Art & Entertainment

Art Under Question

Nomenclature lands an otherwise laudable exhibition in trouble

Advertisement

Art Under Question
info_icon

CONTROVERSY has a strange way of popping up at the most unlikely of places. As it did at the National Gallery of Modern Art which opened in Mumbai recently. Curated by Yashodara Dalmia, the inaugural exhibition, The Moderns—The Progressive Artists' Group (PAG) and Associates, was displaying works of a group of artists who initiated a significant art movement in India in 1947. Two hundred paintings by the six core members of the PAG, F.N. Souza, M.F. Hus-ain, S.H. Raza. K.H. Ara, S.K. Bakre and H.A. Gade and as many associates—Krishen Khanna, V.S. Gaitonde, Ram Kumar, Bal Chhabda, Akbar Padam-see and Tyeb Mehta—promised to be an eyeful for Mumbai art lovers.

Advertisement

Till the hitch was vociferously pointed out by Prafulla Dahanukar, president, Mumbai Art Society. Dahanukar proclaimed that the title of the exhibition was erroneous. Says he: "The word 'associates' describing the latter six names was factually wrong." Associates, he notes, mean people who interacted with the core group. The PAG was initiated in '47—a period of artistic confusion in India when there was apparently no modern art in the country. The six artists held three annual exhibitions from '49 to '51. But by '52 Raza, Bakre and Souza were out of the group for different reasons. Four other artists, Khanna, Gaitonde, Raiba and Hazar Nis joined in. The PAG, with a change in its members, exhibited in '53 and these four, according to Dahanukar, could have qualified to be represented. But only the first two were included. That too, as associates.

Advertisement

In '54, artists of PAG and others such as K.K. Heb-bar, Gaitonde, S. Palsikar, Baburao Sadwelkar, Shia-vax Chavda, Mohan Sam-ant and D.G. Kulkarni started the Bombay Artists' Group (BAG) which worked in a similar fashion. The BAG exhibited till '62. They would have qualified more as associates.

Secondly, critics find the other four names in Dalmia's list wrongly classified. Ram Kumar, for instance, was based in Delhi and not associated with the group. Chhabda started his career only in '61. Padamsee is supposedly not even ideologically sympathetic with the PAG. In fact, he was absent at the opening of the current show. Mehta was finishing art college in '53 and never joined the movement. But a curator argues: "A curator exhibits what is his or her vision. So it is not a matter open for discussion." Dahanukar disagrees, though he says that a curator has the right to exhibit the works of an artist as per his own interpretation. But the printed catalogue which is a reference document should be factually right. So if the exhibition was called 'The Moderns and the PAG', it would be fine. "A curator has the freedom to exhibit as per his or her understanding but does not have the freedom to alter history," he emphasises. He feels there is 'groupism' in the act. The solution, he feels, lies only in replacing the cat-alogue with an authentic version. Chhabda, whose work has been exhibited, feels a curator looks at certain artists as representative of a certain age. 'Associates' may have been used with a larger perspective, feel some. A curated show should be seen in the right spirit, adds an artist. It has to be selective as it has its own limitations. It is certainly not an attempt at belittling the work of other artists. In any case, argues an art historian, the PAG existed in spirit only for a couple of years. What followed was just a name without the essential vision. Says a critic: "It is easy for the exhibited artists to regard this leniently. But those left out may find it difficult to be so generous and as Sadwelkar points out:"The mixed-up information in the catalogue indicates a novice at work. It is definitely not what should be found in the archives. We wish the artists had been consulted to avoid such a gross misrepresentation of facts." Incidentally, this is not the first time such an objection has been taken. In '94, Anjolie Ela Menon and Amar Nath Sehgal found a show by the National Gallery of Modern Art in Delhi named 'Hundred Years: From the NGMA Collection' unfair on similar grounds.

Having said that, everyone agrees that the show was a laudable effort and the accent should be on putting out more at the gallery. "Let there be more curators working on more shows," says Chhabda. Now there's a convergence of viewpoints at last. 

Tags

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement