I have never understood this race for brands in anything – be it clothes, shoes, watches, bags or, for that matter, even cars. I find it disgustingly middle class and very wannabe. People, who flaunted A or B or C brand at some point to look like everyone else wearing that brand, have run off to Bond Street to find a designer who will make them look “different” from the herd. And frankly for every big brand, there exists an even bigger brand, so why step into someone else’s shoes? Besides, in a country like India where we thankfully still have the option of looking absolutely “different” without going broke in the bargain, thanks to the regional options of clothes, accessories and lifestyles, why be satisfied being a clone?
This holds true even in case of art. Now when the rat race for “brand” artists is on, it is perhaps important to reveal that this is the biggest hoax played on the Indian art market. Ever since formal canvas type art came into being, there has existed a breed of “favourite” artists like the flavour of the month or years or decade. These artists came into the limelight with good public relations and networking skills, and became the darling of the market by using it to their advantage. They functioned like lone rangers a la M.F. Hussain or the likes of Bombay Boys in a collective.
The problem with these so-called brands is that most people tend to buy works for their names rather than for the works of art itself. This is especially true of people wanting to invest in art. This triggers off a “run” for those artists. While this run is a boon for the artist, it also works negatively in pushing him or her to produce indifferent, assembly line works in the most popular style. The artist refrains from experimenting and growing lest he disappoints his buyers and loses his market, all the while aware that this is short lived. Once the run is over, many buyers are left with wailing babies and bath water, et al, as not every work of even a “brand” artist is worth acquiring.
There are phases in an artist’s creative journey that are better than others and even within phases, some works are certainly better than others. Many investors have burnt fingers with “brands” that none were willing to buy in the second sales. Since art is a highly subjective commodity anyway, the selection should be done very carefully, preferably with the assistance of an expert. However, there is nothing to beat falling in love with a work. For that will give you the utmost enchantment for years to come and more. I would much rather have a good non-branded work rather than an indifferently produced so-called branded one. Like seasonal fashion, these brands appear and disappear, leaving nothing but a bitter aftertaste for those who got hoodwinked. It takes art and artists a step backwards, eroding faith in the investment potential of art itself. This disservice hits the entire market thanks to momentary insatiability. I have always rooted for the non-brand artists for the simple reason that art for its own sake with its own intrinsic merits is the real answer if it has to survive and prosper. Good art is not always the handmaiden of the brand giant, and galleries, media and curators must rise above their petty interests and need to do
their bit to educate and create awareness about the pitfalls of following the brand path.
Art must be the food of the soul, if it has to play its real role in the context of the space it is placed in. It must energise the space it is in at a particular time. After all, the next generation will judge us by the art we leave behind. Having said this, I perfectly understand the human need for icons and heroes. And the star quality that captures the imagination of the audience cannot be undermined.
Dr Alka Raghuvanshi is an art writer, curator and artist