The arrogance of ignorance

For every work of art that translates into a value of lakhs and crores are millions of works that remain unacknowledged or unsold

That there is lack of awareness or acknowledgment about different disciplines under the general rubric of the arts is well enough known, but that there should be such illiteracy and hostility between them hit me hard during a panel discussion in the capital a few days ago. On the occasion, a theatre director addressing a group of students had this to say about the visual arts (I paraphrase): "An artist paints a dot on a canvas around which he paints a lemon circle, then an orange circle," going on to describe various shades of lemon and orange before adding: "Having completed this, he sits back in a chair to admire his work with a glass of wine in hand."

The artist's work thus glibly described, the director went on to mock his audience about an "aunty" wanting to buy it for "Rs 2 crore" to show it off to her kitty party gang. This was the business of art, he suggested, thereby destroying in a few moments the reputations of artists and patrons, suggesting that contemporary art had no merit and was based on poor judgment rather than appreciation and taste. Having vented his spleen, he then took his leave and was gone, but not before adding that the arrival of photography had spelled the end of "good art", and the moving camera had done ditto to theatre, failing to acknowledge how both had added to popular as well as high culture through new mediums and technologies. But when the idea is to be risible without responsibility for raising a few cheap chuckles before a largely uninformed audience, why care for facts or propriety?

I bring this up not to moralise on the speaker's ill-conceived point of view, but to point to the suspicion that exists between genres and the heartburn about the fiscal green on the other side of the fence. The insistence that our contemporaneous times are void in appreciation of music, dance, art or theatre is whimsical and capricious, but to denigrate that which has a resonance today as being appalling in comparison with that which existed in some mythical past - similarly denigrated at the time, if that is of any satisfaction - is fallacious. To hark over some imagined perfection in the past without acknowledging the relevance of today is bad enough, but to cut across disciplines to denounce the other as an imposter is ludicrous.

If it is the value of art that my co-panelist frowned upon, he should remember that it is the secondary market in which art is traded where these high prices are determined, and almost never in the primary market, so most artists never get the values that are touted about. And for every work of art that translates into a value of lakhs and crores are literally millions of works that remain unacknowledged, underrepresented or unsold. Mediocrity mars the visual arts as much as any other discipline. Artists struggle as much as artistes, and as for patrons, whether they are informed or not, should they not be acknowledged with at least some respect for the patronage they extend at a time when such activities are treated with suspicion - and sometimes withering sarcasm - rather than the merit they are deserving of? If, in the West, museums and galleries have been endowed by "auntys and uncles" even if it is with a wish to perpetuate their names, their enduring legacy is the reason we are able to queue up to catch a glimpse of our favourite works - for which we should be thankful, rather than resentful.

Kishore Singh is a Delhi-based writer and art critic. These views are personal and do not reflect those of the organisation with which he is associated