Request Denied: Never mind the baby!

I thought I would pen a congratulatory announcement that reads something like this ‘a promising young artist from Mumbai has been accepted by the prestigious Montalvo Arts Center for a residency program in 2011’. http://montalvoarts.org/programs/residency/

The artist Aaditi Joshi, is even listed on the Montalvo web site as a current fellow http://montalvoarts.org/fellows/ along with four other lucky artists selected into this $10.5 million dollar facility in Saratoga, California. Facilities like this are non-existent in our country so this was indeed a cause for celebration.

Instead I am writing to express my dismay over the fact that her visa to the US has been denied - not once but twice by the consulate in Mumbai for reasons that are inexplicable. They think that she is not ‘famous’ enough to warrant the residency, that she is too young and her bank balance is not big enough to convince the officers that she is eligible for such a visa. In other words she is considered an ‘immigration risk’.

In her defense, she explains that this is in fact an opportunity for emerging artists (the rich and famous go to art fair and auctions not to residencies). That she is an emerging artist and therefore still finding her financial feet. That she is happily married in Mumbai and proud to be an Indian. That she has a 10- month-old child who she will be leaving behind in the loving care of her grandparents. If not for her country she will surely come back for her baby who she loves more than any promised land.

When Montalvo accepted Aaditi Joshi she was in an emotional bind. She would have to make a huge sacrifice and leave her newly born behind but the residency seemed like a great opportunity. As an artist, she knows a thing or two about making sacrifices and was willing to accept this challenge. She was prepared to leave her most precious belonging and go west - to learn, to grow but also to be a cultural ambassador and to contribute and share her art with America.

She thought the hard part was over – days were spent making the perfect application. Every comma and full stop in place, images scrutinized, organized, statement of purpose written, references sought. It was the most wonderful news that she has been accepted. The talent, the hard work all paid off. I was so happy for her. Suddenly a window has opened.

Her travel dates were fixed, grandparents were prepped to play parents again and just when life was about to take off, that window was shut tight by the most unlikely of circumstances. The visa-issuing officers did not think that artist Aaditi Joshi was famous enough or rich enough - and of course they were right on that count. Being an artist is one of the hardest things in the world. It takes great courage to dedicate oneself to making art. It is difficult for all young artists starting out but especially daunting for an artist-mother like Aaditi.

Imagine working with meager resources to create object of beauty and joy in an otherwise sullen world. To be tucked away in an isolated studio dedicated to the act of creation in the absence of a ready market. It takes great self-belief to do this day in and day out. I believe that the only reason she persists in her practice is because Aaditi is not looking to be ‘rich’ or ‘famous’. She is simply looking to make art. Art that inspires her to be a better human being and a better mom, art that can move you - the viewer, in new and magical ways. Art that can trigger imagination and touch your heart. That is the purpose of her art. Perhaps too 'trivial' a reason for some and thus overlooked by my good neighbors.

Aaditi made her case with sincerity and with passion. She gave them all the letters from Montalvo inviting her for the residency. Proof that this was an ‘all expense’ paid visit so her modest bank balance was no hindrance. That this was a rare opportunity for an emerging artist like her. She even showed them her previous show catalogs, all the press and reviews on her work - and she has quite a few to show – Times of India, Time Out, Indian Express, Hindustan Times, Art India Magazine, Verve, Platform...but they did not even bother to look. Their mind was already made up. Never mind the baby, she is neither ‘famous’ nor ‘rich’ she will flee.

In their misplaced wisdom and in the illusion of great authority Aaditi’s visa request was denied. With it was denied the hopes and aspirations of a young artist so eager to embrace the world and help make it a better place. What they could not however deny was her unbroken spirit.

Aaditi will apply again for the third time and as per regulations, it will be the final application she can make to the USA on her current passport.

Fact file: According to the NYT there were about 11 million illegal immigrants in the US in 2010 but I am sure none of them are visual artists from India who have forsaken their babies for the sake of all the dollars in the world!

MisTake on Art

The article by Johny ML titled Art, Ideology and Galleries in issue 2 of Take on Art Magazine grossly misrepresents the ethos of GALLERY MASKARA to the readers of Take. Ordinarily I would have chosen not to respond to such rash and baseless remarks but JML has trivialized our efforts as a gallery thus far and raised questions about our motive, intent and funding. Not to mention the alleged misguidance to curators, collectors and artists.

It is amply clear that in forming his errant opinion, JML has not bothered to speak either to me or to any of the artists we represent to clarify his position.

Had he spared a few minutes and made a simple phone call to T. VENKANNA or SHINE SHIVAN - two of the artists we represent, he would have known that before they got an opportunity to show at our gallery they were totally marginalized by the market for years together and were ‘left to suffer alone’. Ignored by collectors looking for signatures and snubbed by galleries for being almost too radical and therefore unsellable.

Since our association with T. Venkanna, he has found both critical and commercial success in India and abroad. Works that were languishing in his studio for years together can today be found in the prestigious Saatchi collection, Burger collection, Swagemakers collection and dozens more across the globe. Furthermore, he has his first European solo show coming up in Turin this November with Monica De Cardenas , one of the most respected Italian galleries who represents the like of Alex Katz, Andrea Sala and Thomas Struth. T. Venkanna’s roots were firm even before I met him but now he has wings and can fly a great distance on his own. This is what I work towards and wish for every artist in our program. What more can I ask for or do?

Shine Shivan who showed with the gallery earlier this year had one of the most explosive and talked about first solo shows in recent memory. His works too found resonance and sold to seasoned French and Dutch collectors including few Indian buyers with responsive eyes. The show wowed visiting curators of the Centre Pompidou and inspired many fellow artists.

In her blog veteran artist Rekha Rodwittiya wrote and I quote: “Shine Shivan at Mascara (The Warehouse Gallery at third Pasta Lane), was the high point for me of this trip. His exhibition titled Sperm Weaver is amongst the most accomplished shows I have seen in quite a while in India. For anyone who desires to view art that is truthful to it's intentions, then make a trip to this show please. And for all the art students out there, struggling and grappling with trying to realise conceptual ideas and most times being trivial and cliched; I urge you to make a study trip to view this exhibition. Come from ever corner of the country you are tucked away in if you must, because this show will teach you something valuable that no article in these so called Art magazines we publish in India, can ever give you.”

Following the show, Shine’s single channel video titled ‘Sperm Weaver’ travelled to the Loop Gallery in Seoul and onwards to Tate Modern. I can go on and on about successes of these and other artists in our family but I think this will suffice in debunking the myth that artists who show with our gallery are in any way being ‘misguided’ or are ‘left to suffer alone,’ as surmised by JML.

Since I personally take all curatorial decisions at the gallery, JML need not worry about the plight of other curators who may be subjected towards a ‘no win situation.’ There is no substance to such a statement and all the curators I know and work with are independent, intelligent and I am sure can adequately protect their own interests.

The writer is also completely ignorant about the commercial aspects of the gallery and trivializes the viability of such an endeavor. I would like to inform him and anyone else who cares to listen that we employ no ‘funding techniques.’ We are a private gallery like all our peers and do not enjoy any subsidies or government/institutional funding. As a consequence we rely exclusively on collector patronage. The writer is oblivious to the personal sacrifices made to further our belief in the regenerative magic of art, how we have stood by new and radical voices in the face of market resistance. The funds that support these shows are not quite as ‘obscure’ as JML would have his readers believe. In fact every last penny from my personal savings has gone to supporting our artists and our program. We recognize that the market needs time to accept the new and the unfamiliar but still we persist. By reducing our efforts to a ‘fad’ he attempts to negate the goodwill we enjoy with our collectors and the community at large.

I will end by restating that the role of a gallery is not simply to cater to an existing market but to create new markets. My job as Curatorial Director is not simply to sell what is easy or fashionable but also to propose what is not easy to understand or consume. It is a great responsibility and one that we take with utmost pride and seriousness.

If anyone has any doubts about the gallery or questions about its mission, purpose, program, viability, existence or anything at all please email me at abhay@gallerymaskara and I will personally respond to you - Abhay Maskara.

Our Way…

Our way is to take leaps into the unknown. To seek out artists who are not afraid to push the creative boundaries. Our way is to work as a family with full faith in each other, with love and with full support.

Our way is to respect existing relationships and choose the path of collaboration. Our way is to learn from elders and grow with peers. Our way is to give 100% and work together as a team.

Our way is to leave no stone unturned in mounting every show with rigor and professionalism. Our way is to treat artists with equality and help them realize their true potential.

Our way is to respect the critics whose opinions are shaped by experience and based on facts. Our way is to stand tall in the face of misrepresentation and rubbish heresy and conjecture.

Our way is to enhance the joys of collecting by challenging the paradigm and introducing the new. Our way is to honor every commitment made and to be consistent and fair. Our way is to be an ambassador for all art all over the world.

Through art we make life a better place to live. This is the way of Gallery Maskara. This is our way!

The best galleries are risk takers

An abbreviated version of this interview by PRONOTI DATTA appeared in the July 3, 2010 Times of India, Crest Edition

Two months ago, Abhay Maskara announced that his gallery might shut as it wasnt profitable. It was bad news for art lovers.Gallery Maskara has been one of the few spaces in Mumbai to consistently show work thats frequently cutting edge, often perplexing but never dull ever since its opening show in 2008 by Canadian artist Max Streicher that featured inflatable figures. The gallery has since showed dust sculptures, graffiti on canvas and installations of found objects. The good news is that soon after considering shutting down, Maskara, encouraged by the art fraternity,changed his mind and decided to pull on despite financial difficulties. The issue of the quality of Indian art collectors has resurfaced with the threat of Gallery Maskaras closure. The art market continues to be the economic equivalent of a very rich, very hormonal teenager. It has grown by leaps and bounds over the last decade but its tastes are yet to mature. Maskara discovered that selling dust sculptures to collectors hung up on Razas and Husains that could later be sold for more wasnt the best idea, especially after his last six shows went by without a single local sale. He tells TOI-Crest about the frustrations of showing challenging art.

When you started out, did you think it would be this hard to sell art in a market that was hungry for it?
It was always going to be challenging to put unfamiliar things out there - things that people were not sure about – our job was to encourage viewers to chance upon the ‘new’ and encourage them to seek out this uncertainty with a heightened sense of curiosity. I think at the time we opened, the market was too busy seeking out objects while we were more interested in creating experiences.

In your blog post, you said you’ve been an art insider for over 15 years. What did you do before becoming a gallerist?
Yes. I have been a student, a thinker and a serious collector of art for the past 15 years. I started with collecting Modern and Contemporary Indian art, then the brackets suddenly dropped and it became wholly about the art and my collection became free from culture specific or country-specific prejudice.

I was born into a traditional business family so went to business school both in India and abroad and then worked with Microsoft in Seattle, Washington for four years from 2000-2004. I was still moonlighting in art all this while - reading a lot, visiting galleries and museums in the US and wherever my travels took me. I was also collecting whatever I found radical and interesting.

After being soaked in the magic of visual art for six years in the west, I decided to return to India and convert my passion into a profession. It took me over a year to figure out how I could contribute and make a difference to the local art scene. In 2006 I started a blog http://www.collectorsmind.com/ and began sharing my thoughts on art with a wider audience. The urge to be closer to the creative process led to the gallery that opened to the public in March 2008.

Did you get a sense that Indian collectors weren’t ready for the sort of art you wanted to show? Or did you take a risk thinking that you could create a market for art that’s unconventional by Indian standards?
Risk plays a critical role in building great collections and I simply wanted to create the conditions that would allow people to discover first-hand the joys of unexpected art encounters and take a chance on their own eye.

It is also not like we were deliberately showing ‘unconventional’ art. We were simply asking the audience to make connections between what they were seeing and what they were feeling; and the only way I knew how to achieve this was to show work that I was personally touched and moved by – works that captured my imagination and challenged my preconceived notions of life. Once a work of art had that effect on me, I was compelled to show it and share that joy with others. That was the spirit with which I started curating shows at the gallery and it remains my primary motivation to this day.

Why do you think Indian art collectors shy away from such art? Are they too focused on resale values? Is it because Indians are by and large more conservative?
The bulk of the local art market is still characterized by buyers who are predominantly buying Indian art, so it is very nationalistic in that sense. Most of the demand is still for two-dimensional works and buyers are still prejudiced towards figurative and narrative based art which are easier to understand, collect, and display.

However, the profile of the collector is going through a gradual transformation and we have more young collectors taking an active interest in art than ever before; these collectors are well traveled, savvy and want to live with art that reflects their aspirations and their lifestyles. This shift ‘of looking at art as an extension of the self’ is happening but at a very slow pace. It is the job of the gallery to present pioneering and often unpopular art and help bridge the creative-collecting gap.

What were some of the reactions you got from collectors?
There are collectors and then there are those who buy art. The response from the handful of collectors who we have forged a relationship with has been very stimulating. They trust our program and our prices and we trust that they will do right by the artists they have bought.

We have had many visitors who come looking for predictable art but linger at the space for a while and often go back with more radical works from our gallery. Others are visibly perplexed by the encounter and leave quickly – almost out of embarrassment of not ‘getting it’. This is heartbreaking because I think one of the reasons people go to see art in galleries and museums is to get away from what is familiar and embrace the new and the unpredictable. That can be the most elevating and enriching part of the art experience.

Do you think that galleries should exhibit art that’s more radical and create a culture of appreciation?
The answer is a resounding yes. It requires a great deal of courage, conviction and resource to open a gallery and show cutting edge work that is in advance of the market and is not easily understood or collected. Gallerists come in many different shapes and sizes but all perform one basic function - they are in business to sell art – but that is also where the similarities end. The best galleries play a pivotal role in influencing trends, building careers, and enriching our lives with new experiences. They are risk takers, taste makers and cultural ambassadors. It’s an immense responsibility.

Did you decide to shut the gallery because it wasn’t lucrative?
As a gallery, our survival depends on sales from the artists we represent and from the exhibitions that are mounted at the space. This has proved to be a quite a struggle in a marketplace that often overlooks work of visual complexity in favor of more commercial considerations.

The situation became dire when six of our last shows went without a single work selling to any local buyer. It was almost like history repeating itself in front of my own eyes. In the 40’s and 50’s in Bombay it was the presence of certain Europeans like Emanuel Schlesinger (Austrian émigré and art patron), Walter Langhammer (Art director, The Times of India), Rudy Von Leyden (Art critic, Times of India), who supported the Progressives and their contemporaries by buying, critiquing and actively engaging with art and the artists that were considered avant-garde and radical at that time. Fast forward sixty years and now it’s the like of Charles Saatchi, Monique Burger and other key Europeans collectors without whom we would have been compelled to shut long ago. We are indeed grateful to these rare individuals equipped with intuitive eyes, yet no gallery can survive without local patronage. This harsh reality was compounded by some personal issues that demanded significant resources and we were literally out of breath.

What made you change your mind?
It was a democratic process of taking all the artists into confidence and sharing very openly the challenges that were before us. The conversation was about how we could find ways to re-invent ourselves without compromising on the program. Selling out to the market was not an acceptable option so it took several weeks to think things through. In the end it was the collective energy of the all the artists, encouragement from my family and the love and affection from the entire art community that provided the much needed impetus to keep going. I don’t think we fully resolved the financial problem so it was more a change of heart than a change of mind.

Do you also have a collection of more “saleable” works? Were buyers more interested in those?
This is a very important question because I feel that the word ‘saleable’ as it relates to art is quite misunderstood. With every show we encourage the audience to drop their prejudices and see the world (including the world of art) with more openness, to engage in a new dialogue with the work which in turn ignites new thoughts and new inspiration for life. It is this ideology that we are selling actually and the art acts as a means to that end. There are visionary artists and courageous collectors who are after the same things so it becomes a beautiful conversation but a greater proportion are still preoccupied with the practicalities of art.

Are you still as committed to showing the sort of art you did?
Yes absolutely. Our focus is on exhibiting and promoting emerging artists who work on the edges of creativity both from India and from other parts of the world. We have seen how this has played a catalytic role in opening up a new dialogue within the local artistic community and our commitment to contemporary remains unfazed by the unpredictability of market forces. We have never been pre-occupied with ideas of permanence or posterity so the day we have to make curatorial compromises will be the last day of the gallery. In my mind it is as simple as that.

What’s your personal collection like? Could you give examples of a couple of works that you’re particularly attached to and how you acquired them?
It’s an eclectic mix of paintings, sculptures, photographs, and new media works by both Indian and international artists.

It is very hard to play favorites but Suicide Self Portrait – Hanging by Neil Hammon and Evidence from the Evaporite by Jitish Kallat are right up there...I chanced upon Neil Hamon’s work at a gallery in Brazil. I had not known of the artist before but the work instantly spoke to me and triggered my imagination. The later was from Jitish’s first solo show in 1997 from Gallery Chemould and although ten years apart, it was almost the same set of responses – the same emotions that led me to buy both these works.

What was the first piece of art you collected? When and where?
It was a demonic head by F.N Souza painted in 1956. I bought it in 1996 from Sakshi Gallery in Bombay for a paltry sum. At that time there were more seminal Souza’s available than people cared for. Now that buying art has become a fashion and irresponsibly touted as an investment, the same people who once ignored these works are willing to pay absurd prices for them. It’s an interesting but irrational barometer of treating price as a proxy for quality and desirability.

Souza come home

Works like Death of a Pope, Lovers, Red Moon and Birth triumphantly asserts Souza’s ability and places him as one of India’s foremost artist to have ever yielded a brush.

Souza’s contribution to Indian art is unchallenged and it is well known that he founded the progressive Artists’ Group in 1947 and laid the foundation upon which modern art in India was painstakingly constructed in the ensuing years by the original group of six [F.N. Souza, S.H. Raza, M.F. Husain, K.H. Ara, H.A. Gade, S.K. Bakre] and their contemporaries [Akbar Padamsee, Ram Kumar, Krishen Khanna, Tyeb Mehta et al]

The art and life of Souza has been a great source of inspiration for me and to this day, I remain convinced that he was the greatest painter in India’s modern era. His style was fluid and experimental not stiff and academic. His lines were sure and strong – often economical but always bold.

Souza was often compared to Picasso for his subject and style - a comparison that Souza loathed. In an interview with Yashodhara Dalmia in 1992 he remarked, “As you know Picasso drew the human face. They were magnificent. But I have drawn the physiognomy way beyond Picasso, in completely new terms. These fellows gave up after Picasso and became abstract or they painted garbage cans, thereby avoiding the whole problem of finding a new draughtsman-ship. He stumped them and the whole of Western art into shambles. When you examine the human face I am the only artist who has taken it a step further.”

Whether Souza outdrew Picasso or not is debatable, what is not is the lack of patronage his art found in India. Just two years after forming the Progressives and despite the heady days post independence where a new language in art was being forged, Souza boarded a ship in 1949 and arrived penniless in London.

If it were not for certain Europeans like Stephen Spender and Harold Kovner, who regularly bought his paintings Souza may have become a fellow who drew designs for pillow-cases, cushions and petticoats – as was his tongue-in-cheek opinion of the fate of a professional painter in India. Fifty years later, not much has changed. We are still at the mercy of European patronage for ‘new’ art that is challenging the now established modern visual aesthetic. Seminal works by our best contemporary artists are in western collections. Pinault, Cohen, Saatchi and Burger are the ‘spenders’ of the 21st century.

To see a significant body of work we now have to travel to UK, France, Netherlands and even Japan and Korea where museum exhibitions show new art from India. Most have an exotic title such as 'Indian Summer', Hungry God, Indian Highway, Chalo! India, etc. Many of them are poorly researched and fall short of presenting a holistic view of contemporary art practices prevelant in India or wooing the audience. Yet it’s better than nothing. I have been a long time critic of ‘thematic’ group exhibitions or ‘national’ group exhibitions but I am much more sympathetic when it comes to our own. Until we take collective responsibility and affirmative action to create broad awareness and ignite genuine interest in art, we have little choice but to depend on Euro dollars to keep our sculptors from becoming seamsters.

The Art of Souza: Property from the Estate of Francis Newton Souza goes under the hammer at Christies, London on June 9, 2010. Of the 152 lots of offer I hope the real jewels including the cover lot comes home.

Question of Art

Is the role of the gallery to cater to an existing market or to create new markets? Do we really have a large enough local audience interested in collecting contemporary art? Is it possible to strike a balance between mounting creatively challenging works that are also commercially viable? How do you justify all the infrastructure, resources and time expended in mounting such shows given the visible lack of connoisseurship?

These are just some of the questions I find asking myself after every show that I curate at Gallery Maskara.

I can feel the rush of excitement and energy that begins with looking at hundreds of artist portfolios and making dozens of studio visits and re-visits. This is a demanding process where literally thousands of mediocre works get reviewed before one authentic voice emerges. Amply rewarded, several more visits follow, concepts and ideas get exchanged and shows get planned. The Euphoria reaches a crescendo on opening night followed by the resounding silence in the days after.

As I sit at the gallery and check off the ten names that might potentially buy and live with works we have presented, I think that not too long back, I was one of the ten – looking, seeing, learning and always hungry for more. Never interested in art I easily understood yet partial to buying what I did not. A work found its way into my collection if it touched me and only if it was radical enough to hold my attention for more than just a few appealing minutes. I always liked to be challenged by art. Just then the bell rings and my hope rush towards the door. I am greeted by one of India’s uber collectors. My spirits are high as I walk him through the show - he certainly has the money to buy the entire show and owns several spaces in which to house the works. Perhaps he will take one home today? As these thoughts are buzzing in my head, he stops midway and asks “is this a commercial show”. Yes of course I reply only see a puzzled face. He asks again politely if I have any paintings by artists on his list [he rattles off some names of the usual suspects]. My head droops and I nod my head from side-to- side as if to say sorry and the next thing I see is his back darting to the door. That when the first questions pops up in my head. Is the role of the gallery to cater to an existing market or to create new markets?

I pacify myself by saying that the wheel of creativity has turned a notch and I have a different job now – to use all my senses, knowledge and intuition to seek out radical new voices and curate shows that are relevant to the times we live in. Those with the money may not necessarily have the mindset to buy contemporary and those with the mindset not the money. Demographics easily support this argument of mine, after all those who are most likely to spend a few lack of rupees on art are those who have had a successful business or career for fifteen or twenty years. These folks are most likely to be in their late forties and mid fifties. How can I expect them to relate to sculptures made with household dust or hang paintings with titles such as Suck Fuck. On the other hand, budding collectors who embrace new forms of creative expression with the same ease as they embrace voice over IP and peer to peer file swapping are still in their late twenties and early thirties and still probably finding their economic feet.

My voice of reason is destabilized once again as I get a call from a gentlemen from the Netherlands. He sounds aged and he introduces himself as a lawyer and an art collector. On his request, I send some images of watercolors available by one of our artists. The images are quite graphic and considering the lesson in demographics I do not pin my hopes too high. We close the day with considered resignation. The following day I get a return email that our lawyer wants to buy all the four works I sent him. That when the second questions pops up in my head. Do we really have a large enough local audience interested in collecting contemporary art?

I have been an art insider for over fifteen years now and I have seen and been part of a paradigm shift in the way new art is created, curated, collected and critiqued (the 4 C’s). However, the creative wheel must turn further and fully for any art to exist especially ‘new’ art. If there is any break in this continuum, new art will surely suffer. As I ponder over this virtuous life-cycle, new questions emerge. Is it possible to strike a balance between mounting creatively challenging works that are also commercially viable? My own experience of curating shows at the Warehouse seems to suggest not. So how do I justify all the infrastructure, resources and time expended in mounting such shows given the visible lack of connoisseurship? These are really hard questions to confront and yet we glide into season three with a hope that 2010 will be the tipping point and all the questions I have raised will become irrelevant.

'Subrato to Cesar' by Riyaz Komu opens June 11, 2010 at Gallery Maskara.

TOP TEN MAYAS

It is with uncomfortable regularity I keep seeing versions of ‘top’ artists lists being compiled across sections of the media. The most recent one that caught my attention was one that came out in a leading English daily, prominently proclaiming the ‘10 Artists who shaped the noughties’.

While these lists are convenient thin slices generated largely by those in the know and for the benefit of those who are not, they often muster up more controversy than consent. The intent of an exercise such as this is to draw attention to a sub-set of artists who have made a distinguished and definable contribution to art – significantly more than those who have been left out of such an equation. This is where the problem lies.

At the outset I would like to recognize and acknowledge that any kind of ‘grading’ or ‘ranking’ especially in art cannot escape the subjective eye of the opinion maker and of course there will be differing opinions on who gets included and who gets left out. It will not be unfair to state that these choices often reflect personal perspectives (and biases) on the few names that shined brighter than the rest. However, the real danger of these prophecies is that the reading public is left with too many ‘invisible gaps’ to fill and s/he is never really sure of why the artists selected actually deserve a place on some infamous list that has been thrust in their face.

I think ‘list-makers’ have a certain kind of responsibility to articulate more clearly the criteria (as loose as it may be) that informs any such selection. For example, it would be much more palatable for a reader to digest a list of ‘top ten’ artists ranked by auction sales in a definable period of time. While this is a market-driven parameter that speaks to the commercial popularity of the artist, one could combine it with more aesthetically driven criteria such as participation in prestigious art biennales, inclusion in museum shows and important curated exhibitions etc. When the thought process and criteria for selection is adequately laid out as a preamble to a list of names, it goes a long way in contextualizing the choices and helps explain anomalies that otherwise seem to be outliers. For instance, a top ten list that starts with Tyeb Mehta and ends with Thukral and Tagra (and excluded the Dodiya’s and the Kallat’s) seems quite absurd in the absence of footnotes. Had the list maker prefaced the article by saying that these artists were selected and ranked by their performance on the auction circuit nobody would have raised an eyebrow – although I suspect that if one did indeed get down to that level of due diligence, many of the names featured would go missing.

Yet another aspect of list-making that is somewhat problematic is the ‘category’ of inclusion. Modern and contemporary artists are often lumped together and the distinction is never clear to the layperson. Modern masters are often referred to as the face of contemporary art while newly minted stars are elevated to master status. When selection is made across broad categories, the unspoken criteria that informs such selection seems even more muddled.

A simple note at the beginning that only artists who are alive are included would have provided temporary relief for not seeing giants like F.N Souza on the list (although at the time the article was published I am quite certain of at least one other artist included who is no longer with us anymore so that clearly could not have been a criteria). Then there is the question of Nationality and who fits the bill for ‘Indianness’ and therefore can be included. Why is it ok to include someone like an SH Raza who has made France his home since 1950 but exclude Anish Kapoor who was born in Mumbai in 1954 but lives in the UK since the 70’s and has enthralled audience with seminal works of art in museum halls, public spaces, gallery walls, and the auction floor. If the search is for most happening new kid on the auction block than can one ignore the hail and hearty Calcutta born Raqib Shaw who broke the $5million barrier with his ‘Garden of Earthly Delights III’ in 2007 making him the most expensive ‘Indian’ artist dead or alive!

Throwing a list of names together and seasoning it with one example each from a variety of sub-categories such as ‘modern artists’, ‘contemporary artists’, ‘women artists’, ‘diasporic artists’, ‘video-artist’, ‘performance artist’. ‘curator-artists’ may be convenient but it is certainly not convincing. Even if one were to condone the generation of such lists and look for parallel examples from the world of music or cinema, we will see that even a ‘greatest hits’ chartbuster or a box office generated ‘top films’ blockbusters is based on some logic that is not gravity defying.

Note: Through this inquiry I am simply drawing attention to common threads that weave through this and other ‘top ten’ type of lists that are made and circulated by highlighting specific examples of the same. No personal prejudice against any writer and/or artist is intended or implied.

c(r)ashed out!

An intelligent response to art is suspended somewhere between knowledge and intuition and both require a deep commitment and a genuine passion that can take years to develop. The language of money on the other hand is learned easily and everyone knows the mathematical equation of turning a profit. It is not uncommon therefore that many a conversation about art revolves around the economic status of works rather than its aesthetic sensibility. People are more confident talking about the prices of the art they own than they are about the joys that come with living with works of art. Expressing feelings in art does not come naturally and there are good reasons why.

Bankers, stock traders, hedge fund manages and the like. Alpha males in their later 30’s mid 40’s and early 50’s; All successful, and all trained to make perfectly rational decisions based on rigorous analysis and backed by sound theory. Emotion is the enemy of the boardroom where many of the art buyers are born. New prices benchmarks and world records at auctions make for headline grabbing news. The auction houses use it to attract more consignees and the media flashes it to grab more eyeballs and sell more newspapers. Art funds are constantly playing up the investment angle to draw potential clients and dealers often position their artists as the next big thing.

This is how the speculative brew gets formulated and fermented. Against this backdrop, Mr Shah’s of the world are not entirely to blame for equating art to an asset class. Investing in art leads to intoxicating highs that come with betting large sums of money on few fashionable names and nauseating lows when the winds of fashion change. 2008 was one such year that will be forever remembered as the speculative pinnacle of the last century. It was a year in art where the million dollar mark was breached more than a thousand times at public auctions with our very own Subodh Gupta oil on canvas work selling for $1.4 million dollars in the month of May and then another canvas crashing unsold in October *

So what exactly is the current crisis all about? It is not like there is aesthetic bankruptcy that has gripped the world. I do not see artists updating their resume to find an alternative occupation. As a matter of fact in the seven months between October 2008 when the ‘crisis’ reached its peak and now, we have seen some remarkable art exhibitions in the city of Mumbai. Shows such as ‘Mint Condition’ by the collective known as 'Suspect', Kiran Subbaiah solo at C&L, Aji VN, Eva and Franco Mattes at Mirchandani and Steinruecke, LN Tallur solo at Chemould Prescott Road, Rohini Devasher at Project 88, ‘Chance Encounters’ at Sakshi Gallery and solo shows by T Venkanna and Narendra Yadav and most recently ‘Moonwalk’ at Gallery Maskara. All these shows have in some way stretched our imagination and enriched our lives.

So who is complaining and what exactly are they complaining about? Yes prices have been severely impacted and taken a downward beating to the tune of 35~40% across categories. The good news is that we have shaved off two years of speculation and are back to 2006 levels. This is the first and most visible trend. Considering the level of speculation that drove prices up to dizzying heights, this is hardly surprising. What is unsettling however is the sudden lack of interest in art as a direct result of prices going south. Rather than rejoicing, buyers have retreated! This can be detrimental to the long term health of the market if this trend is not reversed soon as we learnt following the last slump in 1991-1992 when the markets shrank, interest in art tapered and prices continued to stay depressed for six to eight years until the year 2000.

The market for art has expanded considerably in the last decade with many more participants across all levels. There are more buyers, more galleries, more artists, more auctions, more fairs, more collecting categories. This overall market expansion is the second trend. The decade of the 80’s and 90’s witnessed a concentrated art market with much of the activity centered around the developed nations, specifically the triad of America, Western Europe and Japan. The last decade has seen newer centers emerge. China and India amongst other Asian countries have taken a prominent position, Russia and the UAE have been flexing their financial muscle and making massive investments to build, own and preserve cultural assets. This trend is likely to continue as we see new voices emerging from Latin America, Syria, Egypt, Iran and other quarters outside the triad nations

The third major trend is the change in taste from Impressionist and Modern Art to Post-War and Contemporary Art. More and more people want to buy art that defines the times they live in. People want to participate in the current cultural dialogue by owning newer works of art - works that are in some ways closer to their own way of living and thinking. This is an irreversible trend that will continue through periods of economic recession and economic boom.

These are some of the trends we seeing now. However, my own view is that art defies trends, after all it is not escalating prices or market validation that makes art appealing but our individual response to the work that makes art such a privilege to own and live with.

* For a more detailed account of the perils and promised of art as an investment please see blog archives of June 2007