Baroda based young curator and art writer (why I say art
writer because even if one has a degree in art history and criticism he/she
becomes an art historian or critic only when practices the discipline serious
for some years and gains considerable authority in the process) Bhasha Mewar
asks me this pivotal question: “It is hard to assimilate theory, modernism,
structuralism, postmodern or any critical works with actual praxis. I would
love to be more than just a descriptive writer and curator and really work on
things that feel meaningful, although I am still quite a formalist (loving Raza
and Rothko). So should I stick to my aesthetic predispositions or should I
scratch the surface more?
Bhasha Mewar is no ordinary art writer; besides holding an
art history degree she has a clinical psychology background as well as
expertise in French pedagogical streams. A question of the above mentioned sort
coming from this young curator/art writer amuses me a lot because she should
have by this found out an answer to her own doubts as she is better equipped to
answer those questions than anybody else. However, as this question is put to
me, let me make an attempt to see what have been the reasons for this young
professional’s ethical and existential troubles. I understand her question in
the following manner: Mewar finds a considerable amount of disparity between
theory and practice. She just doesn’t want another writer who ‘describes’
works. But she loves formalism. Should she be making an effort to go beyond
what her heart tells?
Hoping that this is what Mewar has meant by her question I
would say this is a rupture/division/break that has been present in most of the
young professionals in the formative years. They find a lot of discrepancies
between what has been learned and what they are supposed to practice or to see
as practiced by people around. This, to begin with I would say is an
occupational hazard. It is not just an art critic’s dilemma, it is the dilemma
of many a professional. Compare the heartburn/break of a doctor who is trained
to do some exceptional works finding him/herself caught in the typical
bureaucratic conundrum that kills not only the spirit of the artist but also
renders the expertise of the doctor obsolete. But eventually the doctor has to
find a way; instead of complaining, she has to approach the situation with a
new perspective. It is not by appeasing the corrupt system but by finding
avenues where the system itself could be done away with and could establish a
new system of/to practice.
The schism between theory and practice has this perennial and
primordial philosophical question to back it up sufficiently. Some believe that
theory is derived out of practice and some hold that practice is an offshoot of
theory. Both are right in many ways. Sometimes theories are developed out of
hypothetical projections based on the inferences made out of the existing
knowledge or experience. At other times theories are made out of specific
practices. Seen from a practitioners’ perspective, theories presupposes
practice and only by observing a considerable set of practices one could come
up with theories. That means both theory and practice exists in an
indispensible mutuality. That also means one presupposes the other and the
possibilities of canceling out each other are remote in their existence. This
also makes us to consider the fact that both theory and practice maintain their
autonomy giving birth to a situation where they could give an impression that
they could mutually discard and carry on with their independent existence. This
autonomy of theory as well as practice had taken away the organic relationship they
had with each and almost become stencil format which could be applied to any
situation so that fancy derivations could have been done. In practice it becomes
style and in theory it becomes a school.
The danger of such autonomy could bring forth a situation
where theory could develop a sort of practice independent of a practice which
has its basis in skill, aesthetics, craft and general world and cultural views.
The autonomy of practice could bring forth such jaded expressions that do not
have any grounding in theoretical premises so that the practice could make
contributions in the advancement of culture or cultural practices. The
arrogance of mutual exclusion of theory and practice has been the hallmark of
postmodern liberals they have shown some kind of charlatanism. This trickery
makes theory so complicated and unachievable as well as inaccessible which in
turn imparts it with some sort of authority, gravity, respectability and
exclusivity. That’s why we see some people who are theoretically
auto-reproducing types and are happy about their replication sans coitus pleasure
and general aesthetics accompanies it. The same trickery makes art also
exclusive as such kind of art pretends that it is overloaded with theory or the
art is made out of theory. The same trickery could be seen in the case of
autonomous art, again showing prowess in self-reproducibility so that more than
coitus pleasure imparts the sense of a hatchery via incubation process. So on
the one side we have Raqs Media Collective and on the other we have a whole of
Buddha and other generic spiritual painters.
Seeing this diversity, it is quite natural for a young
practitioner of criticism and curatorial practice to come to a conclusion that
he/she is neither for the one nor for the other. Or he/she has all the chances
to think that while one pursues theory for the sake of it, he/she inadvertently
abandons the first love; that is art, which is, the formal values of art and
aesthetics. And on the other hand when one follows art while throwing the
bundle of theories into dust bin and goes around like a naïve and divinely
inspired artist, one feels the amount of injustice one inflicts upon the
society in the name of art. And possibilities are there these parties feeling
this eerie sensation of earth moving under their feet. And what happens such
feeling of instability occurs in one’s creative/professional life. It would
cause a sense of schism/ a rupture/ a break. One starts feeling that he/she is
two different beings while the former loves theory the latter actively rejects
the same and vice versa.
This is caused by a tremendous sense of indigestion. One
lives a divided life when it comes to the life of a critic or curator, which
shouldn’t be the case with a real professional. In the case of a critic or a
curator neither theory nor practice should take an upper hand as Shakespeare
had put it ‘would lose both’. What does one do to overcome such a situation? My
answer is that one should stop being two at a time. The schism caused by the
over-determining nature of either theory or practice should be done away with
first of all and the person should be able to see oneself as a wholesome being
who does feel that theory too is art and art too is theory. And in the professional
critic or curator this should not be working from two different faculties of
his/her personality. The person in his waking hours and sleep as well should
remain a wholesome personality who uses both theory and practice in understanding
the premises within which a work of art is created and is understood,
interpreted and disseminated. Once that oneness is achieved then art and theory
wouldn’t look like two different entities.
In India and elsewhere the false notion of a theoretical art
and non-theoretical art has been spread in such a rampant fashion that many
students and young practitioners feel themselves terribly inadequate to
practice both. Many artists have become hugely pretentious by employing half
baked theories in their practices and many theorists have become terribly
boring by employing much misunderstood art to explain their theories. They have
created a coterie all over the world and via this they have created a new
Brahminism; Brahminism that prevents people from understanding knowledge and
aesthetics. Ignorance of the general public (or the public made ignorant by
such art and theoretical practices) prevents them from asking questions. When
questions are not asked, the arrogance of authority (of art and practice) could
be exerted and a niche market economy could be developed around it. Keeping
masses out of the practices is one way the capitalists employ in making them
consumers. The consumers are never given either the ingredients or the
technical know-how (otherwise every household would be making coco cola and
pepsi).
Art critics and curators of the young kind should have faith
in themselves. If they are theoretically sound they should use the knowledge to
discard the chaff and save the grain. They should not make their knowledge to
pass of chaff as grain as many do today. If they love aesthetical expressions
devoid of theoretical burden, they should be using their theoretical
understanding to historicize such aesthetics so that it could be put back to
the social parlance of aesthetics rather than leaving them as unattended creations.
Once the unity of personality that does not find theory and practicing mutually
conflicting entities but as contributory streams, is achieved, the curators and
critics could enjoy both theory and practice because in theory there is
practice and in practice there is theory. May be the artist just doesn’t know
that but the difference is the curator or critic knows it.
(all pics for representational purpose only. source net)
No comments:
Post a Comment