The way art is taught is dull, boring and monotonous: Ravinder Reddy

He is on a high, but quietly so. Sculptor Ravinder Reddy has displayed at some of the choicest venues in the world — the Grosvenor Vadehra in London, Bose Pacia Gallery in New York and the Andy Warhol Museum in Pittsburg. His other solo shows have been held at the Sackler Gallery in Washington DC and the Le Jardin d'Acclimation in Paris, among others. Despite having achieved this level of success, he does not have a website, as he "never felt the need for it". "My work is to be seen and felt,” he says. Reddy, who was recently in New Delhi for his show at the Vadehra Art Gallery, speaks with Atul Mital about his life and work. Edited excerpts:

You are a fiberglass sculptor and have stayed the path with this medium. Did you face difficulties in getting this medium accepted?

I thought of how to survive when I was graduating. Survival and practice bothered me a lot. I had to overcome fears, and to do so was a task. I did part-time jobs in schools and colleges from 1984 to 1990. During this period, the question was of survival and establishing myself. Later on, though, I started selling and gained in confidence.

What was the impact of this period on you? What did you learn from it?

I resolved to fight, and my will power became stronger. The 1980s and '90s were tough for sculpture, particularly fibreglass sculpture. People didn’t accept this and wanted metal, wood or stone. I had to overcome this negativism and establish a new perception for this new material to be accepted. People had reservations. After the ’90s, the situation changed slowly. Some reluctance is still there but there is some openness because of the changing times. Yet things are slow compared to other things. I learnt what you believe you should practice and success will come. I learnt this when people were not accepting me and my work.

You stuck to the life of an artist despite difficulties. Why did you choose the difficult life an artist has?

I never chose art. It is a part of my day to day living. My existence is my profession.

Many of your pieces depict human figures. What is the thought process behind your art?

There is nothing taboo about the human form. We are born naked. Nudes have been represented for centuries in all countries in various forms — as mother, goddess, divinity or as a symbol of fertility. I use huge proportions as size matters for viewers; it inspires and expands their vision. I have used real people as models, and sometimes I conjure up what is visible and what is not visible.

I like sculptures because you can touch them three dimensionally. It is an inner thing. Painting is two dimensional. 

You formally studied art. Can art be taught?

It is a difficult question. To an extent it can be. You can show what is happening in the art world, history and techniques of art. Seen in the larger perspective, nuances of art around the world can be taught. Under this process, one becomes aware of things and the scope to interpret them. This is what art schools and teachers do primarily.

What are your views on the standard of art teaching in our country?

It is not as good as it should be. Our basic senses are not evoked and neither is creative thinking. They teach how to draw or paint. It’s not evoking creativity. It’s dull, boring and monotonous. The government says teach art once a week in schools and so it is taught. It is not a priority.

What about the standard of reviews?

There is a shortage of critics in this field. Thirty years ago, many people were writing about it. But now there is hardly any space for critical reviews. In the 1980s and ’90s, there were in-depth analyses. I feel there is a need to read and write more about art.

How many hours do you devote to your work?

For me, it’s a nine to six routine. I conjure up ideas. I introspect. I see if changes or improvements are required. Art is a full-time occupation. My journey has been quite positive and I got to showcase my work at places I wanted to.