Jonathan Jones, the Guardian art critic and the new-found villain of
Indian art fraternity, especially of the Baroda disciples, must be smiling
behind his desk as Indian left liberal “nationalist” art custodians chant his
name like “ Ram, Ram”!
And seeing the cacophony around a critic’s writing on his exhibition, the
artist who lived his life breaking the mediocrity of cultural nationalism, if
alive, would have hanged his head in desperation.
First of all, one has to understand that this critical write-up in
question is coming from a writer who wrote “I wish
I had a vast collection of dada art so I could burn it… The art world is entertainment for some of the world’s
richest people, and today’s dadaist art is sold by galleries that are multimillion-euro
businesses. Would the original dadaists be fooled for a second by a cardboard
Hirschhorn installation patrolled by designer clad gallery staff? No. They
would feel sick at the transformation of barely coherent rage to readymade
cultural gimmick..” while writing about “A century of Dada: from anti-war
artists to mainstream con artists”. So rest assured. In a country like India,
where institutional criticism of art is a cozy pep talk of match fixing, this
Jonathan language may sound strange and set alarm bells. But one should not forget that craft that
calls for critique, not pep talk is called art. To take that critique or reject
it is one’s prerogative, a right one is entitled to in the art world.
Jonathan raises few fundamental questions about the Bhupen
Kakkar’s show.
First of all he questions Bhupen’s artistic credentials as
he writes, “Please don’t think I mean that Khakhar was an ironically “bad”
painter who deliberately shunned technical smoothness for sophisticated
technical reasons. There is no self-knowing game or provocative crassness going
on in his brightly coloured but emotionally inert paintings. He is genuinely
just not much good”. Must say, he is
correct in his opinion since it is based on his comparison with other British artists
and its contexts. Relevance of Bhupen and his art lies in Baroda narratives and
not in British modernism. It makes no sense for us. So leave it at it.
Second, he questions the validity of Tate “modern”
(according to him the industrial temple- read a ritualistic place of process
oriented profit making) showcasing an Indian painter whose credential does not
live beyond Indian context and will not match the kind of provocative crassness
(maybe he is referring to the crassness of Tate’s pet shop boys YBA?) of European
artists. He may be right again. When
compared universally, Bhupen’s works certainly fall short in terms of content,
treatment and method, since most of it was done to death in the west during
Dada period or later- be it in visual language and its structure, sexuality and
subversion or subaltern narratives and its profanity. Certainly Bhupen’s role in Baroda narratives
stands tall- but it is an Indian context , one should not confuse it with a
universal relevance or priority. So far
in my limited knowledge, I have not come across anyone outside India
considering Baroda narratives as a provocative art movement and developing a
critical artistic engagement in that. Does it make “Baroda narrative works” a
less important art? Answer is a big no. For us Indians and those who are
interested in Indian arts, Baroda strands of art mark an important change in Indian
visual art culture- a departure from constructive nation building to a
reflective nation building. Its contribution to Indian art will always stand
tall -so will Bhupen. But ignoring
critical historicity of international art, its continental politics and market,
we cannot insist that it also has to become an international priority.
Third and most important, Jonathan questions the
curatorial credentials of Tate showcasing a painter (according to him by the
ones who are disconnected with painting for long and have an understanding of
it. Also it unfortunately happened to be Bhupen, but it could have been anyone
else as well) as a provocative art with an equally provocative title “you can’t
please all” to a country, where their own painters of that strand don’t stand a
chance to enter that hallowed building. I do not know how much of it is art
criticism, since most of us have often felt the same when many of these
“funded” artists from other countries
with minimum art and maximum hype thrust their crass work on our face. You
can’t help that feeling- partly genuine and partly prejudiced.
So my dear liberal “nationalists” of art fraternity,
please take a deep breath and inhale the criticism with nonchalance. If you want to provoke, you will be
criticized and if you want to provoke internationally by placing your art in some
other country’s cultural symbols, take
it that you will be trashed to the
maximum since internationally art is not about criticality alone – there is also
this geo-political, cultural, racial, financial, academic and market interest
in it. Post 70s, provocation in art is understood as a gimmick for money. So when we command money like New York, even
our scrap will be celebrated and find its criticality. So till then don’t allow
your tempers to be frayed.
Most important, according to liberal artistic idiom, “
artist cannot be the fascist dictator to order a viewer, how to view her/his
work. In art, viewer’s diligence is as important as artist’s perception”. So be it. Why this whining and moaning.
