Posts
"For this body of work, Rajkamal Kahlon has created a series of paintings using Cassell's Illustrated History of India, published in 1875. Employing the book's illustrations as a base, Kahlon paints on the actual book pages, creating a charged, fragmented narrative about Indian history and its colonial past. By unbinding the pages from the book, Kahlon's gouache paintings tell a new story of brutality, power, and the possibilities of survival."
I don't know how I feel about her work . I'm trying to understand the subversive content that blatantly expresses her views on colonial prejudice but the unsettling juxtaposition of the candy colours and the grotesque imagery is not working for me right now. Nevertheless, it's very interesting and I'd love to see what she does next.
I don't know how I feel about her work . I'm trying to understand the subversive content that blatantly expresses her views on colonial prejudice but the unsettling juxtaposition of the candy colours and the grotesque imagery is not working for me right now. Nevertheless, it's very interesting and I'd love to see what she does next.
'Unsettling' is the perfect word for it...I'm not sure exactly what I think, but the reaction is immediate.
ReplyDeleteBFH,
ReplyDeleteThis is actually not as offensive as some of the other pages , which are , like I mentioned , grotesque !
It also sort've makes me want to paint on books , hehe
Wow, even more grotesque? And I thought the teeth alone were bad..this isn't cheery, but it certainly is thought-provoking (if nothing else, thanks to the books- I can't stomach the idea of painting on books, I can barely even bring myself to write my name in the ones I own)..
ReplyDeleteWOOOWH! brilliant, but not everybody's cup of tea. Reminds me a bit of Salman Rushdie's writing. He doesn't intend to be pleasant. I was a kid when I read him and I was so shocked :) But like you said, its a great idea to use textbbok illustrations as base and create new layers of meaning on it. Great find! thanx for sharing.
ReplyDeleteI do like this. (But I don't like the idea of painting directly onto a vintage book.)
ReplyDeleteReminds me of Dadaist collages. Or Franz Ferdinand videos!
BFH & Yohan: you will find a steady stream of doodles on most of my old text books ! I did not mean the ones I actually enjoy reading ofcourse.
ReplyDeleteVineeta: I think it was an instant love for Salman Rushdie on my part !
I think the text itself was a book written from a Colonial Point of View & she wanted to subvert the intent of the book by "defacing" it with her images.
Oh. Textbooks are a different matter. My 10th std history textbook had some great doodles. But a book from 1875 is a different matter. Or so I thought.
ReplyDeleteArtistic Subversion is a funny notion for me. Especially because modern art is such a bourgeois activity to begin with!
i have to say, i absolutely love, love these. That Jeffersonian-George washington looking fella with the pink bat, sexualized like that, as if he were perfection--what irony! Post more! :)
ReplyDeleteYohan, why do you say that?
ReplyDeleteMansuetude, yes the irony is quite evident, more so in her other works, which are quite crass and obvious but I suppose that was the whole point ;)
the shock actor of these reminds me of a english artist daphne plessner, especially the juxtaposition of the innocent and the horrific. I'd like to see the more grotesque stuff!
ReplyDeleteI do like the idea of defacing old texts very much - while I wouldn't touch mine ( I get squeamish about all the notes I have in my books, let alone doodles), in the context of these, it's really effective. I love the idea of art working with text beyond just a visual level - this is great in the way it disrupts and transforms presupposed historical narratives.
was it the chapman brothers who were doodling over Goya prints? I remember that didn't go down very well with many people.
HM: Thanks for the heads up , I was also reminded of Takashi Murakami's work.
ReplyDeleteThe grotesque stuff was a little too grotesque ! I can't stomach it just now. And the thing you said about the text and the images working beyond a visual level - I agree with this. It's more interesting that way, especially if the art was interactive.
I never knew about the chapman brothers or the vandalism of the Goya prints ! I've got to read up I guess.
Why did I say what? The thing about art being a bourgeois activity? It's because modern artists (as opposed to craftsmen) tend to be from the middle and upper classes, and even if they aren't, they tend to cater to an elite crowd. Shocking or subverting their sensibilities is a highly limited activity in terms of both scope and consequences. It is unlikely to change anything.
ReplyDeleteI guess this means a lot more in the context of western art. People have been doing art for shock value for a century, so it seems almost passé.
But in India people take offense more easily -- as MF Hussain has sadly had to learn!
[Bit rambly and unclear. Sorry!]
Yohan , I agree with you on most of what you've mentioned. Art is high brow , it is not for the masses , it's elitist, yes. But art can also be low brow and mass produced like Warhol's soup cans . It wasn't meant to be subversive . It was merely a slap in the face to the 'institution'. Today we have artists like Takashi Murakami , as I mentioned before , doing the same. That being said, Kahlon's work isn't meant to be the same. If you are talking just subversion and reaching the masses , then you're referring to political art , which was/is used as propaganda .
ReplyDeleteThere are extremely bold Indian artists today who are doing their thing, M F Husain is merely an easy target because he is so well known and he is Muslim. And it's not the people who take offense, It's the Hindu fundamentalist idiots who instigate this sort of thing and I think it's so disrespectful the way he's been treated.
(mine was even more rambly , so it's ok)
I' was a BBC documentary series called The Shock of the New recently. It's a history of modern art. Was made in 1980. The host made a new edition in 2004, and asked if art was still relevant. What was interesting was the notion that Warhol's mass-produced pop art seems to have taken over the art world. The narrator lamented the lack of art that took time to have an impact on the viewer -- and also reminded people that art also needed to be beautiful. He suggested that artists are too busy getting reactions and making money to be involved in Beauty.
ReplyDelete[This may seem a bit unrelated. But I think the "slap-in-the-face to the institution" idea sometimes trumps Beauty too. Not all art has to be beautiful. But where is the Van Gogh or Monet of the 21st Century?]
Artists ARE busy getting reactions and making money :) As is everyone else I suppose (the money making bit atleast)
ReplyDeleteLook the truth of the matter is that beauty in itself is a highly subjective, evolving thing. If you want a Van Gogh reproduction I'm sure you can find someone in your vicinity who paints beautiful landscapes. The thing is it's been done - it's of no value culturally from another artist, there can only be one Van Gogh or Gaugin or Monet.
If all you want is a pretty picture in your room, I'm sure you can find several artists that meet your expections.
There are several abstract artists out there who produce beautiful work , it's a methodical and tedious process that isn't as random as it looks and takes up a great deal of their time and energy , to slight that is probably not a good idea.
If your basic problem is the lack of beautiful art then you probably haven't looked around enough.
Oh I've looked around. And occasionally I find beautiful paintings. I wasn't talking about paintings that were similar to Van Gogh or Monet. It's just that a lot of the London/Tate/Saatchi art that gets a lot of press seems more intended for shock or disgust that any inherent aesthetic virtue. It's as if no one is looking at the world and seeking out joy. And abstraction is perfectly alright, I have no problem with it.
ReplyDeleteNot my intention to slight anyone in particular. But here's a question: is it even possible to slight anyone, if we must give respect to the fact that effort was made? Everyone makes some effort. Does it follow that all art is good art?
The Tate and Saatchi gallery were created specifically to showcase contemporary , edgy, avant garde art. Do I think a bedazzled skull should be worth a $100 million ? no . That doesn't change the fact that it is.
ReplyDeleteWhile effort is good , it is not all that counts ofcourse. And good art is anything you find pleasing. It's entirely subjective and you can have your pick.
You're right of course. I guess part of my confused thinking on this is related to the following thought (which may be wrong):
ReplyDeleteIs it possible for Western art to be edgy any more? Have not all the boundaries already been transgressed? What more can be said about war, violence, sex and so on?
I guess this is why I like this blog. Indian art has so many places to go -- the scope for shock, and beauty, and utter uniqueness is enormous.
In theory I don't think you can put a limit on art , that would be like limiting the human mind. It operates by the same principle that beauty can never be exhausted either.
ReplyDeleteIndian art does have a lot of scope , right now it's taking a conceptual trend like you mentioned but there are so many amazing artists and it's a pretty exciting time for Asian art in general.
I wasn't putting a limit on art. I was, if anything, examining if "edginess" is limitless or not. In other words, art is limitless, but the concepts that art movements and art critics like to mention might me limited.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, sincere emotions (such as in Paula Rego's work maybe) can carry through even if the "concepts" (to the extent that any were intended) aren't necessarily new.
There isn't a right answer to this. Edginess is dependent on who the audience is , as well .
ReplyDeleteI think all artists mean to be sincere , who are we to judge their intentions?
I've been getting this dialogue in my "box" and have loved it; the sincerity and honest digging after an answer.
ReplyDeleteDon't we have to judge intentins, if we are awake to the concept of art or anything as a "propagandist" power on our actions, on our culture? Don't we have to look at the Tate and what is as you said, a skull with jewels, and ask again, what is happening there? Isn't art becoming just blurred with the propoganda of commercialism so much more and more? We say we are making art out of pop culture but aren't we really squinting at those two bed fellows?
Can you please, any of you, add to the list of people you think are doing this kind of work, as you have mentioned a few, and I am googling them, and learning so much from this.
gosh, intriguing stuff. A little late in the fray perhaps, but here's my tuppence for what it's worth.
ReplyDeleteA lot of this discussion seems to me to come down to a primary examination of the possibility and purpose of contemporary art. How do we (re)define art, how do we position its boundaries?
on edginess - I think to question the possibility of shocking, of still being edgy and provocative in art, is to question the existence of art itself. It's true the Western art has been steadily working down a lot of boundaries, but this isn't to say that we now live in a world without taboos, without question, uncertainty. There are more than ever, and the role of art can only be to penetrate that - to drive into these forces and to discover, create, the historical moment of our existence in this. Perhaps this is the purpose and defining characteristic of all art, to shock, "to shock nature into permanence" to commemorate and explode the limits of existence.
But a lot of what sets out to be deliberately 'subversive' is governed by comercial criteria. It's like in fashion - you get a lot of shocking, unwearable stuff on the runways each season - while this does often raise questions about how we view fashion, our bodies etc, its main purpose is to get lots of attention and thus big $$$ for the house. I have a hard time believing in any of the old pack of brit artists - Hirst, Emin et al. Warhol was an interesting experiment, but we seem to have moved beyond irony now - Warhol created a pin-prick to implode the surface of the mundane, the everyday and the commerical... but gorged on its own narcissism, contemporary Western art fails to create much that is provocative, intelligent. I agree, this is why I like this blog and the artists you feature - it feels there's more possibility here as Indian art hasn't yet stifled itself on its own commercialism.
as for sincerity - it's like saying the internet has turned us all into writers; the camera turns us into film makers and photographers. Sincerity in itself can't be a defining characteristic for art - I can very sincerely sit down and do a colour-by-numbers repro of some Renoir - but it lacks any motive, thought or impetus. It lacks the transforming moment- the rupture that can disrupt perception towards something new. I always have this argument with my dad - why can a pile of bricks, why can a urinal be called art? But I guess a lot of those things are about creating these ruptures, transforming the contexts of our understanding.
and beauty - it's dangerous to start placing old yardsticks to mark the limits of what is beautiful. Van Gogh, Renoir, Gauguin were all crossing the limits of perceptions of beauty, identity etc in their time. to place them in a mausoleum of 'beauty' would be a great injustice to them, at the very least.
I was listening to a radio show about testosterone today, and one of the stories was about a guy who had a medical condition leaving him unable to produce any for several months. One of the consequences of this was a change in his sense of perception - it gave him a sense of omniscience - of seeing things as they were, stripped of subjectivity and judgement - and the conclusion he reached was that everything was "beautiful", in a very impersonal, absolute way. I thought that was great :)
haaaaha beat that for rambling XD
Mansuetude , Questioning the intention behind a work of art is completely different from judging the artist's sincerity and thats only what I meant.
ReplyDeleteLike I said , personally I don't see what the big deal is about the blinged out skull ;) I'm sure you've checked out Damien Hirst already, I think he's a bit gimmicky myself.
Modern Art is only a statement on the 'agents' of pop culture that have an effect on us, like Yohan mentioned Art doesn't really reach the 'masses' so to speak and he's right. Infact the general public views it as frivolous if not elitist.
To understand why museums make such extravagant acquisitions we have to understand the context. The fact that you have Charles Saatchi backing you up helps ! In the end it does come down to money , Museums are interested in something edgy and newsworthy and something that will be a guaranteed blockbuster.
Another thing to keep in mind is that the average person is going to find contemporary art ridiculous. Van Gogh did not really sell any of his work while he lived, people were just getting out of the impressionistic era and thought his work was crazy !
As for artists, I suggest you look up Post Modernism and Pop Art . But to REALLY understand and establish context, a quick introduction to the various movements in art would be a good idea.
http://www.teacheroz.com/Art_Periods.htm
just scroll all the way down to the 20th-21st century and that should give you a rough idea of the different art movements chronologically.
HM !
ReplyDeleteThat was a very well thought out argument. I happen to agree with you on basically everything that you just said. :) I just mentioned the very same thing about Van Gogh.
As for the Indian contemporary artists, I've consciously avoided featuring big names like Subodh Gupta (lunch dabbas) or Jitish Kallat (autorickshaw made of simulated bones) simply because I think they're headed the Hirst way. It's not that I'm uninterested , it's just that they're everywhere !
Sometimes it's much ado about nothing and sometimes it isn't. I don't think my blog is an accurate representation of what Indian contemporary art is today , I tend to seek out the more obscure artists , stopping only to feature the big names that I truly love.(Dhruvi Acharya)
I featured the very hip Thukral and Tagra, do I believe in everything they do ? not really but I don't think they're without talent . They are not the most original but atleast they're trying to portray a little more than Indian middleclass strife , which is a theme thats being done to death and yes the irony is great but lets move along.
I am sounding more angsty than I intend to. The whole point of this blog was to urge people not to take art so seriously , not to get all academic and pick at it. This is why I try to keep the analysis very minimal. This is not to say that I don't enjoy the discussions , I'm just saying that once in a while it's nice to just look at colourful images and enjoy them !
lol, is that a polite way of saying, stop talking out of your ass woman!? If so that's ok, cuz I just push a button and let the nonsense begin :D
ReplyDeletebut whatever the motives of your blog, it is great and long may it reign. I'm always curious about desi art/lit/music and there is not enough coverage of it in the world - it's usually only obscure radio shows, late night tv and hard-to-find magazines. So I'm always grateful for this little germ of insight.
HM , not at all ! I actually have found that you have a very balanced view on most things. I look forward to what you have to say.
ReplyDeleteI was just impolitely thinking aloud at my failed state of affairs,hehe. Nah , discussions are great, keep them coming.
& yes, GOOD desi lit/music/art is hard to come by all under one roof. Maybe you should blog about your findings :D
Found this.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.briconline.org/rotunda/exhibitions.asp