Post
4 comments
Previously, I had drawn several pictures of Shri Krishna—but always with His flute or with the peacock feather adorning His head, and sometimes portraying Him with a very innocent and gentle expression. Every time, my mother and others would lovingly appreciate my drawings. But this time, I tried to portray Shri Krishna differently. I drew only His shadowy silhouette, without the flute or the peacock feather. I also gave His form a more masculin…
Shrestha ji, this is a fine catch. You removed the feather from the drawing and it immediately made the question visible: is Krishna the symbol or what the symbol was always pointing at. Most people carry the feather and the flute their whole life and never once test whether Krishna survives their absence. One thing worth sitting with a little longer. You made Him masculine, powerful, strong where He used to be gentle and innocent. That is not the absence of form, it is a different form, a different image replacing the old one. Even the silhouette without symbols is still a shape you chose, still something the eye can recognise and settle into. So the question sharpens further, past where you already left it: not just does recognition need the feather, but does it need any shape at all, even a bold and formless-looking one. What would you draw if you were not trying to draw Him at all.
1
Eye can not see itself. Then how eye will draw itself? Whatever it draws , will always be different from eye. Whatever eye can see , can not be the eye. The big question is “ can eye draw an eye ?”
1
asli tasveer
बहुत मार्मिक तस्वीर ❤️🔥
