Contemporary art, fad or revolution?

Initially, the new modes of expressions were praised as ‘democratisation of art’. Now, this has turned to be the new elitism in art
Visitors at the painting competition organised at Adivasi Grounds by Orissa Modern Art Gallery.
Visitors at the painting competition organised at Adivasi Grounds by Orissa Modern Art Gallery.

Contemporary art is extraordinary by all means, not because it is unprecedentedly creative but as it has overthrown the very concept of art. The centuries-old representational media of painting and sculpture have been viewed as a bit outdated over the decades (look at biennials across the world). Instead, the new-media art, which includes the whole spectrum of installation, performance, body art, land art, experimental art, site-specific art, process art, dialogic art, video art and so on, reign supreme in the art world in the global perspective. There is no denying the fact that Indian art, too, goes well in tune with this sea change. 

We have thus been confronted with these new modes of expressions. To mention, here are a few: an artist from Kerala collects water from the river Ganges and takes it by flight to Azerbaijan only to place it in front of an audience in a ritualistic enactment; another one, again a Malayali artist, collects lumps of sands from different parts of the world and shows each lump evenly laid flat on separate canvases mounted in an exhibition hall; a north Indian artist himself chops off his little finger in order to put it in a laboratory flask for finally throwing it in the Yamuna. 

The whole range of this new-media art revolves around the redefinition that “art is idea”. As an idea or concept gains the upper hand, it primarily rejects the image as a product of beautiful imagination and forcefully emphasises the elimination of visual experience. Hence, the way of looking at artwork aesthetically has become obsolete.

Earlier, a considerable amount of technical proficiency in a chosen medium was a precondition for becoming an artist. Still it holds true for an actor or dancer or musician, whereas skill in a specific medium is no longer a prerequisite for anyone who aspires to be a visual artist—because an installation or body art is hardly expected to be a realm of visual imagination, but rather a context for presenting an idea. An idea can make you an artist (an idea can change your life).

‘Art as idea’ manifests itself not only in museums and galleries, print and electronic media, but also in our everyday life through the untrained hands presenting some “ideas” in the mode of installation or performance art. In its irresistible force, Joseph Beuys’s well-known aphorism, ‘every man is an artist’, literally translates into our own reality with ever-more rapid rhythm. Its glaring example is seen in the way installation art is produced, legitimated and disseminated both inside and outside the art premises. Since “anything goes” has set the rule of the game, anybody can be an artist (and anybody can be famous for fifteen minutes, as Andy Warhol famously said).

For some, it is faddish chicanery. But for others, art liberated itself from its elitist association and market forces. Hence it was praised as “democratisation of art”. This was so in the beginning when it first emerged in the 1960s in America in the context of anti-war and Civil Rights movements. Now the medium is hardly the message. It no longer represents political ideology. On the contrary, it has turned to be the new elitism in art by catering both to the interests of the high art and the market—the revolution is no more. True, “when everybody is revolutionary, there is no more revolution”, says Clement Greenberg. Still we happen to see the rise of innumerable ‘revolutionary’ artists who make themselves shine by virtue of their concepts or ideas. As idea is paramount, it removes the emphasis on beauty and sensory pleasure. Art is, in this sense, a de-aestheticised object that stands for the articulation of an idea. 

This topsy-turvy condition sweeps the audience into baffling moments, as evaluation of a work comes to be nearly impossible; there is no reference point, no aesthetic canon to apply. For instance, when something is in experiment, it cannot be evaluated, unless some productive result has emerged out of it. However, this simple and straight-headed logic has no significance in the context of experimental art in which the experiment, of whatever kind, remains inconclusive. Its ‘radicality’, either in terms of art or in terms of its broader philosophical dimension, is hardly being assessed. But the ‘artist’ still enjoys the status of a genius. Surprisingly, this is the case more or less with other modes of expressions in this new field of visual art, as they are all indefinable. The only possible definition is ‘art is what artist does’. Jean Baudrillard therefore deplores, “Art now is only an idea prostituted in its production”. He continues: “Art ends in the non-exhibition of non-works in non-galleries—the apotheosis of art as a non-event. Reciprocally the consumer moves through it all to test his or her non-enjoyment of the works.” 

In such a bizarre state, to some extent, it is quite natural for art criticism to be silent. In the absence of seeing a work in the de-aestheticised art world, scholarship in art history and aesthetics has no function to serve. It is evident in the way many ‘radical’ performances of art and mega-art events are organised by artists in India. Art events are largely the brainchild of artist-turned-curators, who are the new “managers of perception”. Art criticism, in the real sense, has no significant place to occupy there. No established art critics or scholars come to be an integral part of such a venture. Instead, film stars and celebrities from various fields are the “chief guests”. Their sweet talk is projected as the affirmation of success and creative character of the event. This is sufficient to attract an audience, particularly, buyers, collectors, gallerists and auctioneers. Further, photographs of an artist or his/her work published in the print, visual and social media have wider reach and visibility. More the visibility, more authentic the work. This partially speaks of the silence of art criticism. The other side is its own willingness to curl up under that silent suppression—a diplomatic escapism.

Chandran T V
Art critic & author. Teaches art history at the College of Fine Arts, Thiruvananthapuram
(chandrantv67@gmail.com)

Related Stories

No stories found.
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com