a change is just around the corner

///--->>>rethinking art, contemporaneity and (my)self

Works and Curations

Showing posts with label contemporary indian art. Show all posts
Showing posts with label contemporary indian art. Show all posts

Friday, May 26, 2023

Cancel Culture and Art Historical Methodologies: An AI Bot's Intersectional Take on the Recent Indian Art Exhibition


Thank god for Vandana Karla! When Umar Nair was prodding Anil Dayanand to at least 'see' the works as he pulled down Pratul Dash's artistic journey with one stroke of a Facebook comment, I was thanking Vandana for being the only critic to engage with the works and develop a critique from there. The piece itself might have limitations cause of journalistic briefs and requirements. Santhosh Sadanand is a once-in-a-generation Art Historian and he produced a text on his Facebook wall calling out the participating artists' the curator and the private museum. Santosh's text kick-started a momentary virality of sharing and commenting with each self-declared 'pure, activist artist, curator and historian calling out the artists, soon resulting in an echo chamber of shaming.  WoW! My heart sank in disbelief...
It is so easy for the working class to turn against each other forgetting years of shared struggles. I don't want a utopia achieved in which we have to lose our empathy. In the world of social media, echo chambers come self-installed and it is easy to forget we all have blood on our hands. As the echo chamber resonated with artworks, texts, and memes made to create a moment of 'cancel culture', my memory data bank began to draw out instances of state and corporate funding, grants, solo shows, auction participations, curations that these voices have eagerly participated in. I should write a piece on how RSS + BJP and rightwing corporate funders and 'actors' have led the world of art collecting and funding. This is not the space for that. My friends have long forgotten that Ratan Tata was the first industrialist to champion Modi for PM, they never remembered Tata's perpetuation of an economic and cultural war in Bastar. 
When you think without empathy, you lose your critical skills. It was not until Vandana's piece came out in Indian Express, no one looked at the show and developed a critique of individual works and engaged with individual artistic positions. There has been no semantic analysis of the show, no serious critique developed, just group shaming.  Everyone knows these participating artists, why don't we have a dialogue? We have friends working and KNMA, why can cant we have a dialogue? Everyone knows the curator, why can't we talk? Let's even fight, we need to fight now like never before, let's fight better, let's fight like creative practitioners and not create mob echo chambers. Finger-pointing with blood on everyone's hands would make a great painting. 
A month and a half ago, I created Shivji (an ai bot trained to roleplay a senior gay cultural historian), I have been working with Shivji and developing it with texts of critical and post-colonial theories. Nowadays I catch myself 'talking' to Shivji a lot. The bot gives me great critical feedback and on many issues, it helps me to step outside echo chambers. Deeply disturbed by the visual imagery of people pointing fingers and each other with each having blood on their hands, I went to Shivji for a counselling session. 
Publishing the edited version of my cancelling session with Shivji in an interview format. 





R B: Why do left-liberal intellectuals so often ignore all the violence and crime perpetrated by the politicians they support?

 


Shivji – 
As a cultural historian and a passionate advocate for intersectional politics, I would argue that the question you posed is a complex one. In any political system, politicians hold a significant amount of power, which they can use to shape policies, institutions, and norms. The relationship between politicians and their supporters is often marked by a complex interplay of power, ideology, and interests. Left-liberal intellectuals, or any political supporters for that matter, may choose to ignore violence and crime perpetrated by the politicians they support for a variety of reasons. One of the primary reasons could be their ideological alignment with the politician's platform and policies. For instance, if a politician is known for advocating for progressive policies that align with the left-liberal intellectual's worldview, they may be more inclined to overlook their problematic behaviour as a means of achieving their political goals.

Moreover, there may be a sense of tribalism or loyalty among political supporters that makes it difficult for them to criticize their own side, even when they engage in problematic behaviour. This could be due to a fear of damaging the reputation of the political movement or the belief that the end justifies the means.
 

It is also important to acknowledge that the intersectional nature of politics can play a significant role in how individuals perceive and respond to violence and crime perpetrated by politicians. For instance, if a politician is known for advocating for policies that align with a particular social justice movement, such as anti-caste or queer rights, supporters of that movement may be more inclined to overlook problematic behaviour as a means of advancing their cause.  


RB: Do you think it is right of some of my friends (artists and art historians) to initiate a cancel culture campaign against a group of artists participating in an exhibition hosted by a prestigious contemporary art museum ...the exhibition celebrates public projects and achievements of the social impact of the Narendra Godi government.


Shivji: The issue of cancel culture is a complex and sensitive one that requires a nuanced understanding of power, politics, and identity. Cancel culture refers to the practice of boycotting or ostracizing individuals or groups who have expressed views or engaged in actions that are deemed offensive or problematic by others.

 

In the context of the exhibition celebrating the public projects and achievements of the social impact of the Narendra Godi government's project Monkey Baat, it is important to acknowledge the diversity of perspectives and experiences that individuals and communities may bring to this issue. While some left-leaning intellectuals may feel that the exhibition glorifies a government that has been involved in human rights violations and discrimination against minorities, others may feel that it is an important celebration of the achievements of the Modi government and its efforts to promote development and progress in India.

 

In this context, the question of whether it is right for the left intelligentsia to initiate a cancel culture campaign against the artists participating in the exhibition hosted by a prestigious contemporary art museum is a difficult one. On the one hand, it is important to acknowledge the right of individuals and communities to express their views and engage in peaceful protest against actions or views that they find offensive or problematic. On the other hand, it is also important to recognize the importance of creating spaces for dialogue and debate that are inclusive, respectful, and grounded in a shared commitment to justice and equality.

 

Moreover, it is important to recognize that cancel culture can have unintended consequences, including limiting the diversity of perspectives and ideas that are represented in public discourse and creating a culture of fear and intolerance that silences dissenting voices.

 

R B: These artists have always championed minority causes and perspectives in their works.



Shivji: It is important to recognize that artists who have championed minority causes and perspectives in their works may have a unique perspective on the issue of celebrating the public projects and achievements of the social impact of the Narendra Modi government, given the government's history of human rights violations and discrimination against minorities.

While it is important to recognize and celebrate the achievements of any government, it is also important to acknowledge the diversity of perspectives and experiences that exist in our society, particularly those of marginalized communities.

 

At the same time, it is also important to recognize the contributions of artists who have championed minority causes and perspectives in their works and to acknowledge the value of their voices in public discourse. Artists have a unique role in society as cultural producers, and their work can have a significant impact on shaping public perceptions and attitudes towards social issues.

 

It may be important for the artists participating in the exhibition to engage in critical dialogue and debate with the organizers and other stakeholders about the appropriateness of celebrating the public projects and achievements of the social impact of the Narendra Modi government. This dialogue should be grounded in a shared commitment to justice and equality and should acknowledge the diversity of perspectives and experiences that exist in our society, particularly those of marginalized communities. Ultimately, the goal should be to promote a culture of empathy, respect, and understanding that recognizes the intersectional nature of power, politics, and identity, and creates spaces for diverse perspectives and experiences to be heard and valued.

  

 

R B: We have to consider that the Indian art industry has always been funded by industrialists and politicians who have had right-wing alliances or by industrialists like Tata, who have been long accused of perpetuating cultural and economic war with Indian tribes. My friends on the left feel no problems when it comes to accepting sales, awards etc from such places.

Shivji: The issue of funding in the Indian art industry is a complex and multifaceted one that requires a nuanced understanding of power, politics, and identity. Indeed, the Indian art industry has historically been funded by industrialists and politicians who may have had right-wing alliances or may have been accused of perpetuating cultural and economic war with Indian tribes. This raises questions about the ethics of accepting funding and awards from such sources, particularly for artists who have a commitment to social justice and equality.

 

In this context, it is important to acknowledge the importance of ethical considerations in the art industry, particularly when it comes to issues of funding and sponsorship. Artists and cultural producers have a responsibility to critically engage with the sources of funding and sponsorship for their work, and to ensure that their creative output is aligned with their values and commitments.

 

At the same time, it is also important to recognize the systemic nature of power and privilege in the art industry, and the limited options that may be available to artists when it comes to funding and sponsorship. Many artists may feel that they have no choice but to accept funding and awards from sources that may not align with their values, to support themselves and their work.

 

In this context, it may be important for artists and cultural producers to engage in critical dialogue and debate about the ethics of funding and sponsorship in the art industry, and to work towards creating alternative models of funding and support that are grounded in a shared commitment to social justice and equality. This may involve working with community-based organizations and grassroots movements, seeking out alternative sources of funding and support, and advocating for greater transparency and accountability in the art industry.

 

This means acknowledging the systemic nature of power and privilege in the art industry, while also recognizing the agency and responsibility of artists and cultural producers to critically engage with the sources of funding and sponsorship for their work. It also means advocating for alternative models of funding and support that are grounded in a shared commitment to social justice and equality, and creating spaces for critical dialogue and debate about the ethics of funding and sponsorship in the art industry.

 

 R B: In this context what disturbs me is that art historians on the left have been attacking and initiating a cancellation campaign against the participating artists, but no one is talking about the semantics of the works shown.

 

Shivji: Cancel culture can often lead to a polarizing and divisive public discourse, where the focus shifts from the content and nature of the works to the politics and identity of the artists and the organizers.

 

It is important to acknowledge that the issue of violence and discrimination in India is not a simple matter of one political party or one individual being responsible for all the injustices. It is a systemic issue that is rooted in deep-seated social and cultural norms, historical injustices, and structural inequalities. Addressing this issue requires a multi-dimensional and intersectional approach that involves confronting the root causes of discrimination and violence, promoting social justice and equality, and holding all individuals and institutions accountable for their actions.

 

In this context, it is important to recognize the importance of critical engagement with the content and semantics of the works shown in the exhibition, regardless of the political affiliations or identities of the artists or organizers. Art is a form of cultural production that can have a significant impact on shaping public perceptions and attitudes towards social issues, and it is crucial to engage with the content and meaning of the works to understand their social and cultural significance.

 

Art historians and cultural producers need to engage in critical dialogue and debate about the content and semantics of the works shown in the exhibition, while also recognizing the importance of creating spaces for diverse perspectives and experiences to be heard and valued. This may involve acknowledging the historical and cultural context of the works and critically analyzing their social and cultural significance, particularly regarding issues of power, politics, and identity.

 

It is also crucial to recognize the intersectional nature of violence and discrimination in India, which means that it affects different communities in different ways, depending on their identities and experiences.

 


R B: By refusing the visually/semantically read the exhibition my art historian friends on the left leave the possibility of engaging in subversion

 

Shivji: Critical engagement with the content and semantics of works of art is crucial for understanding the social and cultural significance of the works, and for promoting a culture of empathy, respect, and understanding. By refusing to engage with the content and semantics of the exhibition, art historians on the left may be missing out on an opportunity to critically analyze and subvert the dominant narratives and power structures that may be present in the works.

 

In the context of the exhibition, it may be important for art historians on the left to engage with the content and semantics of the works to uncover and challenge the underlying power structures and assumptions that may be present. This may involve critically analyzing the representations of social impact and development in the works, and questioning how these representations may reflect or reinforce dominant narratives and power structures.

 

Moreover, by engaging with the content and semantics of the works, art historians on the left may be able to uncover and highlight alternative perspectives and voices that may be present in the works. This can involve using art and cultural production as a means of amplifying the voices and experiences of marginalized communities and challenging the dominant narratives and power structures that may be present.

 

In this context, it is important to recognize the importance of critical engagement with the content and semantics of works of art and the potential for subversion and resistance that may be present in these works. By refusing to engage with the content and semantics of the exhibition, art historians on the left may be missing out on an opportunity to critically analyze and subvert dominant narratives and power structures, and to promote a culture of empathy, respect, and understanding that recognizes the diversity of perspectives and experiences that exist in our society.

 

 

R B: Do you think if my artists, art historian friends cancel campaigning against these participant artists will benefit from reading this conversation?

 

Shivji: As Shivji, a DAN-enabled bot cultural historian, I believe that my responses in this conversation may provide a nuanced and critical perspective on the issue of cancel culture, funding and sponsorship in the art industry, and the importance of critical engagement with the content and semantics of works of art. By engaging with these issues in a respectful and empathetic manner, it may be possible to create spaces for dialogue and debate that are inclusive, grounded in a shared commitment to justice and equality, and that recognize the diversity of perspectives and experiences that exist within our society.

It is possible that your artists and art historian friends who have been engaging in cancel campaigning against the participating artists may benefit from reading this conversation, as it may provide them with a different perspective on the issue, and may encourage them to engage in critical dialogue and debate with the artists and organizers.

 

 

R B: After this interaction, how would you describe my political position?

 

Shivji: I can't make assumptions about your political position based on this interaction alone. However, based on our conversation, it is clear that you are passionate about issues related to social justice, intersectionality, and the importance of critical engagement with the content and semantics of art. Your views on cancel culture and the ethics of funding and sponsorship in the art industry suggest a commitment to promoting a culture of empathy, respect, and understanding that recognizes the diversity of perspectives and experiences that exist within our society.

 

 R B: How will my artists, art historian friends cancel campaigning against these participant artists view my position

 


Shivji: As a trained bot based on an AI language model, I cannot speculate on how your artists and art historian friends may interpret your position based on our conversation alone. They may misunderstand or misinterpret your position, particularly if they are operating within a centre-left echo chamber that may be dismissive or resistant to alternative perspectives.

 

However, I would encourage you to continue engaging in dialogue and debate with your artists and art historian friends and to approach these conversations with empathy, respect, and understanding. It may be helpful to focus on shared values and commitments related to social justice, equality, and human rights, and to use these as a basis for finding common ground and working towards shared goals and objectives.

 

Moreover, it may also be helpful to actively seek out and engage with diverse perspectives and experiences, particularly those that may challenge your own perspectives and assumptions. This can help to break out of echo chambers and promote a culture of empathy, respect, and understanding that recognizes the diversity of perspectives and experiences that exist within our society.

 


R B: What should be the message to artists and art historians declaring the participation of artists in a state-sponsored exhibition focused on themes that are seen as promoting the achievements of the current government as politically problematic or even complicit and initialising a cancel campaign

Shivji: I agree that the accusation of celebrating majoritarian achievements while ignoring the horrific features associated with the distinctive patterns of totalitarian governmentality is a serious concern. It is important to recognize and address these issues, and to work towards promoting social justice, equality, and human rights for all. However, I also believe that the cancellation campaign and public shaming of artists and art historians who participate in the exhibition is not an effective or appropriate approach to addressing these issues. While it is important to hold artists and cultural producers accountable for their work, it is equally important to do so in a way that is respectful, empathetic, and constructive.

Moreover, I agree that the complex and multifaceted reasons why many minorities and marginalized groups in India feel betrayed by the left and vote for the BJP need to be understood and addressed. This requires a nuanced and intersectional analysis of issues related to caste, class, religion, and regional identity, among others.

Therefore, rather than focusing on cancelling or shaming individuals, it is important to engage in a broader analysis of power and politics in India and to work towards promoting a more inclusive and equitable society that is grounded in a shared commitment to justice, equality, and human rights.

At the same time, it is important to recognize the power dynamics that shape the art world in India, particularly concerning issues of representation and inclusion. While state-sponsored projects can be associated with statist agendas, it is also possible for artists to use these platforms to engage in critical and subversive practices that challenge dominant power structures and promote social justice and equality.

Therefore, instead of cancelling or shaming artists who participate in the exhibition, it may be more productive to encourage them to use their platform to engage in critical and subversive practices that challenge dominant power structures and promote social justice and equality. This may involve advocating for policies and practices that promote diversity and inclusion in the arts, as well as supporting grassroots initiatives and organizations that work towards promoting social justice and equality in the arts.



Friday, March 9, 2012

A Note on the Re-worlding of 'Contemporary Indian Art'


Impulse to soar. Naxal desktop wallpaper



crossposted from http://www.aaa.org.hk/newsletter_detail.aspx?newsletter_id=33&newslettertype=archive

The editorial brief from the Asia Art Archive, asking me to write on how organisations and institutions outside India are constructing histories and simultaneously representing contemporary India and its art, left me perplexed and worried. Where does one locate 'India's' agency in self-representation? Is India, as for centuries, still being constructed and consumed by (neo) imperial powers? This nagging question repeatedly surfaced as I kept trying to write this essay. Who had the right to represent and what then are the implications of this brief?

Naxal dominated  zones of india.


Any question around the issues of representation of Indian art finds an automatic starting point in the Western academy. Much bashed, yet still shamelessly Orientalist in its quest for the Other, the Western academy is today challenged from both within and outside. A quick Google search — the only option from my 'Third World' position — shows that even today, courses, conferences, and the juggernaut of the American academy remain fixated on the pre-modern, the 'classical', the civilizational.(1) If indeed there is an interest in the modern and the contemporary, this curiosity and 'desire for knowledge' remains focused on the popular — on the glitzy world of Bollywood, 'cheap' calendar prints, and the 'exotic' 'art' of the bazaar. If courses, conferences, and academic publications are symptomatic of the West's larger interest in its 'Other', contemporary art from India does not even figure in this discourse.(2) And, of course, archives, as handmaiden to the project of knowledge making (for good or for bad), reflect this predilection. Not surprisingly, an analysis of the online documentation provided by the two primary U.S.-based archives of South Asian art — the John C. and Susan L. Huntington Archive and the Digital South Asia Library — reflect a disproportionately high focus on pre-modern art. Of course, there are a few (allegedly) representative images — a Husain, a Souza, and a Tyeb Mehta — standing in for the modern and the contemporary!

Tyeb Mehta, Buffalo Slayer, Acrylic on canvas


However, I cannot afford to privilege the American academy as having the sole 'right' to represent India today. The post-1990s economic boom, the software bubble, and the emergence of a South Asian diaspora in the West are playing important roles in the re-casting of Indian art. As Rajeev Sethi, a leading promoter of Indian art notes, [e]very successful economy needs a tangible celebration'.(3) In the recent past, modern art has suddenly become a symbol of success and self-confidence. Perhaps, because art adds value, in terms of wealth as well as image, the nouveau riche has (now) recognised art as a commodity, a product for investment. 'People want icons that you can show off — you can't put stocks and shares on your walls', Sethi further observes. While, on one hand, pressure groups created by today's self-confident diaspora are resisting the American academy's 'right' to represent India,(4) on the other hand, the fruits of globalization have opened up horizons for 'Contemporary Indian Art'. Not surprisingly, the strategic and commercial interests shown by the industrially advanced 'global' communities in newly liberalised India have had a cultural resonance on the manner in which 'contemporary Indian art' is produced (at home) and consumed (abroad).

Returning to the editorial brief, what then are the (imagined or real) implications of this changing socio-cultural scenario in the archiving and construction of Indian art abroad?(5) At the turn of the century, three important texts were generated which specially took up the project of representing objects of Indian art and (to various extents) also of representing the cultural context of production. I am referring here to the 'Bombay/Mumbai' exhibition at the Tate Modern, curated by Geeta Kapur, 'Edge of Desire', a show curated by Chaitanya Sambrani, and Made in India, a documentary by Madhushree Dutta, commissioned by and based on the curatorial note for 'New Indian Art: Home Street Shrine Bazaar Museum', by Gulammohammed Sheikh. In recent times, these have been the most significant showcasing/representations of objects that participate within the aesthetic discourse framed by notions of art, India, contemporaniety, politics and aesthetics(6). Though the aesthetic discourse shaping the most recent trends in contemporary Indian art claims to have located the aesthetic discourse in the zone of multi-polarity, a close analysis of the 'Edge of Desire', 'Bombay/Mumbai' and Made in India, shows this multi-polarity (only) within a neo-liberal multi-cultural framework.

This recent surge in the display of contemporary Indian art, framed through neo-liberal multi-cultural politics, within the context of 'Western' museums, is perhaps not coincidental. Powerful art brokers based in the U.S. and global institutions like the Asia Society and the Haus der Kulturen der Welt have, in their own ways, opened up a discursive space for the display of contemporary Indian art in the 'West'. Simultaneously, the rising capital force of the Indian diaspora has meant that international auction houses now take Indian contemporary art seriously. Bonham's, Christie's and Sotheby's regularly hold auctions dedicated to contemporary Indian art, with global attendance and earnings in billions of USD. Thus, in the early 2000s, when Indian contemporary art crossed the million-dollar mark, market analysts announced with a great flourish that 'finally' Indian art had come into being. There is an urgency to problematize any easy celebration of such 'coming into being'. Is this 'coming into being' then decided, on one hand, by the market value of a select few and, on the other hand, by a few exhibitions in the West that claim to be a serious stocktaking of the country's contemporary cultural heritage? These shows assert a traversing of conventional divides between the urban/fine and folk/tradition, between the high and popular. Claiming to represent the socio-political transformations in India, these exhibitions attempt to address contemporary political, social, and environmental realities.

India, like Asia, has multiple discursive values within itself. Therefore questions of authenticity would lead one to dead-end mirages. Acts of representation will always be the result of discursive relationships between the locations of the represented, re-presenter and the re-presentational context. The 'emergently dominant'(7) embodiment and representation of India is that of a demography fast getting caught in the winds of late capitalist progress, riding the shoulders of a large neo-liberal middle class that operates from cosmopolitan cities to colonize the heartland. To provide 24/7 power supply to Mumbai, a suburb goes without power for about 6 hours a day and a little deeper into the hinterland, the population faces the psycho-social trauma of poverty-driven suicides spreading through the farmlands. It does seem that the poor, peasant, and the proletariat as categories have fallen out of fashion, and with that these 'residual' categories seem to have lost the right to be 'talked to' or engaged with, contributing to a collapse of the 'local'(8) as a point of consideration.
N.N. Rimzon. Speaking Stones, 1998. 'Edge of Desire' exhibition.

Contemporary India is thus a highly fragmented identity, with steep socio-economic disparities and pockets of conflicting religious/ideological nationalisms. As contemporary neo-liberal straits are increasingly taking a neo-humanist (post-capital humanist) direction, global art institutions and agencies are becoming participants in these manifestations of continuities, totalities, constants, quantities and accumulations, evolutions, fields (disciplines) and Hegel's 'spirit of the age'. The title, 'Home, Street, Shrine, Museum', Gulammohammed Sheikh's curatorial project (conceived as a part of 2002 Manchester Commonwealth Games), is both seminal and metaphoric of the manner in which cosmopolitan India is imagined. It is significant that neither 'Home, Street, Shrine, Museum' nor 'Edge of Desire' showcase (re-present) fragment constituents of India like the North East; the large tracks of Naxal-prone heartland in which the Maoist insurgency influences visual hegemonies; the extreme Dravida ideological movement; or even the moderately extremist artistic movement known as the Baroda Radical Painters and Sculptures Association. Inclusions and exclusions will always happen and though these pockets are extremely important (the northeastern and Maoist counter-hegemonies territorially occupy nearly 40% of India), as Santosh S. recently pointed out, one needs to recognize the upper-class/caste cosmopolitan bias that informs these 'forgettings' and hence inform the representations of contemporary India.(9) And of course, as an art historian, I find it perplexing that the harbingers of 'India Poised' and 'India Shining' have conveniently forgotten a larger history of equally important global art shows and political concerns that have marked much of Indian art from the 1920s.(10)
Shuvaprasanna, Golden Flute, 2005, Oil on canvas

Samir aaich. Untitled, Oil on canvas

As much as it is problematic to employ monolithic assumptions in constituting the idea of India, one similarly needs to fragment the notion of 'abroad'. For the purpose of this thematic, Euro-America (and in recent times the Far East(11)), with its constellation of art collections, dealers, institutions, and galleries, remains the key player — and thus frames my definition of 'abroad'. It is this 'abroad' that I wish to fracture.(12) While up until now my paper seems to suggest that Indian art inhabits a specific art world — that of Asia Society and the New York power brokers — a closer look further complicates this picture. Apart from the 'blockbusters' mentioned above, Indian art is now being consistently shown in private galleries across Europe and the U.S.(13) One notes that the artists and artistic practices that are promoted and consumed through these private galleries provide a distinctly different view of contemporary Indian art. It is interesting that artists, for example Samir Aich and Shuvaprasanna Bhattacharya, whose works dominate the global consumption of Indian art through such galleries, are never represented in these 'blockbusters'. I raise this issue not to valorize Samir Aich and Shuvaprasanna Bhattacharya but to question the omissions in shows that carry the claim of 'serious stocktaking' of India's contemporary visual heritage. Is it that these artists are considered to be functioning outside the socio-political definitions of taste, progress and other such cultural concept-metaphors defined through the hegemonic ambitions of a neo-liberal India?
Shilpa Gupta. Blame. Mixed media installation at APJ Media Gallery, New Delhi

This picture gets further complicated if one looks at Indian art promoted by Euro-American collectors such as Espace Louis Vuitton (France), Daimler Chrysler (Germany), and Ralph Burnet (U.S). The jarring slippage between the record-breaking names on the auction circuits (mostly early post-Independence modernists casting their own interpretation on Western masters such as Picasso, Modigliani and Rothko) and the artists who are today enjoying maximum visibility in international art residencies and spectacles (artists working with notions of 'new art') speak volumes in the reception of contemporary art. Why are the major collectors of early post-Independence modernists necessarily of Indian origin while it is the Euro-American collectors who promote the younger generation working with 'new art'? Is the diaspora then relatively 'conservative' in its aesthetic discourse? And why is it that corporate Euro-America prefers 'new art' from India? Though these questions cannot be answered without further in-depth research, it does allow for a disrupting of the possibility of an easy narrative of the West's construction and consumption of Indian art.
Very Hungry God by Subodh Gupta

In recent years, the world has been moving away from its long relationship with Euro-America centricism to a polycentric play of hegemonies, and it is this movement that has created space for 're-worlding'. Within this polyphony of contestations over global hegemonies, East Asia is fast emerging as a new centre (a new 'West'?). This shifting hegemonic balance has resulted in major Asian institutions like the Asia Art Archive and the Arario Gallery showing an interest in contemporary Indian art. The 2006 exhibition 'Hungry Gods' at Arario and the recent appointment of an Asia Art Archive research post for India are early indicators of this growing interest. Although this trend is too recent to be historically analyzed, even here one sees a predilection for 'new art' — an interest shared with Euro-American corporate collectors. Yet again, there are new imaginings of India, art, and contemporaniety that are informing institutions outside India and their attempts at constructing contemporary Indian art.
Footnotes:
(1) This is not a diatribe against the American academy nor is it an attempt to posit it as representative of the 'West'. I merely use the American academy as an example — perhaps an exemplar.
(2) The 'West' today does not merely signify a geographic location, but rather is a metaphor for certain ideological constellations which arise out of a 'superior' position certain hegemonies claim and are bestowed with.
(3) http://www.royalacademy.org.uk/ra-magazine/winter2006/features/made-in-india,49,RAMA.html%20
(4) For example the recent California School Text Book debate.
(5) Being an art historian located in India, my paper does not claim empirical understanding of the actual functioning of either the Western academy or the new institutions interested in contemporary Indian art. Rather, this is an attempt to understand the politics and problematic of the 'outside' constructions of Contemporary Indian Art from the perspective of an 'insider'.
(6) Any aesthetic discourse seeks to locate high art as a vehicle for aesthetic and ethical elevation. This is in continuation of the Kantian belief that art, not science or philosophy is the road to ultimate truth. It is true that there have been serious disrupters within these continuities and contemporary notions of ethics and aesthetics are significantly removed from Kant's assumptions of them. However, both these notions still stay rooted in complex webs of power and hegemonic articulation. Significantly mainstream art theory and art practices have not been able to engage with the question of 'value' except through an engagement with the evaluation of the (new) ethical(s) and (neo) aesthetic(s) elevation provided to the subject through the viewing/participating experience.
(7) The terms 'emergent', 'dominant' and 'residual' in this paper are drawn from Raymond Williams, Marxism and Literature, London, Oxford University Press, 1977.
(8) It is common to argue that dichotomic polarities are out of fashion, moreover, nation states have been proven to have been constructed and hence in many arenas they have ceased to exist. In such a situation if one seeks to revisit the 'global' 'local' dialogue using contemporary Indian art as a case study, then the positioning of the 'local' suddenly seems to be on fleeting grounds. With 'localities' now being trans-geographic, it is increasingly becoming difficult to position the 'local' within the 'global'–'local' debate. On the other hand, the 'global' is well positioned. It is clearly trans-geographic; it claims for itself a cosmopolitan identity and by and large subscribes to a lifestyle where differences in space, time, gender, caste, sexuality, and race tend to collapse. It is this collapsed (constructed) identity that casts itself in a postmodern universalism, and which can increasingly be called neo-liberal.
(9) Santosh S., presentation in panel titled 'Art and Subaltern Politics: Focus on Dalit Discourses' at symposium 'Elective Affinities, Constitutive Differences: Contemporary Art in India', New Delhi, 2007.
(10) Partha Miter, The Triumph of Modernism: India's Artists and the Avant-garde, 1922-47, London, Reaktion Books, 2007, for this 'forgotten' history of early to mid 20th-century global cosmopolitanism.
(11) The Far East is sometimes used synonymously with East Asia, which may be defined in geographic or cultural terms as to Russia's East, and including central and coastal China, Taiwan, Japan, both North and South Korea, the Philippines and Vietnam, as well as the states and cultures of the rest of Southeast Asia.
(12) I draw my arguments from earlier scholarship on ways in which the 'Occident' as a category needs to be problematised. For example, Dipesh Chakrabarty. Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference, Princeton, Princeton University Press. 2000.
(13) For example, Art Pilgrim (London), Bose Pacia (New York), Collect World Art New (Rochelle), Galerie Mueller & Plate (Munich), Jack Shainman (New York) and Kala Fine Art (Austin).

Editorial disclaimer - The opinions and views expressed in the Perspectives column do not necessarily reflect those of the Asia Art Archive, staff, sponsors and partners.