of the artist, such pursuits are not likely to conform
to the group‘s purposes and therefore must be devalued and discouraged. In light of the
compelling spiritual work of the community, which serves the highest cosmic purposes, a
devotee who remains attached to such private, individualistic pursuits will be viewed as
being egoistically self-absorbed and lacking sufficient devotion to God and guru.
To focus more closely, for a moment, on the notion of the artist as nonconformist: The point
is not to fortify the stereotypical notion of the artist as eccentric, rebellious, bohemian, and
the like, but rather to highlight an essential characteristic of artistic creation: that it is an
expression of a personal, subjective view of reality, the product of an individual
consciousness that stands apart from normative constructions and definitions of reality in
order to tune in to an inner world of individual perception, emotion, insight, and inspiration.
It entails apprehending the world afresh, and forming a new articulation of human
experience.
The most hospitable a cultic group can be to the individual artist member is to ―dovetail‖ (a
well-worn term in ISKCON) his talents to serve the higher cause of the group. Thus, a
painter might be encouraged to paint illustrations of Krishna‘s holy pastimes, the musician
to compose music glorifying Krishna, filmmakers to make bright and cheery propaganda
pieces about the Krishna movement, and so on.
Such narrow accommodations of individual artistic talent may, however, remind one of
other forms of institutional art. The art approved and sponsored by totalitarian regimes does
not generally take the form of expressions of individual vision, but of corporate ideals. One
thinks of ―Socialist Realist‖ art posters depicting heroic, hammer and sickle-wielding men
laboring joyfully in the bright fields of the Worker‘s Paradise, or of National Socialist (Nazi)
art celebrating the wholesome, racially pure Aryan family—or, for that matter, of the
graphic art produced by any regime promoting social, political, or military goals. Art
produced under the auspices of religious institutions depicts a particular theological view of
the world, an ideologically circumscribed corpus of myths of gods and saints, and the
historical struggles and achievements of God‘s chosen people. However inspired the
participating artist might feel—whatever elevated sense of purpose he or she might possess
that helps to concretize and make visible the grand vision and purposes of the Holy Cause—
the role of such an artist is essentially that of a propagandist.ii
What I‘m offering here, I should point out, is in no way a general criticism of religious art.
The expression of spirituality in art is, in fact, a strong and consuming interest of mine.lll I
cannot help but marvel at the momentous works of religious art created by artistic
geniuses, even those laboring under the watchful eyes of megalomaniacal monarchs and
pushy popes. In the hands of a genius, or in fact anyone whose primary source of
