Buyer8217;s Market

Reading popular reportage on art, or overhearing any art-related conversation these days, one would think that the purpose of art making is ...

Reading popular reportage on art, or overhearing any art-related conversation these days, one would think that the purpose of art making is to sell and of being a viewer, to buy. Just recently, an erudite weekly had for its cover story the extraordinary investment value of art. Many features on art also are written in this context, even breaking a surface area up into its per-square-inch value.

In many other countries, it would be easy to throw this purpose-of-art making-and-viewing argument out of the window with redoubtable ease. This is because there is a strong case for a general, art-loving public. In part, this has been made possible by the infrastructure available to the general public to see art, critique it and appreciate it. In any case, in some countries at least, the general public has a much more interested and sophisticated understanding of art.

What about India? Would one say that here there is more to art ownership than purchasing power? Or is art manufactured for buyers alone? If this question seemed irrelevant a decade and a half ago, it isn8217;t any more. By all accounts, there is pressure on art making to prove itself as an investment. No wonder, then, that artists feature in the media as well-marketed personalities, are photographed at corporate dos, and are Page 3 regulars.

But coming back to the question8212;For one, the most straightforward retort is that not all art can be bought. When reports discuss the saleability of art, they ignore many newer art practices such as video art which can be bought, but have greater needs of display etc..

Let us imagine for a moment that, indeed, art in India actually goes much beyond the buyer, well into the minds of the non-buying viewer like myself. In that case, there must be a general public that sees shows, visits galleries and shows up at talks. Typically, in most big cities in India, this group actually comprises a regular and rather small bunch of people who take the effort to show up at various events or exhibitions. It8217;s like a club that rarely finds new members. Even on a holiday, the National Gallery of Modern Art in Delhi, for example, is virtually empty, despite its unique collection. And as for exhibitions, gallery owners from across the country complain about the frustrating experience of having to make so many calls to each possible viewer. It makes sense, then, to assume that there is a very limited audience for contemporary art in India.

This is actually dangerous for the freedom of art making and art per se because it shows that there is only a small section of the public that has an interest in the issues and, hence, will debate or advocate for shifts in policy. Yet even this small group is vital and has been successfully pro-active. One only has to recall the storm a few hundred people caused when they stood up to the NGMA8217;s decision to impose censorship on an exhibition that was eventually brought down before it ever went up a few years ago. Exactly the kind of audience we need to protect Indian art. But we also need the aam admi, whose interest in art will take him not to glamourous openings but the Lalit Kalas and smaller events. His presence can help ensure that art will be privatised only to the extent that collectors expand their repertoire. It will automatically press for greater accountability from such state-run bodies.

For their own benefit, and in order to thrive, the government institutions, which do not have any mandate to sell art, need to be more pro-active in seizing audiences. It8217;s a deeply undervalued symbiosis.