On March 25, Christie?s will test the 2004 prices for Indian contemporary painting at the Rockefeller Centre in New York. Of course, it will not be a representative test as these paintings constitute only some 37 of 241 lots up for sale, mostly antique sculptures.
Also, the works of contemporary artists represent only a section of what constitutes our contemporary art, and not necessarily the best. But the inclusion of Indian contemporary painters in an auction of antiquities does give us a message.
The message is that Indians contemporary art has a presence in the global art market that is undeniable. And more than that, it is good investment. And what do Christie?s expect us to invest in? Predictably, they highlight the artists of the Mumbai group and their fellow travellers.
MF Husain leads the tally with six works, so the attack on his works by the various outfits of the Sangh Pariwar and their hydra-headed hangers-on does not appear to have spoilt his market. On the contrary, their attacks have ensured the artist remains in the limelight and continues to sell.
FN Souza, another artist conservatives love to hate, follows closely with four works for sale. Others of the Mumbai group, like SH Raza, Tyeb Mehta and Akbar Padamsee, follow with two works each, while KH Ara is represented by a single work. Therefore, the tally of the Mumbai group is no less than 17 of the 37 contemporary Indian paintings up for sale.
This does not surprise me in the least. The Mumbai group was strongly influenced by Picasso and a number of its artists not only shored his radical views but also modelled their personal behaviour after him. This pervasive influence of Picasso makes the works easier to sell to western, and especially US buyers, in the eyes of the auction house at least.
I disagree with the fact that perspective houses and collectors of contemporary art go beyond the look-alike factor, but it does appear that the global auction houses are purposely homing in on such look-alikes as they want to attract the NRI buyers to their grossly-overvalued works of contemporary and modern western art.
I do not think that will work as much of the contemporary art of the West has overprojected itself to the point of becoming irrelevant as meaningful investment.
Still, Christie?s have camouflaged this bias by including works of other Indian modernists like Ram Kumar (3 works), Bhupen Khakhar (3), Arpita Singh (2), Krishen Khanna (2) and J Swaminathan (2). This is rounded off with single works of Jogen Choudhury, NS Bendre, Prabhakar Barwe, Ganesh Pyne, Ganesh Haloi, Biren De and even B Prabha and Arup Das.
It is obvious that while using the Mumbai group as their projection, they hope to draw in buyers with the others. While it does serve immediate interests, it fails to cut ice in the long run.
The gaps are obvious: Gaganendranath and Rabindranath Tagore are missing. Also missing is Mumbai stalwart VS Gaintonde. The Ganesh Pyne work is decidedly lacklustre. And some of the Santiniketan stalwarts like Nandalal Bose, Benode Bihari and Ram Kinkar Baij are included. One can say that the best works of many of these artists are no longer available in the market. But one cannot say the same for Jamini Roy.
So, it would appear Christie?s have chosen to project their view of art. Knowing fully well that neither does the market reflect their view nor does it represent the best there is to invest in.
So, I do not expect the March 25 sale to set the Rockefeller Centre on fire. Of course, there will be high prices for particular works of quality which ought to inspire serious collectors to bid furiously. But such works are not the majority.