Contemporary art of India, has, over the last two years, seen a remarkable rise in interest in it, especially in the West. First, there is the growing prosperity of NRIs in the last decade or so and the propagation of our contemporary art adds a cultural dimension to the political clout they already have. The India-centred hype that is partly there to puff up the neo-liberal elite of India and partly as a result of a genuine hope of making a quick buck out of a burgeoning Indian economy has created a fresh interest in Indian art. But the fact that our art is still underpriced gives it the attraction it has for the global art buyer who gets a better value for money. Without going into these complexities, one will not be able to appreciate why this sudden spurt in price has taken place.
The most important element is value for money. This is reflected in the way in which, over the last couple of decades, collectors have concentrated on canvases. They are long-lasting, easy to carry from one place to another and do not tear as easily as paper does. A damaged canvas is far easier to restore than a sculpture, so canvases are in demand. Evidently the buyer is assessing good value for money and is entering the market primarily with that in view.
On a secondary basis, it is the NRI market nostalgic for its culture or to show that even over a hundred years ago Indians produced academic works of art that could be seen in the same perspective as contemporary 19th century art of the West. Clearly, academic painters like Ravi Varma were a far cry from artists like David or Gainsborough, and certainly no match for Van Gogh. To achieve that sort of comparison, we had to wait till the 1920s at least.
It is the spurt of the struggle for Indian independence as a mass movement that gave our art an independent character, blending our folk art with European radical art that sought to break away from imperial tutelage rather than emulate it. And it is no accident that it is the most radical of these artists, FN Souza, whose art is the most highly priced.
Five years back, his canvases, priced between Rs 4,000 and Rs 10,000 in 1968, were selling between Rs 2 lakh and 4 lakh. By May 2006, a work of his sold at Rs 2.95 crore, above those of most of his contemporaries, like Tyeb Mehta, Akbar Padamsee, MF Husain and SH Raza. Evidently, apart from being good value for money, Souza is also seen as being good to think with.
Good art, essentially, is not only good to look at, it is also good to think with. It is not merely ?trendy?. It has to last over time. Merely selling well does not make a work of art a good investment as ?selling well? today is no assurance that it will continue to do so. This is especially true of certain types of ?pop? and gimmicky varieties of art. One has to go for art rooted in our contemporary experience and capable of communicating it meaningfully. There is no dearth of artists who are producing such art. There are artists like Nataraj Sharma, Apoorva Desai, Saba Hasan, Pramod Ganapatye, Chittrovanu Majumdar and Yati Jaiswal, to name a few are waiting in the wings. Our contemporary art has plenty to egg it on to fresh heights without copycats of trends in New York or London. Copycat art is merely an accessory and not an investment. Collectors should take note of this.