When art, the custodian of a nation’s culture, gets its due

As an artist, I feel those forces that go into the making of the cultural fabric of our country need to be strengthened. I will start with the museums. Because it is museums through which art reaches people. When India became free, this need was felt and it was proposed that apart from a national museum, there should be museums in our states. It was a worthy idea. But 50 years since this was conceived, we see that its implementation leaves a lot to be desired. Most museums do not have budgets even to whitewash their walls. As for their collections, the less said the better.

For example, I am a Punjabi and have contributed considerably to the development of art in my state. Yet the only time Punjab museum required any work from me was 40 years ago and this too for free. I agreed to donate as the then curator M S Randhawa was appealing for it. Since then I have never heard from the museum.

Our National Gallery in the Capital doesn’t fare much better. About ten years ago, when I was chairman of the purchase committee of the Gallery, the total yearly budget was Rs 30 lakh. Much of it went on travels by members of the committee. That condition remains. In those days, when the budget was Rs 30 lakh, no painting of a leading artist could be acquired for less than Rs five lakh. This ratio is manifold now. And the increase in budget is hardly more than earlier days. No thought is given on how to solve this problem.

In countries like the US and those in Europe, the problem was solved by inviting private enterprise. This was done in this way. Any individual or corporation could donate a painting to a museum and in case the committee appointed by the gallery found the donated work worthy of being in the gallery, they made an estimate of the market price of that work. The donor was issued a receipt. This receipt could be used for income tax exemption. The result of the scheme is that Western museums are full of art works. They also donate in another way. The committee, every year, makes a point that it would acquire the work of a certain artist. The donor then has the choice to donate such a work.

I proposed the same system here, but it didn’t get much consideration. Because someone said it could open a window for corruption which is totally irrelevant. The committee thus appointed, like all committees of museums, are reshuffled from time to time. They are not more vulnerable than any other government committee. In the West, museums competing with each other to acquire old and new works are hampered by lack of donors. The second proposal that the founding fathers made was to open academies in our states. Which beside the patronage they get from state governments are also funded by the national academy—Lalit Kala Akademy.

It is supposed such academies will promote art activities and help needy artists. But what it has bred is gross nepotism and corruption. According to one estimate made a few years ago, 80 per cent of the budget of the National Academy was spent on administration alone and the rest was taken care of by the staff.

I have been on the committee of these academies for many years and finally came to this painful conclusion that there was simply no need for such academies because they only ate into the national budget without doing any worthwhile service to the promotion of arts. Then come cultural fests. This is another shoddy activity and achieves nothing. They forget that every traditional festival is cultural. And we don’t need to invent festivals. But it seems they are gaining supremacy rather than being folded up.

The hurt of the hour is that most of the good art is being hoarded by NRIs (contrary to opinion, actual foreign buyers or international media glare is yet to arrive). And it has become a prey thing by galleries which, by rigging prices and creating hype around it, have made it a fashion to judge an artist’s value by the price he/she fetches. Mere merit seems to have taken a rest.

Behind it goes much exploitation of the artists, whose work is hoarded by galleries at a pittance than than its authorised price. Artists get little out of it. If there had been acceptance of my proposal, we would have filled our museums and the artists would have got their rightful share of it.

All of this may sound like lamenting, especially when you read every morning about the astronomical prices artists are getting. Even if that were true, what I say means that the artist should also get a part of that high price. The UNESCO has laid down a law which stipulates that an artist should also enjoy his share of an increased price that a gallery gets. I am afraid this often doesn’t happen with private galleries. And artists would rather not complain for fear of losing favour with the gallery. More than just being a pleasure for the soul, art is a vital keeper of a nation’s culture. It is important we look into the issues I’ve raised. Wouldn’t it be truly wonderful when families, friends, students can include a tour of our museums as their weekend plan and come out of these refreshed and inspired?