Indian Radical Painters and Sculptors Association- Constellations in the history of Indian Art.

The ‘narrative of Modern Indian Art’ has within it fascinating stories about exclusions and inclusions. The complete erasure of Raja Ravi Varma from the nationalist narratives on Modern Indian Art and the various rediscoveries of his contribution in the decades after independence has been there as a an available signal to any one interested that there is nothing ‘natural’ about the artists and art movements we read about and those we don’t. Certain interventions which are extremely crucial as attempts redefine the very understanding of artistic practice, question its various collaborations…have had received very little space within the mainstream narratives of ‘modern Indian Art’. In a certain sense one can be happy. The inability or the lack of interest shown by the mainstream in appropriating the 40’s art of Hore and Chittoprasad, the Radical Painters and Sculptors Association, the Bastar interventions by Navjot Altav, the oeuvre of John Devraj, is in a way a back handed compliment/tribute to the anti-hegemonic value/strength of their art and artistic practice.

The making of Born Free, a sculpture created by John Devraj with 3000 school children , 1994.

The urge to write this article is triggered off by a memory capsule that has refused to go away with time. During the ‘National Seminar on Art and Activism’ (2004 Baroda), Alex Mathew had finished his slide show, and was answering questions, when an young under-graduate wanted to know about the “Radical Group”; Alex replied …”there is a small paragraph in a book called Contemporary Arts of Baroda”. His reference to Ashis Rajadhyaksh’s the ‘Last Decade’ in the seminal “Contemporary Arts in Baroda’ has to be read (can be read) as a satirical comment on contemporary art historical practices.

Contemporary Art in Baroda, Editor: Gulammohammed SHEIKH, Chapters -The Backdrop - Gulammohammed SHEIKH, A Post-independence Initiative in Art - Nilima SHEIKH, Envisioning the Seventies and the Eighties - Ajay J. SINHA, The Last Decade - Ashish RAJADHYAKSHA, Publisher -Tulika (New Delhi - India)

Between these years I have mildly followed up on what Alex Mathew had to offer that day…and in my these following ups I choose to consider too volumes as relevant…and possibly representation of the mainstreams stories about the growth and life of ‘modern Indian art’, Geeta Kapoor’s When was Modernism and Fifty Years of Indian Art. Fifty Years of Indian Art has two articles, which I would like to juxtapose. Shivaji Pannikars’s Modern Indian Arts: “Art Movements” and Social Space, and Not This Not That And Lots Besides: The Post-Modern Spirit and Indian Art by Himanshu Burte. Infact one can also consider Ratan Parimoo’s article Publications, Magazines, Journals, Polemics published in the same volume . In fact Ratan Parimoo's  article is a revealing piece. It is the only narrative in the volume  (Fifty Years of Indian Art), which ‘clearly’ looks at the development of ‘modern Indian art’ form the perspective of Baroda. Charting a history of publications, influences, group endeavors from Bendre to 1994, Parimoo ’s narrative follows a free flowing force…it is a smooth journey from Bendre to Gulam Sheik and has no room for ‘radical ruptures’ and artist’s suicides. 

Bhupen KHAKHAR, Amitabh Wounded (Exhibition view), 2000, Oil on canvas on board, 243.8cm x 119.4cm. This image captures a work by Bhupen Khakhar in collaboration with Vaman Rao Khaire. It was shown in the exhibition titled 'Bombay/Mumbai 1992-2001.' The exhibition, co-curated by Geeta Kapur and Ashish Rajadhyaksha, was a part of 'Century City: Art and Culture in the Modern Metropolis' at Tate Modern, London, 2001.
Image source http://www.aaa.org.hk/Collection/CollectionOnline/SpecialCollectionItem/2933

The narrative of ‘modern Indian art’ seems very comfortable dealing with artistic practice, which is neutral/ center/center left, in their aesthetics and politics and unable to really accommodate any radical positions.  Himanshu Burte’s piece on the ‘inside understanding of the Indian postmodern art’ (a periodization often blurred). The Indian postmodernism (in fine arts) can be traced form early Bhupen Khakhar onwards…to be institutionalized with the celebration of the ‘Narrative School’ through the ‘Places for People’ curation. Burte’s piece combines very well with Kapoor’s narrative (in When was Modernism) as both only acknowledge postmodernism in is tamest form…the version Ferdrich Jameson laments as being surface-ial. Burte’s article and the Bombay/Mumbai curation at the Tate Modern, has interesting parallels in the manner they choose to cast the Indian postmodern’…there is a near compete exclusion of the radical-neo avant-garde. The more consumable strands of Pop and the Italian Trans-Avant-garde…have been canonized as the Indian Post Modern.

K.P. Krishnakumar, Untitled (Squatting and Bust), 1985, ink, watercolour on paper, 38.1 × 55.88cm. http://www.afterall.org/journal/issue.36/midnight-dreams_the-tragedy-of-a-lone-revolutionary

K.P. Krishnakumar, Untitled, 1982, ink on paper, 61 × 81cm framed. The drawing reads ‘Friend, we have to be vigilant, because you won’t know when your eyes are going to be gouged out’ in Malayam. Photograph: Christine Clinckx. Courtesy Madhavan K.P. and M HKA, Antwerp

Artist Alex Mathew carving a wood sculpture at the Kasauli Art Centre Sculpture Workshop, 1984. Courtney - http://www.aaa.org.hk/Collection/CollectionOnline/SpecialCollectionItem/3371 

The kind of artists and the set of artistic practices Geeta Kapoor appreciatively historicizes in When Was Modernism (Nasreen, Hussain, Subramanium, Ravi Verma, Ray, Bhupen Khakhar, Sheik,Dodia, Vivan Sundaram), all mirror the role of Kapoor’s own ideologies of aesthetics and politics. Success, recognition, market became involved in a grand discourse, which single- mindedly (and appreciatively) seeks to create a greater visibility and recognition for the Indian contemporary…(and no one can take that credit away from Kapoor).  However one can’t help hoping that we wont learn to accept dominant narratives such as hers are not accepted  (or remembered) as the only available histories. Sometimes when one writes very well…her sophistication masks her ideology almost too well…Nonetheless, it is hard to ignore that there is a mirroring in how the nation remembers Satyajit Ray over Ritwik Ghattak, and how it remembers  Gulam Mohammed Sheikh over K.P Krishnakumar. 

Gulam Mohammed Sheikh :  Art and Art History | Gouache | 30 x 40 cm | 1996 |

Courtesy. Karishma Shah. 

Shivaji Pannikar’s constant celebration of the sub-altern and the increasing personalization of his academic pursuits…allow him encounter and engage with ‘radical ruptures and artist’s suicides’. It takes Pannikar's ability to empathise with the left that leads him to write a ‘history of Indian Art’ charting a history successive anti-hegemonic movements from Souza through Swaminathan, to the ‘Baroda Radicals’. Interestingly Pannikar has been able to fore ground both the radicalism and its failure… which is not felt in Geeta Kapur’s handling or what, lead to Alex to say   “there is a small paragraph in a book called Contemporary Arts of Baroda”. Having lived and worked as a leftist Malayali based in Baroda, Pannikar was perfectly poised to empathise with radicalism embedded in the 'Indian Radical Painters and Sculptors Association'. However Pannikar himself is the carrier of confrontational, heroic, revolutionary leftism that began to loose ground after the 80's. One feels that the journey and disappearance of Krishnakumar form the narrative of art is more nuanced than heroism allows for. 

 "(Curiously and uncannily, 1989 historically marked the collapse of old-style communist idealism in the dateline of the world.)". Anita Dube

Anita Dube studied in the Dept. of Art History, MSU Baroda and specialised in art criticism. She not only worked very closely with the  'Indian Radical Painters and Sculptors Association', she curated and wrote for the group. Within all the chaos of historical positioning Dube wrote a nuanced, personalised historical essay titled Midnight Dreams: TheTragedy of a Lone Revolutionary. Refreshingly Dube does not carry the burden of establishing the revolutionary heroism of Krishnakumar, instead she exposes him with friendly sympathy. No one (not even Panikkar) examines Krishnakumar and his works in such detail, and with changing positions thereby avoiding a narrative biographic sketch. Nonetheless, the contestant over the Baroda Radicals being just a paragraph in history remains. Kochi Muziris Biennale 2012 devoting a section on 'Indian Radical Painters and Sculptors Association' speaks of fresh layers in contestations over the spirit of Indian Art. 

For Re-look 11, we have invited Anita Dube to present the paper she wrote for  “A Manifesto of Questions & Dialogue : A seminar around the practice of K P Krishnakumar and the Kerala Radical Group” organized by Office for Contemporary Art, Norway, and CoLab Art & Architecture, Bangalore at JNU in 2010.

Somberikatte @ 1Shanthiroad : Presents RE-LOOK – Lectures on Indian Art : Midnight Dreams: The Tragedy of a Lone Revolutionary : K P Krishnakumar and the Radicals: a lecture by Anita Dube