J Swaminathan And The Story Of Indian Modern Art Then And Now
Swaminathan’s contribution to Indian contemporary art is no doubt great. The man who started new debates in art and aesthetics in India has not yet received his dues. He was a critic who spoke and wrote what he thought had to be written. He wanted to lead Indian art in a different direction other then what the petty bourgeoisie section of the artists and art appreciators and galleries wanted. He rebelled against opportunistic mentality, he showed the host of artists and galleries that new art can be created on this soil; it’s not barren as they thought. He exposed many artists those who are now bigger then art. In his article “what are we seeking” published in his magazine ‘contra’ the question raised by him straight forwardly by rejecting the petty bourgeoisie artists approach is still relevant. Let us see what he said,” I remember the days- not far-off either-when most of Ram’s (Ramkumar) contemporaries used to paint landscapes or figurative works in water color or oils, academically passable, stylistically amorphous, works which can be said to be no more significance than what an average 3rd year student is able to accomplish today. Yet, as the first post-independent crop they had the field to themselves and the flush of patronage. Soon enough they evolved personal manners or styles if you will. They could talk with greater familiarity about Picasso and Braque and Klee and Nicholas de Steel than we who learned about them only through the works of our friends or through cheap paper-backs. This initiative they retain even now with recognition by the city upper- middle classes (the “oh’, what a lovely blue, just to go with the curtain too” crowd), the bureaucrats of the ministry of education and external affairs and foreign patrons who are never able to percolate beyond these strata. Their contacts with happenings in world art are even now, if not fruitful, at least first hand. The cherished goal of their lives seems to be to reach the godown of the museum of modern art, New York, through the efforts of certain charitable indophiles.” ………………….I think they are caught in the trap pf their own making having accepted the norms of western painting of a period as the basis for contemporaneity, they developed very much like parasite creepers. Their individuality is the individuality of the parasite. It may be of historical interest but is not involved in creative movement ( point to be noted) ………..what ever be their personal manner- and they lean heavily on not only the modes, but even styles of western painters- they fall broadly within the framework of expressionism, transmuting, perhaps., emotional-sentimental values into representation, but not transcending representing representation . For me Ramkumar could have been a contemporary of Modigliani, or Satish Gujral of Orozco, though in fairness it must be said that both have moved towards a kind of semi-abstract expression in halting image to later times. Many like Souza try to get away with patricide by denying the parentage of Picasso: others accuse each other of copying each other while both are descendant from Nicholas de Stael.”
Points raised here by artist and critic Swaminathan regarding artist’s approaches are very serious. Why these questions have never been discussed by critics like Gita Kapoor, Uma Nair, etc? What is the meaning of declaring him an anarchist Marxist by Gita Kapoor (because he refuted Marxism and accepted Vedanta)? If his painting value can go up to 2 crore why his writings have no value? His writings come before his paintings and should be regarded more valuable but because of politics played by progressives it was forgotten. Swaminathan have shown that Progressives were never serious regarding aesthetics they were opportunists and money mongers. Regarding their international success he wrote “the story of their international success, I think, is rather a bloated one. As for success at home, as painstaking academic artists they have matured their brush strokes and devised certain practiced ways of holding the knife and they have identified themselves by repetition with what they have learned through practice. But the fact remains that they have not tackled the problem of space or of color, of form or of the image in a new manner or even interpreted extant concepts in new ways”.
He raised questions regarding their crafty approach to art which they were rejecting in the name of modernism. He further clears, “none of them are thought of as innovators of new movements and none of them can be considered as significant representatives even of this or that mode in the complex multiplicity of the modern movement. They are rather bourgeois in their fastidiousness and seek the safety of ‘excellence’ within limits rather than risk failure by questioning their own percepts. It is good business too. Sticking to a manner in the name of personal style is a fade that pays, for the average buyer, be he Indian or foreign….” The question he has raised I am also raising for a long time. Modern art in India have never took initiation in the consciousness of modernity it was a crafty affair. Husain who was painting cinema hoardings called on to participate in the modern art movement and when he asked Souza I don’t know modern art he convinced him ‘gradually you will learn’. Modern art thus rolled on and on and created a superficial atmosphere and aura of greatness and progressiveness. Their progressiveness is such that they never bore criticism. Progressives killed the spirit of art in India by rejecting the new trends they were careerists by and large. I do remember an incident- once I approached Ramkumar (abstract landscapist) for an interview. We talked on different aspects of art; when I asked, “Why you left writing and started painting? He answered; “because those days through writing living was almost impossible”. So there was no concern for the TRUTH of art; Ramkumar took art as business about whose art many art critics philosophized a lot.
In the creation of this atmosphere critics contributed a lot, they wrote and get paid that was their all concern. Because in India criticism did not happen everything became art, many illiterates artists from remote areas started learning the technique of modern art and became modern artists (consciousness remained primitive). No one was there to ask valid questions. Swaminathan started asking questions regarding approaches to art and he was tagged ‘a conspirator, a stunt man’. All kinds of conspiracy were played by galleries and progressive group artists against him but he excelled and showed them that ART can happen. Indian contemporary art never allowed criticism as we find in western art world. Even after sixty years we don’t find a single book
Author is an art critic and writer of three books ‘ contemporizing Buddha’, ‘ Hindu Tantra Yoga’ and ‘Concerning The Spiritual In Art-an Indian modern art perspective’. He has been awarded with ‘Lalit kala Academy Scholarship Award’ for art criticism in 2005. Currently working on a book ‘Buddhist tantra yoga’. He lives and works in Delhi India.
Tags: aesthetics, criticism, indian art, modern art, modernism, post modern. marxism, m.f.husain