June 20th, 2008
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.”