Death of Curators and the Demise of Indian Galleries

(Indian Pavilion Venice Biennale 2019- Shakuntala Kulkarni's work. All the images in this article are for representational purpose only)

‘Who is a curator?’ asks one of my students from Baroda. It is always good to answer questions than enter into a conversation for the sake of it. Of late, people in the art scene have been hearing a lot about the ‘tyranny’ of curators or rather ‘tyrannical curators’ who make artists work according to their whims and fancies. However, the truth is a majority of the curators in the world do not enjoy such despotic power. Having an insider’s view on things, I could assert that a tyrannical curator is one who works ‘for’ the ideological and financial policies of the institution in which he/she is a part of or hired for a specific project. An independent curator has only a moral right to implement his own agenda and it is not necessary that the artists agree to it completely. But there are always artists who would like to work with a curator of their choice or liking because the curator must be a highly respected personality in the art and cultural scene or must be attached to an indisputable organization. If artists prefer to work with an up and coming independent curator, it must be because the artists find the curatorial idea quite irresistible or the artists themselves must be demanding curatorial platforms to get established in the art scene.

The idea of tyrannical curators is a myth and as I said before the tyranny is a reflected ideology and power of the institution on the curators. Once they are out of job or projects they are not considered that important in the whole scheme of things. According to Pablo Helguvera, the US based Mexican artist and commentator on the international art scene, curators stand just above the artists in the hierarchy, a hierarchy that posits the artists as producers of market(able) products and the museum director holds the apex position. As we know in these days Museum Directors belong to the corporations or trusts that run a museum. If it is a state owned museum often the directors come as a part of the political strategy of the ruling dispensation and the directors themselves shadow curate most of the projects for keep their political ideology intact and also to prevent radical ruptures showing up in the cultural narratives that they want to create. Powerful curators from all over the world are closely attached to the institutions so that the global dominant visual cultural narrative would not go haywire and there will be an apparently decentralized presence that could easily hide the centrist hold over all the projects that ensure the perpetuation of the ideas of cultural capitalism.

(From Venice Biennale 2019)

The grand illusion of tyrannical curators falls flat when the politically driven institutions collapse the role divisions that exist between the museum director, curators, consultants, in-house and hired executives so on and so forth. The Indian Pavilion in the 2019 Venice Biennale is the best example for these carefully erased demarcating lines. It is officially an Indian Pavilion but the Director of the executing agency, the NGMA-D does not play a pivotal role in deciding the artists and the art works. He becomes a silent facilitator of the projects that are exhibited in the Indian Pavilion. The private agency that has undertaken the job of planning, devising and executing the projects has gone by their favorites but definitely in the line that has been drawn silently by the director who has clear instructions from the cultural minister regarding the image that has to be projected about the country in an international platform like the Venice Biennale. It is curious to know that even the private agency that has done a big job in this case has not declared anyone as the curator of the Pavilion while the in-house and hired curators are present at the Pavilion during the opening of the project. That means the people involved in the Indian Pavilion know where they have to draw the line and never cross it. It is an extremely defeated game that has not brought any prestige to the country.

Coming back to the initial question of the curatorial tyranny, I would say that only the independent curators who choose the right kind of institution that would support them can only do justice what he/she thinks in terms of a curatorial project. Only at the ideological level that a curator could show the way and it is not advisable at all that the curator dictates the artistic creation or suggests the possible materials to be used in the production of the works. There are two ways of approaching this; one, the curator could select the artists who are already doing works of art that reflect the curatorial idea in many levels. It is an ideal situation. Two, the curator could invite artists to a project and ask them to reflect on the curatorial idea the way they want, in their style, in their chosen materials. The only condition that the independent curators could put at this stage is about the technicalities involved in the display. In an independent project, the burden of display comes often on the shoulders of the curator. He/she is responsible for arranging the basic facilities for the display, obviously with the help of the institution that he/she is working with/for in the project. If the institution is incapable of providing certain technical support, then the curator should definitely inform the artists regarding this so that the artists could devise different strategies in the very making of the works.

(Jitish Kallat's work from Venice Biennale 2019)

Curatorial ideas are not only challenging for the curators themselves but also for the artists. Though people vaguely make comparisons between film making and curatorial work, in reality they are extremely different. Film making is a collaborative project with a director at the helm of affairs. The actors and technicians are not given complete freehand in their respective works. There is a directorial intervention in the very aspect of film making. But in the case of an exhibition, the curator is not like a film director. Curator cannot ask an artist to behave/produce in a certain way. If at all there is a comparison, curator is more like an editor who arranges the materials using a peculiar logic of his/her own so that different works gel well in the given context. Unlike in a film where all components are driving towards the totality of it, an exhibition project does not necessarily create a single point narrative. The components of an exhibition could stand differently, creating different interpretational directions and also destabilizing the curatorial logic. In the case of a solo exhibition perhaps, a singular narrative could be created using a curatorial idea and a willing artist. But when we come to the mega shows curators function more like editor-technicians than like directors who have total control over everything. Institutions and institutional directors take over the final product of a mega show while curators are relegated to facilitators’ positions.

Institutions or no institutions, some artists are extremely particular about their works and the ways in which they are to be seen and shown to the public. They are not just being control freaks but their idea of displaying their works for the public means a lot of self-curatorial decisions. They overlook or undercut the curatorial decisions often and come up with ideas of display which eventually the curators have to succumb to. That happens only when the artists are super stars and the curators are just paid laborers in the institutions (such super star artists will not work with independent curators if they are not supported by huge institutions). However, when the curator is also a super star like Okwui Enwezor or Hans Ulrich Obrist and they join hands with international brand platforms things change for better; both the parties will consider walking half way to each other. Such shows actually make differences in the global art scene while the Indian Pavilion in Venice Biennale like makes no impact anywhere.

(from Venice Biennale 2019- Ashim Purkayastha and Nandlal Bose)

Curators could have been holding a lot of power in the art scene provided if the very ideation process was not bought cheaply. The biggest culprits in collapsing the curatorial interventions in the Indian art scene are the gallerists, who started hiring the curators from here, there and everywhere thinking that they would bring investors to their galleries. A lot of curatorial talents were cut to size and rendered backroom executives. Many were given hopes and became managers of art events in the galleries. Itinerant curators were brought in thinking that their names would help the exhibitions. At when things went really weird, in the vaudevillian charade the gallerists themselves started doing the curators’ mantle. If curatorial projects are killed in India, the whole responsibility should go on the shoulders of the gallerists who lacked sophistication, grace and cosmopolitan outlook. If one of the biggest corporations in India, through its double museums and unquestionable art collection has taken over the Indian art scene making the rest of the galleries working overtime to please the founder director of that institution, none but the gallerists have to be blamed. They killed curatorial interventions and in the process killed the young and upcoming curators. History will not let them go scot-free. That’s why, even in the latest KMB edition when the curator developed a conflict with the organizers none stood by the curator because all the curators have been working in the galleries as executives making negotiations with the KMB management to get their in-house artists to be a part of the KMB’s forthcoming editions.

Considering the market realities and the contemporary history, I do not see any prospects of changing the monopoly or loosening its hold over all the collaterals in the Indian art scene. The present day galleries will be reduced to ‘viewing rooms’ or the gallerists will become consultants for these monopolies. When the monopolizing organization cannot showcase all what they deal with in the market, these galleries will be functioning as the local showrooms for the biggest ‘maker’ of visual art culture. The signs are already there; the art journals have been reduced to single edition events during the Art Fairs. Art Galleries have stopped having regular exhibitions. Former star artists are reduced to the present day shame. Within the confusing political narrative and the confused economy, the gallerists have found it safe to go with the dominant ideology than showing any trace of resistance. Most of the self-declared progressive artists have their names in the payrolls of the monopoly institution. It’s not a doomsday prophesying but waking you up into the dawn of a stark reality. There is only one way out. Believe in your art and live your life. The ones who are at the mercy of the galleries and the monopoly now neither have any belief left in them nor do they live their lives; they just wear good clothes and smile therefore they are.