Writing the Region in Art History
Kavitha Balakrishnan’s Keralathile Chitrakalayude Varthamanam (The Present of Visual Art in Kerala) published by Rainbow Books, Thiruvananthapuram (Malayalam, Pp. 181 Rs.90) is a very important book for various reasons. First of all there are very few books/writings on art in Malayalam. And the ones that are there, are either hagiographic or extremely polemical or ideological, more often trying either to prove certain pre-established ‘points’ or settle certain ideological scores. As a result, seldom do they explore or search, nor are they interested in any kind of dialogue or engagement. Look at any article or book on art in Malyalam and you will encounter this utter lack of academic and academically informed writings reflected in the absence of references and quotations. So, whatever writings and books that do come out, exist as islands.
The basic strength of Kavitha Balakrishnan’s book is that it is open and dialogic and it doesn’t close itself onto its findings or revel in blind assertions. It is exploratory in nature and tries to map the terrain cautiously and carefully.
art vs. art writing
The most important thing about the book is the fact that it is written in Malayalam. For, though malayalee art/ists have become globalised and have made their presence at the global art market, there has been absolutely no dialogue between ‘art’ and ‘art writing’ in Malayalam. In other words, though art practice is globalised, writing on art still remains absent or local.
At present, if one compares the ‘state-of-the-art’ of malayalam literature, theatre or even film, evidently it is in the area of painting/sculpture that malayalee expression is globally contemporary and aesthetically challenging.
But despite such a resurgence in creativity and production, the questions raised by and the aesthetics spawned by malayalee art/painting has never become part of the malayalee intellectual/aesthetic discourse. This book is an attempt to bring art writing face to face with contemporary art practice.
The problems facing someone writing on art in Malayalam are several. For one, there is a sheer paucity of work, which translates into lack of conceptualization and theorizing, as a result of which the language employed in writings on art often read like ‘translations’ – obscure and difficult
So, ‘art’ doesn’t have a ‘history’ or tradition of written discourses like in literature. As a result ‘continuities’ or ‘breaks’ were neither recorded nor celebrated. The art writing in Malayalam didn’t take it upon itself to record and analyse these.
This books is an attempt to take up this challenge to write in Malayalam and to develop native idioms, concepts and spaces. Moreover, it is important that it is written by a woman, for it thus brings into its analysis different kinds of marginalities, that of language, gender and region. Running through the whole book is a kind of self reflexive search of a practising artist (the author herself being a practitioner of the art). The reader can listen to a monologue that is happening within these apparently outwardly-directed writings.
The book consists of three sections dealing with
a) the art and history of illustration in kerala;
b) practicing female artists, and
c) critical reviews about contemporary art practice and shows.
Word vs image
Painting/sculpture was never central to malayalee intellectual or aesthetic discourses.
They were always seen as something that came from ‘outside’ the west etc in the form of strange ‘isms’ and ‘masters’. Most crucially, our exposure to western art was limited to reproductions and detailed writings about them basically about various isms and legendary masters that marked its very linear history. And all – theory, art works and also artists – seemed to find refuge in ‘reproductions’ in Malayalam. We never saw the originals, but only reproductions, and the History of the art lay elsewhere as were its masters, distant and gigantic.
Always dominated by the literary, the overwhelming hegemony/authority of the word was something that deeply runs through Malayalee intellectual and aesthetic discourses. And that continued in art writing also. The image has to follow the word, ‘illustrating’ its content.
Meaning vs experience
Obsessed with meaning the malayalee writings on art searched for the ‘meanings’ hiding behind and inside the images. And in turn, in many cases this obsession is evident in our art production/practice also, which tended to pander to the need of the critic to ‘find’ certain symbols or ‘leads’ to the meaning. As a result of this, we always ‘looked into’ an image/art work rather than looking ‘at’ it. In this process, visual experience was not considered primary.
Even now, art writings in Malayalam ( which are largely based on western theories and concepts) are blind to these – the complexity of our tenuous links with the traditional as well as the diversity of contemporary art practices. Contemporary discourses on art, are neither symbiotically linked to ‘tradition’ nor do they grow out of our own visual experiences and practices. As Kavitha notes, our art sensibility and discourses did not grow out of or were centred around galleries. It was intertwined more with everyday life and functional objects, performing arts, popular festivities, etc And naturally, it was impossible to ‘see’ or ‘historicise’ them through western concepts and notions.
The book is very relevant from this perspective, especially the writings on illustrations, which traces the history of this genre through its relation with literature, its arena being the print media, and the troubling link between the ‘inner meaning’ vested with the word and the ‘outer figuration’ with the illustration. Kavitha makes an interesting distinction between the notions of chitram and chitreekaranam (art vs illustration) (p 169)
This deadly embrace of literature or the print media – both in terms of consumption of reproductions as well as production of illustrations – is a baggage that our art writing still carries around, with its privileging of the literary imagination and hence expressing itself in that form. As a result of this yoking to the printed word, other artistic expressions like those in public culture, religious spaces, performances, festivities etc do not find a place in our art history, leaving it a history that is full of yawning gaps
It is important to remember that not only has the art of Kerala a part of global art history, but Kerala art also has a global history.
The new scenario – market vs politics
The third section of the book, which focuses upon the contemporary art scene, tries to address several vexing problems that face contemporary art practice, the artists and the art critic in a region like India. It is a situtation which is marked by a significant presence of globally contemporary or marketable art practice on the one hand, and on the other, a literature-driven art writing that is neither globally informed nor locally connected or rooted.
This poses new questions before art critics like Kavitha
- One, how does one look/work at the entanglements between contemporary art and tradition or present socio-political contexts? This throws up disturbing questions about issues surrounding the global vs. local, value vs. price, art work vs. commodity with a potential for speculative future trade etc
- Two, what is the nature and dynamics of its relation with the global art market?
- Is global market just a stimulant, or one that moulds, shapes and determines its very form, direction and content?
- Or, are we just ‘dressing up’ the local for a global market/consumer?
- How do we make sense of this sudden jump from the consumption of reproductions to producing for a global market?
In this book, Kavitha poses the question whether a region/locality like ‘Kerala’ is turning into a mere ‘idea’ rather than a place with a history and people? (P150-1) and whether it is possible to bring into the arena of global art the politics of indigenous life and experience? (p166).
Being a collection of articles, one can find certain inconsistencies. For instance, while describing the history and art of illustration in Malayalam, a very significant artist like C N Karunakaran do not find a place in it. In fact, he brought a style of his own to illustration, one that ran parallel to the sensuousness of Nambudiri drawings and the sketching styles of ‘AS’ or Devan. His illustrations were much more stylized, often drawing heavily from our murals, and his contribution to calligraphy was also significant.
Another limitation of this book is the lack of pictures of drawings, sketches, illustrations, paintings, etc mentioned in the book. One would have loved to have more and better reproductions in a book of this sort.
Despite all that, this book is sure to stimulate interesting discussions that will engage the artists, art historians and the critics. |
