Showing posts with label art World. Show all posts
Showing posts with label art World. Show all posts

Sunday, August 28, 2011

Shape of things NOT to come



In its recent issue, an online art magazine carried an article from The Observer stating -“how Saatchi and his YBA influenced leading Asian artists”. Article quoted three hugely successful artists from Asia, such as Takashi Murakami of Japan , Ai Wei Wei of China and Subodh Gupta from India, acknowledging influence of YBAs and Saatchi in their art practice.

History has proven that patronage is one of the important  factors in determining a trend in art history. Charles Saatchi is indeed a significant figure of contemporary art world of 90s who has been credited with changing the art trends in many ways . It would be interesting to understand Charles Saatchi the man and if he is still relevant in today's art world as in 90s in shaping the perceptions of global art scene ?

Charles Saatchi, born in 1943, is of Jewish of Iraqi origin and before he became powerful art dealer he belonged to advertising world of UK. Saatchi shot to limelight in early 90s with his exhibition of his collection of works called “Sensation-” presenting Young British Artist's (YBA)such as Damien Hirst, Tracy Emin, Chapman brothers, Jenny Saville, Marq Quinn, amd many others,  whose career's were launched with this show. There is no doubt that Sensation was the game changing event in history of post war art that set new rules, new equations and new art practice.

For Saatchi, this show catapulted his position from a regular art collector/dealer to position of the “game changer”. At least that is the perception Saatchi tried to propagate which is evident from his statement “ art world is constantly speculating my next move ...” some of the artists were quick to subscribe to his perception and coveted Saatchi's 'midas' touch . If Saatchi made careers he also broke careers of the artist, by dumping their works in market. Italian artist Sandro Chia is a case in point. So did his protege, Damien Hirst and his dealer bore the brunt of Saatchi's whim when he threatened to sale him cheap . Hirst and his dealer had to buy all his works back , including the shark work which made Saatchi and Hirst famous overnight.

Methods Saatchi adopted while building his art collection was to buy a young and emerging artist's works in bulk and later sell the works at a large profit. Such methods of buying/selling in bulk is generally adopted in stock market trading and are known as as speculators a category distinct from investors. A speculator is defined as one who is 'risking investment, anticipating a major change in future price of the asset.; or “some one who makes conjecture without knowing facts”; or “one who participates in market to profit from buying and selling futures and by anticipating futures price movements”. Saatchi thus changed the game of art collection. Traditionally an art collector built a steady rapport with the artist/dealer who first tried to understand artists' ideology and then participate in his aesthetics by putting his money on his creations. This process was far long drawn as it required relationship built on trust, friendship and respect. Investment in art was not seen as out right profit making venture but rather a long term participation in cultural history, which eventually would give financial returns.

Saatchi had no patience to wait for such a long time( a decade or more) to see his investment bear fruit . So he changed the game of collecting. To be in Saatchi's collection, artists had to be 'prolific' . It is the volume of works where his profits came. It was no longer necessary (for him) to own that single masterpiece of the artist on which his reputation was built. Instead by collecting of a large number of works of a single artist he created a monopoly over his market and then sold it at profitable margins, wiping out looses even if the works were of mediocre quality. He was after brand making and not after reputation of an artist. Overnight artist became stars and Saatchi became billionaire. Thus he changed the focus of an art work from critical acclaim as a parameter of a good work to market price achieved at the auction house. Saatchi knew it was much easier to manipulate the auction results than to generate a critical opinion for a work; as he declared in disdain for critics, “ critics can be assigned to gardening or travel jobs”.

His criteria of collection influenced a new breed of artists who could produce their works in “factories” and sell them in bulk. Jeff Koons, Damien Hirst, Donald Judd, Rober Gober, Sol Le Witt, Tracy Emin etc , to name some of the artists; engaged in mass production of their works making art in to a “formulaic product”. Further, the argument of post modern theory  positing the idea that 'authorship of an artist is no longer relevant for a work of art object', supported Saatchi's ideology of mass production of art. Issues like artistic merit, integrity of artist, authenticity etc, were no longer relevant issues on a debate of art practice. Saatchi successfully convert art object from 'unique commodity' to any other retail commodity available for mass consumption.

Saatchi's success in art market , encouraged many speculators to enter the art market, with the lure of quick money. Speculators are like gamblers who never know when things can go right and when it would go wrong. There is nothing wrong in being a gambler or speculator. However, one does not have to be a rocket scientist to know that when there are more speculators than investors in market , it is bound to crash.

If Mr. Saatchi was instrumental in creating a bull market for the art world. Then probably he was also responsible for its collapse in some ways.

Charles Saatchi the man, is a mystery. He never speaks to media, nor does he attend his own openings. He is often described as reclusive, single minded,visionary decisive, bold, capricious, hot tempered , and man with short attention span. By his own confession, Charles Saatchi is an artholic. Collecting art is his passion and his business.

In a recent, ongoing show titled “ Shape of things to come: New sculpture” in his London gallery, Charles Saatchi tried to once again predict( as the title of the show suggests) the trends in sculptural practice mainly in Europe and US. Unfortunately the exhibition reflects his vision of 90s and not 2011. Most of the of the works did not attempt to break new grounds in terms of materiality , thematically and even technologically to suggests any future trend. Neither there was any element of surprise or sensational qualities of YBAs show . On the contrary most of the works are predictably boring and formulaic, with a quintessential Saatchi stamp on it. Many of Saatchi's recent exhibition on Chinese, Indian and Middle Eastern art shows have received a similar criticism and response. Predictability seemed to be plaguing Mr. Saatchi's vision, and so is his credibility to speculate the things to come.

Saatchi's perception on YBAs might have been bang on the target, but is he able to read today's global cultural trends correctly? Or is it time for another 'game changer' to arrive on the global art scene?
only time will tell...

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Look out India! Anish Kapoor is here!!!






There is so much of art happening around these days that one hardly responds to the art that you see, hear or read unless you know the artist, or the artist happens be known. Anish Kapoor belongs to the latter category. He is known all over the world as most important and famous living artist of our time . Ironically he is not so known figure in India at least to its masses.

In a recent article dated, 27th nov., Rebecca Tyrrel, wrote an article in The Gardian on Artist Anish Kappoor's first ever exhibition in India, the place of his origin. Article titled "Anish Kapoor: Look out India Here I come ", raises many issues including the one why he wants to show his works in India.

This is my response.

Anish Kapoor is here!

So why did Anish Kapoor come to India? What is the significance of Anish Kapoor to Indian art world and its people on the street?

According to the sponsors and organizer it took 10 years of planning, blood- sweat, pain disappointments and millions of pounds to get Anish Kapoor's works in India. So you can image how important it was for the organizers to showcase Kapoor in India at this point of time . And it is again Kapoor's own personal interest in getting the works to India has finally succeeded in bringing such an exhibition. Kapoor proclaimed, “ I don't think people in India has seen anything like this before”.

For those who do not know, Anish Kapoor , was born in India to a Sikh father and a Jew mother. After spending his early years in Mumbai he left India and the Indian citizenship to identify himself with more sophisticated British people and their art..

What happened after is history . He won the the golden Lion at Venice Biennial. And later the coveted Turner prize( meant for British artist) . Such an achievements made every one sit up and take notice of the artist who had quintessentially an Indian name . Indian media, who is quick to claim ownership on any semblance of Indian-ness of an expat ( irrespective of the person who may or may not intend to associate with India or Indian-ness. For instance Kalpana Chawla, Freddy Mercury or Nobel winner Chandrashekhar.) was eager to claim the artist's success to his Indian origin just to strengthen the brand India on global map. . But ask Kapoor about India and his past, he conveniently brushes the issue aside by saying he does not believe in ” national allegiances” and his art is “beyond boundaries”, only to emphasize that he is a British Artist.

So why is Kapoor so keen on showing his works to the poor man of India who lives on the streets in 'shit homes' and barley makes ends meet ? Or is he keen to show his art to Indian art world which he believes is “not sophisticated” enough by international standards. Or is it the government of India who was keen to bring him here more than Kapoor wanting to come? ( as one of the official bragged that how hard he had been toiling for this show for past ten years) .

Certainly more questions than answers .

Anish Kapoor is a man of few words. He does not believe in “artist as celebrity”. Instead prefers his works to speak for themselves. Again he says “ As an artist I have nothing to say”. He insists on calling his studio as laboratory. And he is always smiling, as Tyrrel observes.

Kapoor might be ignorant of art world in India or the poverty that exists in India. But he is certainly not ignorant of who He is. He is not introvert, and certainly not shy person as you assume to be. He is very aware of his stature and power that he commands on the global art scene. He is aware of the price that his works fetch and he is aware that only the rich and famous can afford his works irrespective of whether they mean anything for them. Above all, he certainly knows how his funds for the next mega project will come from.

He does not shy away from fame, money and glamor. ( why should he?)He certainly does not shy away from the photo ops with netas ( politicians) and natis ( actresses) or turn away from small time a page 3 wannabe celebrity, who wants to capture the moment .( Again why should he?)And he knows one thing, he is here for the people of India to come and see his work and recognize his brilliance.

Look Out India:

Anish Kapoor has arrived. Indeed there has never been a show of this magnitude of a living contemporary artist held in independent India. Split between two 'spaces' and cities Delhi and Mumbai, Kapoor tries to make a statement by spreading his oeuvre to bureaucrats ,politicians, artist, celebrities, industrialists, journalists and the public at large to decide if he is Indian artist or not.

Bureaucrats and politicians are humbled by Kapoor's presence, and the glory he has achieved on international scene. Industrialists are simply humbled by the price he fetches in auctions. Artists are humbled by Kapoor's scale, perfection and precision with which works are executed. Journalists are humbled by Kapoor's inaccessibility maintained by him in spite of limelight. But men who are untouched by Anish Kapoor's fame, glory, success, and presence is people of India.

This is the irony that Kapoor is here to solve. Kapoor's succes as an contemporary artist is not just through his collectible sculpture owned by who is who of rich world. But the public sculptures that have created huge impact on the masses in America and England where some of his major works have been installed.

Kapoor is the only artist people know off after Henry Moore in England. This is what Kapoor loves and wants to live for.He knows his works will live longer than the celebrity fame that he gets in his lifetime. Recognition from the people. That's what he want to achieve by connecting to man on the street who lives on 7 Rupees a week earnings, and builds 'shit homes' in India.

This is not about Indian- ness or British- ness. This is a simple business proposition. Can he get a commission for a mega public sculpture?. He knows that with Indian economy booming, India CAN. All he needs is a simple invitation and a pay cheque. Is anyone listening?

Look out India! Anish Kapoor is here!!


Anish Kapoor says, art has no boundaries.

Indeed art can be without boundaries but there is no art without politics.