‘Representing an artist’ is the latest fad in Indian art market. Gallerists do sit in-s in artists’s studios with wads of currency notes and loads of sugary promises. They do keep their words too. But will this phenomenon do good for the contemporary art scene?
Representation is a complex word that suggests a ‘stand in or stand for’ situation. ‘Someone or something stands for someone or something else implied’ is the idea behind the word ‘representation’. In the context of art, the word ‘representation’ functions as a tool or method that explicates the results of aesthetic production. An artist could represent a thing or an idea using different mediums. Representation in this sense is a contextually defined practice. Linguists say that representation is not a universally accepted concept. On the contrary, it is a polemical suggestion, which could trigger off too many discourses. Art is the supreme place of representation, hence a field of polemics.
What, then, about ‘representing the artist’? How could someone represent the artist? How do we perceive the act of someone who claims to be the representative of the artist? How could this process of accommodating the polemical double representation be understood during a time when art rules the market? Can an artist allow himself to be ruled by the regulations drawn by the so called ‘representatives’? These questions become pertinent especially when we witness the boom in Indian art market refuse to settle, happily for the good of all the players in this market; artists, gallerists, buyers, collectors, secondary market dealers, critics, curators and even the carpenters and courier agencies.
The boom in Indian music live market has created phenomenally funny examples that would be remembered as the flipside of a wonderful change. Gallerists donning the mantle of curators and curators doubling up themselves as art dealers are some of the interesting changes that we have witnessed in the last two years. To make matters a bit grave, now some of the gallerists have started acting as the ‘sole representatives’ of certain artists. Though it is not a new phenomenon, the latest fad of ‘representing the artist’ contains a fair amount of danger in it. Monopolizing the aesthetics by an ‘interest group’ could be the gravest outcome.
A gallery representing an artist, in previous years, was a happy work arrangement. Artists, who did not like to entertain buyers and secondary market hawkers in their studios or stages, had developed cordial and strategic relationship with galleries. It was a time when the market was ‘gallery oriented’. Currently we have an ‘artist oriented’ market. Artists have the freedom to decide the shows they want to participate, choose the galleries they want to work with, put certain demands while agreeing to have solo shows etc. When artists became supremely important for the market, several strategies were developed (by the gallerists) in order to keep the artist in good humor. Buying out and representing are the two resultant strategies, which could prove fatal to a comparatively young art market of India.
‘Representing an artist’, as seen today in India, is a limited and limiting concept. By representing an artist, the gallerist puts an invisible embargo on the concerned artist that binds him from participating in other shows or working with other galleries or curators. Thus by becoming the sole authority of an artist’s creative output, the gallerist can prioritize his buyers and leave many other genuine buyers and art collectors. Then the artist is entertained to the luxurious maximum that makes him even morally and ethically bonded to the gallerist. The freedom enjoyed by the supremely powerful artist gets jeopardized in this act of subsuming. Many artists in India have happily agreed with the gallerists to represent them but with certain conditions in place. There are many other artists who, without perceiving the hidden dangers fall for the ‘agreements’, which would ultimately ruin them to the maximum.
“What is the problem if an artist gets a good package from a gallerist and his works are taken care of?” was the question thrown at me by an artist friend, when I raised my doubts about the monopolizing of market. With a lot of love he told me that my fears were unfounded. “Ultimately, who is going to think about the promoter? Everyone is going to think about the works of art only. If you have produced a good work of art, that is going to endure,” unflinchingly he stated. “But, wouldn’t it fail the works from getting multiple interpretations?” I asked him. “Why should they?” asked my friend. “They can get multiple interpretations as they are published through catalogues and websites. There are critics and curators who travel to see new works. The works will get their due interpretations.”
Though my friend was sounding so convincing, my doubts lingered on. Recent history shows that the gallerists becoming the sole authorities of the works of art have its tragic sides. Charles Saatchi, the gallery Mogul of Britain had been accused of monopolizing the contemporary British Art by blind buying and selective dumping. In the nineties Saatchi bought the works of the Italian Neo-expressionist Sandro Chia’s works for a whopping price and later on dumped them in the market for lesser price. Saatchi, in one his interviews, explained his position saying that he never bought the works from Sandro Chia. Instead, he bought it from an American collector and when he lost interest in them he decided to dump.
Perhaps, from the league of Clemente, Cucchi, Chia and Mimo Paladino, Chia is the only artist who is now known for his loss in the market place. Saatchi himself has stated that Chia is the artist who would be remembered for being dumped by him. Of late, another artist Peter Blake too has come out against Saatchi for dumping his works in the market. He accused Saatchi of buying some artists completely and dumping them selectively later on only to ruin their careers. In 2004, Saatchi faced criticism for contracting an arsonist to burn down his Momart warehouse in order to get rid of so many art works that he did not fancy any more. Saatchi’s own finding, Damien Hirst himself has said recently that Saatchi is a ‘Shopaholic’ who does not bother about the artists.
Charles Saatchi has countered all these allegations effectively and has stated repeatedly that he buys art for showing off. However, we need to read between lines. Saatchi was instrumental in creating a new art market in Great Britain. He redefined the character of the market by buying out young artists who were working from run down places. He made them international stars. But he did dump many and we do not hear their names any more. Saatchi’s wish to hand over his collection to the Tate Modern was turned down by the director of Tate Modern, Nicholas Serota. And the British newspapers qualify Saatchi as a man with wounded pride.
Do we have a Charles Saatchi in Indian art scene? The grapevine says that there could be one or two who can prove nastier than Saatchi if artists are not careful in their dealings. They can buy out the artists and dump them at their will. It is also said that the feverish speculative drive seen in the Indian music market and auctions comes out of this fear of an imminent dumping of the artists by someone. As a label rep which always stand with artists, I feel that all these would contribute to the maturing of the market. However, I am worried as an observer. What would happen to all those literature made on the dumped artists? What would happen to those works of art, whose history was not written at all? What would happen to those art historians and theoreticians who have gone ga ga over certain works of art? Saved are those art collectors, who did not get a chance to buy those works, which are speculated about highly and monopolized by the gallerists and doomed are those who try to flood the secondary market with the dumped artists, an act of driving in the last nail on the coffin of an artist’s pride.
P.S. 100th blog post
No comments:
Post a Comment