Think beyond the Fair

What did I make of the United Art Fair this month? That it didn't create as much of a splash as its debut edition last year, with awareness lower - something the management must be mulling over - than in its maiden outing. For a platform that set itself up as a counterpoint to the India Art Fair, this is a serious concern which it will need to address in forthcoming editions.

It was, by all reports, better organised and better hung than the previous edition - kudos for which go to its curatorial team. As for the art, the offerings were a mixed buffet that ranged from the "refreshing" and "very good" to "nothing exciting" and "boring". Ram Rahman's selection of photographs - a sizeable chunk at the fair - ranged from "excellent choices" to "what was he thinking". For this columnist, it was the discussion around the quality of art that was the fair's most interesting takeaway in the absence of other podiums to stimulate similar debates around multiple opinions.

Sales, as estimated by observers, may have made "10 per cent of the show" (not good) to "a little more" (still not good), while the absence of any mechanism to follow up on negotiations beyond the fair noticeably squashed further opportunity as, indeed, enthusiasm - something else for the organisers to chew on. Still, artists not yet represented by galleries did sell their works (very good).

Last year, there was the glamour of rebellion that the United Art Fair brought to the event, so the renegades were forgiven a good deal. This year, that taint of insurgence had descended to the merely confrontational, oblivious that in the absence of transparency, it was, in fact, replicating the gallery model it was challenging. A number of participating artists appeared confused, cautious or secretive. Were they being offered space as barter for artworks and did they think it ethical? What percentage of sale proceeds were they asked to pay the organisers? These are questions you might also legitimately ask of a gallery. For an exhibition blazing a new trail, the lack of clarity from the outside needs to be better addressed.

In breaking new ground and steering a debate about various selling models for art, the United Art Fair has done well. Unfortunately, its own alternative does not seem entirely viable. Any argument about galleries, artists and a marketing nexus is only too well known to be repeated here. It is the possibility of charting fresh territory, representing newer, lesser-known or undiscovered artists to edge into the space occupied by their popular peers that is the fair's sterling contribution - one that cannot be emphasised enough.

Unfortunately, that comes with the baggage of mediocre art through which, first, the curators, then the viewers, must sift to find the few gems that, indeed, the United Art Fair can claim. This tedium cannot, unfortunately, be left to luck and the public's judgement. India is not going to create thousands of artists of merit overnight, and even less without the mentoring that the art fraternity does provide, despite apprehensions that it looks only to its own coterie of artists and bottomlines.

Can the United Art Fair find a way for various antagonists to work together? For, finally, it needs to be said that art, like any other business, needs its profits. Artists have long moved out of the garret. The United Art Fair comes with great promise for artists and collectors. If it de-links itself from being an "alternative" "competitor" to the India Art Fair and other current art practices to create its own workable model, it would have served India's art loving people with the respect they deserve.

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