When the Artists Graduate into Stupidity

In the party, he looks so excited. Someone who just had a huge exhibition in one of the major galleries in an important city should look elated for these days such opportunities do not come so easy and fast the way it used to be half a decade back. The opportunities for the mid-career artists these days do not flow; they trickle in as if the power that disburses opportunities to the artists were the stingiest thing on the earth or heavens. Hence, I could accept his bravado, back patting and all those concerned and animated conversations with ‘raga patronize’ as the predominant tune. He was thanking me profusely for ‘coming back’ to the art scene. I have been tired of singing back the song of ‘for that I hadn’t gone anywhere’ so I kept quiet and returned the grace with a very humble smile. One good thing about me is this: I could be very humble and at the same time look absolutely disdainful. Two decades in Delhi have taught me enough histrionics to survive in the polite society (and as we all know polite societies are the most pretentious societies in the world. Politeness here does not come naturally. As Oscar Wild would have put it; when two polite people meet in a party, a third one’s dignity is ravaged).

Our friend, swigging red wine which the maker of it was making every polite member of the society drink with some persuasive force on shoulders and elbows, came back to me with a swagger in his walk and obviously he was feeling he was on cloud nine. Something has really happened to him, I tell myself. He once again throws his hand across my shoulder, takes a patronizing look at my face with a smirk on his lips and tells me, ‘I missed you a lot.’ I know that he is talking about the opening of his exhibition which I have failed to attend. ‘You see, you should not have gone back to Kerala,’ he tells me. Man, Yes, I was in Kerala for six months and for the last five months I have been back in Delhi, a fact definitely my friend has missed to notice. In polite societies it is a fad to say, ‘it has been ages that we met last’. There is some amount of sadism in saying this. One may be away from the polite society because of many reasons including health issues, which none wants to discuss in public. But those who rush into you with ‘it has been ages…’ statement want to derive a lot of sadistic pleasure at your discomfiture. ‘Look at your new wig. You look so cute in it. How is your chemo going?’ That’s the level of concern.

 (Pablo Picasso in front of Guernica)

‘You are one of the most important art historians in India,’ my friend says. I could do nothing but nod in affirmation. ‘I would have asked you to curate my show but you were doing politics in Kerala. And you left art history for politics,’ he continues. I smile at him this time thinking whether I should punch on his nose or maintain my saintly act for some more time and I decide for the latter. ‘You see,’ my patronizing friend continues, ‘what is there in art and politics? How can you tie these two things together at the same yoke? You were foolish to have left art. We lost a great art historian,’ he concludes. So here we are; the scene is established like this. I am dead and gone. My corpse is on a mat and people stream in. My friend comes in with a wreath which has a note saying, ‘You were great but You left us so early.’ Now in the memorial service he would give a very flowery speech that would make my decaying body turn inside the grave out of shame and embarrassment.

I wake myself up from my reverie. He has gone to other groups with his wine and patronizing smile. I could see him bobbing in and out of the groups depending on his own acceptability within those groups. He is not the only one who thinks that art and politics are two different things. They all understand art as something exclusive and politics, another exclusive entity. That means they have neither understood art nor politics. In fact they have not understood Picasso or Andy Warhol, to take two examples from the modern world art history which are oft quoted to prove anybody’s point in art. For artists like my friend, politics is something that has a uniform, an ideology, a flag, a few leaders, lot of followers, power, money, corruption and all other paraphernalia that accompanies political power. They are those people who could see only the two dimensions of life and society. They are the people who have not developed the sixth sense. They think that politics is corruption or something ‘dirty’ which all the polite people should shun. For them art is something exclusive, done in studios, discussed between peer groups, presented in high society, sold and bought by the rich and affluent. For them artists are perennial strugglers of spirit and the great creators who stand apart from the vulgar society and live a good and comfortable life.

(Andy Warhol in front of his work)

I come back to Picasso and Andy Warhol. You like it or not, Picasso was a Communist. When we say the word ‘communist’, we think about the emaciated farmer and laborer in the rural or urban places. We imagine the people who carry bags full of books and complaints and work amongst the downtrodden. True, the communists have done all these and they still do. But a communist does not need to be an emaciated person himself. A film maker could be a communist, a musician could be one, an artist, a writer, a poet, a playwright, an actor- anybody could be a communist. His or her wealth is not what defines him as a communist but his politics. John Milton, the great British poet had once said, ‘those who also serve who stand and stare’. A communist could join the force of the people’s movement through his works without jeopardizing his wealth or creativity. But his activities should not be in conflict with his own conscience. Leo Tolstoy was a baron. But he left everything to become a people’s writer. Rabindranath Tagore could have been a successful businessman. But he decided to become a creator. He too was a communist. Picasso was a communist because he shared the communist ideals and he worked for the people. Take the great triumvirate of Mexico- Orozco, Rivera and Siqueiros; they too were communists. They were political. Their party affiliation never stopped them from being great artists.

Now let’s take the case of Andy Warhol. He was a capitalist. Capitalism is another political and economic ideology that seeks world supremacy through accumulation of wealth and distribution of war. Andy Warhol represented this ideology and in turn he represented the politics of capitalism and his artistic greatness was in that he satirized all those symbolisms that catered to the proliferation of the capitalist and the counter capitalist ideologies. Warhol knew the great power of money making. But at the same time he did not attached much importance to money. He said, business was a great form of art. It was another way of look at art. If business is art and how can it be away from politics? Andy Warhol made serigraphy prints of world famous vamps and internationally acclaimed political leaders. He treated with the same reverence as he would treat a Campbell soup can or peas can or a dollar bill. He moved around with unknown beauties drunken high in the spirit of fame and money and their growing object status. Andy Warhol was a politician amongst the existentialists and an existentialist amongst the politicians.

 (J.Swaminathan)

Closer to home we have artists like Chittoprasad, Zainul Abdeen and Somnath Hore who were declared communist sympathizers. So was the case of the photographer Sunil Janah. Most of the artists during first half of the 20^th century were overtly political. Nandlal Bose was a Congress sympathizer. K.G.Subramanyan started off as a communist and became a Gandhian. He involved himself in the rural crafts movement in India just like any other policy maker would do. J.Swaminathan was a communist and he lived the life of a revolutionary; and in their attempt to find an alternative India, they went in search of the rural realities of the country only to land on an egalitarian abstraction, a trap perhaps K.G.S did not fall into. Francis Newton Souza was a communist and that’s why his group was called the ‘Progressive Artists Group’ or the Bombay Progressives. All those progressive movements in India were political in nature. Even today most of the creative people maintain political ideology and when they get a chance they come down to the fields of action and work. It is not necessary for them to behave like a stereotypical politician. Somehow, in the visual arts in India, many of the contemporary artists like my friend think that politics is something that should be kept outside. Outside where?

My friend thinks that my activism in my village for six months has ‘finished’ the art historian and critic in me. He in his patronizing self emphasizes that he would have ‘asked’ me to curate his show and write his book had I not been involved in politics. I have never had a chance of meeting the embodiment of ignorance in my life so far till he gave me one. I read it in this way; either my affiliation with a political party would have proved detrimental for his ‘show’ if he had invited me to curate it or my political activism, in his eyes, had rendered me a non-art historian or non-art critic. In short, he believes that anybody of my ‘talent’ if gets into political activism ceases to be ‘talented’ therefore useless. I did not try to explain any of these to him because I had stopped debating with the ignoramus since my Kochi Biennale debate met with abuses than logical arguments. I have stopped explaining myself to people. However, when I decided to join a political party and work in the rural area, I had clearly stated that it was a part of my efforts to see ‘art and aesthetical’ components within the ground level political activism. I had also stated that it was my response to the contemporary artists’ apathy towards the socio-political developments in our country. My political work was/is a part of my personal research into the lives of people and I believe without which an art historian or any kind of historian in this world cannot survive. If I am not working on ground that does not mean that I stopped to be an activist. If I am working there that does not mean that I ceased to be an art historian either. Only a fool like my friend could tell me at my face that my political activism has marred my ‘chances’ to be there in the ‘thriving’ art scene in India. I do not have any qualms to call such artists and their works ‘stupid’. And they remain that.  

What I Say When K.S.Radhakrishnan Turns Sixty Years Old

(Sculptor K.S.Radhakrishnan cutting his 60th Birthday cake at the Ojas Art Gallery, New Delhi)

Internationally acclaimed sculptor K.S.Radhakrishnan turned sixty years old yesterday. I did not ask him how it felt; the transition from fifty nine to sixty. If asked about age most of the people would say, ‘Age is just a number,’ or ‘age is in one’s thinking’ and so on so forth. If I had asked K.S.Radhakrishnan, he would have said something in his characteristic style; ‘The transition is just like a day turning into night and again a day, natural and beautiful. Have you seen how the molten bronze of the setting sun is poured into the mould of horizon and on the next morning a new sun coming out of it? It feels exactly the same.’ He would not have chosen any other analogy for expressing his views on ageing as his art comes out of the moulds into which he pours the molten bronze. Thirty five long years he did the same, almost resisting the temptations or pressures of working in other mediums. Ram Kinkar Baij was his Guru and Sarbari Roy Chowdhury was his mentor; however, while making no distinctions between them, he chose the medium practiced by the latter than the gravel throwing gleefully practiced by the former.

In Kerala, from where K.S.Radhakrishnan hails, turning sixty is a ‘historical’ moment in everybody’s life. They call it ‘Shashtipurthy’ (completion of sixty years); next milestone is ‘Navati’ (completion of Ninety years). After that a person is called ‘Poornakaman’ (one who has fulfilled all the duties and desires in life). If so the intervening thirty years between sixty and ninety, for a person there must be still duties and desires to fulfill. Not really so. In the Indian way of life, sixty years is a milestone because by this age, one would have fulfilled the familial duties and it is the time to think about leaving the ‘urban’ life and entering into the phase of ‘vanaprastha’ (living in forest). In those days, living in forest did mean that shedding of worldly desires. In forest, once again you become one with the nature. Your duties are not to the forest/nature and your desires are not different from those of the nature. You could be accompanied by your wife but you should leave the domestic pleasures behind. Then as you age further, you take up Sannyasa (penance for redemption). What develops in one’s mind during the years of Vanaprastha becomes the phase of wisdom when one embraces sannyasa. Then one is on the way to nirvana/moksha/deliverance/redemption.

(Ojas Art Gallery director Anubhav Nath and Sanjoy Roy of JLF cheering the KSR couple)

We no longer live in those old days. At the age of sixty, people are still young. The celebrities in our society supply us with examples of good, healthy and youthful living. So they say, sixty is the new forty. What could be the forty then, the new twenties? Then what would be the present twenty, ten or five? Health care and education have helped people increase their living age. But is it necessary to grow in the reverse order? Why should one be forty when one is sixty? One could be sixty and still be sixty, live sixty and feel sixty and there is no parameter how one should feel and live at the age of sixty. If you are healthy you could live a healthy and vigorous life. If your body is not coping with the desires in your mind, then definitely you could slow down. Always hark to what the body and the mind have to say unto you. Sixty is a beautiful age when a normal householder starts his journey to the path of wisdom. It is so ridiculous to see people coloring their hair, pumping iron and wear ill fitting clothes just to look young even at an advanced age. There is a grace in ageing and there are so many advantages in growing in age. If we grow in reverse process the earth will be a living hell. All the old people will behave like young people and all the youngsters will behave like kids. A young society does not mean  a society that behaves young. A young society means a healthy one both in mind and body.

The biggest advantage of growing old is the slow waning of competition with oneself and the world. But for that one has to accept the age. All the new age gurus tell people that they should set up parameters for excelling in their own fields and these parameters should be raised at each step. When you are ready to age, you no longer feel the need to raise these parameters of excellence. You are happy in what you are. You need not dress for the society but you could dress for your comfort. You need not brag about anything because the very idea of bragging would sound useless after certain age. The moment one fulfills the duties and desires even within the domestic front, then he/she would never feel the need to fulfill any other duties elsewhere. The primary aim of a living being is to be happy and healthy. One need not become a social worker; one need not become a philanthropist after the age of sixty. One could just think about one’s own happiness. I am not preaching selfishness here. The moment one looks after his/her comforts and happiness after removing the idea of competition from the minds, then rest of the world would take care of itself. When you do not splurge on food, you leave a lot of food for others. When you do not squander your money, a lot of money is left for others. When you do not indulge in money making projects, others automatically get chance to involve in them and build their lives.

(KSR with his trusted Studio team)

A calm and collected society could be generated only when we accept the ageing process. Look at the people who exhort the semi-literate fringe population in our societies to take up cudgel against other human beings in the name of politics and religion or vice versa , we could see most of them are good old gentlemen. What are they trying to achieve by building a mosque or a temple? What are they going to achieve by wrenching political power in the name of an ideology? Are they going to serve the young and growing population in our country? Are these young people really interested in such things? In fact, the young people have started taking a hostile attitude against the older people not just because of the Freudian psychological reasons but because they find these oldies as a hindrance for their movement upwards in the social scale. If the people were ageing gracefully and paving way for the youngsters, then the world would have been much better, calmer and devoid of strife. It is so sad to see the old people occupying the social space in the name of organizations and communities and leaving no space for the youngsters to express their opinions or act out. If a pair of young lovers hold hands, it is not really the young people who get offended, but the moral ideologies spread out by the oldies. If they let the lovers to be lovers and let them hold hands or kiss in public, then the world would have been a better place. We say that three fourths of the Indian population is young and also a majority is living in the cities. There too we see the old men pointing guns at the heads of the youngsters and asking them to behave. What an irony it is!

When I say this, I do not demand the old people to go to the forest and cease to exist. What I say here is that after the age of sixty they should be thinking only about themselves. They need not become presidents and secretaries or cultural wing advisers of the local residency associations even. Most of the people do this because they want to be active and still hold on to some kind of power. Why don’t they instead tend the garden, look at the flowers, read, write, sing, create art, meditate, go for long vacations and give space to the young populations to make the world a better place? The old people with their age and experience, wealth and fame in their hands should focus completely on their happiness and comfort. They should become gurus of the society. It is the most ridiculous sight in the world to see an old man pretending to be very young. One could be young at heart and in thoughts. But those things should be expressed in their choicest mediums and they should not be in confrontation with the ideas and expressions, however immature they look. Old people could lead the march by making way for the youngsters to march on.

 (KSR with the 'rare' art collector Parimal Roy)

Sixty as we have seen earlier should not be treated as new forty. This is the falsification of the consumerist society. The corporates that make consumer products, health care products and life style apparatuses want more and more people addicted to be those things. For that the people should be told that they look young, vibrant, sexy and sexual even in their old age. This false notion makes them to strive for an imaginary youthfulness and even after achieving it through health care and exercise and spending money over the products, they are made to believe that the more they become youthful the more they become desirable. None in the world wants to be undesirable. They want to be desired by others and also they want to be useful in the world. But in my view, the best way to be useful for the world and still desirous and desirable is to pave way for the new people to come in. One need not do it deliberately by eschewing life or creativity. One should just do what one could do best. If you are a sixty year old dancer you should dance to the satisfaction of your heart and mind. You should not stop some other dancer getting a chance in showcasing their talents on a stage. You should be the guru who gives a platform by seeing their talent from your own abode of doing. You no longer need to practice. You just need to be in. The world will follow your dance. If you are a singer the world will follow your song.  If you are a sculptor the world will wait for your new sculpture.

Do not believe in the idea of sixty being the new forty. It is the trick of the celebrities who are simply the stooges of the corporate markets. They are the bodies through which the market economy sends its ideas across. Good life is healthy and happy life. Good life is when you do the things that you want to do irrespective of your age. Good life is when you become the inspiration for many. Good life is when the others see your life worth following. And I see that in Radhakrishnan’s life. A person who has no competition with anybody, a sculptor who promotes other talents, a human being who does not push himself onto any platform and a guru who has wise sayings for the seeking people- that’s K.S.Radhakrishnan for me and for many others. A few friends who attended the sixtieth birthday celebrations of K.S.Radhakrishnan at the Ojas Art Gallery, New Delhi asked me whether he turned ‘only’ sixty yesterday. Some of them thought he was much more than that. K.S.Radhakrishnan exudes the aura of a wise man, of a guru, a caring human being, a welcoming host, a smiling savant and an inspired creator. He cannot be thirty, he cannot be forty, he cannot be fifty, not even sixty. Like the Zen masters he should be ageless in ageing. K.S.Radhakrishan is one such Zen master amidst us. Happy I am for being with him and in the vicinity of his wisdom.  

My Name is Kalam Patua and I am not a Vernacular Artist

(Kalam Patua with his works - file photo. Source Net- all pics)

Far away from Delhi’s busy streets, towards the end of South Delhi, at Anandgram where the Sanskriti Foundation is located a small ‘retrospective’ is on. The word retrospective brings an elaborate display, a huge catalogue and somewhat crowded gallery spaces into our minds. But in the multipurpose gallery of the Sanskriti Foundation, West Bengal based Kalam Patua’s retrospective does not evoke such grandeur but each work displayed there proves that it is not the visual grandeur nor is the lighting techniques that make a work of art worth focusing on. The simplicity of Kalam Patua’s carefully learnt and traditionally earned Kalighat and Patua styles of painting respectively enchant the viewer. Curated by Jyotindra Jain, the master art historian of Indian folk and traditional arts, this retrospective of Kalam Patua is titled ‘From the Interstices of the City II’ and is mounted as a part of the collaborative efforts undertaken by the India Art Fair ‘in supporting their endeavor to include contemporary voices from the sphere of the Indian vernacular art practices’ (in the words of O.P.Jain, director of Sanskriti Foundation).

 (all works illustrated here by Kalam Patua)

Those who have visited the India Art Fair must not have forgotten the exquisite display of the Kalighat paintings at the Delhi Art Gallery pavilion and also the curiosity evoking arrangement of late 19^th century Company School art from the Swaraj Foundation. Ever since the Poddars shifted their gear of their art collection from the contemporary to the folk and traditional (thanks to the global interest in ethnic art as a part of reconciling with the colonial atrocities and also as a part of co-optation of the ethnical into the mainstream as an untapped source of creativity once disparaged and now much valued for their intricate expressive qualities besides the anthropological, ritualistic and sociological values) there have been frantic efforts from other collectors and galleries to showcase and promote the pre-modern and post-Mughal art as well as traditional and folk art from different parts of India, qualified as the ‘contemporary vernacular’ or vice versa. A new found interest in the Gond painters shown by both the new and old galleries in the urban centers stands evidence to the fact that ethnical art has not lost out to the contemporary expressions yet; perhaps that day is not too far that the contemporary is displaced by the ethnic and vernacular.

When the India Art Fair takes interest in supporting the vernacular art in India, this should be seen as a welcoming move and at the same we should know that it is not just the philanthropic edge that is visible here but the emerging market’s interest in co-opting all what is distinct and still operative from without the mainstream economic structure built around art works and their makers. Kalam Patua however has been around for quarter of a century as an artist with considerable patronage from institutions as well as individuals. Born in Murshidabad, West Bengal, Kalam Patua got his training in painting ‘pat chitra’, scroll paintings as it was his family tradition and gained considerable fan following and patronage from the rural folk and the professional story tellers. His fame brought him an assignment from the French Cultural Center, Alliance Francaise in 1990, to depict the history of French Revolution in the Pata style.

In 1995, Kalam Patua came across the original Kalighat paintings and spent considerable time in learning the techniques. Once he gained the required finesse he chose to paint in Kalighat style that in pat chitra style. But the dexterity of the Patuas, traditional scroll painters, to adopt contemporary issues in their paintings helped Kalam Patua also to pick up the contemporary issues in Kalighat style, which in fact had dealt with contemporary issues of the mid-late 19^th century in West Bengal in general and Calcutta in particular. Initially Kalam Patua was an accomplished copy artist of the traditional Kalighat paintings, which he happily did for his clients. However, once he started working on the contemporary themes, the irony and humor of the Kalighat paintings remained along with the style in him but he almost pushed the old Kalighat painterly themes behind. But the spirit and the referential depths of Kalighat kept coming back to his works as he reworked many traditional themes typical to Kalighat paintings in the contemporary context.

Kalighat paintings, thematically speaking were the representations of the degeneration of the aristocracy and also the rise of the greedy middle class. While the Bengali literature of the mid to late 19^th century dealt with the changes in the socio-political life a bit seriously, often highlighting the tragedy of an impending collapse of the social structure and also the aggression of the political resistance combined with the deliberate attempts to erase class and caste by the educated class while keeping the cultural standards high, the Kalighat painters were looking at the emerging socio-political and economic scenario in more acerbically witty terms. “Kalighat painting stemmed from the changing world of nineteenth-century Kolkata, where traditional techniques of painting, iconographies, and art practices in general co-mingled with Mughal court culture, Sanskrit Drama, the proscenium stage, and swiftly churned out images from photo studios and lithographic presses in the fast growing urban center, transforming folk art into popular genres”, observes Jyotindra Jain in the catalogue.

The popularity of the Kalighat paintings could be rightly attributed to the transformation that had been happening to most of the art forms in the hands of the local artists who in fact became the meeting points of the various styles floating in the society, as pointed out by Dr.Jain. However at the same time, the thematic of these paintings also must be a reason for their popularity for the content of these paintings always had suggestive erotic connotations and were dripping mostly with scandal and gossip, which were popular and prevalent in those days. Kalighat paintings seemed to have shared a populist affinity with the elitist cartoons that used to appear not only in the British press but also in the vernacular press. Illustration for the literary works, posters for the theatre and also the racy narratives for the emerging literate class also might have triggered the Kalighat painters to make their works ‘vulgar’ (popular) and appealing to the mass.

In retrospective, in the case of Bazaar sort of art, which Kalighat painting obviously was, elements of populism, which are often connected to corporeal pleasures and thrills including clandestine affairs, extra marital sex, lives of the entertaining women (courtesans), scandalous affairs, murders and so on, were a pre-requisite. Hence the idea of refinement for the subject matter was not the primary concern of the Kalighat artists, which interestingly was not the case of the Pata painters who worked more on religious mythologies with due seriousness and folk-ish playfulness or even later the case was in their treatment of contemporary issues like the assassination of political leaders, terrorists attacks and natural calamities. When Kalam Patua paints his Kalighat style works, what we see is not the raunchiness of the Kalighat painters on the contrary a refined sense of irony and humor without losing the perspective of the subject matter that he is handling. This I believe is because of his grounding in the pata chitra style and techniques.

There is a fundamental difference between Kalam Patua and the other painters who work in the Kalighat style. Kalam Patua is serious in his treatment without leaving the humor part aside. The humor is subtle and intelligent. For example, when he paints the Birth of Postal Service in Germany based on some literary source (as a tribute to his own life for thirty years as a post master in rural Bengal), what we see is a master working, just like a miniaturist in Mughal court with seriousness and complexities required to the subject. The literary source is not followed to the dot but it is altered for the pictorial purpose by compressing too many scenes into one and breaking the linear perception generally required viewing a painting. The same sense of seriousness and lightness could be seen in his India International Centre series, which he had been commissioned by the trustees. Those who have visited the IIC once, could really see how ‘realistic’ he is in his works and those who have not seen the IIC also could enjoy exactly the way the Goan life is enjoyed by people who have never been to Goa but have seen the visual renderings of late Mario Miranda.

Kalam Patua is an artist who is innovative yet anchored in tradition. He lets himself to travel to different subject matters but the adherence with tradition that he observes in his works makes him attached to the conventions of the Kalighat paintings and their themes. He paints a contemporary domestic occurrence which has erotic undertones. Even if he has a chance to break the conventions and remain within the style of Kalighat paintings, Kalam Patua does not attempt to do so. Hence, such scenes still have the traces of Radha-Krishna love games, the notorious Elokeshi-Mahant affair, the arrogant Brahmin’s pretentions and the lecherous middle aged men. As I mentioned before, Kalighat paintings while being the meeting point of several styles and emerging social realities they also thrived on the degenerative tendencies of the social life in Bengal, which was aspirational and self-defeating at the same time. Perhaps, the contemporary Kalighat painting as practiced by Kalam Patua also stems from the current degeneration of the contemporary society perhaps selectively and intelligently seen by the artist himself. The market of Kalighat paintings was initially limited to the vicinities of the Kalighat temple in Kolkata but it moved from there to the houses of patrons. Now the market has expanded and Kalam Patua has become a part of that extended market. I wish he would also be treated one day as the way the Singh Sisters are treated (as contemporary artists who use Persian and Mughal miniature styles). 

Cracks Showing Up in the India Art Fair: Make it People’s Platform to Survive

Has the India Art Fair transformed in terms of quality and quantity? Has it become a spectacle and ritual than being a real business platform for the Indian art? With the culmination of the eighth edition of the India Art Fair, a very prestigious brand created by Neha Kirpal in 2008, we need to ask some disturbing questions and also need to find some futuristic answers. During the first three editions, India Art Fair was India Art Summit and as the name suggests the thrust was on the ideological and academic discourse of the Indian contemporary art. It was an egalitarian platform that sought critical and art historical discourse to provide adequate philosophical and spiritual backup to the works of art so that they could be converted into pure commodities. Art is fundamentally a commodity that is patronized by the rich and the affluent but that commodity part is always played down deliberately by all those people who involve in the art scene. It is a very egalitarian view because certain things have to be understood rather than spoken about. Art is one of them. A work of art gains its value in a collector’s drawing not because of the amount that he or she has paid for acquiring it but because of the cultural value involved in that unique piece finer human expression. The money is always understood but never overstated. If someone does, then just be sure it is all about the speaker’s ill-confidence, snobbishness and the lack of refinement.

Since 2008, our discourses of art and its market have considerably been changed. The academic involvement has become one of the complimentary and supplementary events within the main narrative of the India Art Fair. The move was clear and unapologetic when the Summit adopted the name fair with the deserving flair. The India Art Summit moving from Pragati Maidan to the NSIC Grounds in Okhla was not only a locational shift but also it marked the shift in the ideology of the fair and its directors. Neha Kirpal started speaking about the kind of art that she was presenting and the kind of market that these art forms were creating. There was a clear aspiration to become international than cherishing a national identity. The move was right as far as the market realities were concerned. Involving the same company that made the Frieze Art Fair pavilion for making the India Art Fair pavilion itself was a potential statement of it growing to the international standards. The money in the art market was allegedly focused on the South East Asian countries and the arrival of the European galleries, in hind sight was their effort to cash in on the market existed there. Ironically, though it was said, China was leading in the Asian market for Art, it was not taking much interest in the India Art Fair. Despite the repeated visits of the Chinese delegations, neither Chinese art nor the Chinese artists become so big in the market this side of the world despite the influence that many Chinese artists had exerted on the Indian artists.

(Neha Kirpal, director of the IAF)

The shift in focus which was forced upon the India Art Fair during the last two editions and becoming more concentrated on the ‘south east Asian’ parlance (though the organizers flaunt it as a gain) reflects a very grave market reality; that is, the international art scene or art market is not really interested in the contemporary art from India or other countries of this region. Hence, it is necessary for this region to develop its own fairs and market for survival. While the international market cater to the Indian modernism or rather the modernism from the sub-continent, may be because of crass repetitions and imitations, the contemporary art has fallen out of favor in the international art market. Deliberation in inflating the prices of Indian contemporary art works during the boom years definitely is one of the reasons why today our mid-career artists (erstwhile heroes) relegated to small time galleries as just paintings and custom made works. Anyway that falling from grace cannot be used as a stick to beat the contemporary artists; they were part of the system that exploited them and their works for monetary gains though they were willing participants to this game of exploitation. So what we see today in the India Art Fair is the last ditch effort to prop up a market for the contemporary art from the South East Asian region. We have to accept this fact with some amount of humility.

Most of the people who visited the India Art Fair 2016 were talking about the spacious lay out of the fair. Spaciousness directly translates into the reduction in the number of the participating galleries. From the 90 odd galleries in the last two years, the number has considerably come down to seventy and most of the European galleries and some of the Indian galleries have expressed their unwillingness to participate in the India Art Fair. That does not mean that they all have grown hostile to the India Art Fair. They all remain friends with the India Art Fair but the market realities make them opt out of the present fair. The platitudes like they are preparing for the fair in Dubai or Dhaka should not be taken for face value. It is the sheer lack of funds and it is like saving for the harder days. The chest thumping and posturing of these non-participating galleries who still behave as the patrons of the India Art Fair is pathetically funny. They can openly say that the India Art Fair is not getting business for them. And accepting that would help the fair to plan it differently and realistically.

Now consider the spaciousness in isolation. It is fantastic; the viewers get enough room to see the works. The areas to sit and relax are also spacious. Three tents have more vacant spaces than the booths. That is not a good picture. Now let’s come down to the fact of the organizers of the fair distributing booths for museums in India like Bhau Daji Lad Museum in Mumbai and Kiran Nadar Museum in Delhi. And look at the special projects jointly supported by the galleries and the IAF management. There were around 17 such projects. There is a huge space taken by the Delhi Art Gallery on the third tent (Hall number three). There are so many booths for magazines and other business partners. If you calculate all these spaces and compare them with the spaces actually sold to the galleries, one will get a very grim scenario. Almost thirty percent of the whole space is used for charity purpose. It is not a bad thing if we look at it from a humanitarian point of view. But from a business point of view this sheer ‘misuse’ of the space is not so rosy. The shrinkage is bound to increase in the coming editions provided the art fair organizers do some serious brainstorming about the future of the India Art Fair.

There are a few things that I would like to suggest for the sake of the public and if interested the organizers also could take some clues from my views for bettering the future of the India Art Fair. I was there on all the four days. The fair opened on a weekday (Thursday). There was a special preview (VVIP Preview) at 11 am. The visit was lower than expected. The auto major BMW is one of the prime partners of the fair and it had arranged plus BMW car for ferrying the VVIPs from the gate to the Pavilion. (One should know, this is not to provide a cosy ride to the VVIP clients, but it is a different way of marketing a high end luxury car by giving a short term feel of the qualities of the car through quick ride from one gate to the other). But I did not see these cars ferrying in VVIPs. The VIP preview was at 3 pm. The footfall was still not picking up. Towards the end of the day the halls were full of familiar people from the art scene, all having VIP passes (arranged, looted, threatened and taken, begged, forged and so on) and were high on wine. I did not see many VIPs moving around. Perhaps, I lack the eyes of identifying a VIP. On the second day the pull was a little more. I could see potential buyers walking in, making deals and bidding good bye to the artists. On Saturday, it was completely the ordinary man’s day. On Sunday people said there will be a larger haul. But at 3 pm in the afternoon (a time auspicious for the beginning of rush hours in such expos on the last day) the halls were still empty and the streets leading to the halls were scantily populated. At the reception desk and the ticket counter executives were yawning. The security men were sad for the lack of action.

What was the real reason for that? Let me start with the media in Delhi. People go for an event when it is adequately covered. The major newspapers in Delhi covered the India Art Fair on a daily basis. What they covered was however not exciting enough. Most of the journalists were either parroting the press releases or choosing the same works as the press releases said. Some journalists were looking for exciting pieces of work and they really did not have the eyes to make a choice. Some of them were highlighting some kind of radical art which unfortunately were not visually catching. In short the whole reports came during the three days of the events (four days including the curtain raiser) were full of details with non-exciting illustrations. The public were not pulled in. There were not many showman’s pieces. No huge names as in the case of last few years; Anish Kapoor, Ron Mueck, Subodh Gupta, Marina Abromovic and so on. K.S.Radhakrishnan’s works were exceptionally different and good. But somehow the newspapers failed in highlighting them. Even the large scale works of Paresh Maity did not get enough attention even if for the wrong reasons.

Moving from the news reports to the ticket price, I would say that the poorer sections of the art community stayed away from the art fair mainly because the ticket price was so high. There used to be a time when students from different cities came with their backpacks and waited for someone at the gate to give them passes or they could some how afford those ticket prices. With Rs.500 per ticket, most of the students did not even plan their trip to the fair. The northern winter cultural corridor extending from Jaipur (literature festival) to Udaipur Music festival to Delhi’s India Art Fair also remained sort of dry this year as I could not see many foreign nationals paying a visit at the India Art Fair. I could see a lot of Indian boys and girls trying hard to look like foreigners in their own land of birth and failing miserably. Another major drawback is the usual suspects in the seminars. Generally seminars are attended by the student crowd or the academic crowd. But who will pay such high ticket prices to attend the seminar. Once you are inside the venue of the India Art Fair, one cannot eat or drink because everything is priced sky high. Why should we pay tax for a glass of water? The local crowd and the student crowd will not only stay away but also turn against such venues if things go hopeless corporate in this way.

 (from IAF)

The driving philosophy has gone fundamentally wrong with the India Art Fair. But there is still time to correct it. If you look at it closely, it is still working on the Brahminical basis. The well known galleries such as Chemould, Nature Morte, Vadehra, SKE, Lakeeren, Experimenter Kolkata, Grosvenor and so on are given the prime place (I do not know the economics of it. May be there is another economic side to it). Automatically people are supposed to believe that they show the best kind of art. And the best kind of art this time is also the worst kind of art. Most of the works of art looked not up to the mark. I do not know how many art collectors are going to buy the works of Shilpa Gupta, Michelangelo Pistelletto, Daniel Burin and all (I am not criticizing the gallery Continua from Italy). While these galleries occupy the prime place, the actual action is happening elsewhere. Smaller galleries make brisk business and most of the people are in those booths. Why so? Is it because the people in this country (including the buyers) do not understand the kind of art in the major galleries or the major galleries do not give any damn to such people because they are here to make contacts with corporate houses and museums that could accommodate those high end and large works?

While India Art Fair basks in the reflected glory of these few galleries and artists whose names are internationally known, the fair organizers forget to acknowledge the fact that if the people of a place reject a fair, however much financial back up it has, it will not be able to stand. In the US itself people have resisted the super markets like Walmart from their counties so they had to shut shop from there. It is unfortunate that the fair organizers think that these biggies represent Indian art. No, they do not. They represent Indian art and artists who are internationally known via an economic root. It is nothing else. Look at the Gallery Espace or the Guild Gallery. They have all the right ingredients and the contemporary artists. But they are largely neglected in whatever discourse of the India Art Fair. Is it because these galleries show the ‘bad’ art or bad artists? I do not think that they will agree with it. But it is unfortunate that contemporary art is still in the hands of a few, who in fact had contributed a lot in promoting the very same artists during the boom time and now reluctant to touch them with a barge pole. Further behind these galleries you see the smaller galleries with different kinds of works making good business. But their art is not talked about in the seminar halls or the discourse that the India Art Fair is instrumental in creating.

(from IAF)

How do you balance this imbalance in the India Art Fair and the answer to that would help India Art Fair to move from this edition to the next. For this India Art Fair has to make the participating galleries understand that this is not a platform to sell but to showcase their kind of art. And in that showcasing there cannot be very huge discriminations. The idea that one really does not make a buying or selling on an art fair platform, would help the people to focus on working on the business relationship and establishing brands of their own. Unfortunately, Neha Kirpal has been repeating the same fault for the last few years. She has been saying that the sales have been good. It is definitely not for her to say this. This statement should come from the galleries. Even if it does not come from the galleries, the galleries should be able to present a white paper to the IAF management within six months after the conclusion of the fair saying that they could garner a particular amount of business through or helped by the platform of IAF. This could come from the all the galleries that participate in the IAF editions. Based on this the succeeding edition should be promoted. Neha Kirpal is a space seller in the fundamental sense. She cannot speak for the aesthetics or the kind of sales happening in different galleries. If she speaks she should be speaking equally about Subodh Gupta and Shampa Sircar. When she is not ready to do that, and still treats the small galleries as space fillers, the truth of the fair will go down. The best remedy is to sell the space and let the galleries make their business relations than the actual business.

Once the India Art Fair becomes a business interface where relationships are made (like Cannes Film festival and auto expos where the product is not really sold but business commitments are sought) then there will be no difference between the higher galleries and the lower galleries. The proposal for booking should be based on a white paper issued by the IAF organizers. If we go by it, the next edition will be featuring more and more moderns and the selling contemporary artists. If business is the aim, it should be based on real figures, not on speculations. In my opinion, India Art Fair should leave the platform open for the galleries to show whatever they want (I am sure they do it even now) but make them aware that the business they do is not directly proportional to the ‘sales’ they do here. Let’s go by the other industrial expos. Auto expo is the best example; the people who come to see the cars do not buy it from there. They make their choices and go to a showroom to buy it. Dealers strike deals with the manufacturers. Companies make MoUs between franchises. Governments sign MoUs between governments. India Art Fair should take such a turn so that this petty bickering of selling from there and selling the ‘right’ thing wouldn’t be a problem. It would make the fair more varied and full of surprises. Now it looks like most of the front row galleries are presenting works which are meant to go to some museums. The buyer is predetermined. What’s the fun in such art?

 (IAF venue)

Lucky that there are not too many curators in this edition of the India Art Fair. Too many cooks spoil the broth. During the last few years where the project directors and curators were involved in the making of the shows, India Art Fair was a clumsy affair. Now it is really neat and clean. The other major factor that needs immediate attention is the seminars. It is a cruel thing to do seminars during the opening hours of the fair. In fact the seminars should be happening in terms of economics. It should be teaching the galleries and the buyers rather than discussing vague themes like ‘boundaries unlimited’, ‘partition experiences’ etc. It is a comedy that people discuss vegetarianism before a full non-vegetarian meal waiting to be consumed. What you talk there in the seminar halls should make some sense to the listeners when they come inside the booths. Most of the speakers are the ‘yes sayers’ of the market. It is ridiculous to see them pretending to be the soldiers of socialism.

The India Art Fair organisers could do one thing to save the grace of the speakers in these seminars. The seminars of the India Art Fair should start at least three days before the opening of the actual fair. It should be in one of the spaces like the NGMA or KNMA. It should be in democratically accessible places and there should not be any entry fee so that students and the young crowd could attend the sessions. Only because the BMW or Yes Bank or Absolut are the business partners and most of the executives as well as the artists come by car that does not mean that art is their property. It should be accessible to the people if the seminars are meant to be spreading democratic and humanitarian values. Bottles of water and basic tea and biscuits should be given free to the audience. The seminars should discuss the pointers of the ‘soon to be opened’ art fair so that people could engage with the works and the ideas discussed. There could be artists talk before the commencement of the fair. Academics should be treated with high respect and they should not be treated as jokers in a circus (now that is case. It is pathetic to see them grapple with ideas while people talk money in the next tent).

 (booth of Gallery Continua, Italy at the IAF)

If that is the case, the booths in the fair could be much more liberal spaces, where immediate selling would replace business deals and also whatever is displayed becomes eye candy for the visitors. The galleries could show their best pieces and the viewers could connect with exhibits as they have some kind of an intimation about what they are going to see. The fake show off of being important in this world shown by art people should be completely wiped off by the sheer presence of the art loving people coming back into the tents of the India Art Fair. People should come to the booths and ask questions to the artists while the business deals could be struck on the white leathered sofas. People would reject India Art Fair because they are no longer able to see the Indian works of art. The foreign galleries are deserting this platform because they know that the business of their wares is not really here. If there is a market for the moderns as evidenced by the present edition of the IAF (and also by the activities of the auction houses), then that is a marker for the growing interest in the provincial and the regional, and even the national. People will take interest in the works of art by our artists if they do the art of this earth. This does not mean that they should be ‘nationalistic’ and narrow in a parochial sense. They should be global by highlighting their local traits in their aesthetical expressions. How long are we going to produce our own Jeff Koons, our own Chapman Brothers, our own Tracy Emins and Shirin Neshats and Marina Abromovics and even our own Yoko Onos? Make our own contemporary art. Make our own global art. And be proud of being world citizens. Make art a part of the people, if not, the India Art Fair is bound to fail.    

City Lights 6: Culture and the City

Religion precedes the cities while culture succeeds them. A city does not bring culture as a predetermined or established entity; culture grows as the city grows and interestingly it never stops growing. Mechanical views on culture always posit it as something that has started at some point of time and consolidated over a period and remains static for the succeeding generations to pick up, emulate, choose, discard or use it as a touchstone for furthering their activities. Culture, as we understand today as a pack of finer sensibilities developed by the people in country, city or province, is not really a system of finer sensibilities deliberately articulated for the future use. In the final analysis culture is the common characteristics developed and distilled in and by a society, that continue in different forms till the present. Though sectarian thoughts of today have made us to think about culture as created differently by different groups of people in a society exclusive of each other, in reality a culture cannot exist in exclusivity unless it is militantly guarded by exclusionary practices.

Eating, drinking, dressing and anything related to the public and private practices of human beings in a society carry the traits of the cultural peculiarities of a particular place. The idea of culture or the manifestations of it that we see in a given place is the continuity as well as re-adaptations of the cultural practices existing elsewhere. In the process, most of these practices are improvised, refined, added and re-positioned in the social sphere, which become the part and parcel of the awareness and social consciousness of the people who live in that particular place. Therefore a country’s culture is not really different from the culture of the neighboring country though apparently they look different in their manifestations. The overlapping that is palpable in the cultures of the two countries stand as a proof for the intermingling, transition and transference of cultural practices in the geographically connected areas. Even if the countries are separated by a mountain or by sea, or even if they are racially and linguistically different, one could see certain identical threads that connect the birth and death rituals, which confirm the erstwhile connectivity of those different cultures.

Even if countries are disjointed by mountains and seas, commerce that had started ever since the settlement of human beings in certain regions on earth (and even before that the explosion of human race from the mythological and biological places of origin to other parts of the earth through nomadic activities), cultures have been in communication with the other cultures though in a surface they all look different and separated by disparate practices. Considering that the primary conditions that differentiate one social practice from the other therefore forcing the cultures look different are weather, geography, food habits and source of economy, we have to understand that the apparent differences in cultures are consolidated by the above mentioned conditions. As the distance between two places increases the customary practices and the resultant cultural outlook also change accordingly. However, fundamentally they remain the same.

If countries are different in cultural practices, provinces within the country also could look different with the change of climatic and geographical zones. Commerce and colonialism since the origin of history have made considerable contributions to the composite cultures within the same region. Mythology has played a very crucial role in making the culture of a country through the common thread of mythological stories. As I have argued in one of the early chapters, religions help the cities form around them therefore culture also gets focus in cities mainly because the mythologies that help the culture grow and connect with the provincial cultures originate from the religions. All the finer sensibilities interestingly are developed around the religions. Mythologies are created and performed through grammatical articulations of the same in different forms of expressions mainly in the city centers where the patronage for such expressions are often found. The same grammatically oriented cultures move from the cities to the rural areas losing the grip of grammar slowly and take the form of very daring cultural experiments. It does not mean that the rural areas are passive recipients of the urban cultural practices. They in turn also imbibe the beauty and rawness of the rural expressions in order to embellish the grammatically structured cultural expressions.

Those who understand the fact that culture is not an exclusionary practice but an inclusionary one that develops over a period of time and is practiced by various kinds of people in the same place, making their own views on it also understand the cultures of different places and of people should be respected and if need be taken into their own lives. A city becomes interesting to live in when all cultures are celebrated as a part of living continuity and other cultures are not disparaged or resisted. The culture of a city is not just about having a lot of avenues to express the finer sensibilities of the people who live there, on the contrary it is the same people’s ability to live harmoniously with various cultures and celebrate all of them with some kind of participatory zeal. Unfortunately, our cities have forgotten this basic lesson of having divergent and vibrant cultures. In an attempt to make the city life unified in a monotonous fashion, the state and the people who hold power in various strata of social life make one culture dominant over the other thereby creating schism between people who uphold cultures different from the dominant one.

A city is a conglomeration of different provinces and the provincial cultures also migrate with the people from the rural areas and fringes. One could say that it is the arrival of nature into the platform of culture or in other words we could say that it is the entry of grammar-less structures into the grammatical structures. These juxtapositions further result into a new culture where everyone finds a bit of their culture within the dominant one or in other terms, each culture looks dominant therefore adorable like the pages in an interesting novel. Each time we read one page we find it so important to be neglected; while it remains as an independent narrative in itself, it constitutes the larger cultural outlook of the city.

With religion becoming the defining factor in the cities culture becomes subservient to the domination of the religions and pertaining narratives. People mistake culture as refinement in social manners. While one could be very much refined in social manners he or she could harbor extremely retrogressive ideas about the culture. It could range from holding one culture over the other to the refusal to acknowledge rest of the cultures. A city is a cosmopolitan space where culture is being produced and reproduced. There are so many factors that influence the growth of the culture. It is not a static entity that remains unchanged with the time. The changes that influence the general culture of city and society make it a part of the universe and not too different from the people living elsewhere. One we understand that the cultures are not mutually exclusive, then we would learn to respect all what is foreign to us. The respect does not mean that subservience. The moment culture renders us to be a part of the universe we automatically become universal citizens devoid of nations and religions, and at the same time carrying the traits of the nations and religions that we happen to belong to. Being cultured does not mean that being refined in taste. Being culture however does mean that accepting the other cultures with reverence and love. Somewhere we lack in this understanding that’s why on the same platforms we respect the art forms from different places but just hate the people and their religion and nationalities. That’s why we make war with the same people who sing for us. The day we recognize that culture is not personal refinement but making our personal existence a part of the universal existence and realize it in our personal lives, we could call ourselves really cultured or having a culture of our own. Till then we will remain barbarians who could hold a champagne glass, talk elegantly and listen to Chopin while we dine well. 

City Lights 5: Lonely in the City

(Cindy Sherman; Lonely woman in the city)

Cities engender lonely people. Loneliness is the reigning character of any city. Perhaps, that is why most of the cities have a lot of lights, discotheques, cinema halls, malls, shopping centers and too many distractions. Each sparkling thing in the city is meant to distract people from their loneliness. Shrouded in their aloneness and lost in the streets even within the crowds, people struggle with their left- aloneness in various ways. Some anchor themselves in chanting scriptures, some read books, most of them look at the screens of their smart phones, some people involve in empty chats, some look vacantly into the thin air, some sleep off and if you look at the hands of the loneliest people, you could see them clutching on something as if that is the last straw that would save them from the impending doom. It could be a hook that hangs from the ceiling of a bus or a metro coach. It could be a fancy clutch, it could be a computer bag or it could even be a faded umbrella- they hold on to them with that mortal fear of losing themselves into the gaping hollows of existence in the city.

Lonely people are alike everywhere that’s why most of the city people look alike. They go for the same fashion and all of a sudden all the girls in a city would wear a particular color in certain cut. All the boys without any rhyme or reason would sport the same kind of hairstyle, wear same kind of trousers and even walk and talk in the same way as the other boys in any other city. In their likeness they immerse their identity and individuality because they are so afraid of being unique and they are so frightened to let their individuality to flourish. They avoid their extreme aloneness by becoming one amongst the crowd. They in turn believe that they are the trendiest of people in the city. It happens with the office going middle class and the working class people. In one season all of them would wear the same kind of sweater in the winder, the same kind of shirt in the summer. They would wear the same kind of sari, consume the same kind of food- all in order to escape from their loneliness. They want to identify themselves with other people in the city therefore they could just disappear and be a part of the crowd and feel safe.

Recognizing one’s individuality is the fiercest form of aloneness and exercising it needs a lot of courage. Cities generally do not allow people to be alone. If people are alone, they would start thinking for themselves. Lonely people will walk alone and stand alone. The state and the corporates that rule the cities are afraid of lonely people who walk and stand alone. Religions, organizations, establishments and all those edifices where the state has a hold ideologically are afraid of the lonely people. To keep the people engage and to kill their loneliness and aloneness the state always provides distractions in the forms of entertainment and consuming. Food, travel, cinema, music, books, art and everything these days are organized as group activities. People no longer walk into a restaurant alone and eat or drink silently in a corner. Rare are those people who do so and they definitely are treated as nut cases and somehow they are kept apart and aside, and none just wouldn’t mess up with them because they are lonely people therefore dangerous people. Most of us these days do not watch movies alone, listens to songs alone; everything needs some kind of a group activity whether it is reading a book or enjoying art.

In literature you would see people or individuals exercising their right to be alone or enjoy loneliness. There is a small difference between loneliness and aloneness. Loneliness is often understood as a forced thing on an individual and he/she is lonely because of certain social pressures or lack of confidence or even that person’s inability to make friends. Aloneness on the other hand is understood as some social positioning of the self and one prefers to be alone in a given situation or otherwise. Some people have a general disposition to be alone. Some people prefer to enjoy loneliness that need not necessarily be interpreted as melancholic demeanor. One could be absolutely happy in one’s loneliness and one could joyful or even blissful in one’s aloneness. Standing alone needs a lot of courage and cities often give the opportunity to be alone, walk alone, talk alone and live alone. The more it gives such opportunities the more it takes away the possibilities to enjoy or exercise such loneliness or aloneness. Through the mix match of opportunities and possibilities cities always allure a person to be alone and at the same time indulge in group activities.

Lonely people prefer to walk into a building alone. The people who want aloneness prefer to use even an elevator alone. It is not because the other is hell but because the other could intrusive. The city has its very peculiar tendency to interfere with the individual’s life. The city prepares its own citizens to do that. One cannot just sit alone on a park bench; if he/she does some people would approach either to heckle them or to peddle something. But people who prefer aloneness fiercely fight for their freedom. They choose go alone into a theatre and ask for the seat of their liking. They prefer to sit alone in a library or a café. Neither they would poke nose into other’s matters nor would they let others do so in their lives. But somehow the society at large does not entertain the lonely people. In cities it has become increasingly difficult for single people to find accommodation though singledom of a person does not assure his or her loneliness. But mostly the single people are single because they value their aloneness and loneliness.

Cities themselves have this inherent quality to be alone. Have you ever seen a city from the outside; to see a city from outside one should live in the city for a long time, leave and then come back with some kind of affected disinterested-ness. As we approach a city we feel it like an organism trying to extricate itself from the clutches of uncouthness and the chaotic activities at the fringes. A city just does not happen all of a sudden. One has to travel along the vast tracts of farm lands and little hamlets before one reaches a proper town with buildings and activities in human scale. From there as one moves further the activities increase and the height and the glitter of the building grow in size both vertically and horizontally. The chaos slowly gives away to some kind of orderliness which would submerge into the planned lay outs and regimented movements. Even if the apparent movements and activities of people in a city look a bit chaotic and random, a deeper look would reveal that there is always a sense of order in those movements. The city slowly transforms before our eyes and becomes just a backdrop for varied human activities to take place. The city without its people is the loneliest sight in the world. That means people make a city; not the buildings and the streets. A city becomes a city in proper sense only when the people respond to the buildings and streets and also in turn create their own buildings and spaces. There is a constant stream of claiming the spaces by the people in a city which gives the final meaning to a city.

To understand the loneliness of a city, one should use imagination and erase the city away from the human activities that take place in a city both in day and night. The people would look absolutely lost in a nowhere space and suddenly all their movements and activities would lose their meanings. They would become the participants in an absurd drama of existence. That means, the physical structures of a city also give meaning to the lives of the people. Once separated, they are absolutely lonely and useless. One has to approach a city in the dead of night to know how lonely a city looks like. The same place that looked so buzzing with human activities look abandoned and eerie at night. Even if there is human presence certain places in a city look more dream like in night. Everything washed in loneliness at night in a city. The city itself is a lonely being with its tired lights refusing to sparkle and at the same refusing to die. The lights that fall through the blinds inside the hotel rooms and office halls that function at night give a special hue to the places that enhances the density of loneliness of a city. Even if there is traffic on the road in the midnight, each vehicle that moves looks like a lonely planet with one or two people trapped inside it eternally lost. One should see the people driving back home; you could touch loneliness there. One should see couple driving back home or driving around after a tiff between each other. You should see a young woman is picked by her husband, father or brother from the office in the evening and you should them driving back home. You can measure the depth of loneliness in their faces. However they try to distract themselves they remain lonely and alone. That is the loneliness of the cities.

The loneliest people eat alone. Perhaps, seeing a person eating alone in a restaurant or inside a room is the gloomiest sight in the world. It is gloomy because one could feel the depth of loneliness surrounding them in that darkness. One could watch them doing the act of eating in slow motion. Everything is focused. The head is hung. If it is held high (how one could) the eyes would be staring into something beyond. But only the sight of these people eating alone is a gloomy one. For them this must be a very enjoyable experience. One could repeat that ritual of eating in certain way for years on without getting bored. They are not bored that is why they continue with. Even if we feel pity for such lonely people, we do not understand that it is not their pathetic state that has put them into that condition but their ultimate sense of joy that is making them continue with the same ritual of eating alone. They are mysterious people as most of the lonely people are mysterious. Their mystery is depended on their aloofness. They arose some kind of curiosity or fear amongst the onlookers. And there will some moments when we also feel like becoming those people who are lonely and seem to be enjoying it to the hilt.

Lonely people also take selfies. But they take the selfies with their shadows. Sometimes they are interested in clicking their shadows alone. They are not interested in places, people, events, occasions, spectacles, beauty, excitement etc. They are simply interested in their shadows. They could look at their shadows for a long time. They could measure the size of the shadow and understand the time of the day. They hear the music of the unseen creatures. They travel in the unseen planets. They see the landscape of shadows where the memories of the loved ones whom they have never seen or would never see lurk like angels in a dream. Their effort to capture the shadow comes from the idea of capturing angels in silence. And each picture of their own shadow is framed by an unwritten poem and also by a thoughtless thought. There is a secret smile that sheds light on the shadow so that the edges of the shadow look like drawn by dews and shining snow. Lonely people would allure us with their shadow pictures but they should be let alone. Any attempt to make them your companions would end up in disaster because they are people who enjoy the company of their own selves. They love their cities because they know that the cities are also like them.