The rich are indifferent

Once, the wealthy were patrons of art. But, it's difficult to assess what the country's newer billionaires collect, if anything at all that isn't kitsch

Last year, talk in London is that collectors at an art fair bought a few Renoirs and a Rembrandt, and if you need to know their prices, you oughtn't to be reading this column. Nor are these sales extraordinary, even given that China is fast replacing both London and New York as the art capital of the world. The secondary art market is strong, a sign of robustness despite hard times. You might not get quite as much as you hope for a Reubens, but it's still a market to be reckoned with.

London has 37 billionaires, two of whom are Indian - Lakshmi Mittal, and Sri and Gopi Hinduja - but the UK has 345, 271 millionaires, at least a large chunk of whom will have an interest in art. India has 43 billionaires according to Business Standard, hundreds of millionaires, but their interest in art is likely to be somewhat limited. As for those under the radar of the tax authorities who are staggeringly rich, my guess is that art is something that doesn't interest them. Do we know what some of the richest of this land prefer in the name of art? Do they visit art galleries, have a favourite artist, encourage young talent?

Once, the wealthy were patrons of art. The royal families had art ateliers attached to their palaces in which master classicists created miniatures. They commissioned palaces that attracted the best artists and artisans of the land. The Parsis were among the earliest collectors of modern art and their patronage built up the art market in, particularly, what was Bombay. But like the maharajas, they were eclectic, as much at home with Osler crystal and Rosenthal tableware as with A A Raiba and K H Ara paintings. The Birlas preferred traditional art and architecture, sculpture and other, classical high art. The Tata corporate collection is among the most varied and just the works on display in the public areas of the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel in Mumbai are like a directory of Indian art.

But, again, it's difficult to assess what the country's newer billionaires - the names in the rich list in this Weekend edition are a pointer only to their enterprise - collect, if anything at all that isn't kitsch. The US has 422 billionaires, and you can bet that many among them will not only have an interest in art, they will probably also benefit foundations that fund art institutions. The National Gallery in London has entire rooms named for those who have endowed them as a legacy for forthcoming generations. China has 122 billionaires and far more millionaires than India, but even that doesn't account for the scorching pace at which it has become the most potent force for collecting art, whether Chinese or Western. (Any hope that they may begin to collect Indian art is currently only a chimera.)

The collections of the maharajas have now been rendered commercial, on view to the paying public, but only two families have converted part of their collection into museums. One of them is on the Indian billionaire list, Shiv Nadar, whose wife Kiran Nadar is responsible for extending our knowledge of seminal Indian artists, whether Nasreen Mohamedi or, currently, Sonia Khurana. The other, which is not is Lekha Poddar and her son Anupam Poddar whose keenly curated collection of younger contemporary artists has informed and extended support to an entire generation in the manner you might expect from those who occupy the topmost rungs of this year's Billionaire's Club. Their tastes may not qualify it, but money has no colour. Properly channeled, it can create something in the 21st century in the name of art what it has so spectacularly failed to do for much of the 20th.

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