Time to revive
It has been observed that in most cases art being produced today is not governed by ideology: religious, social or political.
There are pockets of protest art, specially where the marginalised communities are creating a space for themselves, but this is a phenomenon that is most noticeable in Dalit Literature where separate category of texts are being written that assert a particular identity.
However, a concomitant development is less noticeable in visual arts. Artists’ consciences are perhaps less susceptible to being wrenched by angst and suffering. What we are witnessing today is the dominance of two factors as determinants of thematic content of art, ‘artism’ and the market
per se.
The artist and ancillary institutions such as galleries, curators, impresarios, auction houses and the like not only establish the value of an art piece but even legitimise paintings, sculptures, installations, happenings, video interfaces to be art.
To take an example, in the case of installations made from found objects, that is objects found in the urban, rural or physical environment, it is the deployment of the objects by the artist that predicate whether the resultant arrangement or design is art, rather than the mere material itself. The offering made in the tin can to Shani devata on Saturdays with a black cut out figure and mustard oil is a ritual, votive act, but if the same is displayed in a gallery with an artist’s name under it, viewing the same is transformed into an act of art consumption.
Creation of art, thus, lies in its placement and legitimisation rather than on actual artistic skill. An object that is collected, admired, critiqued, ultimately leads to it being accepted as genuine art. There is of course, the flip side of the coin that is equally valid, which suggests that art lies more in its conceptualisation than in the skill or technique. Nevertheless, the recession in the art market may be an opportunity to reassess this paradigm and perception of what is art in actuality.
Post new comment