The art cartels

Artists with a sense of humour are rare. In the 1980s, M F Husain had the critics carping about his "media showmanship" when he threw open the doors to the Jehangir Art Gallery where, instead of art, there were rolled up balls of newspaper and torn shreds of white paper.

This week, Vivan Sundaram is making a political statement out of paper garbage at his installation in Delhi, throwing light on the lot of the city's ragpickers. Still, in spite of the ephemeral nature of art - particularly canvas - rising prices have now become a source of some heartburn even within the industry.

After all, Rs 7 crore is a lot of money for a painting, though as likely as not, that record will soon be overtaken by another, then another, and so on. For that kind of money, people can buy a good deal by way of wealth - gold, land, houses, things they can bequeath to forthcoming generations.

Money spent on canvases by V S Gaitonde, on S H Raza and Akbar Padamsee or other "masters" could multiply fast given the current flavour of the market, but how do you control it in perpetuity? Especially given that India has no insurance or other institutions in place to monitor the safekeeping of such treasures.

It's interesting that Sundaram himself questions why the prices of particular arists are going up humongously? "Is there something behind it?" he probes.

He's being serious, not mischevious. The occasion is the launch of Tyeb Mehta's eponymous book by the Vadehra Art Gallery, and the entire fraternity of artists is at hand, as much to celebrate the book as Mehta's domination of the market.

It's interesting that the masters are now being quoted not in lakhs but in crores of rupees. But for another part-time collector and art lover in the capital, it's equally fascinating that young artists - G R Iranna, or Chittrovanu Mazumdar, for instance - are being quoted not in thousands (as was the case a few years ago) but in lakhs, several lakhs at that. "And they have so many painting years left," he laments, "but already their quality of work is suffering."

Clearly, there are cartels now controlling prices. Just as clearly, art galleries are doing a lot of intra-trading. As a result, prices are being artificially propped up, and prices are being publicly established in the guise of transparency.

Galleries are being forced to work harder for works no longer available for sale on exhibition walls because they've all been pre-sold. And gallerists are happy to gossip about the terrible state of affairs, as long as you don't implicate them since they're as much a part of these cartels.

What does this mean for artists in the long term (in the short term they make more money)? Or for gallerists (who are willing to stake out now for raking it in later)?

But most of all, what does it mean for art collectors - those who buy works not because they're blue chip investments but because they genuinely respond to modern art?

It's uncertain times for now, but one thing is clear: the cartels and the unnaturally high prices for all artists are doing a good job of driving a wedge between genuine collectors on the one hand, and artists (for being part of it), gallerists and other promoters on the other hand.

And if this keeps up, there'll be little difference between a share or debenture certificate and an oil canvas, artists would have become products, and gallerists might as well be bankers.