The recent Christie?s auction of March 29-30 has seen a lot of media hype about fakes. So has the last minute withdrawals of works from the New York sales. It is a sign of better things to come. In the present state of affairs it is the sudden expansion of the market for contemporary art in the last few years that is responsible. This has created a large grey area for which there are no laws, so anything goes.
As the demand for works increases, artists employ assistants to produce more works faster. This is nothing new. Jamini Roy produced works on the workshop principle. But he was transparent about it and it has affected the price as his works sell at lower prices.
Others felt they could eat their cake and have it too. So they never told the buyers the works were atelier-produced and their assistants too began to produce their own works in the same style.
Then a few began to sign for the artist. And at least one artist had the guts to take her assistant to court. That is a good precedent. And it does seem to have controlled the practice.
Now, if artists can mass produce works and sign them, the gallery owners are not likely to be left behind. They have always been known to strike a hard bargain, both when they buy from the artist and in the secondary market. Unscrupulous dealers are there willing to sell works cheaply, only the works are in all probability fakes.
So, those who are looking out for bargains ought to understand that today, with the demand for good Indian contemporary art being far higher than ever before, bargains are not likely to be available; and if they are, they are likely to be fakes. So, if some galleries go in for buying bargains to resell at higher prices, they are likely to be purveying fakes. Galleries ought to be more responsible with regard to the authenticity of the works they are selling. It is not enough just to give money back if a work is proved to be a fake. A proper screening must be conducted before a work is put up for sale.
The same goes for the auction houses. The recent auction of Christie?s did the right thing by taking a number of works off the auction list. In future those who are supplying doubtful works will have to be careful. But mistakes can and will happen.
Still when we talk of fakes we are not talking of mistakes. The flood of fakes up for sale reflects the opening up of the global market for Indian art and the difference between the old boutique level profits and today’s global market killings have created an area of greed where anything goes. This can only be handled with strict legislation against fraudulent practices.
The government instead of softening rules and regulations in the face of globalisation must make them harder and more effective. In the name of removing obstacles they have ensured that corruption has a field day.
The market for Indian contemporary art can still go to double the price without its worth being questioned. The solid bull run in Indian contemporary art is proof enough of where it stands in the world, so we need not worry too much about petty carping critics suffering from a belated colonial hangover. They are ghosts of the Raj and exorcising them should be no problem after a good seventy years of producing high quality contemporary art.
