(Baptiste-Giabiconi)
Artists act
and react. When they act they are called artists and when they react, then also
they are called artists. When they act against a system that oppresses them or
that denies them due visibility then they are called reactionaries. They are
called reactionaries not by their friends and well wishers but those people who
belong to the other system of hegemony. As you know hegemony needs
reactionaries because reactionaries make ‘different’ art and ‘different’ voice.
And it is in this ‘difference’ that mainstream culture thrives. Take music,
cinema, fashion or food, anything that has once been against the hegemonic
system is now a part of it. Difference invariably gets co-opted by the
mainstream.
Somehow it
does not happen in India. Our country and its art scene seem to be thriving in
the ordinary and it is more than complacent. It is lethargic to a certain
extent and cynical completely. When it comes to the making of money from the
regular everyone jumps into the same bandwagon. That’s why if you go to the
history of Mumbai based main galleries during the 1990s, you could see all the
galleries promoting the same set of ten artists and the same curator curating
or writing all the shows/catalogues. We have to deduce two facts from this
phenomenon: one, in Mumbai during the 1990s galleries were not just thinking
about promoting art but were inclined to making money from the same set of
artists. These galleries were once dealing with the masters, those artists who
came into prominence immediately after our independence. Two, Mumbai during 90s
had not produced any good artists than these ten odd artists.
(Logo of Stuckism International)
I don’t
think any self respecting artist in this country would agree with the second
part of the conclusion. These self respecting artists include the ones who were
part of that group of ten. That means our galleries of that time were not looking
at the artists who were working from the same city. For them those artists just
did not exist. They existed as viewers. They existed as group show artists in
the Jehangir Art Gallery. We created a caste system in this way. Mumbai started
it, Delhi replicated it. Today Delhi leads it. However, I would say the birth
of new galleries by the mid 90s and their maturing by the new millennium helped
new artists who were lying outside the selected ten establish in a different
way. If you look at the history of Bombay Boys or the moving and shaking after
that you could feel that. New galleries were trying to formulate new ideas with
new curators, artists and writers.
By the new millennium,
as we are into the second decade of it, we have a new trend. Every year, we
have a new set of artists as stars. Had those galleries in Mumbai in 90s were
promoting only ten, today all the galleries irrespective of their geographical
location aspire for the same trendy artists. When they do not find trendy
artists for their own activities they create a few. Hence we have trendy
artists doing trendy shows and participating in trendy fairs and becoming short
lived stars. A couple of years back every gallery in India was talking about
cutting edge art. Many gallerists who did not know what is the meaning of
cutting edge jumped into the bandwagon and got their edges cut. A few galleries
downed the shutters. Many surreptitiously went back to their original position.
This failure was covered by saying that the young art is yet to be matured and
it is time of the masters. Auctions results substantiated this unhealthy
argument. For the time being the faces of the galleries were saved. But the
losers were those artists who started off with cutting edge art. Today I see
them in many camps.
(Bra-hminical Art? From Gagawaka by Vivan Sundaram)
What has
gone wrong in our system of art and aesthetics? First of all we should accept
that there is a caste system in Indian contemporary art scene. Brahmins are
those who move along with the cash rich and visible galleries. They are
considered as the trendiest and happening artists at the same time they are
treated as ‘intellectual artists’. Young but foolish young art scholars from
reputed academies refuse to see a studio based work because they are
brainwashed to believe that trendy art is the best and intellectual art. So
even amongst the art appreciators we have a caste system. Those who go to Khoj
will not go to Lalit Kala Akademy. They all go to Palette because their booze
is abundant. Those who got to Nature Morte and Talwar will not go to Kumar
Gallery. Those who go to Neb Sarai for a happening art will not step into NIV
Art centre that shares a common wall with the above mentioned project space.
So we have
Brahmins. Then we have kshatriyas. They are the artists and art operators who
get occasional chances to be with the Brahmins in art scene. They get respect
and they are Kshatriyas because they fight for the Brahmins when it comes to
public debates. Then there are Vaishyas. They do good art and aspire to become
Kshatriyas if not Brahmins. They often get shows and success but never
considered as intellectuals. Interestingly, most of the Brahmin galleries
operate by selling the Vaishya art. Then there are Shoodras. Last in the
hierarchy they make good, bad and ugly art. But they have all the potential to
grown and topple the system. But they are often denied visibility and success.
They move around as viewers. And interestingly, the first section of this hierarchy
is the one that makes art against the general caste system, very vocal against
it but perpetuate the same beautifully in their own field of operations. Such
an irony.
(Bra- clinically analysed)
Why does it
happen? In an ideal situation a gallery is supposed to cultivate a limited set
of artists and see them through their highs and lows and take them to the
museums. That means make them really interesting and relevant artists through
devoted promotional activities. Seen against this backdrop, if galleries in
India promote a set of artists only, it should be appreciated. But here it does
not happen in that way. Here one set of galleries promote the same set of
galleries with the same verve, direction and monetary aims. If you look at the
major art fairs in India, you could even see that five prominent galleries,
sharing adjacent spaces in the very visible fairs and flaunting the same set of
artists without much qualms. Another set of artists is promoted by the second
rung of galleries almost replicating the first model. This goes on like.
Then the problem
lies in the lack of vision of the galleries and their operational formats. When
everyone wants the same thing there occurs monopoly. If each gallery promote a
set of artists and if they don’t poach each other and if we have enough number
of galleries in this country, and above all if we have enough number of
patrons, then there would be a different cultural ethos taking place in this
country. Now in the name of art business we are not doing business. What we do
is monopolizing markets. If a country produces reactionary artists then the
reason should be sought in the very ethics and ethos of culture production itself.
If you look at the history of the Stuckists in London you will come to know how
monopoly gives birth to reactionary art.
(JML- Hyper Masculine Radical Imposture Turned into a Marketing Middleman- Picture by Somu Desai-2009)
United Art
Fair 2012 is an attempt to set a few parameters where the caste system could be
beautifully represented and collapsed at the same time. We would like to
highlight the fact that there should be more and more galleries in this country
catering to different tastes. As one of my artist friends says, it is not that
with recession all the liquidity of this country has drained itself into the
Arabian Sea. It is still there. People are still enjoying money and the
comforts that it brings. But the patrons with money have lost trust in art
because art market during the boom years has shown the worst form of greed and
gluttony.’ We shall overcome this situation by highlighting the need for more
visibility for artists and demanding the need for more galleries with
multifarious aesthetic approaches and their determination to promote their
artists to both the national and international art platforms. United Art Fair
2012 aspires to create this situation because we believe in god but not in
caste system.
6 comments:
1)Indian Art Scene is based on personal relation
not on creativity.
2)कलाकार तांत्रिक वैश्वीकरण की हम बात करते है, आन्तरिक की नही।
3)कला में सांप्रदायिकता दिखाती है, तब मन उचाट्सा जाता है,कलाकार सांप्रदायिक हो जाता है तब और अघात लगता है।
ell written and true
The fact of the matter is What'WE' doing about it..we just shut ourselves behind the glass windows to write or paint or do whatever instead of keeping in touch with actual conflicts, easily being extremely radical about what we do..we are more of Salon Artists..sitting in most artistic & refined place to discuss socialism with no idea of bringing into being.
very few have courage to comment like this,it should be an eye opener to bra-hminical art galleries and writers.
hey! this is cool! enjoyed your writting!
One India , call one rupees as same One India , one writer who write with talk...
telling truth like vomiting during pregnancy ..let born new idea with new hope
Post a Comment