Bring on the crowds

A few thousand people at an art show? Gawking, commenting "" rudely, mostly "" and making comparisons. The elimination of the snob quotient from an art opening? No intellectualisation or debate on the contents of what's on canvas?

Mumbai-based curator Vickram Sethi thinks its possible and desirable, that people should be encouraged to attend art shows even though they lack the basic understanding that defines contemporary art.

Already, one can feel the hackles of the art community rising. Why should those with little interest and no knowledge about art even be permitted within the precincts of a gallery? Why should the cognoscenti have to rub shoulders with the hoi-polloi?

It's true, as Sethi suggests, that whether in Delhi (where he curated his first-ever show with, he says, some trepidation) or in Mumbai or, for that matter, in Bangalore or Chennai, there is a limited number of people who attend art openings or wander into galleries to see a show.

These are people you know, whose presence is predictable; the 200-strong community who make up the complexion of each city's art-buying/ admiring/seeing fraternity.

Sethi says he doesn't mind these people "" he can't really, they're the reason he's in business "" but that art needs to be opened out to a larger mass of people. It needs to be deconstructed. It must be made accessible. And it must be understood.

Er, how? Sethi's response if disingenuous. When people who've visited one show come back a second time, they're already empowered, he says. They compare artists, or even works by the same artist. And however flawed their judgement, they're opening themselves up to art.

But is it really that simple? True, artists (and even gallerists) would like to extend their reach to a larger audience of people, but can a gallery expect to open itself out at the cost of losing its small (but likely loyal) clientele?

Sethi says fine, if gallerists have a problem, too bad, but there's always the Harmony show that he curates annually for Tina Ambani, where up to 2,000 visitors clocked in this year "" so there! That, he says, is a great forum for educating the public at large on contemporary art.

Sethi's premise isn't without reason, but already (and though Sethi denies this) the Harmony show is being seen as an art jamboree with poor works, cluttered displays and juxtapositioning of senior artists against those with no artistic pretensions.

Sethi says he includes some works that wouldn't pass through the critical toothcombing of quality art, but so what? If some people like such art "" and many do "" why restrict a show to the kind of intellectualisation he says he abhors.

While the arguments can continue, it's important to listen to the one thing Sethi's clear about "" art must reach out to more people. There are at least a few more ways this can be done. One, at a corporate level, organisations must be involved in taking art to public places, as was done at Victoria Terminus a few years ago.

For this, corporate budgets need to be tapped. It can create a lot of goodwill for companies "" so how about it?

Two, public art too can be sponsored. Delhi, for instance, boasts a number of buildings that have murals on their facades. Why can't the government, at least in its new buildings, ensure that a minuscule percent of its budget is mandated for some works of art "" murals, frescos, art, sculpture... whatever.

Finally, of course, art needs to be shorn of its cloak of intellectual pretension. This can be done if schoolchildren are taught how to appreciate art instead of just drawing inverted Vs in art class, and artists and gallerists encourage people with a healthy curiosity to come in and ask questions about what they don't understand, or why they should (or shouldn't) like something.

That articulation might just be the first step in creating a healthy and vibrant art movement in the country. What say, Sethi?