Future Course of Indian Art: Do You Want Money or Happiness?

What is the future of Indian art? Friends ask me. They are seriously worried because they are confused about the kind of art they see around in the galleries, biennales, museums, art fairs and in the social media. They are confused because they are not doing that kind of art. Their kind of art is often looked down upon as something originating from the conventional mediums or conventional thinking. I would like to dispel all such misgivings by saying that a human being is always created by the conventional mediums and conventional thinking unless he/she is not produced in a test tube or processed in a laboratory through cloning. There are galleries still exhibit and celebrate the conventional mediums and artists but they cleverly diffuse the demarcating lines between those works and the so called experimental works that one sees in the above mentioned fields of art exposition. It is time for a person like me to tell you where exactly Indian art is going and where exactly the artists in this country should head to.

They say, a changed situation necessitates suitable changes in all the walks of life including the creative expressions for these expressions are not originated from the robots but human beings who still are the very same organic beings as they had been ever since the beginning of civilization making only minimal readjustments in the basic constitutions of their making. Robots and animals also could make art but the art made by the human beings are considered to be the most authentic forms of art because it is commonly believed that the human beings unlike the animals and other creatures have the special capacity to imagine, innovate and execute as against the natural tuning of the other beings like for example honey bees that make excellent honey combs which could be called architectural wonders. But they have been the same since time immemorial; as you could not make out a difference between the honey comb of the 7^th century BC and honey comb made in 2017. However, the art of these two periods differs considerably because it shows the changes that have occurred in the human thinking and the gradations of intellectual and emotional quotients. That is bound to be so. 

However, that does not mean that the changes in the physical environment should change the fundamentals of human talents and the ways in which they express themselves. As restless creatures fitted with this special capacity to create a series of worlds through thoughts they could envision themselves in different forms and shapes and their manifestations could be made possible by the available materials and technologies. The ability to think within and think in between, and constantly find linkages between different knowledge zones, the human beings have developed this tendency to extend their views and expand the limits of innovation by being inclusionary in a variety of ways that includes ideological incorporation and materialistic as well as technological innovations. This also facilitates a situation where the original thinker has to take the help of a set of skilled people to execute the ideas that are originally thought thereby giving the agency of execution into various hands and playing a centralized hub in order to hold onto the various aspects of making. This has in away alienated, in pure Marxian terms, the creator from the created and unlike the Marxian proletariat a new set of creative people have come into being who do not feel the pangs of alienation because for them the creative alienation is another way of getting things done exactly the way a business entrepreneur gets his done and rakes in profit. In this way art in the contemporary times has become an alienated act of making without the existential pangs to tail in.

The art of today is the celebration of alienation and it is diametrically opposite to the Marxian as well as humanitarian alienation that in a way tried to re-establish the autonomy of the worker/artist in a given situation. But today even the Marxism has failed in instilling the idea of belongingness and in preventing the proliferation of alienation. Ironically, even the artists who have subscribed to the Marxian ideology have embraced the reverse alienation so that they could accept the good(y)ness of capitalism and enjoy the profit that their works of art brings in. That’s why a contemporary artist who does a lot of innovative art behaves more like a business entrepreneur than like an artist, and dresses up and lives the life of a business person. The identification with the alienating class has made the erstwhile artists who were with the alienated class now has helped them to see the alienated classes to be their handymen so that they could be used for getting their works of art done. These background artists (most of them educated in the art school) become the shadow players who literally do the work of art exactly the way a factory worker does, get paid and are packed off unceremoniously and all the glory come the artists who manage the events to take place. This creates the historical confusion for the artists who have really done the work and the artists who belong to this newly created class feel the pinch and start doubting their own works of art or even the materials that they use. 

Is there any need to worry so? In my opinion, there is no need to worry about such things at all. It is high time that all the artists who are not really alienated from their works but are forced to work like alienated people in the field of art discard the art created by the artists who love this alienation. The business class artists who do all the experiments and get the experiments done by other artists who are skilled should be shunned and their art works should be really discarded. Whatever comes to hold the centre stage in the mainstream discourse is going to be displaced as well as replaced by the former peripheral discourses. Hence, the artists should have faith in themselves and do their works in their so called ‘conventional mediums’. The whole idea of feeling alienated is a false idea for one should understand that an individual’s life is not connected to the business patterns that a few entrepreneurs have created. An individual artist’s life does not decide business patterns of the world. One could live without all those. One could do all his creative pursuits while doing something else for eking out a living. But that needs a lot of grit. If one wants to pursue full time career as an artist he/she should be creating his/her own environment for that. The moment one connects everything with the amount of money that one wants to generate for making such facilities or wants to generate out of the works of art, one is lost. The idea of making money should be detached from the idea of making art. Once you do your art, money is bound to follow. Today’s spectacular art is all about business; art is created for making business negotiations. They are not creative outputs; but forced creations that are meant to serve the purpose of business. I do not say that business is a wrong thing; but anything made into business is going to be away from creativity; they become part of mass production. Mass production does not mean that produced in masses but for produced for attracting masses thereby attracting business. This alienation also plays a double game by persuading and dissuading the people towards and away from the works of art taking inclusive and exclusive stances alternatively. On the one hand these mass(ive) works of art persuade people to come and to take a look at them and at the same time they are kept away from the final negotiations of it. People are never given a chance to ‘have’ such works of art.

                              

The real work of art is those aesthetical objects created by individual artists who do a relentless pursuit of creativity as well as polishing his skills. Artists who do their works should be doing it silently and they should be leading a serene life devoid of all sorts of greed displayed by the mass artists. They are not the role models for a real artist to emulate. The artists who do alienation art are just businessmen taking part in a larger business activity. Like the sanitary napkin companies advertise the need for girls’ education, these artists also makes tall claims to make their works of art to be seen by people and used for business purpose. But the real artist is like a devotee in a temple. He/she should be feeling one with what they do because that is the only thing of worship they can have. They create their god and worship and they could take different methods and materials to do that act of worship. An act of worship even if done in public is not to please the people around. It is first of all to please the worshipper and the god. Here the god is the art itself. And if the art is good, people would really take it home. But you would be able to give it to those people who want it for an affordable price. That is the only way to avoid all kinds of confusion and create your own followers and admirers. It is possible because at least a few artists in this country have proved that they could create a beautiful environment to create their beautiful art. Your art is not going to make any change in this world. Your art is going to give you that devotee’s power that people would like to heed the way they had listened to Kabir and Meera. Work towards it. Forget all those business art. Art would bring you money but art could bring you money only when you are free of all thoughts about money. The question is whether you want to beg for you money keeping the art as a your ‘wounded child’ or you want to celebrate your devotion to art and with art like a devotee drunken by Bhakti? I belong to the latter group and I am always high. Welcome to this heaven. The universe belongs to you. 

A Few Words to You, My Non-Malayali Friends

If I do not write this small note, I will not be able to sleep tonight; or I feel so. As a person with no sense of attachment or guilt, my sleep is more or less trouble free. But today, for the whole day I have been looking at the ‘likes’ that my non-Malayali friends giving to my notes written in Malayalam. I am afraid that in their innocence they are clicking the ‘like’ button on something that they do not believe in or they do not understand. My Facebook has very few Malayali friends and maximum number of non-Malayali friends and I appreciate and respect their presence there as I could find the world in which I live in through their pages, the ways in which they think, they paint, sculpt, their choices and their allegiance etc. I know that these new mediums give us a lot of unnecessary information and make us almost addicted to these useless snippets of knowledge. However, when a person of your interest puts something there you tend to look at it, read it at times and at times give a ‘like’ to it. I find it as a great honour though I do not have the habit to liking anything so liberally.

I deem the ‘likes’ that I get for my Malayalam writings from my non-Malayali friends as an act of appreciation which I value a lot. But at the same time I feel that I am depriving them of the content of what I am writing; what I am engaging in/with. It is always not easy to translate all what I write in the regional language, especially when I write poems that someone from the learned people in the field says that show the spark of poetic genius. I wish I could share all what I write in Malayalam with all of my non-Malayali friends but a lot of background information is needed especially when I write discursive pieces in Malayalam. Today I wrote something about the Kochi Muziris Biennale, which in fact is an absolutely anti-Biennale piece. I thought the likes that I got from the non-Malayali friends were for the misguiding picture which showed the declaration of the curator’s name for the current biennale. Perhaps, my facebook friends must have thought about it as a piece of appreciation but I need to tell you the truth; it was an article that condemned the Biennale as a whole and the ideologies working around it.

As a writer there is always some sort of urgency from my side to ‘write’, to externalize what has been felt internally. I do know that the immediate translation of the internal feelings and impressions could be faulty at times and may not be substantiated by citations and footnotes. But as a writer who is more interested in the act of writing than the research that goes behind the writing, I do not feel the need to go for verification of all what I write. In fact my life is an ongoing research and I do not differentiate one day from the other; living in the present I keep reading and writing. The urge is so strong that I feel at times ashamed of myself for writing so much. At times some of my friends at least have advised me against putting things instantly in the facebook. They all believe that facebook postings do not have the shelf value. They are partially right and partially wrong. Those writers who have published some substantial works approach me and tell me that they expect my comments on their books. I always wonder why they ask me this because compared to them I am not a ‘published’ author. Though I have quite a few books to my credit they are all not published by the mainstream publishers. However, I wonder why people take me seriously as a writer; they do so because of my facebook writings. I do not differentiate between what I write in my notebooks (which I do regularly) and what I put there in the facebook. But I do feel at times to stop writing in facebook altogether. But facebook has become a material reality; one cannot evade it.

I take three different personalities while I write; one, JohnyML, the art critic, two, Aksharananda, the Spiritualist and three, the Malayalam writer who involves in matters head on or writes poetry. Someone could feel that there is an internal contradiction in being all three at once or in succession. But I do not feel any difference between these three personalities. They are one and the same; the manifestation of the same being in different intensities. The essence of me as a writer is the same in all three. Perhaps, the topics that I handle in them differ. While the approach remains the same, the strategies could differ. One has to deal with a physical body as well as a mental body. Besides, one has to deal with an energy body and a knowledge/wisdom body. Together, they provide me with the ananda body, the body of joyfulness. I understand in due course of time two or three of these bodies would become dormant and a couple of them would remain. Then perhaps, my writings would take a different turn, in intensity and in essence. I could feel that happening in me. But in this night I am indebted to you for being with me all these years, reading me, liking me and at times openly and at times secretly criticising me. There are people who blindly like me. I love them because they are led by the bhava of bhakti. They are devoted people. They are not devoted to me but they are devoted to the devotion that they feel towards a person like me or what I do.

So forgive me for writing many things in Malayalam and depriving many of you of the essence of my other writings. One day, who has seen these all wouldn’t be translated in a link language, English? But it is important to have friends like you, who care to look at my page just to see whether I have posted there something or not; just to know and like it without expecting anything in return. I assure you I do not have anything to give you other than the feeling of intense pleasure that you give me and I could do that by engaging with you through my writings. Good night. 

Future Belongs to Artists: Artists Organized Shows and Studio Sales-Gallery Role will be Minimized

(Artist in his Studio by Vermeer)

Have you ever thought of a scenario that existed before the advent of private galleries in the field of art business? How the artists might have sold their works then?  Private art galleries are a result of the proliferation of capital/wealth and the decentralisation of the wealthy. Till the early part of the 19^th century wealth was concentrated in a few families or royal houses and they were automatically the patrons of art. Artists were identified, supported and promoted by regular collections and by giving them special social status. By the fruition of industrial revolution and modern technologies like telecommunication, rail, radio, post and the establishments of parallel business houses to supported the retailing of the centralized production plans/plants, it became inevitable for the wealth to flow into more hands that were not concentrated in one part of the city or the country. The global transmission of wealth and the global distribution of the wealthy necessitated a system where fine arts needed retailing outlets so that they could buy art without soiling their boots by getting down to the slush ridden alleys where the artists had set up their studios. The private gallery system or the art retailing system is comparatively a new phenomenon which over a period of time has taken a centre stage in the idea of art making by false claims.

These days, artists unquestioningly accept the dominance of the art galleries. They are not prepared to take certain radical steps to think that the galleries are just like retailing shops that by virtue of their exclusivity and posturing have made a special space for themselves in the art scene. The fundamental analysis would take us to the fact that without artists and the works of art, no gallery could survive. If we think backwards further, we would come to know that there was a time when the patrons used to meet the artists directly and pick up the works from their studios. That means, the artists and their works had some sort of exclusivity; the number of artists was less as the number of patrons were proportionately less. It had created an ideal situation for the artists who not only worked as artists but as designers, commission artists, carpenters, architects and even esoteric practitioners. As I mentioned before, when the technologies changed and the wealthy ones got distributed all over, they needed some retail shops; that’s why we see the framers and art material sellers becoming the pioneering gallerists in India and the tradition continues to be so in certain areas. 

(for illustration only source net)

Now let’s think a bit more realistically (I mean materialistically). One could buy a handcrafted bangle or a necklace from a high end showroom in an airport or a mall, or one could buy the same piece from an emporium in a city centre, or one could go to a crafts mela and get it. If none of the above is available one could visit the crafts people’s or the artisans’ village and get it. Which one would you deem as the best buying? While you would like to flaunt the fact that you got your bangles from the showroom in Delhi’s swanky T-3 terminal, you would also boast the fact that you got it from so and so village in Uttarkhand. Very few people talk about they got their bangles from a mela or from a mall. While the former and the latter carry some prestige of buying the middle ones do not carry that much pride. It is applicable in the case of art buying. People proudly display a latest acquisition, a painting or a sculpture and tell the guests that they got it either from a high end gallery in the city or from the artist’s studio directly. If they have bought it from the artist directly, they would come up with a few words of praising about the artist’s nature (so cool/so grand/so nice/so hep/so casual/so philosophical), his works (what a work/he is a colourist/watch out for him/he is going to go to places) or his studio (I love the ambience of the studio/you could see the whole city from there/he could make a huge one but he is so humble that he made a modest one/it is lake face/ it is hill face/you get wonderful air from the hills/it’s a bliss sitting there).

When the gallerist enters between the artist and buyer/collector (not the investor) all these social niceties die down. Here is a gallerist and here is a buyer. Everything is clinically discussed between them; all monetary issues including the tax, tax exemption, how much in cash, how much in cheque etc etc, and the deal is done. By the time the work of art reaches the house of the buyer, not only the buyer is tired of all the deals but also the work of art which has by then reduced to mere commodity of exchange. Now, it is time for me to clarify my stance on this. I am not against the galleries that sell works of art. Their job is to do that. What I am talking about is the experience of having a work of art in your collection not via gallery but via going out and collecting it all by yourself either from the artist’s studio or from whichever place the artists display it without the mediation of a gallery. Why don’t you bargain with the artists directly? Now, there are several artists who are extremely averse to such kind of bargain. You need to reach that level so that you could just quote the price and relax. None is going to bargain with you. To reach that level you should have your own strategies and independence from the galleries. 

(Will have more relevance in future)

To do that all the young professional artists and all those young artists who want to live a professional artist’s life should think in the following lines or answer a few questions that I am going to pose. What makes you create a work of art? What do you expect out of it? What are your life expectations? Where do you want to go from here? How do you envision your future? Very simple questions with simple answers but people complicate the answers and mess up with their lives and works. Let me start answering them myself if I were a professional artist (and young too!). I make a work of art because I do not know anything else; all my being is tuned to make a work of art, that’s all. I want people to see it, appreciate it, talk about it and of course it should give me some money in return as I do not do anything else in my life to earn a living. My expectations are very simple; I want to live a dignified life. I do not go anywhere from here; I want my art to take me wherever it is capable of taking me otherwise I am happy wherever I am. My future is to make more art and I want more people to appreciate me and I want to be in perfect happiness.

Ohhhh....you say. I can see the curiosity, disbelief and sarcasm on your face. Such an angel, you say. No dear friend, you could answer in the same lines provided if you could limit your desires and expectations. Now let me answer like a young contemporary artist: I make art because I want to experiment with the visual language that I have been taught in the prestigious institution where I studied art (lie. I want to make money). Whether people see it or not, I want to engage with a critical mass (lie. I want to exhibit, people to see it and people to buy it). I want to have a great state of the art studio, good living conditions and a decent life (I want more money). I want to go to Europe or America for a couple of years to get exposed to various ways of making art (I am fed up with this country and I want to go elsewhere, wash dish and make some money). I would like to establish as an international artist and want to do socially engaging political art (I want to be famous, fashionable and art or no art I should be known internationally by hook or crook).

(an artist's studio, source net)

Now let’s see the common denomination factor in all these answers; while the former one demands moderation in everything the latter one is talking all about material success and fame in different terms. While the former would remain happy with limited expectations the latter would remain troubled and would make everyone around him/her troubled for they make their art from troubles of the world. I want to ask my young artist friends to think about it deeply. For example, if you are having an exhibition in a public gallery, say in Jehangir, Mumbai or LKA, Dehli. Your works are exceptional. But you do not want to beg and plead before a gallerist. So you have put up your own show. Now as they are exceptional works, people come to see your works (by word of mouth publicity) and they would appreciate you and ask for the price (some of them would do that). It is the greatest opportunity before you! You have two options; one, say a four by three costs Rs.3 lakhs or two, quote Rs.60,000/- (sixty thousand). Someone is ready to pay you fifty thousand for it. You say, no or yes. It is up to you. If you say no, he goes away. If you say yes, he buys it. And he would follow you, a relationship is built. He would become your regular collector. He would like to see whatever you do before anybody does. When it is known to the world that he is an exclusive collector, the whole world wants to collect you. Now, it is time for you to say yes or no to that.

I have seen many artists crying that they are not getting galleries to support them. No gallery is going to support them. Our galleries have become upper class, upper caste and upper whatever establishments. They are catering to the English speaking, English breathing and English thinking crowd. They are the Macaulay’s children. They do not want artists who speak in regional languages. They do not want provincial aesthetics. But here is a way to counter them. Follow my words carefully now: Artists could support each other. When five young artists come together, they could make group shows in public galleries and use the social media to gain attention. Then, four of them could support the fifth one to have a solo show. It could continue. Remember, pricing is the key. When your works are not available with retailers, people will come to you directly. There are machine cut ornaments and hand crafted ones. People who love handcrafted ones would go to the one who makes ornaments with hands, wouldn’t they? Believe that you are exclusive and your works cannot be retailed by anybody. When you do that, the galleries are going to come to you because they are simply business people and they would smell money and come to you. But to do this you need tremendous amount of talent, self discipline and simplicity. 

(Raghunath Das, artist from Raghurajpur, Orissa)

Let me close this essay by citing a wonderful example from Raghurajpur, the artists’ village in Orissa. Here I came to know about so many young artists who continue the tradition of their families of making pat chitras, scroll paintings, palm leaf painting etc. They make intricate paintings in various materials of which the palm leaf paintings done with iron stylus and ink (a sort of direct etching) are fantastic ones. Patrons and dealers as well come here often and buy it from the artists. Most of the young artists are married and their brides also do some crafts. The boys are happy and move around the village on foot and at times on their bikes. They are worldly wise and they speak in English to deal with the foreigners. I met this artist, Raghunath Das who does palm leaf paintings mainly episodes from Bhagavat Purana, Ramayana and the legends of Jagannatha of Puri. He showed me some of his works and I was fascinated. I asked the price of those works of art and he told me that it depends on the number of days he spent on making each one of them. Das said, “If I spend a month on making this work, I may charge Rs.30,000/-. Depending on the number of days I spend, I charge. Some works are sold for Rs.5000/- even.” Das knows that there are dealers who collect works from him and make double or triple amount from the cities. “So what? That’s their job. I charge for my work. I am satisfied with that. I am not feeling cheated or betrayed. I make good money and I am happy here.” At Raghurajpur, Raghunath Das lives in a traditional house as anybody else here. They do not live a cut off life. All of them have got high end smart phones. All of them have ultra modern motor bikes. They wear jeans and T-shirts. But they do not have one thing that the contemporary artists have in abundance: GREED. If you could cut down on that, you could get the buyers to your studios and have dignified life as artists. 

How Much Time do You Need to Spend Before a Work of Art? But Get People into the Galleries Before that.

(Mr.Bean with Whistler's Mother)

From a friend’s facebook page, I happened to read an article written by Isaac Kaplan, dealing with the duration of time that one has to take for looking at a work of art in a museum or a gallery. There cannot be hard and fast rules for this however studies, Kaplan says, have proved that one takes fifteen to twenty seconds before a work of art in a museum. If someone asks if that is enough for understanding a work of art then he/she should be told that it is an average and in reality people do not spare even those many seconds before a work of art. He also speaks about the new movement in the west where they propagate the idea of Slow Art Viewing; that means spending at least fifteen to twenty minutes before a work of art. And if one needs more time, he also suggests that one could manipulate things so that he/she could get locked up in a museum during the closing hours. Mind you, the experience should never be that of Mr.Bean and the Whistler’s painting.

This put me into thinking about the number of seconds or minutes that an average Indian spends before a work of art. First of all we have very few museums in our country that are visitor friendly. The other day, I was going to the National Gallery of Modern Art in Delhi to see the Jitish Kallat Retrospective. I walked from the nearest metro station (Khan Market) and just ahead of me I saw two  young White men walking fast perhaps after getting out of the same train that I was in. I did not have any clue that they too were going to the NGMA. At the ticket counter I saw the familiar face of the lady clerk who always wore an expression of disinterestedness and absolute joylessness in life. There is a huge disparity between ‘our’ ticket charge and ‘their’ ticket charge. While we pay Rs.20/- (one third of a dollar), they have to shell out Rs.500/- (almost eight dollars now) per person. They fished out a debit card and the lady said she did not have a swiping machine there. She instructed them to the nearest ATM Counter, which I was sure was off half a kilometre from the NGMA. We are talking about the digitization of Indian economy. Hold on for a second, here I am not going to criticize Mr.Narendra Modi or Mr.Arun Jaitly or Mr.Mahesh Kumar who is the cultural minister or even Aditya Gadanayak who is the Director General of the NGMA. I have something else to say.

I accept the fact that a swiping machine should be in place at the NGMA and it is the responsibility of the authorities. But the change of persons at the top posts happened recently and before that there was Mr.Rajiv Lochan who held on to the post of the Director for almost fifteen years like a monitor lizard and never thought of having the modern equipments at the ticket counter. Our prime institution for modern art has been an unfriendly place for many years and we need different strategies to bring the people into the galleries before we decide how much time they should spend before each work of art. In cities the culture or the idea of viewing art has been changed drastically. People do not really see a work of art even if they are in a gallery. They are there either to socialise or to counter check certain claims that they had heard about the displays. The people who would like to stray into the galleries are dissuaded by the general ambience of the galleries where you hardly see any lights on or some kind of an invitation hung out there for all. Now, the other category of people who would like to see the works and buy a couple of them would never look at anything else before they see the director of the gallery. They walk around with the gallerist and more than they discuss the aesthetical longevity of the works or the enduring capacity of the artists, they discuss mostly of the prospectus of these works minting gold in the future market.

Take a normal opening of any show. The people gather there often say that they are there to cheer the artist/s not really to see the show. “I would be coming back soon and will see the works at leisure,” is the standard saying. In fact these days even the artists do not expect their works to be seen by people on the opening day. For them the opening day is for basking in the projected glory, not based on the works but based on the other achievements; latest participation in an international art fair, recent land or property acquisitions, latest gadgets, last party attended, the camps that they are going to attend and so on. The most pathetic scene is seen in the page three reports. I am not against page three for once in a while I too am featured there for being in the wrong places at the wrong time. But these paid reports never publish the gallery’s name or a couple of lines about the artist/s. In the frames you wouldn’t even see a trace of the paintings or sculptures exhibited there. And still we expect our people to see art for fourteen to twenty seconds! You are asking for too much. Recently in Kolkata, some dreamy eyed lady came to me and shook hands with me only to say that she was there for the dinner not for the show, but somehow she liked the exhibits which she had cursorily seen while walking in and thought of congratulating me for ‘putting them together’. As I am completely insulated now and nothing affects me in the art scene, I could take that comment with a smile and attend the same dinner with artists and friends.

People do go to museums; it is not that Indian people are uncouth and uncultured who detest looking at the works of art. Unfortunately the people go to the museums as if they were there for taking selfies with ‘interesting’ sculptures and paintings. When they are not taking selfies they are doing the location hunting for the next selfie. I have seen gangs of youngsters walking into the museums in different parts of our country, moving like flocks of sheep herded by a team leader or taking selfies. The percentage of people going to museums on a week day would be .001% (a random calculation to show how miniscule the number is) in India. Indian museums do not attract people means the Indian museums do not create attractive programs; its that simple. Let’s now wait for the Madame Tussauds museum to start in Delhi (it is coming soon). People will throng there as they do in the historical sites like Qutub Minar or Taj Mahal. Our high brow culturists would say that the people in our country are interested in populist things. Populist things are popular because they have used populist techniques to get people there. Why can’t the museums do it? Not really populist tactics but using the same methodology but in much refined terms. I remember the Picasso show in the National Museum almost fifteen years back. It was a blockbuster show and people were queuing up for it. Picasso is famous and people know about him. Why our artists are not that famous? Why our museum machineries are not used for creating such mammoth artistic images?

Now, let us take the case of the private galleries. Recently I went to a gallery and the gallerist told me part proudly and part sadly that I was the first one there after the opening of the show which had taken place a week back. I could sympathize with the gallerist but at the same time I thought that having a gallery or having a show cannot be a reason for the people to walk in. If you want people to walk in, you need to work towards it. You need to really create some kind of vibe around it. Most of the gallerists take this holier than thou attitude; they get paid editorials in magazines and newspapers and we are not like that. When you are not like that your shows will remain abandoned. Make sure that the people who promise to come back after the opening party really doing so. Why can’t the gallerists do something more towards getting people to see the works? It is not possible because the gallerists themselves think that they are well equipped business people and curators as well. So they know what they are doing. When they know what they are doing, the result is that out of the three hundred and sixty five days you get ten people to see your shows. There is no point in complaining. 

In that scenario, it is almost useless to talk about how much time one should stand before a work of art. First of all India needs people to come to the galleries and slowly they could be taught to stay back or stay before in front of a work of art. I have seen people making devoted gallery visits on a week day afternoon without making much fuss about it, catching up with shows, spending enough time before the works and even relishing it for a long time. It happens in Mumbai, Kolkata, Delhi and in other places; but let me tell mostly this kind of people go to public galleries run by private trusts or by the government. I have seen a steady stream of people walking in to the Jehangir Gallery and a few galleries around it, in the Biral Academy and Artists centre in Kolkata, Lalit Kala Academy and Sridharani and Triveni in Delhi. In fact I have seen people spending more than two minutes before the works. They even make it a point to talk to the artists. Now, these are not the people who buy art. These are those people who would like to see good art and feel good about the art, artists and about themselves. And I believe that the artists get more satisfaction when people come to see their works than buy them (that happens if certain parameters are right for the artists).

India needs gallerists who just focus on sales and promote their artists through various strategies. First of all the gallerists have to understand that they are not equipped to validate the works of art. They could like and promote what they like. It should be limited just to that. They should not venture to decide on the aesthetical directions that a country should take. If Indian galleries are now suffering from the lack of audience, it is created by the gallerists who pose themselves as the creators of an aesthetical environment in the country. Unfortunately, such false images are created through the platforms of the Art Fairs and Biennales. Selling is a good form of art. Do sell, do not teach aesthetics, that is the only advice I could give to the gallerists to improve the attendance in their galleries. Otherwise they will be influential in their limited circles only. Why think about how much time before the work of art, let us get people first in the galleries.

(Post Script: Personally speaking, I am of the opinion that with or without galleries art will flourish for the artists happen in this world not because there are galleries but because they are innately talented. And I strongly believe that galleries are possible only when there are artists and works of art, not the other way round.  Sincerely speaking, the private galleries should do the selling and the public galleries should focus on showcasing good art.)

Autobiography of a Young Woman and How it Fails: Aishwarya Rajnikanth Dhanush

(Aishwarya Rajinikanth Dhanush)

Today when I was writing as Swami Aksharananda about the blackmailing mothers, without any premeditation I went into the habits of some women who are independent yet are emotional wrecks. People without any kind of emotional sparks are generally boring ones but if the emotional quotient of the people becomes excess it would affect the people around them. Finding a fine balance between emotional overdrive and rational calmness is very important for both men and women, and such people are rare. But if people are absolutely balanced and do things impeccably, those people also would become a bit boring after sometime. There are some people in the world who are overly blessed with all what is good in life and it is impossible for them to be emotional wrecks. They are not saints and they too have their ups and downs in their lives and reading about their lives is always interesting.

(at the book release)

That’s why I picked up the autobiography of Aishwarya Rajinikanth Dhanush, the film director, one of the Women’s Rights Advocates for the United Nations, an accomplished Bharatnatyam dancer and a playback singer. From her name the pedigree is more or less clear; she is the daughter of the superstar Rajinikanth and wife of one of the happening actor-singer-director, Dhanush who has also done a couple of Hindi movies with Sonam Kapoor and Amitabh Bacchan. In the beginning of 2012, everyone had seen this couple in the video that had gone viral, then making of ‘Why this Kolaveri D’. It was from the film ‘3’ (Moonnu), the directorial debut of Aishwarya. One could see a tight-lipped Aishwarya there with a hesitant and happy Shruti Haasan (daughter of Kamal Haasan) and the toughness of the lady was palpable within the recording studio where the jolly pair of Aniruddh Ravichander and Dhanush was making the song. Aniruddh went on to become a super music director and singer with his ‘Aalumma Dolumma’ song topping the chart for a long time in 2016 not only in India but also in most of countries where Tamil presence is there.

(the Rajinikanth family)

Aishwarya’s autobiography is titled ‘Standing on an Apple Box’; an apple box is a generic term used for the multipurpose boxes used in film sets and the author finds it an apt metaphor for her life in the world of film making. Born to the famous couple Rajinikanth and Lata Rajinikanth, Aishwarya and her younger sister Soundarya had a very protected childhood (in fact an over protected one as Lata was phobic about strangers) and for some time Aishwarya grew up in Bangalore with her maternal grandparents and she confesses that her liking for language and writing started from there as her grandfather used to make her read the Hindu Newspaper from first page to the last page. Being the daughter of the superstar Rajinikanth was a tough thing to handle, she knew as she was growing up. To keep his daughters away from the limelight, Rajinikanth had taken all safety measures and for a long time not a single picture of his girls were published in the film magazines. Aishwarya tells us an anecdote about her being suspected for having polio only because her father had supported an anti-polio campaign featuring in a government advertisement. (In our high school days we used to think that film stars never had kids and Rajinikanth was no exception. And when someone told us that he had two daughters, we thought he might have adopted them. Such was the secrecy around them).

(author with husband actor Dhanush)

The narrative flair is so attractive that one could read it in one sitting thought I finished in four sittings in two days. A book of moderate size with 170 pages is structured in small chapters where Aishwarya speaks to the reader as a woman who has a total grip on her life. This book is fascinating mostly for a daughter’s view on Rajinikanth who is known for his Spartan ways and unpretentious public appearances. Also we get a glimpse of the life and work ethics of her husband Dhanush. Those people who are interested in child rearing, Aishwarya has a few tips to offer. She had taken a lot of pains to become a law graduate and also had undergone rigorous training to become a film maker. But the book, after reading leaves the reader a bit hollow; a sense of emptiness would pervade him because the subject of the book does not display any human folly. She is as perfect as a goddess. She has got the best parents, best grandparents, best friends, best sibling, best fans associations, best husband, best brother in law, best awards, best opportunities, best sisters in law and the best mother in law on the earth.

(author with father, superstar Rajinikanth)

This is where a reader gets disappointed. Aishwarya, by her pedigree and perseverance has achieved a lot by the young age of thirty five. She has many more years to go and I am sure she is not going to commit any folly in her life as it is well planned to falter. Such lives, even if that of a successful woman is absolutely boring. I should not call Aishwarya a boring personality for I do not know her and the knowledge that comes to me is via this book. She speaks about how she went through the trauma induced by her father’s chronic illness (which is censored) during which he was taken to a hospital in Singapore. They spent three months there till the super star recovered completely from his illness only to come back and finish his blockbuster Kabaali. Still there is something missing in that life. What does that missing feeling constitute by? Is it the complete contentedness or is it the spiritual calmness that she apparently has inherited from her father or her perfect achievements? I looked for it but could not find. She extols the presence of great men in her life, her grandfather, father, father in law, brother in law and husband. She also talks about her soul mate, a school friend. She in her acceptance speech in the UN Women’s chapter speaks high of women and also says that sometime the atrocities against the women are perpetuated by women themselves. What we see in Aishwarya Rajnikanth Danush is a perfect symbol of patriarchy, the one who has lived never hurting the values set by the men. That makes her life, however successful it is a bit stereotypical and picture book type. May be a girl born and brought up in such a background can only live that life; even if she wants to rebel it is not possible at all.  I remember a line from Orhan Pamuks’a novel “A Strangeness in Mind”: “Food tastes good when there is a little bit of dirt in it.”   

Ways of Seeing in Art in Digital Transmission and Real Time

(source net)

How do we come to know about art? How do our art critics and writers compare the locally produced art with the international art that they have seen only in digital mediums or in books? In that case is it possible to review a work of art without seeing it in the real time and space? If we extend this question, is it possible for us to even talk about what has been happening in Marina Beach in Chennai where the supporters of the rural sport Jellikkettu have gathered? Is it necessary for the cultural commentators to be in the actual space of happening? Does the physical proximity with the work of art or an event give the cultural commentators and critics an added edge of legitimacy than those people who have seen it in digital mediums or books? Where exactly this kind of authenticity parts ways with the cultural commentary that takes the event/work of art as a point of departure to speak about a larger socio-cultural or political phenomenon? We see both the cases in the newspapers; journalists reporting from the actual field of events and the experts analysing and deducing critical factors of the same from the already reported events. If we go by the physical proximity equals to legitimacy, then we have to always look at the commentators with a fair amount of suspicion and have to go by what the reporters have said. Then, what about art? Will you listen to a person who has visited the show or a person who has seen it in one of the mediums and makes some comments on it?

I am that kind of an art critic who would like to write on art/things/events that I have directly/physically experienced. I walk many kilometres to visit a gallery (this helps me to combine my health walk with my aesthetic adventures) and spend considerable amount of time before the works of art. Generally I do not prefer to converse with the artist if he/she is present there. But if he/she would like to have a word with me, then definitely I give a patient ear to what they have to tell. I am put off by many an artist when he/she explains things to me because their art may look brilliant and their explanations absolutely lame. So it is always safe to be away from the artists’ explanations. At the same time I earn to listen to the artists who actually make you feel whether their works brilliant or their words. Excelling both in verbal explanations and in execution of the works, such artists are rare ones like the Kohinoor diamond. I am equally sceptical about those artists who excel in their words but fail miserably in their works of art. To put it in nutshell, I prefer to see the original works of art and comment than to look at them in some digital mediums and dare to make comments. This, why I say is because the feeling of being in a place and before a work of art is much more intense than seeing it at your desktop in a digital medium. 

(source -net)

At the same time I have been faced with certain doubts; suppose if I am reading a book by say, Orhan Pamuk in Kindle and reading the same book in paperback or hardbound, taking equal amount of time, is there any fundamental difference between the aesthetical experience? I could argue that I am reading the same book, written by the same author. In the former I could have it whenever I want by just clicking a button on. In the latter I can have the same by picking it up from the desk and reading it. The only palpable difference is that in Kindle, one page goes and the new one comes; I know that the previous page is there but not yet there. But in the real book, it is like feeling the previous pages that you have gone through. Like a terrain that demands climbing and each level you could see the areas that you have covered. You can have a sense of elation. Reading in Kindle is passive and reading in book is performative. All the conventional acts of art enjoyments are performative. I walk miles to buy my books. I enjoy the days when I go out to buy the books. I could literally imagine the books waiting for me in the shelves of the book stall. Each step I take towards the book stall, each visual, the honking of the vehicles, the hand holding couples, the bikers, courier men, security guards, the bulldozers that bring down old buildings to make way for the new ones, the house maids going home in the evening, girl in western clothes eating very traditional ‘chat’ from the wayside vendor, the woman in traditional saree dragging at a cigarette and what not; nothing escapes my eyes because I am on the way to buy books. I get the books and walk back as if it were all a dream. Then I get back to my home, I start reading. This is an event in itself; an experience; my marriage, right from seeing the girl to my nuptial night and more. But Kindle? A click, she is all nude before me, yes, the book.

It is applicable in the case of looking at the works of art displayed in a gallery. You drive or walk to the gallery. See the works if possible even without the gallery assistants, executives or the owner herself not disturbing you. There you go; you are alone with the work of art. You wonder and wander, you drag yourself back to the work. Read the captions , move forward and backward. At times you nod your head in approval; sometimes you shake in disgust; sometimes your eyes sparkle and at times you pout in sarcasm. There are a whole lot of things happening in there; your very viewing of a work of art. Then it is a pleasure to write about it. But.....it is a real ‘but’ here. A work of art is not like a book. A book published elsewhere could be made available here digitally or physically. But a work of art cannot always be bought here. If the artists are not locally placed or if it is not a travelling show or if the show is not opening in your city, then it is difficult to see the works physically. So you have to see them digitally. Once you see them, now with the help of 360 degree digital mapping, you get an idea about the work of art. You may be doubtful about the size because a low angle shot could make an ant a dinosaur. But you keep looking at it from a variety of angles; from various posts, reports and sharing etc. You see and you finally get the work of art you want to see.

 (source net)

Does that render you an inauthentic critic or commentator? In my view, in this world of digital reproduction, we cannot say that we should be seeing the original work of art even if it is not possible to physically get there. If I again make a comparison with the books, I would say we are not reading the manuscripts of the authors even if we are reading the same book in print or in digital format; nor are we reading the first copy of the printed book. Though there cannot be an accurate comparison between books and works of art, the aesthetical experience could be imparted through looking at the digitally reproduced works. Hence, the claim that everyone should be looking at an original work of art/event before making a comment does not hold much water. Even the idea of legitimacy and authenticity imparted to the people who have been the actual witnesses of the event/work of art could be disputed for the actual analysis and in depth study may come from those people see the work of art/event over digital mediums. In fact most of the theoretical studies are done using expanded methodology to include international events and works of art in its field of discussion. Therefore, I would say, while I always remain a stickler to the idea of going to see a work of art physically in real space and time, I would not discount people talking about the works of art that they have seen in digital media and making critical comments on it. Only thing is that there should not be too much of a distance between what is seen online and what is said in ‘real’ time. That needs training, sensibility, sensitivity and the rare ability of inner vision. 

Fail not this Fair: India Art Festival Second Edition in Delhi

(India Art Festival Director, Rajendra Patil at Tyagaraja stadium pavilion)

If Google map and Delhi map meet each other at a restaurant table if not an operation table, they would find it difficult to recognize each other. Delhi has a map and signage so has Google. However smart Google is Delhi could confuse it. Get down at the INA Metro Station and look at the Google map in your phone. You want to go to the Tyagaraja Indoor Stadium (spent 300 crore rupees in its making!) where the second edition of the India Art Festival is taking place. You look for the signage of the stadium; you find Tyagaraja Park, Tyagaraja Block, Enclave and what not but not a single board that leads to the stadium. But blood recognizes blood; an art critic smells art even if it is taking place in an unnatural space like an indoor stadium. Finally I reach there and I feel happiness. At the security gate none asks for the pass (I am equipped with three VIP passes of which none had come for me). People walk in and everyone feels very important here and of course there is a surprise in waiting for you. Yes, this time India Art Festival looks like a professional art fair.

(view from India Art Festival)

All credits go to its director, Rajendra Patil who goes by his first name, Rajendra. His fair is a story of survival against all odds. When he started it in 2011 in Mumbai’s Nehru Centre (in which I had played a small part as a special section curator) it was given a step motherly treatment by the city’s proud galleries. They were all batting for India’s one and only art fair, the India Art Fair and thought that Rajendra’s venture was second grade in nature and a Vijaykant for a Rajnikant. From elitism to more elitism, from internationalism to high internationalism and from local to global went the India Art Fair, pushing so many galleries and aspiring artists out in its exclusivist filtering process done by (god alone knows why) some high browist gallerists holding the slogan of quality control. They never acknowledged the fact that the South is North when the map is turned upside down. That’s what exactly helped Rajendra to float his Fair/Festival with the help of those disgruntled artists and galleries and some staunch supporters like Siddharth Tagore and Sudhanshu Paliwal. And today the Festival proves that Rajendra was not wrong in his move though he had to amass a lot of second grade art and bad name for himself. But no game is bad game so long as you could gain a few brownie points. India Art Festival also saw Mumbai’s galleries ‘supporting’ the third edition of the India Art Festival (by this time it had gained its brand identity with the usual suspects warming the seminar platforms) with some hand down works but never the gallerists physically appearing there to own the brand up for themselves. Who said India’s art scene does not have caste system?

(view from India Art Festival)

A few months back, before demonetisation had hit Indian economy, Rajendra was still keeping his fingers crossed about the entries for the second edition of the India Art Festival in Delhi whose first edition had brought him brickbats than bouquets. Then and there he had decided to move it to the Tyagaraja Indoor stadium. It was a win-win situation for Rajendra just before the demonetisation. “I could break even now with the entries,” a happy Rajendra had told me then. Then came the demonetisation quite unexpectedly. “If I do it in Delhi I would lose around 40 lakhs rupees,” Rajendra told me then and he added, “If I do not do also I lose the same amount. Hence, I have decided to do it.” It was not even a gambling for Rajendra, a sort of loss which he was ready to face. But of course I know those people who run a business either exaggerate the profit margin when they are about to borrow or reduce it to abysmal levels when they are about to lend. In short, do not believe what the entrepreneurs say. I did not gulp Rajendra’s words without a pinch of salt; even with a pinch of it I did not swallow it at all. But I liked the way he put it. He projected himself as a completely wounded warrior in the battle field but still standing with a broken weapon in his hand. The image that I imagined was pretty interesting.

(view from India Art Festival)

Today, at the Tyagaraja Stadium Rajendra stands at the gate with a burnished weapon of success in his hands; a well laid out art fair. “The pink has not stopped coming,” Rajendra says metaphorically as he leads me through the stalls. He points out the artists who have made moolah in the last two days. “It is not huge sales, but the optimism of the buyers is quite palpable. They don’t mind shelling out a couple of lakhs for a work, that too in pink, the new currency,” says Rajendra. The works of art may disappoint an art enthusiast who wants to see something ‘really happening’ there in them. Most of the artists are from Mumbai, Noida, Faridabad, Gurgaon and they have made new galleries to place themselves in the festival. Even a couple of galleries from Singapore and Tanzania have taken the pains to come and exhibit. The works of art are mostly decorative and experimental as much as the artists understand it. One may find some interesting works even by inconspicuous artists. The Kalavishkaar Gallery, a flagship gallery of Rajendra and the stall that combines it and the Bombay Art Society has some good works of Sudhir Patwardhan, Baiju Parthan, Jatin Das, Jogen Chowdhury and so on. “They all came as contributions towards my efforts,” chuckles Rajendra but he is reluctant to part with them.

(view from India Art Festival)

Forty galleries in around forty thousand square feet of space are what make the India Art Festival this year. It has got the ambience and lay out of a fairly good art fair in any part of the world though the works cannot boast quality. However, it would be absolutely doing injustice to the artists who have enthusiastically taken part in the festival if I say that they are bad artists and have done bad art. No, they are not the kind of art may be the mainstream art enthusiasts want to see or trade in. But we cannot wish away the fact that there is a market for these kinds of works too. The artists who have come there are dignified people though their skill levels and conceptual levels are not as polished as the professional artists in the mainstream. So what could be done to enhance the quality level of the festival by bringing more artists, galleries and people into it? With the India Art Fair going really international and exclusivist, it is imperative for the Delhi based galleries to come forward to support by participating in Rajendra’s India Art Festival so that the quality would also increase and the India Art Fair turned down galleries would get a prime position in this fair. It would grow in size and quality; I am sure the buyers are where the good works are sold. I can say it for sure that 90% of the people who come to the India Art Fair do not have the habit of going by Mercedes cars or drinking Absolut Vodka every day. But they hang out there to see some art and also to identify with the international brand that the India Art Fair has been successful in creating.

Why not give, a home grown brand like the India Art Festival a chance to make another international brand with the artists who really want to do good in their lives and works? All our inspirational movies whether it is Jo Jeeta Woh hi Sikander or Chak de India, Sultan or Dangal, all of them say one single story; if you have perseverance and the support and guidance of a determined team or person, you can create wonders. Why do we think only the gora sahebs could create great stuff or why do we think only those could create good stuff who want to go out and please the international audience? What about our asmita? Our feeling for ourselves? “It is cold here,” says Rajendra, “People come after lunch and between two and four there is a considerable crowd in the pavilion and later on it thins down,” he says. It is not just about cold; people queue up, beg, cry, steal and brawl for a free pass in the severest of cold in early January to get into the India Art Fair ground (during the early editions). What deters them from coming here is the kind of brand association. But Rajendra alone cannot do anything to make it better. The Delhi galleries should make up their mind and come forward to participate in it. We all know that the galleries show something and sell something else. Hence, the days of holier than thou attitude are gone. Come forward and support so that you build a brand. Drop that step motherly attitude towards India Art Festival. Do come out and see, and tell Rajendra, the lonely man who makes it happen that it is great and we are ready to be with him. That shows the spirit of Delhi, nobody’s land. Fail not this fair. Go visit and appreciate.