Masquerading in the name of world peace: An analysis of Sunil Sigdel’s painting “Peace Owners II”

Abstract

This article analyses Sunil Sigdel’s painting “Peace Owners II,” a portrayal of three major political leaders of our time; Donald J. Trump, Vladimir Putin, and Kim Jong Un, from the holistic level of structure, meaning, and discourse. To interpret the painting, it utilizes Erwin Panofsky’s “art interpretation theory,” which examines visual art in pre-iconographical, iconographical, and iconological description, in conversation with visual rhetorics. This article, keeping Buddhist philosophy at the center, shows that Sigdel’s painting is a medley of the eastern tradition of thangka-paubha art and the notion of global politics and foregrounds the contradictions between the real peace preached by Gautam Buddha and shallow peace advocated by the modern world leaders. The allegory of political leaders depicts a contradiction between Buddha’s notion on peace and that of the Buddha-like demigod of our time who are disguisedly selling the false idea of a peace process throughout the world. The painting also contends that the failure of both political ideologies—democratic essence and communist values—in global politics is the reason for the juxtaposition of Buddha’s concept of peace and profit-oriented intentionally operationalized peace by so-called peace owners.

Keywords:

• Panofskian
• painting
• art interpretation theory
• Buddha
• peace owners

1. Introduction

This article analyzes Nepali artist Sunil Sigdel (2017)’s painting “Peace Owners II,” from pre-iconographical, iconographical, and iconological perspectives derived from Erwin Panofsky’s visual art interpretation theory. Against the concept of rhetorical velocity (Ridolfo & DeVoss, 2009), this painting, a still art with a “limited circulation,” invites “high audience engagement” (Anderson, 2022, p.448) by expressing propositions visually (Blair, 2004, p.59). In this painting, pre-iconography includes hand mudra, diadem, robe, halo, lotus flower, earring, color choice, and elongated ear. Iconography includes thangka-paubha style paintings and the political allusion of three leaders which we understand from conventional or secondary literature. And the iconological meaning is connotational—the painting is referring to the hypocrisy of great leaders of our generation who pretend to be peacekeepers but in fact they are merely driven by a capitalistic mindset. “Peace Owners II” portrays three powerful leaders of the world: Donald J. Trump, Vladimir Putin, and Kim Jong Un, who are depicted as the emissaries of peace but the use of flying buzz hovering in their hands, shirt collars, earrings, and the canine teeth of these leaders, as shown in the painting, indicate something different. As the whole article is an analysis of this figure, there is no specific place to indicate Figure. 1.

Figure 1. “Peace Owners II,” Extracted on 2 July 2022 from http://sigdelsunil.blogspot.com/2017/04/blog-post_7.html.

Panofsky (1998), while inspecting the art of the Renaissance time, proposes three ways (pre-iconographical, iconographical, and iconological description) of seeing visual art in his essay “Iconography and Iconology: An Introduction to the Study of Renaissance Art.” Panofsky claims that “transferring the results of this analysis from everyday life to a work of art, we can distinguish in its subject matter or meaning the same three strata:” (p. 221) primary or natural subject matter, secondary or conventional subject matter, intrinsic meaning or content. The primary or natural subject matter is the pre-iconographical interpretation, secondary or conventional subject matter is the iconographical interpretation and intrinsic meaning, or content is the iconological interpretation of art. The pre-iconographical description is a form-based study, iconographical is an amalgam of form and concept-based study and iconological description is a combined study of form, concept, and the content of that text to assign a thesis into a rational synthesis.

The first level (pre-iconographical) of meaning inculcates the form-based analysis of a visual art and it encompasses “representations of natural objects such as human beings, animals, plants, houses, tools and so forth” (Panofsky, 1998, p. 221). In this level of art interpretation, there is the analysis of objects that are found in our human society or in the natural world of plants and animals. The materials used in the art does not come from another planet but from our own world where we see, experience, and imitate the forms of existing objects. The factual expression of this painting is the ruling leaders of the present-day world politics who are selling the idea of peace and democracy in the world. Without factual and expressional delineation, the painting does not come into dialogue and discourse.

The second level of art interpretation or the iconographical meaning is more about analysis of the art by connecting the artistic motifs or pure forms with the existing literature in our society. Hasenmueller (1978), in “Panofsky, Iconography, and Semiotics,” argues, “Iconography is, then, the analysis of systematic associations of motif and literary content” (p. 291). The literary content here means the existing literature about the images, stories, and allegories of the artwork. The artistic forms cannot be interpreted without the basis of literary content written and reviewed in the same subject earlier. The installation of form and secondary literature supplies an avenue for interpretation.

The iconographical meaning is “the world of specific themes or concepts manifested in images, stories and allegories” (Panofsky, 1998, p. 222). The meaning in this level of interpretation is derived by connecting the artistic forms with the theme of the painting. The concept of the painting opens only when the forms and concepts are combined and studied together. In order to understand the concept of the painting “Peace Owners II,” we need to examine the art techniques of Tibetan thangka and Newari style paubha paintings. And we need to install those techniques, stories, myths, and allegories with the theme or concept of this painting—Trump, Putin, and Un as the peacekeepers of this planet.

Furthermore, the third level of art interpretation is the way of seeing iconological meaning. Panofsky (1998) adds, “It is apprehended by ascertaining those underlying principles which reveal the basic attitude of a nation, a period, a class, a religious or philosophical persuasion- qualified by one personality and condensed into one work” (p. 222). The iconological meaning is, therefore, the ideological value that the author or painter embraces. It comes in the undercurrent level if we examine it very minutely to understand the politics behind any creative artwork. Shin (1990) clarifies it in “Panofsky, Polanyi, and Intrinsic meaning,” in which he postulates, “Thus in Panofsky’s iconography primary meaning is included in secondary meaning, which in turn is also included in intrinsic meaning” (p. 21). Therefore, iconological meaning comes from the understanding of the art through holistic approach and seeing the ideology of an author at the same time. So, this level of art interpretation is not an interpretation but a realization of symbolic values.

Panofsky (1998) takes iconology as a “method of interpretation which arises from synthesis rather than analysis” (p. 224). The iconological meaning is the process of synthesizing the art and finding the crux of it. It comes from analyzing the author’s ideology and underlying principles too. In this level of art interpretation, we try to unfold the intrinsic meaning of the text and examine the connotations in a deeper level. Iconological interpretation then is, in totality, a crux of the whole text where we try to synthesize images, text with the cultural, political, historical, social symbols and find a takeaway from combination of all of them. Shin (1990) concludes, “Thus in Panofsky’s iconography, primary meaning is included in secondary meaning, which in turn is also included in intrinsic meaning” (p. 21). He tries to convince that the pre-iconographical, iconographical, and iconological description is interpreted with holistic approach of study to produce a rational finding of the study.

Sigdel (2017)’s “Peace Owners II” received some compliments in written and visual forms since it was created in 2016. Raina (2017), in The Hindu, opines, “US President Donald Trump, Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korea’s supremo, Kim Jong Un in a single frame, and the artist presented them as bodhisattvas by adding several symbols and elements to their countenance, making the work a tongue-in-cheek satire” (para. 1). This also adds that the irony that the painter was willing to make to world leaders in todays’ political climate is not grasped at linguistic signification process but easily relatable when aligned to semiotic approach by taking it as a culture and medium of culture. Sigdel, the painter, himself opines in The Hindu that “He was moved by the diabolic ways in which some world leaders were using ‘peace’ as an excuse to arm themselves with powerful weapons. We all have noticed that war in this world is initiated by a handful of people” (cited in Raina, 2017, para. 3). So, the painter cleverly called the painting “Peace Owners II,” but the motive was to highlight the hidden hubris of the world leaders using different cultural symbols like “housefly,” “canine teeth,” “mudra of hand” among others.

2. Methodology

For this library research, we purposefully selected a painting “Peace Owners II” by a Nepali artist Sunil Sigdel to look at how his painting that contains the images of Donald J. Trump, Vladimir Putin, and Kim Jong Un shows the contemporary world leaders’ pretentious peace process. We, the Nepali scholars, chose this piece of painting as both of us are familiar with Buddhist philosophy, and the tradition of thangka paubha paintings that Nepali artists practice. In order to substantiate our claim, we have utilized Panofsky’s art interpretation theory that focuses on understanding and interpreting artworks by examining their symbolic and cultural meaning within a historical context. In his theory, iconography refers to the study and identification of visual symbols, motifs, and iconographic elements within an artwork. Through their identification and interpretation of these visual elements, one can uncover the intended meaning of the artwork. Iconology, for him, goes beyond the identification of individual symbols and delves into the broader cultural and historical context in which the artwork was created. It involves analyzing the social, political, religious, and philosophical influences that may have shaped the artist’s intentions.

3. Panofskyan analysis of “Peace Owners II”

3.1. Pre-iconographical description

In “Peace Owners II,” there is an embeddedness of dominant Bodhisattva’s pre-iconography rather than that of Buddha’s expression. Having said that, some expressions like hand mudras, eyes, elongated ears are like Buddha’s representation. Coomaraswamy (1927), while showing the differences between Buddha and Bodhisattva image, writes, “Some kind of confusion between the Buddha and Bodhisattva type is indicated by the existence of a Buddha type with crown and jewels; strictly and normally, the Buddha should be represented in monastic robes, the Bodhisattva whether Siddhartha or any other, in secular royal costume” (p. 290). Here, it evinces that the discrepancy between Buddha image and Bodhisattva image can be inspected through its details. There is a space for knowing Buddha or Bodhisattva image because Buddha is jeweled and ornamented but Bodhisattvas are in highly decorated form of royal costume without monastic robes. The decoration of Bodhisattvas differs from the Buddha in terms of costume and ornamentation. Through the representation of three political leaders in decorative costumes like diadems, earrings, necklace, bangles, embroidered clothes, the painting is trying to show the Bodhisattvas in the picture of contemporary leaders to contradict and juxtapose the reality. Trump, Putin and Un are jeweled with the expression and representation of crown, earring, richly decorated cloth of different color, halo, lotus among others.

The earrings and elongated ears of Trump, Putin and Un are also peculiarly shaped and represent the Bodhisattva in the Buddhist art in a pre-iconographical level. The craft of silver color earrings is like that of Bodhisattvas (White Tara, Padmasambhava, Ratnasambhava, Amitabha, Green Tara) in thangka art. Livingston (2001) clarifies, “The earrings are also different. The earrings worn by Ratnasambhava, Amitabha, and Amoghasiddhi are hoops that pass through the ear. The hoops worn by the Pala Bodhisattva, and also by Syama Tara in Plate 6, are placed inside the stretched earlobe in the manner, which appears to be more common in Pala art” (p. 52). It makes us clear that the earrings of three political leaders resemble various Bodhisattvas not only in the thangka and paubha art but also in the Pala art. Moreover, elongated ears symbolize ritual on becoming Buddha before he is in monastic robes. Coomaraswamy (1927) claims, “The ears are elongated by the weight of earrings worn before the adoption of monastic robes” (p. 290). This also clarifies that the reason behind the elongated ears is the weight of earrings, which is used as the symbol of transforming into the Buddha image.

Similarly, the gesture or mudra of Trump and Putin is in Dharmachakra, the wheel of dharma mudra which delivers a particular natural meaning in Buddhism. In this gesture, the ring finger and thumb finger of the right hand comes together to form a circle in hand. This pre-iconography in Buddhist art stands for a certain meaning. According to Saunders (1958), the Dharmachakra mudra in Buddhism has a positive remark and symbolizes for the annihilation of evilness when the wheel passes through this world. Saunders (1958) writes, “A close relationship is established between the Buddha and the universal sovereign, for the Buddha as the all-powerful monarch is he who turns the wheel—that is, cakravartin—and the wheel as it passes through the world crushes all evil, all error, all enemies of the law” (p. 61). Contrarily, the assumed peace owners of this world in the name of peacekeeping and unifying forces eventually confuse the whole planet through various arms and ammunitions deal, fighter planes, nuclear weapons and so on.

The hand mudra of Kim Jong Un is in abhaya mudra. In this mudra, the position of right hand is upright, and palm faces outwardly. This represents an audacity, courage, and protection in Buddhist philosophy. Kim Jong Un resonates that epitome of courage in the global politics because he does not align to democratic values and has sequestered North Korea guided by communist values. As Saunders (1958) explains this gesture as semui-in (abhaya mudra), and writes, “The first and perhaps the most frequently figured gesture in Buddhist statues is that of the Semui-in (abhayamudra), gesture of fearlessness: it is the right hand raised in appeasement as seen in the X century Shaka of the Seiryo-ji” (p. 53). He exemplifies Shaka of the Seiryo-ji and conveys the natural meaning of this gesture. In the global arena, if we inspect the politics of North Korea rigorously, then we come to the conclusion that Kim Jung Un displays the same character of fearless leader in front of world. Though USA is trying to counter the leftist country like North Korea, Un has shown an unflinching audacity to stand and held the head high.

The abhaya mudra encompasses the same meaning of fearlessness in the face of Kim Jung Un as it was used in the second century. This pure form (hand gesture) postulates the contrastive meaning, and the same meaning carries out an interpretation of contemporary art. Saunders (1958) narrates an allegory of Buddha and connects it with the abhaya mudra of Buddha to display the crux of this mudra which has remained unflinching from past to the present. He explains:

Traditionally the position of the hand figuring the Semui-in is said to derive from a legend concerning the Buddha’s jealous cousin, Devadatta, who, wishing to hurt the Buddha, caused him to be attacked by a drunken elephant. About to be trampled, Sakyamuni raised his right hand, the fingers close together. The gesture not only stopped the elephant in his tracks but completely subdued him. This is why the gesture is called Semui-in, gesture of fearlessness. (p. 56)

This mythical interpretation of Buddha’s fearless state reveals that the hand mudra of Kim Jong Un is also portraying the same state of courage in the world of power dynamics between democratic and autocratic values. Un represents an ideology of communism, and he is considered as one of the biggest threats by democratic countries.

The usnisa in the head of Gautam Buddha resonates with the representation of the crown in the head of three leaders as an epitome of power. The pre-iconographical description carries “certain peculiarly shaped lumps of bronze or stone” (Panofsky, 1998, p. 221). The crown as Bodhisattva is also a representation of that peculiarly shaped object. Krishan (1996) historicizes the value of its meaning and delivers its notion in the then time:

The usnisa in the case of the Buddha (and Jinas) is clearly in the nature of a tuft of hair on the crown of the head. It is the spiritual counterpart of the usnisa worn by Kings and Brahmins on the occasion of the Rajasuya and Vajapeya sacrifices. In the Rajasuya sacrifice, a person before being anointed as king, is endowed, inter alia, with a turban (usnisa) signifying his birth into royalty: without the usnisa, he could not undergo the abhiseka, the ceremony consecrating him a king. (p. 289)

This crown depicts a value in terms of becoming king or the brahmin and also shows the process of entering into royalty through the use of it. It symbolizes its ubiquitous presence for the process of carnivalization of power. On the other hand, it shows the value of being Buddha through the crown. The usnisa is an epitome for “higher being” and the diadems of three leaders also try to vocalize the same spirit of highness.

The faces of three political leaders are merged with the mask of goddesses. In thangka art, the subject is dominantly about the Bodhisattvas, therefore, we can assume that the mask must be of one of the Bodhisattvas. The Sanskrit term Kirtimukha makes us clear about its significance in Buddhist art. Vajracharya (2014) postulates, “In general, kirti is Sanskrit for ‘reputation,’ ‘glory,’ or ‘glorious achievement or contribution’ and mukha means the face or mouth” (p. 311). Here, the kirtimukha of Bodhisattva delivers a meaning of charm and glory. But is it the same scenario in terms of these political leaders? No. They have masqueraded face of glory and elegance, but they have not fulfilled the glory of goddesses being the leaders of this world. Buddha’s face of elegance reaches to the pangs of people earlier, but the question is: Do the masqueraded faces of these leaders try to address human problems and difficulties at basic level? Do they try to address peace process in the contemporary world or further instigate poor countries to have ideological and political warfare?

The significance of housefly is also major pre-iconographical description which delineates the whole scenario of this painting. Raina (2017), in The Hindu, evaluates this painting and tries to bring a probable reason for such pre-iconographical description: “For instance, he has used flies in this particular work, and symbolically, when you think about flies you associate them getting attracted to either sweet things or the ones that are in decay, says Dina Bangdel, executive board member, Nepal Art Council” (para. 2). The housefly as a pre-iconography denotes the decayed bodies which has nothing to do with the elegance of Bodhisattva. Dina Bangdel’s outright decoding of meaning about the signification of housefly also notifies that the painting is creating a paradox of images for them who claim to be in the forefront of peace-making agenda. No matter whether the leader of a country embodies a notion of democratic or autocratic value, they belong to the same corner where the representation of voice of people is unheard.

Likewise, the use of a halo in the background of the painting also delivers a meaning close to the concept of this painting. The significance of the halo is highly debated because of its ubiquitous presence in visual art all over the world. Ramsden (1941) highlights halo as a religious emblem in Christian and Buddhist art and historicizes its origin in Persian and Mughal art where its representation carries a prominent value (p. 126). In Buddhist art, especially thangka and paubha, there is a tradition of representing Bodhisattva with the detailing of halo in their art. The main reason for its iconography may be that God has all the almighty power in our faith and the glorification of God may remain incomplete if the showering of the halo is absent in the art. Sudhi (1985) writes, “In Buddhism, the solar disc is represented with the concept of cakravartin, where the king rules the world because of his spiritual virtues or beside the lord of the earth, through his yogic process, he becomes the lord of psychic powers also and through attaining this siddhi, he becomes the Rajarsi, the king and the seer” (p. 256). The same concept aligns with these political leaders who themselves identify with the aroma, but the hidden truth is different from their appearance. Here, “Peace Owners II” also brings the notion of almighty God and amalgamates it with three powerful political leaders of this century. This representation justifies the onlooker about the power of three leaders in this world and questions us rhetorically—Are they really powerful or do they seem to be?

The question may also arise here—it is all right that the halo signifies a notion of glory and power but why there is blue color tone. According to Shin (1990), “primary meaning does not have to be learned; we derive our understanding of it from our common daily experiences” (p. 17). The ordinary experiences of anyone can contend that the rhetoric of color blue as a symbol of sky delineates omnipresence of something. We often quote for the infinite potential of the human being with a quote “Sky is the limit.” It also infers that the three political leaders in this painting seem to be present everywhere in the world and act as if they are the owners of everything in this world. The power and position that these leaders are formulating in the name of Godly images are highly questionable if we critically examine their representation.

The representation of “lotus flower” in the background of the painting also supplies a meaning inherent in this painting. The thangka and paubha art dominantly play with the figure of lotus flower. It is because the presence of lotus in the Buddhist art is directly related to the philosophy of Buddhism. Ward (1952) takes us back to the birth of Gautama Buddha to show the value of lotus: “ … when [Buddha] was born a lotus bloomed where he first touched the earth; he stepped seven steps northward and a lotus marked each step” (p. 140). The link of lotus is with the glory of lord Buddha. It shows that the lotus is an emblem of God itself. Therefore, the flower lotus marks the symbol of Buddha who was himself a peace owner of this world. His whole philosophy is grounded in the benchmark of peace in the planet. Unlike this assumption, this painting juxtaposes Trump, Putin and Un as a masquerade of the peace owners who are spreading war, hatred, and violence in this world.

3.2. Iconographical Description

The iconographical description stands for the process of unfolding a piece of art with the help of secondary literature where there are stories, mythologies, histories, traditions, and cultures. One of the historical mythologies of the evolution of thangka painting contends that there were influences from Newari style of paubha painting (Trungpa, 1976, p. 5). The genesis of Tibetan-paubha painting takes us back to the period of seventh century BC when Songtsen Gampo was in power. It did not evolve in a particular geography with a peculiar way of art making but appear with a medley of Chinese scroll painting, Newari way of paubha and Kashmiri style of thangka. During the seventh century, Gampo united Tibet and the cultural tie up also began during his rule. He got married with Bhrikuti, the daughter of the then Nepalese ruler, which made possible for cultural, religious, artistic knowledge sharing in-between Tibet and Nepal (Bista, 1978, p. 4). Therefore, thangka as a portable form of art got influenced and exchanged to each other through the Shakya monasteries and pundits of that time which made possible for the development of thangka form of painting.

Moreover, we can see a historical mapping of the origin of Tibetan thangka paintings which shows that the dominant influences from different parts of Indian subcontinent helped to grow of this form of art in Tibet. Stoddard (1996) examines the development of Tibetan thangka and concludes that there are dominant influences of Pala India, Kashmir, Nepal, and Central Asia especially Mongolia in the Tibetan thangka (p. 26). So, it is clear that the thangka evolved along with the influences and exchanges of the cultural notion with many variations.

The interesting thing to unravel about the historical imprint of thangka-paubha evolution is to examine the footprint of history. The history marks that the Tibetan thangka opens its wings because of the influences from the art practice from central Asia, Indian style, Newari style paubha along with others. Here, the painting “Peace Owners II” is widely reviewed as an influence of Newari paubha style particularly. Mukherjee (2017), in a “Live Mint,” writes: “A multi-disciplinary artist, Sunil Sidgel has created portraits of the three leaders in the traditional Nepali paubha painting style, ideally used to paint images of Gods, but a fly on each of these images is what takes the viewer aback indicating the satirical undertone” (para. 2). So, it would be more rejuvenating to see the influences of paubha in the growth of thangka painting in Tibet. The question is—who in the history worked as the cultural exchanger of the paubha painting and thangka development? Stoddard (1996) writes about the first, second and third influences from central Asian style, the Indian style and paubha style. The passage below shows the influences from the paubha style of painting:

The third style is that inspired by the fine Newari tradition of the Kathmandu valley, called Bal ris/bris in Tibetan. The extant Tibetan paintings in this style seem to start off a little later than rGya lugs, and in Tibet are most strongly associated with the province of gTsang, one reason being no doubt simply because it lies closest to Nepal. The style is intimately linked with Sa skya, and by the mid-thirteenth century, it had spread from that great monastery directly to the Mongol court thanks to the invitation of Sa skya Pandita, his nephew ‘Phags pa, and a little later on, the famous Newari artist Anige. (p. 40)

Here, the “Sa skya” denotes the Shakya of the Newari community who were artists and became main medium for the influences in thangka art during mid-thirteenth century. Stoddard (1996) specifically refers to the artist “Anige” for that role of exchange. In this way, thangka-paubha evolved geographically with a distinct cultural notion which signifies that the process of making denotes a process of becoming a creator. This juxtaposes with these three leaders iconographically and questions—Does a peace get practiced by these leaders as the artist used to do before making, while making and after making thangka-paubha art? If the hand mudras, halo, masqueraded face of God, diadems, lotus flower etc. as artistic motives are merged with the evolution and process of thangka-paubha paintings, then we can find that the painting is awakening to the onlookers about the real peace owned by the goddesses and the lookalike peace falsified by these leaders. All these artistic motifs, the process and history of thangka-paubha paintings are the attributes of deity and divinity but these leaders create their image of demigod which is countered by our understanding when we iconographically examine them.

Moreover, the artistic motifs of Trump, Putin, and Un shower elegance and divinity in the face value but if we merge the forms like housefly and canine teeth with the historical facts, then we come to see the reality. Donald Trump in his presidency tried to become a peacemaker and backed himself as a peace lover. The major peace work forwarded by him are—Israel/Palestine peace plan, Bahrain/Israel Peace deal. The question is: Who benefits from peace talk between Israel and Palestine, Israel, and Bahrain? Crowley and Halbfinger (2020) in The New York Times argue, “Some analysts said the larger goal of Mr. Trump and Mr. Netanyahu was to shift the starting point of any future negotiations sharply in Israel’s favor and to put the Palestinians in the defensive position of saying no” (para.12). Though Trump narrated that both Israel and Palestine would have win-win position, there is the place for suspicion due to the high favor of America towards Israel.

Similarly, the peace accord between Israel and Bahrain is also very strategic. That is why, Crowley (2020) quotes the idea of Jeremy Ben Amy as: “It’s very, very clear that there are aligned interests between Israel and these countries—military, security, diplomatic, economic—and those interests have been there for two decades” (para. 19). This also proves that the façade of peace maker is only a business motive deal in the name of peace accord with Middle Eastern countries like Bahrain and U.A.E. by Israel. This calculative leadership shown by Trump is highly political in nature because he seems more concerned with the issue of Israel and Middle East relation rather than American issues at hand. The irony is that the same person gets nominated in the Nobel Peace prize for his commendable task of peacemaking. Therefore, the historical facts and allegories also prove that the face value of these leaders are like demigod but through the iconographical inspection we come to see the falsified image of them.

Vladimir Putin and his historical steps also contradicts the title of the painting. The annexation of Crimea back in 2014, (and of Ukraine in 2022 and still ongoing) in the name of historical glory of Soviet Union keeps the painting in critical position. It proves that Putin or Russia also falls in same position of peace owner. Russia stood out in the crisis of Vietnam war, Korean war, Afghanistan crisis, Syrian crisis but the major ambition of this nation was to sell weapons and make more money. A report “Complicit: 2020 Global Nuclear Weapons Spending” by International Campaigns to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) (2021) states—“Russia possesses approximately 6,257 nuclear weapons, which it can launch from missiles, submarines, and aircraft. In 2020, Russia spent an estimated US$8 billion to build and maintain its nuclear forces” (p. 14). Isn’t it an irony to the country owning that number of nuclear weapons but acting in the front as if an actor of world peace process? This is a critical stance put forth by the historical and present-day reality of the past and present Russia where we can examine the ideology of the text. This painting becomes more enlightening when post-imperialism of Russia is linked with the painting.

Kim Jong Un also resonates same scenario of vanity and hubris. It also has an acquisition of nuclear weapons but sells them with different narratives. ICAN (2021) has noted- “North Korea possesses approximately 45 nuclear weapons, which it may be able to launch from missiles. It conducted six nuclear tests between 2006 and 2017 and is the only state to have conducted such tests in the 21st century. In 2020, North Korea spent an estimated US$667 million to build and maintain its nuclear forces” (p. 13). Either due to fear of expansionism or with the desire of expansionism, these leaders are selling and creating weapons, but they stand shamelessly as peace owners. This critical reading becomes possible in iconographical study only.

3.3. Iconological Description

An iconological finding of this painting “Peace Owners II” is very subjective and therefore “polysemous” (Barthes, 1998, p. 156). But still, the crux of the painting stays same if we try to inspect it properly. Sigdel (2017), in this painting, brings an artistic motif from the Buddhist form of art—thangka-paubha style and he installs imageries related to it with powerful politicians of our generation, Trump, Putin, and Un. The rationale behind this is very invigorating and interesting to examine. The entire world is fighting with climate change, global warming, refugee and migrant issues, humanitarian crisis like pandemic and other diseases, terrorism, human rights violence, gender hegemony, economic bankruptcy of countries like Venezuela, Greece, Shri Lanka, to name a few. But these leaders are primarily focused only on the budget for arms and ammunitions. The synthesis of this painting is that the world leaders are preaching peace at the forefront but at the inner level they are the medium for the war and crises in the world. We can also conclude that these leaders had an opportunity to become Bodhisattva-figure, but they are losing this opportunity due to their priority to weapons and ammunitions. The “canine teeth” of the leaders also contends that they are not in the level of attaining Godly attributes.

In addition, iconological meaning is also deciphered from the ideology and mindset that the author incorporates from our society. Panofsky (1998) claims, “It is apprehended by ascertaining those underlying principles which reveal the basic attitude of a nation, a period, a class, a religious or philosophical persuasion- qualified by one personality and condensed into one work” (p. 222). The iconological meaning is therefore the ideological value that the author or painter embraces. The painter himself clarifies his intention and ideology behind the painting while introducing this painting for an art exhibition:

In this work I have portrayed three politicians whose names I hear almost every day in the news. Peace Owners satirizes leaders around the world and their arms race in the name of peacekeeping. I have infused their portraits with Buddhist images, taking motifs from the traditional Newar paubha and Tibetan thangka works, contrasting their war-like stances with the symbols of Buddhism, which advocate peace. (Nepal Art Now: Contemporary Nepalese Art, 2019, emphasis original, para. 1)

Sigdel understands a hidden truth of these politicians and to satirize them he works in “symbolical values” (Panofsky, 1998, p. 222) to decipher an undercurrent code of reality. Panofsky (1998) argues: “Iconology, then, is a method of interpretation which arises from synthesis rather than analysis” (p. 224). The pre-iconographical description is an inspection of pure forms and facts while iconographical description is an analysis of the various secondary literature, but iconological description is not about the multiple interpretations of the text but a crux of the whole text. Though the connotations of the inherent meaning may have multiple aspects, but the synthesis ends in a single conclusion. Therefore, the iconological meaning of this painting is—though politicians like Trump, Putin and Un showcase the role of peace owners in our generation as that of Buddha and Bodhisattvas, they have an evil spirit which is in a masquerade of Buddha’s traits. As rightly pointed out by Helmers & Hill (2004), though any visual item (photograph, drawing, graph, table among others) can be used to influence people’s attitudes, opinions, and beliefs (p. 2), it is very difficult for modern people to be Gautam Buddha (Gadjin & Blum, 1987, p. 30).

4. Conclusion

This paper concludes Sigdel’s “Peace Owners II” as a mélange of experimentation of traditional and modern art with a delineation of artistic motifs, dialogic content and clear iconology of allegory and ideology. Unlike traditional only “thematic approach” to study Nepali paintings, the quintessence of this article, however, is the exploration of forms, concept, and content in Sigdel’s contemporary art, which seems evolving in terms of experimentation, narrative, message, and diabolic content. The painting brings a traditional thangka and paubha art making style and merge with contemporary art materials and issues to supply an ingenious touch in the art and make a discourse of global politics louder. It shows the fascination of an artist with the domestic art form, but he also wants his viewpoint of international politics to become more global. Tellingly, he installs the notion of Buddhism at center to highlight that the peace of Buddhism was based on truth and virtue, but the notion of peace carried by contemporary leaders are very shallow and superficial. In addition, the painting portrays a flaw in both democratic systems owned by the USA as well as Russia and the communist system preached by North Korea. The painter must have argued that the failure of both political ideologies has created a global hypocrisy in terms of peace keeping. When ideology fails, the practicality also fails. This also delivers that the painter’s ideology is non-aligned and neutral about contemporary ideological conflict and it seems he is more inclined to the betterment of humanity and peaceful society rather than a fight for alliances and ideology.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Sachin Karki

Sachin Karki completed his master’s degree in English Literature from Tribhuvan University, Nepal in 2021. As a scholar, he has an interest in interdisciplinary inspection in humanities and social sciences. He is an independent researcher and now pursuing his M.Phil. from the English Department of Pokhara University, Nepal.

Raj K. Baral

Raj K. Baral is an Assistant Professor of English at Tribhuvan University, Nepal. As a researcher, his interests span from language and literature, higher education policy, rhetoric and writing, among others. He worked as an Editorial Board Member of Scholars: Journal of Arts and Humanities. Currently, he is pursuing his Ph.D. in Rhetoric and Writing Studies from The University of Texas at El Paso, USA.