The Red Dragon on Prowl
The latest Art India Magazine concentrates on the contemporary Chinese art. China has been the talking point of the contemporary global art market for the last few years and as the two super powers of the South East Asian region China and India are always pitted against each other in order to find out which one is rushing forward and which one is trailing behind. The major auction results, despite the prices commanded by the Indian artists in these platforms, say that Chinese artists are much ahead than their Indian counterparts. But there is hope for India, being a regional political and economic power, with a lot of talented artists in its kitty and also with a lot of cash rich galleries and promoters in the scene, India could catch up if not overtake China in the coming years.
There are a few interesting stories delineating the trajectories through which the Chinese art scene gained global access, popularity and definitely market success. The lead essays by Karen Smith and Lucian Harris effectively catch the history and development of the contemporary Chinese art. A country with a strong totalitarian communist regime for years could not have done this had its people not made move towards making the rulers understand the need for a liberal democracy. The boy standing in front of the aggressive armored vehicles at the Tiananmen Square is still etched in the minds of the people all over the world. A country that could come out of the shackles of limited thinking made a great progress, not only in the economic front but also in the socio-cultural front.
The economic growth of a country is intricately connected to the general progress of it, whether it be the case of China or be the case of India. Both the countries share more or less the same patterns of growth. If China had a totalitarian regime, India had a socialist regime with all its public sector protectionist philosophy in place. Both these political programs had failed the causes of the visual artists badly. While literature flourished in both these countries during the pre-liberal periods, it was the art scene (was there a scene then?) that got the beatings. Then the tables were turned with the opening of the global market.
Was it the lack of an art market or other supportive systems that put both the Chinese and Indian artist of the yester years in a period of lull? Had they accepted the bad fate? If you go through the article of Karen Smith, one could make out that, in fact the Chinese artists were not pessimistic during those bad times. They have been working, using allegorical ways to present their realities. Most of them, like their Indian counterparts found jobs in various institutions as it was difficult to live as full time professional artists. However, there were groupings of artists in various cities of China, Beijing being the most favored destination of the artists. Karen Smith gives examples how when the Chinese contemporary art was presented in the West for the first time, instead of evoking surprise and interest, it had evoked a sense of loath as China was not a favorable country and Chinese art was not an appreciable thing.
Things changed in the due course of time, more or less the same way in India. With the advent of 1990s (as it was the time when the protectionist philosophy economics loosened up in India and the doors were thrown open to the global capitalism to make the grand entry) artists found a foothold in the market and things started changing. Painting, sculpture, installation art and the new media art slowly found patrons not only within the home boundaries but in the foreign shores also. A few international expos heralded the arrival of the Chinese contemporary art.
Though both Smith and Harris give rosy pictures about the contemporary Chinese art and its market, they do not talk much about the provincial expressions as well as the underground art activities in China. The kind of art that are dubbed as global from China are mostly Beijing centric that reflects the international art tendencies. Chinese art is overtly political and subversive in many ways though the provincial art from a vast country like China is not adequately represented in these articles.
This Art India Magazine issue gives a staple food of noodles for the readers. There are many more articles written on Chinese art in various art fairs and international expositions. Andrew Maerkle’s interview with the Chinese curator Lu Jie is quite intimate and revealing the socio-political nuances of the contemporary Chinese art. Besides the Chinese art, there are a few interesting articles including the one on Bhavnagar art by Sandhya Bordwekar. Her article on the Baroda issue (not so hot any more) is good for documentary purpose though it looks slightly out of place in the whole issue.
Tushar Joge’s article on World Social Forum 2007 in Kenya gave some glimpses of Indian artists’ interventions but the article somehow ended up abruptly. Some reviews and snippets are not interesting mainly because they serve only documentary purpose and perhaps only massage the egos of the artists. Abhijeet Tamhane hits a six pack a la Yuvraj Singh when he writes on Gogi Saroj Pal’s show meanwhile Gitanjali Dang is caught in slip as she plays a loose delivery from Pradeep Mishra and strikes it with a phrase ‘satisfying post-post modern land art project’. Man of the match remains Abhay Sardesai as he could put together a lot of good work amidst a host of revenue generating advertisements. I heard someone saying, “Did you see my show’s ad in Art India Mag? Yeah…in that issue, where there were articles on some Chinese Vhinese art.”
|
