As an Indian let me use an analogy which is close to my
cultural consciousness to underline the relationship between an art gallerist
or an art expo organiser and a work of art being sent to him/her/them for
exhibition; it is of a marriage in a traditional Indian family. Here the artist
is the father/mother of the work of art/daughter whose hand is given in trust.
Deeds are written and signed and witnesses are brought in. The whole world is
informed of this marriage through a reception ceremony or the wedding function
itself with fantastic feasts. As far as works of art are concerned the deeds
brokered and signed between the gallerist/organizer and the
artist/father/mother. Exhibition opening party is the wedding ceremony and the
post-opening is the fabulous feasts thrown to honour the bride and bridegroom
as well as the guests. In this whole affair, the role of a curator is that of a
marriage broker who cannot be held for anything that follows in the married
life of the couple or their relatives for the role of a broker ends once the
match is fixed and solemnized, and the stipulated amount for ‘fixing’ the
marriage is handed over to the broker/s.
I went into this long preamble drawing an analogy between
art exhibitions and the Indian marriages because recently my beloved expatriate
artist friend Waswo X Waswo informed me of an ongoing debate/rather a possible
legal tussle between the administration of the reputed art organization, Bharat
Bhavan, Bhopal and a whole lot of artists from various parts of India,
incidentally led by Waswo for all his good intentions (It is to be noted that while
most of the Indian artists succumbed to the pressures of the head load workers’
unions in Kerala in 2015 March towards the end of the second edition of the KMB
to cough up exorbitant amounts for transporting the works from the sites, it
was Waswo who protest by breaking his works of art which in fact sparked off a
series of cultural debates in Kerala. In the year 2011, sculptor
K.S.Radhakrishnan had taken a similar firm stance towards the trade unions in
Trivandrum, Kerala and finally the Labour Department Secretary sent him a
letter of apology along with a cheque for the amount that he had paid). Bharat
Bhavan was planning to organize the 7th Bharat Bhavan Biennale which
was to be held in April 2013. There was entry fee (non-refundable and
irrespective of selection) and also it was agreed up on that the returning of
the works was the responsibility of the organization. The organization failed
to send the works, if at all they sent, they did it in ‘to pay’ mode forcing
unsuspecting artists to pay up to the couriers. Aggrieved artists have now come
together in a social media platform, Gallery Fail, created by Waswo. A cursory
look at the page proves how many skeletons and worms are there in the cupboards
and cans of the art organizations.
(Bharat Bhavan, Bhopal)
The story, as evident from the facebook page as well as from
our own personal experiences is not new at all. Perhaps, it is a pioneering
effort of the artists to raise an issue in a given platform, surprisingly not
shying away from naming and shaming the people involved in such acts of ‘betrayal’,
means not returning the works of the artists after the use. Now let us analyse
this phenomenon and also see how exactly this practice of not returning the
works might have originated (perhaps, in any art scene). For an artist, many
decades before it became a full time profession which paid, his/her works of
art were the love of their creative lives which demanded the places for
exposition. Hence, showing the works were along with a brochure was far more
important than selling those works and making a living out of it. It had
happened not only in the urban areas but also in the town and rural areas.
Artists lived, worked and exhibited in all these places. However, when they
brought these works to exhibit in urban centres like Lalit Kala Akademi and AIFACS
in Delhi or Jehangir Gallery in Mumbai or the Artists’ Centre in Kolkata, they
expected some kind of sales and most of the sales happened on the last days of
the show, which in turn were not really sales but ‘clearing sales or distress
sales’. Artists from the previous generations know what I am talking about
(even some of the present generation artists too know this). Dealers,
collectors and other art people swoop down during the last days of the show and
make hard bargaining with the artists and take the works for one fourth of the
quoted prices. Artists, in a highly distressed conditions were forced to make
clearance sales or in case of no(n)-sale, they would consign the works with
some city based galleries who might have already made their rounds and done
some agreement on consignment with the artists. That means, most of the artists
left their works either by selling them for throw away prices or leaving them
as consignments, trusting the gallerists not only for the money but also for
the safe return of them after the consignment period. One could imagine, in
those days with snail mail and land phoning as the only ways of communication,
most of the artists might have lost track of their works due to the
disinterestedness of the gallerists or their sheer disappearance. Yet another
lot would think of collecting them in the coming years which perhaps would
never come. And still another group would think of those works with a sense of
relief feeling that they could clear their small living spaces of these works.
Many art dealers, gallerists and art people have made a
little money out those works or in rare chances might have made huge fortunes
provided the said artist became a hot property in the later years. In most
cases, these works find their ways to the city’s famous (notorious too) second
hand markets as junk, when the gallerists themselves clear their spaces and ‘divest
the bad stock’. With the arrival of professionalism especially after the
globalization process of Indian economy, well spelt contracts have been written
and moreover mutual trusts are developed between artists and galleries or art
organizations. That means, when the artist gives the works in consignment to an
organizer or to a gallery, the legal system of the country is only partially
mentioned or the accountability of this deed is limited to the parties who
enter into the contract; that means, there is no social contract as in the case
of a marriage. When profit is made out of works of art and when it is shared
between the organizer/gallerist and the artist/s it is not made into public (only
auction houses make the amounts transacted public). Only when the contract is
breached and words are not kept, the artists become aggrieved parties. When,
the artist knows that the gallery is still power and there is a possibility of
it bringing benefits in future, then he/she would keep quite on what happened
to their previous contracts. In the case of Bharat Bhavan and Lalit Kala
Akademy, they are not profit making organizations nor do they offer a sales
profit to the artists (at times they do. In the case of Bharat Bhavan, it is
alleged that they have taken Rs.500/- as entry fee. Considering the number of
artists applied, it must be a huge amount), they take the courage to express it
in public, which we see in Gallery Fail facebook page.
(Waswo x Waswo)
Had there been no money involved in this transaction between
the Bharat Bhavan and the artists, I would not have seen it as a major offence
instead I would have thought about it as a bureaucratic callousness which India
is famous for. Here, as the organization has promised sending back the works to
the artists on its own expenses and also the organization has made huge money
in the form of entry fee/application fee, the failure of the organization to
return the works to the artists reeks of corruption, which has to be probed
legally. I believe that Bharat Bhavan is an autonomous organization yet it is
not beyond the laws of the land. There should be a ministerial level probe on
to this and it should be immediately brought into the notice of the state
authorities and also to the notice of the Ministry of Culture, Government of India.
Public accountability of the galleries and organization is still a thing which
is not thought of in our country. Perhaps in the case of establishments like
LKA, people have lost interest in them completely and whatever happens none in
the artists community even looks at that side (the best example is that the
Central LKA galleries are locked up for the last one month and nobody in Delhi
art seems to have even taken notice of it). As we lack a clear cultural policy
for our country and if at all some policy moves are seen here and there, due to
heavy politicking, always such positions of decision making are handled by
incompetent political bigwigs or cultural people with political connections.
Here I need to quote Ramachandra Guha extensively. In his
latest book titled ‘Democrats and Dissents’ he writes in the already famous
chapter, ‘Eight Threats to Freedom of Expression in India’: “I come now to my
eighth and final threat to freedom of expression. This is constituted by
careerist or ideologically driven writers..... “
“In India tragically, too many writers, scholars, artists
and editors identify with a single party or even with a single politician, this
association leading to the suppressing of facts or the twisting of opinions.
This betrayal-a harsh word that seems entirely justified here-occurs all across
the spectrum....”
“Party affiliations also lead to selective outrage, whereby
writers and artists focus on some threats to freedom of expression while
ignoring others. The left-wing group SAHMAT campaigned vigorously on M.F.Husain’s
behalf, but stayed strangely silent on the treatment of Taslima Nasrin by the
Left Front Government in West Bengal....”
“....The Prime Minister himself does not appear to think
that intellectuals, writers and artists contribute much to society, and this
hostility to independent thinking and thinkers goes right down the line.”
(pages 36, 37, 39)
(Ramachandra Guha, Historian and Author)
What Guha says is absolutely is the reason for the
callousness shown by the galleries and art organizations that have close
affinities with politicians or political parties. When the Prime Minister
himself thinks that anybody could head the intellectual organizations, then
things cannot be different in this country. Look at the artists who have
responded this issue of non-returning works by the organizations. Even for the
sake of expressing solidarity, the leading artists in this country have not
responded to the issue because if they do their associations with the galleries
and the government could be jeopardized. However, I feel that it is pertinent
raise this issue in all the possible platforms and eke out a response from the
authorities and whoever is responsible for doing such callous act or for the
shoddy treatment of the artists and the works of art. The major reason for most
of the big wigs keeping off from this issue is mainly because that they feel
that the entry to the 7th Bharat Bhavan Biennale was done willingly
by the artists and the ensuing problems should be handled individually because
the contract is between them and the organizations. They are justified in
believing so because their agreement with their galleries and organizations are
absolutely professional and they are never cheated or betrayed by the
organizations and galleries.
So far, this issue remains the issue of those artists who
are not ‘established’ personalities. Anything could be done to these people
because nobody is going to hold anybody accountable. The artists are so
dispersed in locations and so disparate in tastes that no two artists are going
to find a common cause to fight for, the organizations know. This state of
things should be changed. There should be some kind of accountability and legal
holding for both these artists and the galleries and organisations. Experts
should think of it further.
(Gallery Fail in Facebook)
I will close long piece of article by recounting a personal experience
regarding the non-return of the works of art. In 2012, I was the Project
Director of the now defunct United Art Fair, Delhi. In this high energy
program, young artists in India participated as if it was their own Art Fair.
They all had entered a personal agreement with the management in which I was
not a signatory. Due to many reasons, while the UAF brand was established it
could not make a commercial profit. The management failed to send the works
back to the artists (by the time I had resigned from the organization). Many
young artists accused me of not taking responsibility of giving their works
back. Technically and practically it was impossible for me as a person to coax
the management to do the needful. The failure of the UAF to live up to the
artists expectations as far as their works were concerned damaged the
reputation of the UAF and it couldn’t survive a second edition (reasons are
many but it is not the occasion to discuss all that). Time and again I have been
asked whether it was my duty to send the works back to the artists. I have the
works that had come to my shows even fifteen years back. The artists have never
demanded them. I never had any reason to keep them with me. But fifteen years
back, in the absence of an art market, curator driven shows were done in
agreement with the artists who had promised to take the works back personally
once the exhibition is done. If at all I have a few old rolls somewhere in my
studio, they are all willingly left by the artists.
Let me go back to the marriage analogy. In the case of
Bharat Bhavan, it looks like a broken marriage. The mutual trust has been
broken. The girl has not come back to the parents’ house. She is languishing
somewhere in the limbo in the bridegroom’s house. To make matters worse, the
bridegroom’s parents are asking money to send the girl back. It amounts to
dowry harassment. It should be tackled legally. Now, what would a marriage
broker do in a divorce case?
No comments:
Post a Comment