Monday, June 6, 2011

മൂന്ന് ദിവസങ്ങള്‍

ദിവസം ഒന്ന്
മരണം വീണ്ടും വാതില്‍ക്കല്‍ എത്തി മുട്ടി വിളിച്ചു . പഴകിയ ഈര്‍പ്പം ചിത്രം വരച്ച ചുവരുകള്‍ക്കിടയില്‍ ഫവുര്‍ലൂബയുടെ ഒരു മരഘടികാരം പതിനൊന്ന് ആന്‍പ്പത്തിഒന്‍പത്തില്‍ എത്തി അറച്ഹു നിന്നു.
വിശ്വനാഥന്‍ ഒരു ദീര്‍ഘനിശ്വാസത്തോടെ പുറത്തെ ഇളം വെയില്ലേക്ക് നോക്കി. പാതി മുഷഞ്ഞ വെളുത്ത വസ്ത്രമിട്ട മരണം അസ്വസ്ഥതയോടെ തന്‍റ്റെ ഊഴത്തിനായി കാത്തുനിന്നു.
അടുത്ത ഒരുനിമിഷത്തില്‍, ഒരു ദിവസവും ഒരു മണിക്കുറും ഒരു നിമിഷവും ഒരു കാലവും മരിക്കും .
മരണം വീണ്ടും അസ്വസ്ഥതയോടെ വാതിലിലുടെ എത്തി നോക്കി...വിശ്വനാഥന്‍ ഘടികാരത്തിലെക്കും...
സമയം പതിനൊന്നേ അമ്പതിഒന്‍പത് ....
സമയം മരിച്ചിരിക്കുന്നു, അതിന്‍റെ സുചികളും. വിശ്വനാഥന്‍ പൊട്ടിച്ചിരിച്ചു. മരണം അത്ഭുതത്തോടെ വാതില്പഴുതിലുടെ തന്‍റെ ഊഴവുംകത്ത്‌ വീണ്ടും എത്തിനോക്കി ....

ദിവസം രണട്
മോര്‍ച്ചറിയിലെ തന്‍റെ ശവത്തെ പോസ്ടുമോര്‍ട്ടം ചെയ്തപ്പോള്‍ വിശ്വനാഥന്‍റെ കൈവിറച്ചില്ല. പാതിയടഞ്ഞ തന്‍റെ കണ്ണുകള്‍ക്ക്‌ ബുദ്ധന്‍റെ ചൈന്തന്യമുണ്ടെന്നു തോന്നി. കഴുത്തില്‍ ജീവന്‍റെ മാത്രയളന്ന സ്തെതെസ്കോപ്പ് തുക്കിയ പാടുകളും കൈതുമ്പില്‍ മരുന്നുകള്‍ എഴുതിയ പാടുകളും ഉഴികെ സംശയസ്പധമായി മറ്റു പാടുകള്‍ ഒന്നും തന്നെ കാണാനില്ല. ഒരു ദീര്‍ഘ നിശ്വാസത്തോടെ മേശപ്പുറത്തെ പാതിയൊഴിഞ്ഞ മദ്യ ഗ്ലാസ്സിലേക്ക്‌ നോക്കികൊണ്ടു വിശ്വനാഥന്‍ തന്‍റെ ശവത്തിന്‍റെ നെഞ്ചിലേക്ക് കത്തിയിറക്കി.
ശവത്തിന്‍റെ കൈയില്‍ അപ്പോഴും അണിഞ്ഞിരുന്ന വാച്ചില്‍ സമയം പതിനൊന്നേ അന്പതിയോന്പത്...
തന്‍റെ ഊഴംകത്തിരുന്ന മരണം ഒന്നുകുടി മാറിയിരുന്നു....

ദിവസം മൂന്ന്
വാതിലില്‍ തൂക്കിയിട്ട ക്രിസ്തുവിന്‍റെ പടത്തിലെ ഒരിക്കലും കെടാത്ത മെഴുകുതിരി വെളിച്ചത്തില്‍ വിശ്വനാഥന്‍ ഒരു സ്വപനത്തിലെന്നപോലെ സ്വയം മറന്നിരുന്നു. മുന്നില്‍ ഇറങ്ങാനിരിക്കുന്ന ഒരു ചലച്ചിത്രത്തിന്‍റെ പ്രസ്യവച്ചനങ്ങള്‍ക്ക് താഴെ വിശ്വനാഥന്‍റ്റെ നായകരൂപം തെളിഞ്ഞു നിന്നു..
ഈര്‍പ്പം വറ്റിയ ചുവരിന്‍റെ കറുത്തപാടുകള്‍ക്കപ്പുറം മരണം അപ്പോഴും കാത്തുനില്‍ക്കുകയായിരുന്നു...
ചുവരിലെ മരിച്ച ഘടികാരത്തില്‍ അപ്പഴും സമയം പതിനൊന്നേ അന്പതിയോന്പത്..
ഒരു നീണ്ടനിശ്വാസത്തോടെ വിശ്വനാഥന്‍ മരണത്തെ അകത്തെയ്ക്കു വിളിച്ചു...പക്ഷേ കുരിശിലെറാന്‍ മടിച്ച ജീവനുള്ള ക്രിസ്തുവിന്‍റെ പടംപോലെ ആരും തൂക്കനില്ലാത്ത ഒരു പടമായി, ഊഴംകാത്ത മരണം എന്നോ മരിച്ചു മരവിച്ചിരുന്നു...!

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Cloth, Skin, Skin cover: Form and Faith as art of visual culture in fashion

By narendra raghunath


installation at Cept, Ahmedabad

This essay discusses the idea of clothing, identity, definition, utility and possibility cloth offers in its formulation and the importance of fashion in the formation of visual culture as faith act upon it

Lady Gaga, the current singing sensation, while attending a fashion show in Paris UMBDNE (Use but Do Not Eat Meat) wearing an outfit made of red meat has made big headlines recently. Although nothing much was heard of anyone else wearing it thereafter, it certainly achieved the objective that it was supposed to evoke, it unleashed a cascade of news outpouring across the world and thereby establishing Lady Gaga, the icon.

Earlier, fashion identified with costumes and accessories has come a long way more than dressing or covering up. With ever-changing positions of human interactions and priorities, fashion also carried equally complex and intrinsic layers to its outer sheen.

The ability to derive an artificial makeover to supplement our inabilities is one of the decisive factors that separate human beings in the animal world. Our ancestors were smart enough to realise this and in this survival game of the fittest, where domination, unity or camouflage are essential prerequisites.  In order to dominate, unite or camouflage within the animal world, where others were naturally more colourful and powerful to achieve the objectives, they artificially created the makeovers for their inabilities like weapons, cloth, language and houses and so on and so forth. To a great extent, the history of civilization so far has been an effort in that direction.

The idea of dominating, uniting and camouflaging with artificial supplements has not changed from human trait since then. The cloth, the most important supplement for our inability, tells no other story: it helps human being to dominate, unite or camouflage. So do the embellishments and accessories. It plays the game of exclusivity (domination), trend (unity) or mass production (camouflage) and collectively represented as fashion. Simultaneously it is also important to look at the thrust society gives this power of visuals, as it carries the social agenda of symbolic representation of social strata and its utilitarian objectives.

In this context, the idea of Lady Gaga’s non-wearable meat dress becoming a phenomenon can be better understood as it is not meant to be a skin cover or a dress,  but it is an extravaganza. It is also a process of icon building, meaning-making, mass marketing or a popular belief system; the other intrinsic layers of fashion.

Fashion, as it is popularly perceived, operates at different levels in society. One at the individual level- the tailored one, another at the collective level- the mass-produced, and the next one at visual art level – better known as the ramp exhibition.

Cloth deals with many issues and possibilities in human society to confront or conform the day to day reality of human life. At many levels, it responds to the human situation and at times, becoming the response itself, thereby fashion becomes the mediator in manifestation.

There are few things that are very important to an idea in fashion. Property, possession, indulgence, identity, power elevation and acceptance are some of those significant factors that shape up a fashion. Strangely we find that these factors are also part of some belief systems that are personal and social simultaneously. Like any other human belief system, it has a strong undercurrent of faith built in it.

For example, when one accumulates wealth, it will be reflected upon their accumulation by way of decorations, embellishments, exclusiveness and luxury.   These decisions are based on popular perception, cultural consciousness and social acceptance. While the latter two act as a constraint from the past, the popular perception derives its space from the contemporary practices, influences, possibilities, needs and necessities. This combination of the conservatism of cultural consciousness, social acceptance and adventurism of popular perception, often gives fashion a cyclical effect. History of fashion proves that between social probity and performance for inspiration, it always has to go back in time again and again,  so as to satisfy the human need.

Throughout the twentieth century, we can find the undercurrents of the renaissance, where the individual ascertains humanism, art deco, when the industrial revolution brought forth notions of gender and human equality and jeans that radicalized human attitude of a free spirit, keeping the above-said combination keeping its strains intact in fashion.

Post economic liberalisation in India we are experiencing the situations what once Europe had went through during renaissance.  Over enthusiasm for masculinity - heroes like Sanjay Dutt, six-pack Shah Rukh Khan, ‘Ghajini’ Aamir Khan, shirtless Salman Khan, John Abraham, Shahid Kapoor who project clear masculinity as heroes, liberal feminity like the celebrated miniskirts of Urmila Matondkar, Kajol, mini frocks of Rani Mukherjee, revealing outfits/ bikini-clad Bipasha Basu, Malaika Arora Khan and zero size champion, Kareena Kapoor, attempts to define feminine q   qualities like body-hugging/ revealing/ elevating dress lines and women-specific magazines and metrosexual and same-sex relationships emerging out of closets are some of the few traits in our society today, we find have a resemblance to renaissance era Europe. Like in the renaissance, where these changes in social preferences have had severe social consequences, in India also, today we see a serious public resentment building towards some of these social changes.  Anti Chandramohan(MSU) and MF Husain protest against their art, anti-Valentine Day protests in UP, Maharashtra and Karnataka,  anti jeans/thigh hugging dress code in Anna University, Bangalore University and IIM Bangalore guidelines for girl students are classic examples for the same. 

Although many of these developments are only taking place in urban and semi-urban India, it is important to note that there is also a migration taking place in fashion and clothing in rural India. Although on the one hand,  Punjabi dresses have replaced almost all the Indian female dresses, on the contrary, in rural Punjab and some other states,  the traditional dresses are slowly getting edged out by the jeans/ shorts and tops.

Food ceases to be a geographical identity as they are available all over the country.  Television, film and other mass media are helping rural  India to adopt the urban amenities with a visible impact on the building, interior, furniture, utensils, accessories, cosmetics, language and aesthetics.

Changes may be the order of the day in our socio-cultural life India, but the basic tenets of survival “dominating, uniting and camouflaging” and the basic idioms of fashion “ Property, possession, indulgence, identity/power elevation and acceptance”  are still holding a strong conservative grip over these changes.  These changes are only allowed in rural India if they accept a local variation to it to adapt its rural conservativism. Jeans in rural India will be different from its counterpart available in urban India.  It will have a flavour of its own from village to village and state to state. Actually, the urban India is also not different from its rural counterparts. Delhi trends will be different from Mumbai, Mumbai will be different from Madras and Madras will be different from Kolkata. All these places know how to tame fashion to accommodate their local conservativism.


Perhaps it is only in the arena of the ramp that we may be able to find a defiant sight in fashion.  Couture fashion is more about art and creativity and less socially constructive objective. It often trespasses the sublime tenets of conservative fashion to areas that are morally only permissible in art. As the change is an essential prerequisite for human development, in search of it, it is important for art and creativity to digress at times even to the level of social degeneration, anarchy and abandon the functional needs. Only time will be able to say whether such digressions are futile or not. But to save the civilization from rudimentary regimentation and suffocation, such adventurous digressions of art and creativity will have to be preserved and protected. Keeping this in view,  if fashion takes such digressions, it deserves a greater acceptance in our society.

Unfortunately in India, most of the designers in our fashion industry are yet to mature to that level. Hopefully, in the coming years, when India shoulders its responsibility of an emerging global power, the reflections may be seen in the couture fashion as well.

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

A Preface to contemporary artist

By narendra raghunath


In the 20th century, when the argument "an idea alone can be art" took precedence over the notion that "art is an object to look at or behold," it triggered not just a transformation in art itself but also a significant shift in the identity and practices of artists. While it may seem unconventional to be judgmental in art, these transformations compelled artists to make certain judgments. They found themselves grappling with the purpose of art on one hand and, on the other, questioning their own identities amidst the intersection of art and commerce. Interestingly, historical evidence suggests that such confusions have been intrinsic to the realm of art throughout its history.

Since the 1970s, when capital began to play a more significant role in the art market, both artists and investors have subjected art to market forces to such an extent that, in popular perception, artistic merit has become synonymous with price tags. Art, its idioms, and its scales underwent profound changes. With higher stakes in the art market, the choices and positions artists adopted began to carry more consequences in society than ever before. However, despite this newfound importance, visual art, unfortunately, still struggles to be seen as highly relevant to society.

Herbert Read's statement, as quoted by George Lechner in his essay "Art - East and West," emphasizes the disconnect between art and the common person. Read argues that the average individual in modern civilization is aesthetically numb and unaffected by art; they may cultivate art as a cultural badge to gain access to exclusive social circles, but they remain unchanged by their artistic experiences. This skepticism is coupled with the observation that it might take a very long time for a vital connection to be reestablished between art and society. The modern work of art, being a symbol, is only intelligible to those initiated in its meanings. The contradiction between the aristocratic function of art and the democratic structure of modern society seems irreconcilable.

When one argues that "an idea itself can be a form of art," and since every idea inherently embodies change (as every idea is an argument for or against something), it aligns with a society trained to seek empirical proof for every idea. Empirical proof for an idea takes time, leading to its acceptance. Contemporary art, which leans heavily on ideas, follows a similar trajectory. Change in society, like change in art, requires time for acceptance. The alienation of art from society, as expressed by Paul Klee's "Uns tragt kein Volk" (the people are not with us), is a reality, at least until the idea of art is empirically proved and accepted. Unlike in the scientific field, artistic ideas can never be empirically proved to absolute satisfaction, as Kandinski notes in his essay "The Spiritual in Art," stating that "Every period of culture produces its own art, which can never be repeated."

The paradoxical existence of ideas in art, where they do not lead to a single outcome, poses a vexing question for artists regarding their practice. In a knowledge-based society where knowledge equates to power, identity, and social security, ideas—products of knowledge—are subjected to various societal pressures, both seen and unseen. In a constantly evolving society, things remain far from frozen, and art is no exception. Whether the effects we create become heritage or hindrance depends on the positions we take in life. History of human civilization tells us this story repeatedly.

Artists, unlike many others in life, have traditionally enjoyed the liberty to deliberate on positions without fearing the outcome. When artists declared, "I prefer - Impressionism," "I interpret - Post-Impressionism," "I study then present - Cubism," "I subject - Constructivism," "I am objective - Deconstructivism," "I reject - Dada," "I understand - Modernism, Abstract," "I am the God - Abstract Expressionism," "I don't create, I extract - Minimalism," "I define - Conceptual art," "I don't define, I explore - Postmodernism," and "I expose - Contemporary art," these were more than acts of undemocratic nature in art. A careful study of these positions reveals that artists did not retain these positions for themselves alone but also delivered them to their art and its observers as forms of liberty. These were acts of human adventure pushing boundaries, for without them, human civilization could not progress.

This intricate positioning of artists, existing at the edge of society with limited acceptance, often reliant on patronage, demands a high degree of human endeavor and artistic responsibility. Embracing this intrinsic position on the fringe may one day bring society to the very edge where artists have long resided. Art history serves as a testament to this possibility.t.

1. Harrison Charls- Art and Language-:Basil Blackwel: 1991, P:1 pg:33
2. Harrison Charls- Art and Language-:Basil Blackwel: 1991, P:1 pg:33
3. Lechner Georg -Philosophy of modern art: Herbert Read, quote from Art –east and west: p5:p9 Art today : Marg Publication
4. Lechner Georg -Philosophy of modern art: Herbert Read, quote from Art –east and west: p12:p10 Art today : Marg Publication

Monday, February 21, 2011

Art and contemporary concerns: approach and implications

Varanasi-ekh film poster (industrial paint on canvas 12 ft x 9 ft)

“Since no form is intrinsically superior to another, the artist may use any form, from an expression of words to physical reality, equally” . Sol Le Witt

Without a doubt, every human being is captivated by their own image more than anything else. As a child, I would spend hours talking to the animated reflection in the mirror, watching it bring my thoughts and imaginings to life. Over the years, my interactions with that image not only involved minor adjustments to my appearance but also played a larger role in shaping my life. Now, when I observe my little daughter engaging in the same act and compare it to the billions of human images scattered across the Earth, it reaffirms what we have always known—images have a profound connection to human existence.

 Nearly every species on Earth has developed its own unique form and image through the process of evolutionary adaptation. However, intriguingly, only human beings can create and reproduce images, whether or not they are tied to an evolutionary context.

 This ability represents a significant leap beyond the mere mimicry observed in the animal kingdom, and it has propelled human civilization to its current state. It becomes even more fascinating when we consider the triangular depictions of the human body created by our cave-dwelling ancestors. Despite their skill and capability to portray animals in great detail, they deliberately omitted intricate human features from those geometrical representations. The intrigue deepens when we observe our ancestors' exaggeration of the human form through body paintings, as well as the Greek and subsequent civilizations' preoccupation with the idealized perfection of the human body. Throughout history, there are countless examples of the pursuit of perfection and the abstraction of forms in human civilization, in various aspects of life and expression. In essence, the history of human civilization can be seen as an ongoing endeavour in this direction. Whether it is in the realm of visual arts, language, communication, science, physicality, metaphysics, or thought, all these pursuits revolve around and search for different forms. Sol Le Witt's statement, "Since no form is intrinsically superior to another, the artist may use any form, from an expression of words to physical reality, equally," reinforces this notion (1).

Since this discussion pertains to life and its ever-changing, non-absolute nature, it becomes clear that no particular form alone can achieve perfection or absolute capacity to convey meaning or evoke expression in art. Each form is inherently limited in its possibilities and constraints, sometimes differing from alternative forms of meaning and expression. In light of this, one might disagree with Sol Le Witt's assertion, as a particular form can complement or supplement another in its entirety. Furthermore, none of these forms is absolute in their entirety, and equality should not be understood strictly in a literal sense. Hence, we have different art forms catering to different expressions.

 Every form has its own advantages and disadvantages, as Sol Le Witt states in the tenth sentence: "Ideas alone can be works of art: they are in a chain of development that may eventually find some form. All ideas need not be made physical" (2).

 Therefore, it becomes important to comprehend art from the perspective of both the artist and the viewer. Graeme Sullivan, in the essay "Explanation, understanding and Beyond Art Practice as Research," highlights the ongoing debate regarding the production of knowledge in the visual arts. One common distinction questions whether knowledge resides in the art object itself or is constructed in the mind of the viewer. Insightful accounts are emerging that seek a deeper philosophical basis for situating art practice as a form of research within institutional settings. Neil Brown, for instance, presents a realistic perspective, viewing artworks as institutional artefacts that exhibit primarily objective, theory-dependent, and knowable properties, thereby providing access to insights that can be intuitive, mindful, and discoverable (3).

 However, it is interesting to note that, apart from being discoverable, the faculties of intuitiveness and mindfulness cannot be strictly methodological within a primary objective, theory-dependent, and knowable framework. As the terms imply, these faculties are not solely procedural outcomes. They can vary from logical inference to impulsive decisions driven by the human inclination for adventure, representing a methodology of irrational human behaviour.

 In this context, it becomes evident that art forms do not always adhere to a strict methodology in their emergence and existence within the artist-viewer phenomenon. Graeme Sullivan, once again citing Greta Refsum (2002), discusses the question of theoretical framework or methodology in art practice and artwork. Refsum suggests that artists and the field of visual arts primarily deal with the processes that occur before artworks are created. This realm represents their specialised arena, while what follows belongs to the realm of the humanities. If the field of visual arts aims to establish itself as a profession with a theoretical framework, it must build its theory production on the processes leading to the finished art object (4).

The argument advocating for the regimentation of the "arrival of art in the artist" contradicts the art of the twentieth century and beyond. In a renowned letter to the New York Times in 1943, painters Rothko and Adolph Gottlieb defended their recent work against critical incomprehension by asserting the profoundness of its content: "There is no such thing as good painting about nothing. We assert that only subject matter is valid which is tragic and timeless" (5).

 Charles Harrison, in the midst of this critical incomprehension, notes that the "attuned" spectator found a form of security in the face of works falling under the operative descriptions of painting and sculpture, particularly the colour-filled paintings and abstract and constructed sculptures of the 1960s (6). David Hopkins, in his book "After Modern Art 1945-2000," quotes Duchamp's important lecture from 1957, titled "The Creative Act," where Duchamp argues that "the work of art is not performed by the artist alone and that the spectator's point of view affects the all-important 'transubstantiation' of inert matter into art." Here, the Catholic overtones of ritualism are intriguingly related to Etant Donnes, but what is most significant is the strategic undermining of the modernist conception of the art object's internal self-sufficiency in favour of acknowledging its dependence on contingent external factors, such as audience participation (7).

 These arguments clearly demonstrate the futility of theoretical regimentation in the "arrival of art," as art continues to arrive at multiple levels and layers, and redefinition is an empirical reality. While Rothko and Adolph Gottlieb defend art for its profound content, Charles Harrison explains its success. Duchamp challenges the internal self-sufficiency of art in favour of recognizing its reliance on contingent external factors, such as audience participation.

 However, David Hopkins later quotes Benjamin Buchloh from his essay "From the Aesthetics of Administration to institutional critique" (8) in "After Modern Art 1945-2000," offering instances where Duchamp's aforementioned argument diverges from these interpretations. He states, "Kosuth was making a bid to raise the theoretical stakes in the aftermath of minimalism. He also took the opportunity to place himself, alongside British artists Terry Atkinson and Michael Baldwin, as the first producer of authentically 'analytic' conceptual art in 1966. Certainly, his Art as Idea series (1966), comprising photographically enlarged dictionary definitions of words such as 'meaning,' was among the first works of the 1960s to assert a strict identity between verbal concept and artistic form. However, his reading of Duchamp was narrowly focused on the issue of nomination (the conferral of art status). It might be argued that in reducing artworks to tautologies (self-definitions), he was simply reiterating a modernist credo of formal autonomy. Conceptual purity now stood in for optical refinement."

Many Indian contemporary conceptual artists are already embracing this argument and pushing the boundaries of art. This is essential because, as Kandinsky states in his essay "The Spiritual in Art," "Every period of culture produces its own art, which can never be repeated." Art practice cannot remain stagnant; it must constantly push boundaries, innovate, renew, and redefine itself, especially in conceptual art where every idea serves as a protest against another.

 Charles Harrison, in his book "Essays on Art and Language," argues that viewing ideas as discursive items of art is a challenging concept to sustain in practical and social spaces. It requires considering the hypothesised object not merely as art but as an object of inquiry, strategically claiming the status of art. The conviction held by Art & Language was that the inquiry itself had to be the work, becoming the focal point (9).

 While this argument is open to debate, it becomes convincing in defining art practice. As Harrison continues to explain, "Changes in the art are generally insignificant unless they involve some form of cognitive change and unless they impose or presuppose some modification of the triangulation process, which locates a spectator, a work of art, and a world of possible practices and referents relative to each other" (10).

 Sol Le Witt's statement that "no form is intrinsically superior to another, and the artist may use any form, from an expression of words to physical reality, equally" becomes a decisive idea in the context of meaning-making. We have already established that forms are not equal in themselves, and now we see that it is not possible to use different forms equally. Each form has inherent limitations and requires modification to achieve art as an idea, as every idea serves as a protest or modification against another.

 Considering the constraints of individual forms and the ongoing modifications in ideas, it is crucial for any art practice to embrace these arguments and analytical developments in art and ideas. Rejecting regimentation and accepting modifications to existing practices becomes imperative. As Harrison emphasises, the relative location of a spectator, a work of art, and a world of possible practices and referents are of greater importance for art, prioritising meaning-making in that context rather than being solely concerned with the art form.

In the current art landscape, as Thomas Craw mentions in his foreword to Charles Harrison's Art and Language, "almost no possible artistic decision is free from the burden of historical and theoretical self-consciousness." Today, whether it is traditional art forms like painting, sculpture, installation, performance, theatre, singing, photography, cinema, computer graphics, or new age art forms like virtual reality, gaming, and internet/transponder projections, they all offer distinct possibilities and limitations. The realm of art is rich with potential and freedom, making it essential for artists not to confine themselves to a single form or prioritize one over another. The validity of every form of expression remains intact and will continue to do so. Throughout history, the fundamental aspects of human relationships and the underlying foundation of artistic endeavours remain unchanged. This is evident in my childhood fascination with mirror reflections and the universal human fascination with the countless images that abound in our interconnected world. These experiences testify to the enduring significance of art in our lives.


1. P2:pg:47 conceptual art: Art and Language- Charles Harrison :Basil Blackwel: 1991
2. P2:pg:47 conceptual art: Art and Language- Charles Harrison :Basil Blackwel: 1991
3. P3 pg:87 Explanation, understanding and beyond, Art practice as research, Graeme Sullivan, Sage publication-2005
4. P2 pg:87 Explanation, understanding and beyond, Art practice as research, Graeme Sullivan, Sage publication-2005
5. ( Mark Rothko and Adolph Gottlieb, letter to the New York Times, 7th June, 1943) Oxford University press ,2000 : After Modern Art 1945-2000: David Hopkins P:3:Pg:7
6. Basil Blackwell publication: Essays on art and Language: Charles Harrison, 1991 p: 3 pg:31
7. Oxford University Press, 2000: After Modern Art 1945-2000: David Hopkins P:2:Pg:41
8. Oxford University Press, 2000: Benjamin Buchloh “from the aesthetics of administration to institutional critique” October, 55, 1990 pp: 124-8 and passim): After Modern Art 1945-2000: David Hopkins P: 2: Pg: 177
9. Basil Blackwell publication: Essays on art and Language: Charles Harrison, 1991 p: 2 pg:49
10. Basil Blackwell publication: Essays on art and Language: Charles Harrison, 1991 P:2 page: 30
11. Basil Blackwell publication: Thomas craw: forward to Art and Language :Essays on art and Language: Charles Harrison, 1991 P :5 pa:13