ale or soul? This is the question that an artist – especially one from the younger, emerging generation – faces regularly. Often, it arises internally – at times, it is imposed from outside – whether by fellow practitioners or by a gallery owner. The answer, if there is one, lies somewhere deep within an unexplored mine – the unconscious. Yet, to navigate the day-to-day demands of both life and art-making, one must make a choice.

That choice, however, is far from clear. Like water – which appears pure but is often a blend of minerals and chemicals – artistic pursuits are rarely unalloyed in their intent. Yet, as there is no need for a laboratory to analyse each creative endeavour – artists are generally divided into two broad categories: those who prioritise their artistic – or literary, musical, or other – pursuits for material gain, and those who create mostly for self-satisfaction. To put it in more familiar terms the distinction is between commercial and non-commercial art, literature and music.

To the first category – regardless of the quality, quantity, artistic merit or monetary value of their work – the audience takes precedence. Their creations – whether in the form of a specific artwork or otherwise – communicate their ideas, concerns and personal experiences, yet their primary focus remains the response they evoke in others – ideally in the form of sales, praise, positive reviews and media recognition.

In the early stages of their careers, most young artists may aspire to these rewards. However, over time, their goals become clearer, filtering out other distractions. In Pakistan, many painters and sculptors began their journeys with great promise and artistic ambition, only to shift towards producing work primarily for the market once they attained a certain level of prestige. So much so that the paintings of a recently deceased artist became akin to casino chips – mere assets to be converted into hard currency. Once a gifted graduate and a favourite of Ali Imam, the painter openly admitted to his motivations – he needed to finance the marriages of his four daughters.

This trend continues with the influx of new artists, driven in part by the proliferation of galleries and their growing influence. Another contributing factor is the entry of architecture-trained, contractor-turned professionals, who, rather than engaging with an artist’s creative process, prefer to place orders for customised pieces with specific dimensions, colour schemes, materials and surface finishes.

Once an artist becomes accustomed to structuring their work around such demands, conforming to expected imagery becomes easier – almost inevitable. Within this league, some skilful minds and hands attempt to present their imagery, ideas, chromatic palettes and optical textures as the outcome of an artistic search for the ideal form. Ultimately, many fail to leave a lasting mark – like the painter who, once in high demand in the late nineties for his pastiches of sacred symbols, Islamic calligraphy and miniature painting, now finds himself relegated to the periphery of Pakistan’s updated art history.

On the other hand, there are those – though fewer in number compared to the former group – who remain determined to pursue their inner calling, regardless of whether their work is appreciated through words or valued in monetary terms. Even when faced with criticism about the meaning of their creations, the purpose of their practice or the relevance of their content, they continue in their chosen direction.

This does not mean that they are indifferent to the sale of their works through galleries or art dealers – but these realities do not compel them to compromise their unique vision. Even Vincent van Gogh – the ultimate symbol of the suffering artist – longed for his paintings to sell. Yet, his disappointment in that regard never altered his artistic course, his thinking, or his search for meaning. Canvases once rejected by art critics and exhibition panels are now among the most prized and celebrated pieces in public and private collections around the world.

In truth, all artists possess elements of both idealism and pragmatism. As observed in the work of most artists – regardless of years, experience or exposure – these two aspects coexist, much like opposing genders within every human being. The difference lies in the proportion of each – a shift that determines the type of image-maker, much like gender defines an individual.

For a young artist, new to the profession, choosing between the two is very difficult. Favouring one over the other does not guarantee excellence of expression, mastery of craft or complexity of concerns – nor does it assure fame. The soul of the artist is truly satisfied only when – and if – freedom is attained.

A recently opened group exhibition, Beyond the Veil (February 18–27, Canvas Gallery, Karachi), featuring four artists who graduated between 2021 and 2024 from the National College of Arts, explores their personal interpretations of freedom. Diverse in mediums, imagery, sources and themes, their work exemplifies how an artist can pursue their own vision while aligning with a community of practitioners who share similar ethics – though not necessarily aesthetics.

Whether engaging with the traditional art of miniature painting and Persian text (Hooria Khan), the political conditions in Parachinar (Maisam Hussain), the existential crisis of modern man (Salar Marri) or the familiar environment of a woman (Vania Mazhar), these external influences are transformed into unique visual languages, rich with layered meanings and interpretations.

Hooria Khan’s exquisite paintings on paper mark a departure from the conventional vocabulary of Persian miniatures, narrating a soul’s search for its abode. Her compositions depict a spirit surrounded by birds and flourishing vegetation, unfolding a saga of good and evil unconstrained by tangible measurements such as scale or local colour theory. These conventional markers of perception are freed from their limitations, allowing the artist to convey a deeper message – a reflection of the resilience ingrained within the very fabric of existence.

Maisam Hussain, hailing from a turbulent district recently in the national media for sectarian violence, has documented the effects of war using graphite and gunpowder on paper. His work creates the illusion of a wall bearing testimonials of rocket fire, an erased newspaper page featuring images of soldiers who died in combat with terrorist, and a list of martyrs from recent clashes in his region. His decision to render these subjects in black and white is significant, reinforcing the gravity of a critical and harrowing reality.

A similarly formal-cum-political language is explored by Salar Marri in his loosely executed paintings. His work suggests the angst of life, love, situations and political struggle – particularly in a small canvas resembling the last photograph of Che Guevara after the revolutionary comandante was executed by the Bolivian Special Forces with support from American CIA agents. Marri’s other paintings, depicting men – alone or in pairs – can be interpreted as expressions of political resistance, personal trauma or pleasure derived from two seemingly disparate pursuits.

In contrast to Marri’s sketchy strokes, Vania Mazhar’s imagery is fluid. Her brushwork captures the immediacy of perception—both from the painter’s and the viewer’s perspective. This sense of urgency contrasts with the quiet postures she chooses for her mixed-media works: family members sleeping, sitting at a table with a computer or resting beside a domestic dog. In another piece, Mazhar reinterprets a painting by Édouard Vuillard, a choice that carries particular significance. Vuillard, known for his interest in capturing light, colour and atmosphere, engaged with elements that are neither fashionable nor widely embraced by artists in Pakistan today. This choice itself signifies further artistic freedom.

The writer is a visual artist, an art critic, a curator and a professor at the School of Visual Arts and Design, Beaconhouse National University, Lahore.

bout one hundred years ago, America found itself struggling against an economic catastrophe known today as the Great Depression. Globally, it led to a tariff war in the West, leading to a 66 percent reduction in world trade over five years.

The collapse of financial structure in the US led to the decimation of the social fabric of an already war-torn Europe; its banking institutions shuttered down and unemployment soared. To recover from the depression, Europe went on to increase military spending.

A great shift then took place in American political landscape whereby Democratic Party, the party of social conservatives, went on to embrace big government. Fredrick Roosevelt defeated the incumbent, President Hoover, and went on to win four unparalleled consecutive presidential elections. He institutionalised the New Deal, the foundation of modern American governance. At home, it took the form of big government, state-led socioeconomic development, industrialisation, regulated economy, redistributive fiscal policies financed through higher income and corporate taxes, civil and political rights for minorities and a guaranteed path to prosperity ensured by social welfare institutions legislated by the Congress and cherished by American people.

It is necessary to understand the genesis of the current wave of anti-immigrant conservative movement in the United States. Trump-ism is not a fugacious phenomenon; it is going to be around for a long time. For Pakistan, it is important to be prepared for this great reset. Following the withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan in 2021, Pakistan is no longer a frontline US ally.

World War II and rapid industrialisation in the 1940s accompanied a shift in global leadership from pax-Britannica to pax-Americana. The United States proudly led the ‘free world’ to embrace liberal democracy. It promoted Green Revolution, expanded foreign aid and invested in military alliances. The Truman Doctrine promised “to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressure” using all financial, political and military means available to counter communism.

The Truman Doctrine laid the foundations of American foreign policy for the next 75 years. While they endeavoured to achieve their increasingly divergent domestic political goals, both Democratic and Republican parties cooperated to defeat the Soviet Union, promote global economic integration and later confront Islamist radicalism. Though it paid a heavy price in financial and human losses, the United States achieved most of these foreign policy objectives. Communism was defeated, the Soviet Union collapsed and Al Qaeda was decimated. Today, the United States faces no credible global threat to its power except an increasingly-confident China and, possibly, a resurgent Russia. Violent non-state violent actors apparently belong in the past.

As the United States experienced industrialisation, progressive change in its socioeconomic matrices and the rise of a diverse society at home, it managed to establish, strengthen and promote a relatively stable liberal political order institutionalised on the principles of both power and democracy.

Under the leadership of the United States, powerful countries of the world kept arbitrary roles under their own control while helping under-developed countries sustain their societies and helping developing countries modernise their economies. This was the nature of relationship Pakistan had with the West. In its relations with Pakistan, the administration in Washington was mindful of its own needs. It was always willing to manipulate the weaknesses of its ally. Pakistan joined military alliances, adopted the free-market economic model and was politically integrated in the Western bloc. It relied on Western - primarily American - aid for socioeconomic progress, addressing regional political disputes and strategic needs. Most of the policymakers in Islamabad sought US support to deal with India, Russia, radicalism and poverty.

Over the years, the two countries accumulated long lists of grievances against each other. Today, Pakistan is feeling abandoned, left to deal with unbearable demographic and political costs of the 50-years old Afghan problem. For its part, the current US leadership describes Pakistan as a treacherous partner. The distrust has compounded in recent years. Meanwhile, Islamabad’s significance in US policy has waned in the wake of US exit from Afghanistan.

On the home front, to the dismay of the traditional rich and the upper middle class, comprising primarily Anglo-Saxon whites, the first half of the past 100 years brought several social upheavals, transforming the cultural outlook of the American society. The Great Depression paved the way for the rise of Keynesian economics, which emphasises the role of consumer demand in driving economic growth and stability. It argues that total spending (or aggregate demand) in an economy determines overall economic output and employment levels. Since government controls the money supply, it can enable consumers through higher wages, housing subsidies, educational and research scholarships, business loans, welfare policies and development projects focusing on uplifting racial and ethnic minorities. Resources for these projects was secured through progressive taxation - the richest Americans were made to pay 63-94 percent income tax.

Politically, Supreme Court judgments ended racial segregation in public spaces including schools, universities and workplaces. In 1968, the US Supreme Court declared the ban on inter-racial marriages unconstitutional. In 1973, the ban on abortion was termed a violation of privacy rights. The civil rights movement won the passage of the Civil Rights Act, 1964, and the Voting Rights Act, 1965. In the late 1960s, the environmentalist movement pushed the federal government to pass Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and establish the Environmental Protection Agency.

During the 1990s, globalisation took many manufacturing jobs from the United States to Asia, primarily China, and Mexico. After Beijing joined the World Trade Organisation in 2001, the United States retail markets were flooded with cheaper products made in China. Between 1994 and 2010, the US lost nearly 80 percent of its textile jobs, with major mill closures across North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. Simultaneously, American demographics transformed the sociocultural outlook, as some traditionally White-dominated states like Texas became minority-majority states. The 1990 Immigration Act expanded legal immigration by increasing the number of employment-based and family-based visas resulting in an astonishing growth of foreign-born population by 57 percent within a decade. The number of immigrants living in the US more than doubled from 19.8 million in 1990 to over 45 million by 2020, around 14 percent of the US population today. Unlike the previous waves of migrants coming from Europe, the current wave is from Mexico, China, India and the Philippines.

The political response to this demographic shift has been two-fold. First, the richest Americans now refuse to pay high income taxes. After winning the 1980 presidential election, Donald Reagan introduced Reaganomics, policies based on the ideas of supply-side economics – lower taxes, low government spending, deregulated industries and inflation control. Reaganomics argues that reducing taxes and government intervention encourages investment, economic growth and job creation. During the last 50 years, federal governments have levied less taxes and lowered government services to sociocultural underprivileged communities. More significantly, NATO, NAFTA, WTO, the Gulf Wars, the War on Terror and Covid-19 brought more than $33 trillion debt and annual budget deficits reaching $122 billion, with over $1 trillion due in interest on the federal debt. The richest of American refuse to fund endless wars across the globe and socioeconomic development focusing on poor communities. Because the government has grown large and because the tax base and has been shrinking, today America finds itself under the burden of an unprecedented debt. The way forward, according to conservative movement, is to lower the taxes, reduce government spending, reduce, if not end, international strategic engagement, promote domestic technologies and stop feeding the world.

The current conservative movement started long ago. With supportive judgments rendered by the US Supreme Court, it has almost killed the Voting Rights Act; got rid of affirmative action; illegalised abortions; tabooed DEI practices; weakened unions; and is now weakening, if not terminating the Department of Education, Environmental Protection Agency and several other institutions for ensuring social justice. It is reducing, if not ending, federal financial aid and funding for programmes that have been sustaining poor communities such as first-generation, disabled and intellectually-challenged students. It is restoring the White privilege in the name of meritocracy. Its next targets are ending homosexuality and same-sex marriages.

It is necessary to understand the genesis of the current wave of anti-immigrant conservative movement in the United States rooted in the evolution of domestic politics. In Pakistan, as in some other places around the world, the genesis, nature and magnitude of this movement is not fully appreciated. Trump-ism is an inexplicable phenomenon unless one is aware of what is going on in the United States. The popular conservative movement is seeking a Great Reset in the United States, a reset asking to return to traditionalism echoed in a slogan: “God, Family, Country” meaning a return to religion, binary understanding of gender and nationalism (thus no secularism, gender fluidity or globalisation). Those losing on account of globalisation and modernism are supporting it. They are the communities that have faced job losses, wage stagnation, weakened industries and economic dislocation due to global competition, outsourcing and trade liberalisation. They are the scions of blue-collar workers of traditional manufacturing industries, such as automobiles, steel, textiles and electronics once found particularly in the Rust Belt states like Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin who have seen their parents lose their American Dream on account of offshoring, technological growth, outsourcing, corporate restructuring and anti-union policies.

Today, they find themselves competing against South and Southeast Asian immigrants from a position of disadvantage, their livelihoods eroded by forces beyond their control. For them, this is not just an economic setback—it is a betrayal of the promise that hard work leads to prosperity. The simmering anguish of these forgotten communities is no longer contained; it has transformed into a battle cry, a demand for reckoning against the very system that cast them aside. The price of globalisation, once measured in GDP growth and corporate profits, is now counted in broken dreams and disillusioned generations.

It is in this smoldering sense of abandonment that Donald Trump has emerged as a symbol of defiance and rebellion against the political and economic order that has forsaken them. He speaks not in the polished language of Washington elites, but in the raw, unfiltered voice of those left behind, promising to bring back what had been ‘stolen’ from them: jobs, dignity and a vision of America that put them first. To them, Trump is not just a president; he is a symbol of a return of their American Dream; the retribution, a walking indictment of globalism, the embodiment of their fight against an establishment that sacrificed them on the altar of free trade and globalism; and a declaration that they would no longer be ignored, dismissed, or sacrificed at the altar of free trade and neoliberal ambition.

Most Pakistanis have not been aware of what America has been going through. For long, the dominant perception in Pakistan – like much of the world – has been that the US operates with a predictable political rhythm as power alternates between Democrats and Republicans with little disruption to its global standing and commitments. The prevailing understanding in Pakistan is that President Trump is an outburst of populist theatrics, an aberration of the norm, an outside guy who could be tolerated for four years to let the business as usual return to the White House. This understanding underestimates the scale of the paradigmatic shift taking place in Washington DC and across the United States: a full-scale return to traditionalism, a renege of classic sense and a defiant resurgence of the past. What many in Pakistan fail to see is that Trump-ism is not just about one man; it is a movement borne out of economic loss, cultural alienation and the belief that globalisation has betrayed the American worker. This perspective overlooks the deeper crisis gripping American society. The fractures exposed by Trump-ism are not temporary; they are systemic, enduring and reshaping America’s political landscape in ways that Pakistan, and much of the world, have yet to fully comprehend.

Trump-ism is not a fugacious phenomenon. It is going to be around for a long time. Pakistan should prepare for this Great Reset. Following the withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan in 2021, it is no longer a frontline US ally. While diplomatic engagements persist, they will lack the substantive depth that characterised various episodes of deeper bilateral relations. The paradigm shift in American domestic politics is resulting in a decline in global defence cooperation and a reduction in economic assistance abroad. As the United States turns inward, prioritising domestic industrial revitalisation, border security and protectionist economic policies, its longstanding role as the guarantor of global stability is steadily eroding. The once-unquestioned bipartisan consensus on international engagement been replaced by a growing scepticism towards foreign aid and military commitments.

Isolationist tendencies, fuelled by populist rhetoric and fiscal conservatism, will result in reduced military commitments abroad, strained alliances and a recalibration of strategic partnerships. The political elites in Islamabad must reconcile with this reality: Pakistan is no longer an indispensable partner for the US. It is a state whose relevance is conditional, transient, and, in Washington’s view, increasingly marginal. It is imperative for Islamabad to recognise the magnitude of global effects of the shift in US domestic politics altering Washington’s engagement with the world, particularly in South Asia.

The belief that Pakistan can maintain its traditional leverage over Washington through transactional diplomacy is obsolete. Instead, Islamabad must come to terms with the reality that American priorities have moved away from counterterrorism alliances and regional military entanglements and towards strategic competition with China, economic nationalism and domestic rebuilding.

The writer is a professor of government at Houston Community College, USA. He recently published his book The Rise of the Semi-Core: China, India, and Pakistan in the World-System. He can be approached at suklashari@gmail.com