|
| In memoriam? |
| Kishore Singh / New Delhi Sep 30, 2009, 00:00 IST |
|
We are in danger of losing an entire generation of artists.
This column had previously made the case that among the casualties of global recession was the plummeting price of contemporary Indian art that fell 60 to 70 per cent. It is now being pointed out by industry analysts that even that estimate might have been too generous, and that values might have fallen by as much as 80 per cent. But an even greater toll might be the possible disappearance of an entire generation of contemporary artists.
The pointers are certainly in place for some of the biggest names in that space, and the cause is not a lack of talent — far from it — but an unexplained rise in their prices.
It seems like only yesterday that prices of contemporary artists had begun shooting past those of the masters, but without their much more solid foundation. Analysts had warned that these castles-in-the-air values were unsustainable and would in all likelihood have crashed. That this coincided with the global economic meltdown seems to have veiled what was clearly a weakness in India’s art distribution and retail system as a result of which prices were artificially pushed up and fell resoundingly in the process. After all, prices for contemporary Chinese or European, artists have not fallen anywhere close to these levels — they have suffered a 30 per cent dip at most, commensurate with what happened to art as an overall phenomenon.
In India, crashing prices has taken a toll that is only now beginning to play out. Among the greatest talents we saw in the recent past were artists such as Anju Dodiya or Bharti Kher, Atul Dodiya or Subodh Gupta, Manish Pushkale or Jagannath Panda. And yet, these artists seem to have fallen off the map. Once wooed and shown by every gallery in town, their works are being consigned to the basements as galleries try to revive the magic with older artists or their younger peers.
The reasons are understandable. In the last few years, the prices of, say, Subodh Gupta — his oeuvre of painted steel vessels had become almost a tired cliché — had rapidly escalated till the artist was commanding several crores for his canvases and installations. Those who represented the artist and were criticised for creating an artificial scarcity around his work to manipulate prices reacted by calling it a case of sour grapes, that contemporary art was a more confident representation of India, and that the fuddy-duddy masters had had their day.
When prices crashed by, say, 70 per cent, it created anger and resentment among collectors who wanted to offload what had become white elephants quickly. But at what price could they hope to sell? Gallerists, too, found themselves encumbered with works for which they had paid a premium, but were unlikely to realise that value for a long while to come — if ever.
But the biggest conundrum by far is that of the artist. At what price can the same artist now hope to sell his or her work when the market is suddenly flooded with their previous works that no one wants? You can’t price the works high because, of course, they won’t sell at all. You can’t price them low because then both collectors and gallerists who own works from previously much higher priced sales, will feel cheated, and this will create ill-will in the market. Newer collectors will reject these works on the basis of their history of crashed values.
It means these artists must lie low for a while and ride out the worst phase of the slowdown — though it will be a long while before they can hope to see a logical revival in their prices. By then they could be in danger of having become irrelevant to the market as younger artists move into the slots they previously occupied. And no, there’s not very much they can do about it: Already, galleries that would deal primarily with contemporary artists have moved swiftly into the sacred ground of their seniors, to deal in masters, a telling blow to and indictment of the contemporaries.
Is all lost? Well, the situation is bleak, certainly. All eyes remain on how auction houses, previously also blamed for artificially manipulating prices (they have always denied this), will return prices on contemporary works. It is interesting, though, that they are either not accepting consignments from sellers for some of the most scarred artists, or are promoting works by lesser celebrated peers whose prices at least will not cause major upsets among collectors.
That the trade has been scorched by the artists they once promoted is a lesson learned the hard way. So, stocks or not, they will find it very hard to justify the lower prices to their collectors, and as these artists grapple with what is a Catch-22 situation, the price trap might become the noose that will strangle them from the market — and from memory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Read Business news in |  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advertisements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Content Guide
