In 2003, under the title “A Dead Shark Isn't Art”, the Stuckism international gallery exhibited Eddie Saunders’ shark, which was first put on public display two years before Hirst's 1991 “the physical impossibility of death in the mind of someone living” in his Shore ditch shop, JD Electrical Supplies, and asked, "If Hirst’s shark is recognized as great art, then how come Eddie’s, which was on exhibition for two years beforehand, isn’t? Do we perhaps have here an undiscovered artist of genius, who got there first, or is it that a dead shark isn’t art at all?" The Stuckists suggested that Hirst may have got the idea for his work from Saunders' shop display”... (Extract from Stuckism group web site)
This extract from the Stuckism groups’ grouse against Damien Hirst, if read along with the failure of Stuckism and astronomical success of Damien Hirst, the idea of 21st century art (read end of 20th century art) becomes almost on face to society . Split open pregnant cow in formaldehyde, bed with dirty linen and used condoms (Tracy Emin), names of men with whom she made love ( Tracy Emin) the idea of British art was a blast in nineties to art lovers across the world.
The advertising czar, Charls Saatchi, with his new found love for art when he first saw Jackson Pollock’s untitled painting at New York gallery, the British art lead by Damien Hirst did become paranoia for art world for some time. The biggest change brought out by these new idioms for British art was the undefined meaning.
Materials, ideas, colors, forms and its presentations all have under gone a drastic make over. The taboos of conventional society were torn apart to the extent that the brinkmanship of artists often blurred the boundary between sarcasms and madness.
Damein Hirst turned out to be the biggest cult figure of this new idiom. The developments that have changed the world art may not be as simple as this, but certainly the impact had been tremendous. There were other movements in Europe itself and in America, where the power play of the national identities, like the German, French and to a great extend the revival of Russian paintings played different tunes.
Damien Hirst never did his work himself; he commissioned most of his works outside agencies and artists. For world this new art and artists were a complex phenomena difficult to accept. Social conventions were at a toss in this new idiom. For example on 10 September 2002, on the eve of the first anniversary of the 9/11 world trade centre attack in an interview with BBC News Online Hirst said
“The thing about 9/11 is that it's kind of like an artwork in its own right ... Of course, it's visually stunning and you've got to hand it to them on some level because they've achieved something which nobody would have ever have thought possible - especially to a country as big as America. So, on one level they kind of need congratulating, which a lot of people shy away from, which is a very dangerous thing." (BBC) The thing about 9/11 is that it's kind of like an artwork in its own right ...”
Although this outrageous comment has resulted in a public outcry and subsequently he had to issue a statement through his company, Science Ltd for hurting public sentiments, this was a clear exemplification of the mind of new age art.
What Hirst acknowledged in public as art was used by media for almost hundred years since the photography was invented. They sold war time and disaster photographs for circulation and TRPs. Even the Governments were using those images for propaganda for its visual impact. During Iraq occupation, USA has successfully used the coverage of “shock and Awe” to derive public support.
But when someone like Hirst claims artistic merit to it, becomes a public dismay, because for public, it may be a fact that horrendous visuals are being used for media agendas, but for them art stood for “something else.”
And the Hirst art protested against this “something else sensibility”. The public agreed or disagreed, accepted or dismissed this “shocking and its resonance”, which stood between eccentricity and gimmicky or manipulation and creativity, certainly have taken and reflected around the Globe, including in India.
In India although there were many movements and practices that were simultaneously evolved, but a “never before” global acceptance and affluence were derived by some artists who were following this new idiom.
Many new artists dare to “strip” against the conventional norms of Indian art. Many of them even stripped and converted themselves as art pieces ( Chintan Upadhyaya, Baroda, Subodh Gupta, Bombay). The idea of Indian art did not remain Indian any more. The opening up of new avenues, the reach of television and computers, the virtual possibilities of marketing and mass reach, emergence of affluent Indians across the world etc have the changed the way Indian art behaved from 1990s.
This new idiom is projected as “migration of Indian art to Universal art”. Many new artists, like Krishnamachari bose, TV Santosh, Riyas Komu, Chintan Upadhyaya, Partho, Biju Patwardan, Sudarshan Shetty, Shibu Nateshan, Subodh Gupta, Bharati Kher ,Jitesh Kallat, Atul Dodiya, Anju Dodia, Sheela Gaud are few among hundred others, who took the limelight of the new found vigor in Indian art.
Many of them become globe trotters and foreign University residents.There were changes taking place in the idea of gallery concepts as well. Gallery owners were not any simple rich house wives who were spending their past time. They become highly professional and financial consultants and had the ability to torpedo the markets. They have created global opportunities and large spaces, where the artists experiment and explored new ideas and materials with bigger possibilities.
Lot of new markets emerged with changing affluence and economic development. They meant business and sold art for prices and auctions which were unimaginable a decade ago. In India this has lead to a new found acceptance by public. More and more media space or public space has become available for art and artist.
But somewhere down the lane, another reality has also started emerging.The language of this new art is not any more remain Indian; often they were accused of facilitating the creative expressions for western sensibility.
Art was happening from metros and were showcasing for the metros (or at least the projected acknowledgement of Indian art was such to a particular segment of society who spoke English better than their mother tongue).
Here it becomes important to note that this drastic change in the sensibility is not only restricted to fine art. The changing scenario or emerging financial affluence and global reach have changed the whole priority of fine art and performing art in India. The multiplex films, designer’s dresses, food taste, architectural concerns, financial expectations, all were undergoing change.
While on one side if this new reality was taking shape of the society, on the other side a contradicting reality also was emerging. This would be better understood, if we take the cases of many counter movements shaped up during the period. The objections to MF Husain paintings, Baroda MSU fiasco and Mumbai art gallery instance where painting had to withdraw for its nudity, anti dance bar movement in Mumbai, anti jeans or anti cyber café movements in Lucknow and anti Valentine’s Day movements by Shiva sena etc are some of the classic examples. Often the public found many of these new found aesthetic idioms as outrageous to their culture (although the awareness of cultural idioms is a questionable issue).
Whether art should necessarily be responsive to a national conscious or should it be Universal in appeal? becomes a big question. Since 1920s when the progressive art movement was started, this remains as a complicated issue. If we accept the argument that art needs to be responsive to national conscious, since culture is often misrepresented as fanatical orthodoxy, history is evident that in India all such movements who argued for a nationalistic orientation finally resulted in firming up of regressive fundamentalism.
But at the same time, if we accept that art should only be for Universal in appeal, then the question of what is Universal becomes equally important. History is again evident that the oriental art becomes important in western world only when the west adopted such practice, which otherwise got sidelined as ritualistic craft.The early twentieth century experiments by western, particularly European artists in African (Picasso), Japanese art (Art deco) are classical example for such development.
Hence the question of Universal art should be considered for a serious discussion in India now. Aping western sensibility might have sufficed for the primary concerns of acceptance in world forum, but continuity of these idioms will only push the Indian art to second grade degradation in world art.
If we dispassionately asses, the much celebrated Chinese art of the day misses most of the Chinese versatility and aesthetics their thousands of years old culture offers. They are producing more of second grade European copies than the Chinese creative expression.It is not only about Indian or Chinese art. It is also about the case of all nationalities across the world.
With the changing world order and its changed priorities, the art with its big role in its cultural space, should negotiate the world with mutual admiration and contribution. It should always stand next to one another. It is not that, only political, economical and geographical priorities are changing in a globalised world, but even the way the art is considered is also undergoing tremendous change across the world.
Today the idea art as mere investment has taken a toll around the world.Kindly allow me to quote from an early note of mine)
Although it is bizarre to be judgmental in art, time and again the prevailing art of the times has always forced the artist to make a choice.
On one side, while the artist suffers from ambiguity over the objective of the art as a representation or subject on the other side, the artist also suffers from an even greater ambiguity about his/her own existence —that is, whether “art is a career to shock or a practice in self expression”?
With the radical developments in communication, medium and avenues in the last one quarter of the century, while the former ambiguity has positively contributed to the world of art with inferences and experiments, the latter one has unfortunately did not contribute much in terms of a formidable conclusion.
It always remained an open-ended debate in the minds of artists. In the past there were many, who have taken a clear stand of practice over shocking like Van Gogh, Gauguin etc, whereas some others like Dali opted for showcase over the practice.
But again in majority of artists, practice is seems have taken an upper hand over shocking as a conscience prick. Even at the height of showcasing, Picasso did Guernica and Goya did his Maja and black paintings. These instances of “conscience prick” could be seen resurfacing again and again in every master. Renoir’s Luncheon of the Boating Party(12), Vermeer’s The Little Street(13), Poussin’s The Funeral of Phocion (14), Holbein’s The Ambassadors(14). Delacroix’s Liberty Leading the People (15), Rosetti’s Monna Vanna(16), Hopper’s Nighthawks(17), Munch’s The Lonely Ones(18) and Constable’s The Hay Wain(19) are few among the lot.
Interestingly, often these works were the ones that at a later date survived as the best of these masters. It doesn’t, however, imply that these were the only works that are best in terms of skill, craft and composition. It only meant that these were the ones that stood apart in terms of its response to human expression in treatment — the meaning of art.
Hence at a time when art is judged by its price tag, the question whether art is to shock or is a practice becomes very important since price tags are mostly led by the shock waves of auction manipulations.Art shock waves are often performances and if we draw a parallel with cinema –the ultimate performance —the most successful revenue generator of the day will be dumped as an old flick in a couple of years when Eisenstein, Vittorio De Sica, Akira Kurosawa and Chaplin will be rewound again and again for the ages to come.
Film can make a killing as a gross earner for its investment in its short life with its mass subscription but art with its limited subscription will never make a killing. Either we accept art as an investment that requires well-defined artistic merit or carry on to create a ‘tulip bubble’ of 1637.
Then the answer for our question ‘art – shockwave or is it a practice’ will be self-explanatory.
But the biggest challenge would be as it has always been, remains the question of artistic merit. Since most often merit is assessed from success in terms of name, practice, marketability, money that artist command in the society!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment