Monopolies have the remarkable quality of killing initiatives and trading on their bones till they are reduced to powder and the bubbles burst. If in economics we see this as the phenomenon of jobless growth which is only another way of squeezing out profits without an eye on unleashing creativity or ensuring sustainability, in the art world we see it as the process of cornering a few well-known names and raising their prices artificially in the hothouse conditions they have created in the first place.
Its damaging effect is evident. A few well-known names may sell in terms of crores, but the price is not paid to the artist. It goes to the monopolist, so it does not really have a direct effect on an artist?s creativity. In any case, most artists in this category are too old to react to these stimuli in a meaningful way. So mediocre works or gimmickry have to be resorted to.
Also, these measures increase the distance between the trendsetter and those inspired by him to such an extent that the trend dies out. So even the works of masters become part and parcel of the antique market. Then the monopolists have to look out for new names to catch and kill.
This happened to the Bengal School masters like Gaganendranath and Abanindranath Tagore. It happened to Rabindranath and Santiniketan artists like Nandalal Bose, Ram Kinkar Baij and Benode Bihari Mukherjee. Lately it has happened to Ganesh Pyne. At the moment it seems to have targeted the Mumbai Group greats like F N Souza, M F Husain, S H Raza and V S Gaitonde.
The monopolists garner the works and then sit tight on them, waiting to get the inflated prices they want. Once in a while they let a work go like a homing pigeon. But in art, the principle of out of sight out of mind works. Soon enough no one will want to buy trendsetters who have lost their following and, quite possibly, have been replaced by other trendsetters.
So, those committed to preserving the momentum of the art of our national movement in the context of the ongoing life of the Indian Republic and its success as a global investment, have to work out new strategies of conserving our contemporary art. These are well under way. And they can be sustained economically as even our monopolised artists are selling at half the price they are worth while others are selling at considerably less, so we that have the staying power.
First, a number of our gallery owners have begun to shun copycat art that sees Euro-American trends as something to copy and not assimilate and transform in keeping with our mainstream contemporary art. Copycat art can be fashionable and it can serve as an accessory for interior decoration, but it cannot become an investment. Investments in art embody living trends for the future which are deep rooted in the technical expertise of the past and are capable of blending them with the technical developments of the present in an original and perceptive manner. They must be capable of communicating to other artists as well.
Not every artist can do that. If one looks at Souza?s three-dimensional drawings superficially one sees only the influence of Picasso. Few realise his search for three dimensionality in art that led Souza to Gupta sculpture in the first place. This he blended with Picasso as both artists were following the same quest.
In the same way, Prakash Karamakar?s dark woman and Souza?s black nudes owe much to the traditional image of Kali while at the same time representing a break from religious and reverential art. A number of our best artists still selling at reasonable prices are doing just that and gallery owners are now looking out for them.
