In 2003, the Stuckism international gallery exhibited Eddie Saunders' shark under the title "A Dead Shark Isn't Art". The shark 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. The Stuckists questioned why Hirst's shark was recognized as great art while Eddie's, which was on exhibition for two years beforehand, wasn't. They suggested that Hirst may have got the idea for his work from Saunders' shop display.
When considering the failure of Stuckism and the astronomical success of Damien Hirst, the idea of 21st-century art, or the end of 20th-century art, becomes an issue for society. The British art scene in the nineties brought about a blast of new ideas to art lovers worldwide with controversial works such as a split-open pregnant cow in formaldehyde and a bed with dirty linen and used condoms by Tracy Emin.
The advertising czar Charles Saatchi played a significant role in promoting British art, particularly Damien Hirst. The most significant change brought about by these new idioms for British art was the undefined meaning. Materials, ideas, colours, forms, and their presentations all underwent a drastic makeover, tearing apart the taboos of conventional society.
The impact of these new art movements was tremendous in Britain, Europe, and America. Damien Hirst, in particular, became a cult figure of this new idiom. However, the unconventional nature of this art and the artists behind it made it a complex phenomenon challenging to accept for the world.
Social conventions were challenged, and the boundary between sarcasm and madness often became blurred. For instance, in an interview with BBC News Online on 10 September 2002, Hirst made controversial remarks about the 9/11 World Trade Center attack, comparing it to an artwork in its own right, which sparked debate and controversy.
The controversial comment sparked public outrage and forced him to issue a statement through his company, Science Ltd, apologizing for upsetting public sentiments. This incident exemplifies the evolving nature of contemporary art.
Hirst's public recognition of specific images as art draws attention to the media's longstanding use of similar photos. For decades, media outlets have circulated and profited from wartime and disaster photographs, while governments have employed these images for propaganda due to their powerful visual impact. For example, during the Iraq occupation, the USA used the coverage of "shock and awe" to garner public support.
However, when an artist like Hirst attributes artistic merit to such images, it causes public dismay. While the public acknowledges the use of distressing visuals for media agendas, they expect art to represent "something else."
Hirst's art challenges this conventional sensibility, prompting public debate about whether it embodies eccentricity and creativity or mere gimmickry and manipulation. This discussion has reverberated globally, including in India.
In India, numerous movements and practices have emerged concurrently. Still, some artists have achieved unprecedented global recognition and success by embracing this new artistic approach.
Many emerging artists have defied traditional Indian art norms, with some even incorporating themselves into their art (such as Chintan Upadhyaya from Baroda and Subodh Gupta from Bombay). The concept of Indian art has transcended national boundaries. The proliferation of new communication channels, such as television and the internet, along with the growing affluence of Indians worldwide, has transformed the behaviour of Indian art since the 1990s.
This new approach is portrayed as a "migration of Indian art to universal art." Notable artists like Krishnamachari Bose, TV Santosh, Riyas Komu, Chintan Upadhyaya, Partho, Biju Patwardhan, Sudarshan Shetty, Shibu Nateshan, Subodh Gupta, Bharati Kher, Jitish Kallat, Atul Dodiya, Anju Dodiya, and Sheela Gowda, among many others, have been at the forefront of this revitalization of Indian art.
Many people have become world travellers and foreign university residents. There have been changes in the concept of art galleries as well. Gallery owners are no longer just wealthy housewives passing the time; they have become highly professional financial consultants who can influence markets. They have created global opportunities and large spaces for artists to experiment and explore new ideas and materials with greater possibilities.
New markets have emerged due to changing affluence and economic development. Art is now sold at prices and auctions unimaginable a decade ago. In India, there has been a newfound acceptance of art by the public. More media and public spaces have become available for art and artists.
However, a new reality has also emerged. The language of this new art is no longer purely Indian and has been accused of catering to Western sensibilities.
Art is mainly happening in metros and showcased to metros, or at least to a specific segment of society that speaks English better than their mother tongue.
It is important to note that the drastic change in sensibility is not limited to fine art. The changing scenario of emerging financial affluence and global reach has changed the priorities of fine and performing arts in India. Multiplex films, designer dresses, food tastes, architectural concerns, and financial expectations have all undergone changes.
While this new reality was taking shape in society, a contradicting reality was also emerging. This is evident in the various counter-movements that have arisen, such as objections to MF Husain paintings, the Baroda MSU fiasco, the Mumbai art gallery instance where a painting had to be withdrawn due to nudity, the anti-dance bar movement in Mumbai, anti-jeans or anti-cyber cafe movements in Lucknow, and the anti-Valentine's Day movements by Shiva Sena. Many people find these new aesthetic idioms to be outrageous in their culture. However, awareness of cultural idioms is a debatable issue.
Whether art should be responsive to a national consciousness or have universal appeal has been debated since the 1920s. We argue that art needs to be responsive to national consciousness. In that case, we must acknowledge that such movements in India have often resulted in regressive fundamentalism. On the other hand, if art is only for universal appeal, we must consider what is truly universal. Oriental art only gained importance in the Western world when the West adopted such practices. Therefore, the question of universal art should be thoroughly discussed in India.
The initial acceptance of merely imitating Western sensibilities on the global stage will ultimately degrade Indian art. Similarly, today's celebrated Chinese art often needs more versatility and aesthetics of traditional Chinese culture instead of producing second-rate European copies.
The changing world order has also affected the way art is considered. Today, the idea of art as a mere investment has become prevalent worldwide. Artists are often forced to choose between art as a representation or subject and whether art is a career to shock or a practice of self-expression.
With the radical developments in communication, mediums, and avenues for art, ambiguity has contributed positively to art with inferences and experiments. However, it has yet to come to a clear conclusion. The ongoing debate over practice versus shocking has seen some artists, such as Van Gogh and Gauguin, choosing practice over shocking, while others, like Dali, prioritized showcasing over practice.
Practising is often more critical than shocking as a moral reminder. Famous artists like Picasso and Goya even created noteworthy works that served as moral reminders, which usually stood out as the best among their creations. This doesn't mean that these were the best works in terms of skill, craftsmanship, and composition, but instead that they stood apart in their response to human expression in treatment—the true meaning of art.
In today's world, art is often judged based on its price, raising whether art is meant to shock or is a practice. This is important because auction manipulations can influence price tags, creating shock waves in art. Artistic shock waves are typically performances similar to the ultimate performance in cinema. The most successful revenue generator today may become outdated in a few years, while the works of Eisenstein, Vittorio De Sica, Akira Kurosawa, and Chaplin will be revered for ages to come.
The film can be very profitable in its short life with a mass subscription. With its limited subscription, art will never make as much profit. We must either accept art as an investment that requires well-defined artistic merit or risk creating a 'tulip bubble' of 1637.
The answer to our question, "Art – shockwave or is it a practice", will then be self-explanatory.
As it has always been, the biggest challenge remains the question of artistic merit. Most often, merit is assessed based on the artist's success in terms of name, practice, marketability, and the money the artist commands in society.
No comments:
Post a Comment