CHENNAI: The oft asked question is — ‘Is fine art elitist?’.Yes, fine art is definitely elitist because fine artists (pun intended) have to be trained both in the techniques of their mediums and in art history, and their audiences must have some knowledge of art history as well. All art work is judged on the merits of the creative input and the originality an artist brings to his work. And to judge how original an artist is, the viewer needs to understand what has happened before the time or during the time period that an artwork is being created.
The viewer will have to have a knowledge of the historical styles and the symbols that are used in the work. For instance, a snake could denote the idea of fertility, and refer to the mythical element in the Hindu context and in the Christianity, it represents temptation in the garden of Eden. Fine artists take it for granted that their audience is familiar with these symbols.
Originality and innovation are measures of the quality for art, but innovation in itself is not the only criterion of excellence. If it were, anything never done before would be considered art. A pertinent point has to made at this juncture — while innovations of popular artists (artists who practise popular art and not artists who are popular) have to lie within the limits of the common knowledge of people, innovations of fine artists are not always apparent to the viewer. This is one reason why we must consider an artwork in its original context.
It is sad fact today that some fine artists resort to the popular artists’ method by repeating the same images in varied permutations and combinations owing to the ‘popular market demand’ for that particular style, which takes away the magic that a unique work of art would give. Mention must be made at this point of the versatile genius, Dasarath Patel, designer-artist par excellence.
Dasarath was not just good at creating and designing products, but he stressed on utility along with beauty. He designed the exhibitions of the festivals of India, creating and designing structures using indigenous crafts and textiles.
Understanding the nature of the market driven art world around him, he refused to sell his art work, lest he felt compelled to create what the market wants. Today, his memory is kept alive by people who not only love him but also know how to treasure and respect his art work. A true artist perhaps needs no more than this.
Art has always been the stronghold of the wealthy because they have the means to indulge in pleasures which a common man perhaps finds it difficult to experience. Kings, churches, and other religious organisations use art as an important tool to convey their ideas and philosophy. Art was therefore commissioned for temples and churches. But with industrialisation and change in individual identity, art became more a work of self expression.
Artists needed to sell their works for sustenance and the absence of patrons, the galleries came to play the role of the link between the artist and the buyer. While there have been patrons who promoted art for the sheer love of it, it must be confessed that today galleries are also market driven and cater to the needs after studying and feeling the pulse of the public.
While galleries would like to believe that artists need them as a link to the large audience, it must be argued that true art can survive without adapting itself to the changing marked demands. Art should aim at being elitist in its content and in the viewers’ understanding of it and not merely restricting its scope to the elitist venues and elitist buyers.