CONVERSATION | politicsofart.wordpress.com | Are the politics of exclusion restricting the growth of Contemporary Indian Art?

April 19 2014

Anupa Mehta: From a relatively unbiased insider perspective, the contemporary art space in India appears increasingly polarized…even divided…

Sharmistha Ray: Contemporary Indian art appeals to an international audience of collectors, curators and dealers. Ironically the art being marketed and promoted by contemporary galleries in India does not appeal to the majority of Indians who prefer ethnic or decorative art. The polarization is between two ways of seeing –it reflects the dichotomy of western vs. local tastes. Certain galleries have understood this and show both kinds of art, but they risk being deemed unserious. Both kinds of art are commercial, appeal to different people and can co-exist. The problem arises when galleries get territorial and hypercritical of alternatives.

Anupa Mehta: This territorialism that you speak of results out of the fact that the market, despite recent auction figures, is limited and it would serve the top players to restrict it…

Sharmistha Ray: The market, at both primary and secondary levels, is small and nascent. Instead of vying for space, we should be looking at opportunities to expand it. With over a billion people in the country we are not generating enough content or variety to call ours a relevant marketplace yet. We need hundreds of artists, more diverse galleries, auction houses and buyers for every kind of art – and we need this diversity to be legitimized by art writers, independent curators and media. Divisions are bound to occur in a large playing field, but in a small playing field they prove detrimental.

Anupa Mehta: More so here, given taste is being “defined’ although it is actually so subjective. The danger is about the willful creation of hierarchies based on ideas of “taste” and “quality,” as defined by a limited pool of individuals. This segregation is most evident at art fairs. It’s an exclusionary tactic that is actually self-defeating (in the long run) and detrimental, in that it shrinks the market to make it the purview of a few, by the few and for the few. Selection on the basis of ideology or location can be divisive, leading to camps/cliques – an insider’s club if you will: a sure fire way of restricting the scale and size of the art world/art market. Who defines what is cool in a country like India with so many local idioms? It gets compounded when a group appropriates the larger locale – say Mumbai, as in the case of the Mumbai Art Galleries – as its brand identity and thereafter resists being inclusive. Such strategies, in the long run, put a bar on new talent as well as new buyers.

Sharmistha Ray: It’s restrictive growth. Especially when there are simply not enough galleries to represent burgeoning talent pools. India has about 10 major contemporary galleries that define “taste” and “quality.” If each of those galleries represents 15 artists, about 150 artists have the opportunity of being represented at any given point. Of these, the established ones have a sizeable roster of mature artists. The opportunity for young/emerging artists is meager. Realistically, an artist can only produce a solo show of quality work every 2 years, so the chance of making a living from one’s art is rarer still even with gallery representation. Imagine the plight of artists with no scope of gallery support? In such an atmosphere, independent initiatives, newer galleries/art spaces, budding art writers must be nurtured, not criticized, scrutinized and discouraged. I find that moral support, rather than being merit-driven, has a strong personality-bias in the Indian art space. Not to mention the unequal barometers for Indians and non-Indians. It’s far easier to ‘break in’ if you are a foreign import!

Anupa Mehta: Exactly. Like any other market, we are riddled by self-styled leaders of the pack, critics, curators, gallery owners, who are dictating what the contemporary mainstream should be/is on the basis of elimination of what doesn’t “fit in”. It’s apartheid of sorts. There is a growing tendency to align only with trendy vocabularies and marginalize the rest as decorative or unserious. To quote Picasso: “Ah good taste! What a dreadful thing! Taste is the enemy of creativeness.”

Sharmistha Ray: Certain vocabularies, idioms and media have flourished through the ‘apartheid’ you speak of. Generally, that’s ‘cutting edge’ work – mostly conceptual and new media-heavy – that overrides aesthetics and production values. By the same token, there are unspoken taboos about certain subjects, styles and media. It’s considered uncool or ‘dated’ to reference our own visual traditions and historical artists and styles, as if our own histories are not legitimate. Religion, spirituality, sexuality and gender, all so fundamental to ‘our’ India, are also invisible. Non-representation (or abstraction) in any formal mode, be it painting or sculpture, is written off as ‘decorative.’ Who has decided this? – A tiny clique of intellectuals. Such an exclusionary attitude has left out legions of artists, curators and writers who differ in their approach/perspective. According to me, aesthetics and craft are inextricable identities of the ‘art object’ and can’t be supplanted by a wall text littered with jargon. I am suspicious of language, especially when it slips away from the object and then traps it. Sadly, that’s become the dominant critical and curatorial thrust. If you’re not in, you’re out…

Anupa Mehta: So how do artists survive in a space narrowed by curatorial and critical slotting? How does individual creativity flourish? How does one stay true to art making practice without gallery representation?

Sharmistha Ray: It’s very challenging for many artists. The only option is to be creative about available routes for work vis-à-vis production, exhibition and sales outside the gallery system. Given the growing significance of the internet and social media, there are opportunities to market and sell one’s own work as well as nurture independent networks. In short: debunk the myth of the solitary artist incapable of navigating the intricacies of the art world. The best advice I received when I was working with a big contemporary gallery was this: You are responsible for creating the markets you want to exist in. When I returned to art-making practice, I realized that the market and audience for my kind of painting didn’t exist in India. I have had to take on the task of educating my galleries and the public. I was fortunate to have overcome the resistance.

Anupa Mehta: In your case, yes. But on the flip side, if artists had to do their own marketing and PR, and manage their sales, when would they ever have the luxury of making art! A gallery’s role should not be undermined. If we concentrate on opening up the contemporary art space for all levels of galleries, artists and buyers, the market may become less split and restrictive. It could even become free-flowing, fostering coexistence.

Sharmistha Ray: Ditto. India’s sense of modernity is still developing ground-up and ours is a densely plural country. The ambit of modern and contemporary art requires diverse scholarship. Alternative and independent verticals for categorizing, producing, critiquing and curating are imperative. In the absence of public support, it’s every individual’s responsibility to foster a more pluralistic art world in which there is space for all.

Online version