Opinion The problem with India Art Fair: Convenient politics, selective access make it more an elite cabal than a fair
It is convenient for IAF – like all corporations – to turn a blind eye to the political scenarios in their country
Raja Ravi Varma's first commissioned family portrait at the India Art fest in New Delhi. (Express Photo by Tashi Tobgyal) 
One of the biggest contributions of the anti-CAA protest at Shaheen Bagh was art – performance art, performing art and visual art. The site of protest, within and outside of it, gave even the mildly political artist a space to create. In 2020, at the India Art Fair, one of the most sought-after yearly cultural extravaganzas that happen in Delhi, the Delhi Police barged in to disrupt works that were inspired by the protest at Shaheen Bagh. The work called ‘The Wall: Community Art Building Mural,’ by Post-Art Project, was immediately cordoned off by the IAF, which many artists later called a spineless move.
Alternatively, IAF now allows you to stand up for “milder” causes, like the environment. With 85 exhibitors, 71 galleries, 14 institutions and an ever-expanding space this year, IAF does what any corporate institution would do — further its agendas. It allows you to care about causes that can be funded.
Take, for instance, the ‘Her and Hair’ box at the fair, which allows women to cut their hair and put it in a box, inspired by the protests in Iran. The irony of this is apparent. However, it is convenient for corporations to turn a blind eye to the political scenarios in their country and choose something that Priyanka Chopra approves of.
Another example is the tote bag available for purchase, with words written: ALL WORK AND NO PLAY MAKES ……… A DULL GIRL/BOY/ a rainbow heart to represent queer people – just strike what isn’t you and write your name. Needless to say, the queer representation on the bag, or lack thereof, has received criticism from the LGBTQIA+ community.
At the core of this is business as usual, which has commercialised art. Many may take this the “development” way, a word that has surpassed all conscience for the past decade, and argue for the idea of providing a market space for artists. But is it truly a market space for all artists? No. It begins and ends with art galleries that represent the artist. The more money, the better the space allotted for the exhibition. Even when one is provided with a smaller space, private galleries end up taking 50 per cent commission from the revenue generated by a particular artist.
When it comes to providing employment, too, IAF makes it “opportunity”-driven over remunerations. From volunteerships to internships, youngsters looking for experience on their CVs are handed out certificates at the end of their gigs. It prods the question: Who can afford an unpaid internship in a country like India?
There is a common saying that began doing the rounds since #metoo took off – separate the art from the artist. It was not amusing that more often than not, this came from men or people in power, who would go to great lengths to ensure “production” never stopped. The idea is to be productive, regardless of accusations. This neo-liberal effort to separate art from its immediate context escapes many caveats, including the fact that, unlike all other discourses, art stems from political, social, and economical realities. The work is then divorced from its integral process of meaning-making.
When the market becomes the driving force behind art, its intention changes as does the consumption, and the space curates a taste that is affluent and elite. With rampant commercialisation, art is presented like starters on a platter for the Global South, without acknowledging the everyday realities of a third-world country.
Share
