This is the last article in the series that I have been
writing during the last twelve days on the curatorial projects realized by the
cub curators in Baroda. For me, the project, ‘Magic of Making’ was an
exceptional experience because it gave me an opportunity to work with a set of
very vibrant students at the Fine Arts Faculty, MSU, Baroda. When I commenced
my lectures on 11th September 2017, I had no clue about the
direction that this module would take. But towards the end of my lecture on the
first day itself I could understand that here was an interesting and interested
lot of students who were enthusiastic about realising certain curatorial
projects of and on their own. For the students the phrase ‘curatorial practice’
did not ring in any surprises which had done to me as a student quarter of a
century back in the same faculty. Today students are familiar with various
kinds of curatorial practices though they do not have any hands on experience
in it. To my surprise I found at least a couple of students who were directly
or indirectly involved in curatorial practice elsewhere. I did not find
students were approaching the lectures with some kind of anxiety or scepticism.
In this series of articles I have explained how the students developed their
projects and curated them successfully. What I could say as a preamble to a
concluding article is that today I stand more benefitted by my interactions
with these students than they are. My students may dispute it but I am
extremely thankful to them for surprising not only me but the department and the
faculty as a whole with the enthusiasm and determination to realize their
projects.
There were eighteen curatorial projects in total of which I
have written in detail only about ten projects. I would have continued in the
same vein had those other projects been by the first year MVA students. The
reason why I do not want to write about the projects done by the first year
students is this that they have one more year to go in the faculty and as a
teacher if I give them a sort of high praise perhaps it would go directly into
their heads and it would proved detrimental to the guide who would go there to
initiate them into the final year module of curatorial practice. If they
believe that whatever they have done in this year along with the final year
students are good enough to be passed off as rounded curatorial projects, then
their chances of working on much developed and mature concepts in the next year
would be less. I do not put them into the self congratulatory mode not because
that is a sort of ego checking mechanism but also because the projects that the
junior students have taken up to realize this year were not conceptually mature
in fact. When I was in the class I did not put them through the rigour that I
had forced on to the senior students mainly because I knew for sure that those
projects were just a warming up exercise for the next year. Whether it is me
who would teach them next year or another teacher with another methodology, it
is imperative for them to have a very fresh approach in the next year. They
should never feel that they have done their best and they ‘know’ it.
 |
| Ryan Bhegra, Dhara Mayavat, Leticia Alvares, Hiral Patel |
The biggest folly that a (cub) curator could commit is his/her
belief in a singular model and in a time tested method. A curator is a person
(a facilitator, a mediator, an ideologue, a collaborator, a co-creator and a
creator in him/herself) who is presented with newer challenges every day.
He/she has to face a new artist, a new work of an established artist whose
style and method are well known but the one in your hands is entirely different
and you need a different approach altogether, new space, new context, new
understanding, new infrastructure, new bureaucracy and so on. So a curator
cannot insist that ‘I am so and so, therefore I would be doing like this only.’
Such a person would be an utter failure. Similarly, a cub curator him/herself
believes that he/she has done something in twelve days and has got appreciation
from seniors, scholars and well wishers therefore he/she could curate a project
in no time is definitely digging his/her professional grave, ‘professionally’.
Always remember that what a curator has done within the campus is a campus
project and not a ‘real’ one out in the world where you have to have a series
of encounters with unsympathetic elements in the art scene. Overconfidence
could finish your confidence itself in the real world. Another important what
all the cub curators should remember is this: what you have done in the campus
is one of the modules out of the many other modules that you study. Having done
a curatorial project does not assure you any place automatically in the
curators’ world elsewhere. Out of the twenty or twenty four students, all are
not expected to become ‘curators’ even if they have done the module very well.
It all depends on the choice that the students make. There are a number of
avenues opened by the art history education; curatorial practice is one of
them. And mind you, there is no money in it until you become a big name in the
scene.
 |
| Sheetal Rathod |
It is time for me, however to say a few good words about the
junior students who have done some impressive projects. I am not going to go
into the details of it. But an overview of these projects would give the
readers an idea about the promises that these students make for the next year.
Sheetal Rathod remained a very enigmatic student throughout the concept
presentations and the debates. She hardly spoke up her ideas but she finally
came up with a quick fix idea, which perhaps worked well for her. Sheetal
wanted to do ‘Wisdom Tree’ and the tree was developed out of a ply board which
she fixed at the entrance to the foyer of the Art History department. She
painted a tree like form and provided the people with the sticky notes. The
audience could contribute their wisdom and slowly and steadily the ‘tree’ grew
and the fruits of wisdom were hanging from it. It was a successful project by
default (I saw an opposite to Chandni’s Rhetoricity which had a high dose of
idea behind it) and cannot be qualified as a fully developed curatorial
project. Dhara came from architecture background and she has been studying the
re-adaptation of the historical buildings in and around Baroda for some time. She
wanted to present the photographs of these buildings. Besides she wanted to
work with a few artists who drew such architectures. Somehow she could not
manage the drawings and what she could do maximum was exhibiting the
photographs of the re-adapted old buildings. Curatorially speaking this project
was not meeting the high expectations of the concept had offered.
 |
| Nishith Mehta |
Nishith Mehta had a very interesting concept and called it
‘Sanima/Cinema’. His idea was to develop a parallel narrative that resembled to
the sentimental narratives of a typical Bollywood movie using the film posters.
Only thing that stood between Nishith and the project was the dearth of original
posters that really wanted to build his narratives. The time was not enough for
him to run around and source posters from the rare poster collections. Hence he
decided to stick to the posters available in the net and put them together into
a video format and supported it with Bollywood background music (BGM) and
sharply cut silences. This project would have become a museum scale project had
Nishith worked on it more diligently, with more research and resource. The
result was unsatisfactory though as a first step it was impressive. Abhi who
goes by this first name had so many ideas and little will power to realise
them. However, he put his resources together to create a wall of contemporary
works’ images with a central statement made by Harold Rosenberg: “A
historically ignorant art have not better claim for attention than an economist
who haven’t heard of market crash.” Abhi’s basic argument in the project titled
‘P square’ was that any work of art has a referential point in history or the
history of another work of art. To prove him point, he arranged a brief lecture
by Dr.Jayaram Poduval on the same subject. Realized on the side wall of the art
history department building this project however did not attract people due to
unimpressive visual presence. That area where students this time chose for
putting up their projects thinking that there would be more foot fall seemed to
be jinxed in a way.
 |
| Marzanah Mimi |
Marzanah Mimi from
Bangladesh curated one of the most visually impressive performances/ Happening
art in her project titled ‘Hues of Pride’. Mimi wanted to curate the idea of
the colours of her country where each colour sari was used for expressing
certain seasons and certain national festivals and celebrations. Mimi wanted to
recreate the feel of her country through saris worn by the girls/models. She
was sceptical about getting her models but finally she could manage around
fifteen of them and did an impressive show and in due course she doubled
herself up as a curator as well as a performer. Sachin Ryan did a plain ‘print
making’ show with three friends of his working in the printmaking department.
Three female printmaking students who worked in the same hall got Ryan’s
curatorial attention and he converted their studio into an exhibition space and
called the project ‘Three Printmakers’, as plain as that. This project could
have been a wonderfully developed on had the curator been a bit more serious
about what he was doing. Moksha Kumar had a grand idea that involved six LCD
television screens, a dark room and a performance. Her concept was interesting
and the project was taking shape but somehow she grew cold feet and withdrew
from doing it. Finally she came up with a one time performance with a poetic
enactment of a commemorative poetry on death and life. Poorvi Sultania and Gopi
Shah partnered together to curate a project titled ‘How are You?’ which became
a successful project with its interactive nature and playfulness. But how far
it went successfully curatorially was questionable as it did not seem to
elevate itself beyond a festival fair stall with some curious game. However, I
should appreciate their diligence in completing all the curatorial formalities.
 |
| Poorvi Sultania and Gopi Shah |
 |
| Moksha Kumar |
Any curatorial project owes its success at least twenty five
percent to the background players. They may not be seen in the final display of
the project works or they may not even have a direct hand in the curatorial
idea but their curatorial inputs are invaluable. We could call them assistant
curators who perhaps could grow into curators of their rights in future. I had
four students who did a lot for the other cub curators but could not or did not
do their projects. Mohammed Rafiyan from Sri Lanka was one student who strongly
believed that he was not prepared to do a curatorial module. I did not want to
force him either for I knew well that unpreparedness is a part of dislocation
and readjustment. He was taking his time to adjust with the new educational
system, language and so many other components. But Rafiyan soon grew into one
of the most reliable curatorial assistants and his contribution was there in
every project that the other cub curators did. So was the case of Dwip Aher,
who had a wonderful idea but I discouraged him from doing it. Dwip’s curatorial
idea involved a sort of an enactment of a very uncomfortable scene where I also
should have been a willing partner without the knowledge of the rest of the
class. He wanted to secretly register the reactions of the other students and
see whether it could explain his ideas on social justice and humanity. But
somehow, so many tender human emotions were involved in it (as he discussed
with me privately I could not say no or say yes either) and I did not want to
risk anything. Dwip, however gracefully repositioned himself as a curatorial
assistant and helped most of the cub curators in realising their project.
 |
| Dwip Aher |
 |
| Prajakta Bhogle Gaekwad |
 |
| Mohamed Rafiyan |
Prakhar Vidyarthi had a project in hand and also he knew how
to go about it. The project was a about the ‘idea of space’ and how different
people ‘materialized it’ when they were asked to do so. As a student with a
background in architecture, he knew what he wanted to do. But in the discussion
table itself the other curators shot him down saying that his project would not
make a visually impressive one. Prakhar went back and did some ground work for
a couple of days and came back and accepted before the class that they were
right. So now he would be doing a much scaled up project within three months
within the campus. Prajakta Bhogle Gaekwad is another first year student though
had a project in her hand but took a backstage player’s position willingly. As
a designer and graphic artist with experience in advertising, Prajakta took the responsibility of styling the curatorial projects and giving them an
identity through colour coding and a sort of branding. She worked efficiently to design the invitation cards and posters, besides making a common
format for printing concept and curatorial notes separately. She took up the
responsibility of inviting the chief guest and the press and got a good
coverage for the event/s which otherwise would have been passed off as a
college affair. I should also congratulate Dr. Jayaram Poduval for giving
freehand to me and to my students and supporting it throughout especially in
overcoming bureaucratic hurdles in obtaining permissions and releasing a modest
students’ fund. Ravi Kadam, the assistant in the department was throughout
there do the important errands including the logistics and lighting. Jitto
George, Shubhankar, Father Antony and Tarushikha, the PhD students and
aspirants were there with their angelic presence instilling confidence and
cheerfulness in all. To put it in nutshell, it was a wonderful experience of
teaching and learning.
No comments:
Post a Comment