Vrishchik, Year 2. No.1

,

.

· VRISHCHIK '.

:

.

.-

.

TRIENNALETTERS .

"

•

I

••

,

.

New Delhi. I st Sept.

Dear Sheikh .

Regarding the forthcoming Triennale, I believe that 't o undertake any action vis-a-vis the Akademi is a waste of time. It's structure is such tbat no amount of hullagulla from tbe outside can affect its impotent decisions. The whole thing was debated in the executive and general councils and several people wanted to change tbe procedure recommended by tbe exbibition cominittee-but no resolutions could be passed and tbe matter stands as before. Let us aceept this fact and don't waste any time and energy on trying to change/persuade them-this is [ repeat, useless. What can be done is unilateral action on the part of artists-a pure ,a ct-by refusing to participate, you can deny the importance of tbis exhibition. As I said before, if a dozen of us merely state openly (through your mag. ) that we shall not participate in the show, you will receive support from many more-and you can go on publisbing such decisions. Result will bp that Jndian section of Triennale will be full of Hebbers, Cbavdas etc., and it will bave the academic cbaracter that is true and befitting for tbis Akademi. This polarisation must take place and I can't tbink of a more natural and honest way of doing so.

I have re-read your letters and bave the following comments to make:

I have none and believe me I have 'only got down to write these thoughts/remarks only because you have raised the question. The Akademi is a dead horse. Do you still need proof of this? Or do you think that you can make it a vital institution? Indian art will be better served by concentrating on RE",L issues i. e" on work and ideas and not by bothering about these dated and obsolete outfits. ever,

Krishen ( Khanna ).

2 Society of Contemporary artists, Calcutta.

7 September 1970 My dear Sheikh.

Thank you for your letter of 23 August 1970, which incidentally reminded me of tbe two meetings I had with you.

About the boycott of the exbibition I think that tbe deCision to participate or not should be personal, there should be no attempt at persuasion. A dozen well chosen dissents will call for otbers-and tbole who want to show, should make their own choice-they will in any case whether you like it or not.

On counter exhibition : Under a body an exhibition is anonymous but without it, it becomes a group sbow. Wbo is going to organise such a show? Where? What are you going to prove by staging such a show ?

Presen~ing

signatures to the Akademi or the Ministry:

Wby do we always think in terms of the Akademi or Ministry being some kind of authority who can remedy all matters? I believe in unilateral action and don't believe in petitioning anyone".

Regarding writing as to why I left the Akademi : I Would do this if I still had some interest left in this institutiom.

We just bappened to ~ome by a copy of Vrisbchik just as we were prepafing to register our protest with Lalit Kala Akademi for its bureaucratic manner of preparation for the Second Indian Triennale of Visual Arts (nonperforming). We do Dot have any objection to bureau cratic methods as such. In fact, bureaucratic 'methods are essential for getting' any work efficiently executed.

But an efficient bureaucracy should be composed of proven experts and it should work strictly within the bounds of policy decisions arrived at democratically. It seems, that the policy decisions regarding the Second Triennale were Doi made sufficiaDtly democratically . .

Majority of the members of tbe General and the Executive Councils of the Lalit Kala Akademi are eiiher nominees of different governmental agencies or ex-officio representatives or representatives of organizations having

no connexions witb visual arts and as such they do not directly represent the artists' interests. It is the reason why -the Lalit Kala Akademi should take extra special care to elicit the opinions of the artists of India before formulating policies which vitally affect the latter.

If it was physically impossible for the authorities of LKA

'.

to consult a1l or a majority of or even a majority of only the most significant artists of India working only .t the major art centres, it could at least have communicated its proposals regarding the mode of preparati ons to some important individual artists, affiliated art organizations, non-affiliated but important organizations, State Lalit Kala Akademis, art educa tional instituti ons, important art critics and historia ns of contemporary art, for tbeir opinion, before finalizing the arrangements. Where

participatory democracy is not possible; tbere, at least a frank and fai.r two-way communicati on between the

authority and the people concereed is a must.

A multiple - channeled frank .and free sys tem of communication is also necessary between physically separated people, equally affected by the sa me authority and/or the same establishment ( autbority in this case is represented by Lalit Kala Akademi and establishment by . the sharks .of art market). But unfortunately, some basically similarly but apparently differently situated artists are complacently oblivious of this actual situation and they often try to be in the good book of the authorityestablishment continuum by conveniently elbow'ing out their compatriots. Such activities usuallv take the form of clique-activity and the victims of such 'clique activities often find themselves in the corner as a group. Artists of West Bengal, many of whom can hold their own against their counterparts anywbere, are , increasingly finding Ihemselves as one such cornered group. We, the artists, art'critics and historians of contemporary art of'West Bengal are always ready to join in any united action to protect and enhance the interests of the working artists of India, but we an; not re.ady to be used as instruments by our compatriots elsewhere who might discard us after their short-term ends are achieved. Till we are very S'Jre about the reciprocity of co-operation, we would rather prefer going on eur own. Even if we cannot build up a united resistance to the policies.and working of LKA insofar as the Second Triennale is concerned, solo protests from differ:nt'corners in aggregation is bound to make the authorities of LKA concerned. We are, t herefo re, right now, not in a position to commit ourselves in favour of the parallel exhibition yo u are thinking of holding during ' the time of the Second Triennale. Hope you will not misunderstand us. If, however, LKA does not change its modus operandi, we may have to j oin your exhibition, p -ovided the terms are fair and reasonable. In case we decide to participate in your exbibition you will be having out fullest 路and warmest co-operation.

As to your que~tion whether we 路 a:gree to a 'division of India' into three zones for the purpose of selection of exhibits for the Second Triennale, as has been done by LKA, we would like to say that there is no straight forward answer. But, we feel that whether India can be divided into three or four or five zones or not depend upon the purpose of your act of division. We believe that India is a union of distinct nationalities with their own linguistic and cultura} identities and tradition., but not without points of contact and commonness. Modern lndian artists, in general, being objects of borrowed ideals and fashions (wnich prevent tbem from becoming fully conscious subjects of creative act) which do not usually become integrated parts of thei,. existence-and-experience, we often forget (i.. e., we often miss that element of conscious integration in their works) that the extent to wbich the own laws or natllral laws of arts have a dialectical relationship of reciprocity wIth the bistorical cultural milieu, the arts' are culturally ,meaningful to that extent. We cannot wish away these reflections of cultilral differences in the arts of the different nationa)- cultural areas of India, from the standpoint of a cosmopolitan modernism the altitude that bas been a .bane of modern Indian art. Of course, in judging the validity of any work of art the ontologi;al question of the laws of art or the , nature of art should find precedence over any other consideration. I should, however, resist myself from dialecting on tbis question further, for tbis is 'not the proper moment of suph theorization.

Lest you misunderstand, the national-cultural regions, ' I have in mind, are more Of less conterminous to 'the speech-communities rather than to tbe 'three zones', so,

thougbtlessly conceived by LKA . Modern Indian art being an urban phenomenon, in certain urban centres, within some national- cultural areas, distinct traditions in visual arts have grown ' up, in course of last fifty or so years. The spread-effect of the traditions which have developed in, Bombay, Baroda (secondarily in Abmedabad), Calcutta, Hyderabad, Madras and Santiniketan ( Delhi, though has become an important centre of art activity is yet to establish its own identity; since Delhi lacks a national-cultural identity. It will be very difficult for Delhi to have its o\yn creative personality rhave inHuenced the art traditions of the neighbouring speech communities.

This is so far as dividing India into 'zones', insofar as artistic creativity is concerned.

What is significant in creativity may not be as significant in the judgement of creativity ( selection); only that the -

• judges should be aware of the factors significant in creativity: ' J n judging the validity of a work of art the ontological question of the nature of art should find precedence. Logically, therefore, an all India sele~tion committtee composed of proven experts and representing as many shades of opinion as possible would ba've been good enough. But then such a committee, may not have the perfect information about who is doing what at the present moment. This difficulty can be overcome if instead of powers to select the artists to be represented at the Triennale, the committee is given the power only to select the objects to be exhibited. Objects can be selected through an open competition; announced, before-hand, in the suitable media of communication'.

Better course, Iiowever, would be to have a two-tier selection committee. The first tier selection committee may be a regional committee and be composed of ¡representatives (must be active artists and/or art critics and /or historians of contemporary art) of recognized artists organizations, non-recognized but important artists organizations, state Lalit Kala Akademies and heads of the art eolucational institutio~s of the region' who ' , ' would in their turn co-opt important individual artists art critics and historians of contemporary art (specified' number) of the region. This committee may invite sundry artists of the rEgion to submit some of their works, through press-notifications, for primary selection. This first their regional committee may also have the power to select some objects of their own choice by, the artists of tbeir cboice. .

Art objects thus primarily selected by tbe first tier committees should then be sent to an All India Committee composed of,proven experts among the artists, art critics and historians of contemporary ar'!; for final selection.

'This committee should have only very limited right to select artists and art objects of their own choice. The limit should be so set as the works selected at the primary choice of this committee do not exceed 10 per cent of the total of Indian exhibits at the show. .

For the sake of convenience regional committees may be formed in Bombay (with jurisdiction over Maharastra, Goa and Kerala ), Baroda ( with jurisdiction over Gujarat and Rajasthan ), Calcutta ( with jurisdiction over West Bengal, Bihar, Assam, Manipur, Tripura, Nagaland, NEFA, Meghalaya and Mizo ' Hills), Delhi (with jurisdiction over Deihi, Punjab, Harayana, Himachal Pradesb, Jammu & .Kashmir and Uttar Pradesh), Hyderabad ( with jurisdiction over Andhra Pradesh and Orissa) and Madras ( with jurisdiction over Tamil Nadu, Mysore and Andamans). Only through such a two tier selection committee composed of.experts enjoying the confid.nce of the artists we can hope to eliminate tbe effects of group ism, sectarianism and SUbjectivism so rampart in Indian art world to-day.

We believe that Lalit Kala Akademi IS a public organization meant to serve tbe cornman interesls of the artists of India. If it fails to serve the in'terests of an • active majority and hecomes an instrument at the hand of an establisbed clique, then it will lose the confidence of a majority of active artists. The LK should not forget that it is the common will of all the artists that sustains it. The will of a handful of artists wbich stands in contradiction to the will of the majority is 'ultimately baneful to the whole of the artist community.

Lalit KaJa Akademi will truly become a public organization, looking after the interest. of the artists and art loving public, only when the compos~tion of its General Council is democratised thoroughly and the Executive council is composed of pr~ven active experts.

Till these changes are effected, LKA, we are afraid, will remain an alien authority to the artists in gcneral. We are, however, hopeful tbat through a really united action the artists of India can bring about the proposed changes to reclaim LKA for themselves.

Hope you would please k<;ep up the con,tmnnication.

.

Yours sincerely, ( Pranabranjan Ray)

• \

New Delhi October 8, 1970 Dear Sheikh,

I noticed your anger in the present issue of the Vrishchik over the apathy of' Some Delhi Artists' with regard to the affairs of tneLalit Kala Akademi. I for one do not look at it as a dead horse. If anything, it is more of a dead weight and a dead loss which ought to have been thr.own aside and liquidated long ago by those in charge of dispensing public money. As it is the Akademi is neither autonomous nor is it a body of experts, nor even a representative body of the Artists of India.

For the last decade and a half this organisation has been functioning 'alternately as the .hand·maiden of the ·two factions vying with each .other for supreme control : one composed of sucb luminaries as lady Ranu Mukberjee, K. C. S. Paqikkar etc., and the other led by the so called Bombay group oUlebber, Bendre and Co. The fact of the matter is that this Akademi, created in the fifties, has simply refused to recognise and allow adequate represebtation to the artists of the sixties. As such there is no clash of ideas wiihin the Akademi~ and all the quarelling and bickering which goes on is only for the spoils of powers between the two aforementioned factions. As it is constituted "today, it is a self perpetuating body which does not allow of liny reform. In my opinion the govern",ent, which holds the purse strings, should . disband it and take steps to form a new (lOdy more in tune with the reali ties of today.

It is towards this end I feel the Artists sbould agitate.

How unmindful even tbe autborities are towards , the real problem can be seen by the fact that the Khosla Commission _which tbe government has appointed to enquire into .tbe affairs of the Akademi has not cared as far as I know, to invite even a single real critic of tbe organization or anyone from the Artists ofthe sixties'for presenting their views. As things stand today, I see in complere boycott the only way for registering the disgust felt by "il genui?e artists.

Take the case of the Triennale, for instance. After the harrowing experience of tbe fi'rst Triennale, one would bave thought that the Akademi or the Ministry of Education would ba·ve taken steps to elicit expert and non-partisan opinion before going ahead with the

preparations for the second Triennale. for all the furore that the First Triennale created, the Akademi or the authorities did not even care to call an Artists' Conference to discuss the matter. Neither the Akademi nor the authorities seem very much concerned with the question of the function ' and the nature of the Triennale in the context of the present day international realities. Are we having the Triennale as a mere window dressing or is \ the Trieimale meant to give a ,new orientation to the question of the international exchange and confrontation in Art? Already the yarious international Biennales are going out of vogue with artists everywbere and seem to have become mere tools in the hands of the Anglo-Saxon market manipulators. Fortunately for us we are as yet comparatively free in this respect, and the Triennale could therefore become a real rallying point for the struggle against tbe art financiers. For this however oilr ' organizers will bave to be in touch, not only with the Akademies and the governmental agencies abroad but also with Artists and genuine movements in art everywhere. I see no reason wby 'our Triennale .hould not assert the buman and the spiritual content of art as against the de-humanization of art in a society completely sold out to the machine. But this perhaps would be asking too much of tbe Akademi.

The second Triennale 'seems to aim at a more democratic (more mediocre! ) representation in the Indian section to assuage tbe hurt souls of all those wbo put paint Dn canvas. Anybody and everybody with any pull at the r~gional and national levels is bound to get in this time. Thus we may safely predict tbat the Indian section this time will be as impressive as tbe national exhibitions put up by ihe Akademi! I repeat: Boycott, boycott, boycott. And let this boycott not be a negative gesture. Let all genU me artists, concerned with the situation, come fortb now, forg'etting tbeir mutual quarrels, to define the attitude and the stand of the non-establishment. If this happens then surely' the Akademy can be flogged to a dead horse.

Yours affectionatdy, J. ' Swami nathan

)

4 /

Bombay 8th October '70 Dear Sheikh & Khakhal' ,

I tbank you for your iss use no. 9-10 of Vrishchik.

Myself being one of tbe members of the Triennale committee, hasten to inform you that there is not a grain of truth in what you have published about tho Triennale affair. Your Calcutta artist friends are absolutely ignorant about facts. .

New Delhi 3rd Oct. '70

Yours Sincerely

I foel you bave missed tbe point in a way. It is not who is on the selectio!, committee, so much as the fact that there are too many, with the result that no one person or twO people are responsible.

Since there will be no risk involved to their reputations. no one is going to make an effort to look for the best works. Nothing can be achieved in the Akademi because no one person believes. in the work being done there, and this need not alway~ be so in a bureaucratic set-up .

K. K. Hebbar.

5 Abmedabad I am a constant reader of your Vrishchik. Through which I read twice about the protest against the second . Trien nale. After your first .issue I had prepared some suggestions, which I could not 路 send to you uptil now because of one rioason or another.

Suggestions are as under: 1. The counter-exhibition during the Triennale ( I shake hand you densely. ).

2. I am of the opinion that the protest list should be submitted and publisbed ip the daily newspapers. Of. course this should be signed only by those whom we consider ( the artists) of 1970.

3. Following to tbis an all India convention of above menti oned and like-minded artists should be organised, through which a future boycott ( of the Akademi .? ) by all artists be m.ooted. Thus there will be an autonomous ,institution governed, by artists. Of course this is lo~g process.

.

A. Meetings should be arranged somewhere in the country.

for the give and take of artists' opinions, proceedings of which can be published m Vrisbchik or such other . magazines.

/

5. Triennale sbould be boycotted by selected and un selected a rtists.

Dear Gulam,

Just received a copy of Vrishchik ( nos. 9-10). You bave asked me to write frankly on tb. " Triennale' issue.

Any cbange that will occur in the Ak~demi, will and must occur from within. Only then the cbange will have meaning and create precedents and open new paths. All the shouting from outside will not help. Which of you is willing to get on to' the Akademt ,committee (by hook or crook ! ) and assume responsibility and work day in and day out for the cause of art? None of the artists, and as yet yo u have. not found a non-artist who is intelligent and organised enough to work hard for the cause of art.

Who believes in painters or paintings being produced?

Find that person and you will not need the Akademi.

Changed, you will have a different climate altogether in ' the art world.

It is because State patronage is the only substantial p'atronage ihat it is given so much prominence. Wben paintings find a ready sale and appreciation in India, the movement itself will gain momentum and the Akademi become an archaic and' dusty institution.

From alf this confusion of my writing, two solutions arise. Either one makes state patronage and involvement, dynamic from within by the right person accepting total responsibility or create a live and vital art movement in the country and relegate State patronage to the dust heap!

6. Akademi sbould be asked to select works for tbe Triennale as she selects for her nati onal exhibitions.

Does tbis makes sense ?

Mansing Chhara,

Roshan Alkazi.

8 Bombay 25-1-'70 Dear Sheikh

When I was invifed to be on the National Selection Committee of the Triennale, my refusal was motivated by a basic objection to being a co-juror along with Dr. Anand and Mr. Sanya\. This ratio of I : 2 is a known method of outwitting and neutralising any potential critic of the Akademi's policies.

What is expected of an international exhibition like the Triennale is to present : I. New talent of the last three years.

2. New aspects .of the work of the already welknown painters.

3. To consecrate significant artists who have died in the past three years.

,

7 Baroda.

The Triennale Committee's report about how the Indian Section of the Triennale will be organised indicates that the Committee has, in its effort to look far-minded and keep everyone pleased, laid the anatomy of a mixed show.

In such international exhibitions the coh~"ence and punch of the national image is of more importance than representativeness and. I have doubts whether the elaborate operational framework envisaged by the committee will get the desired result. I should have thought that if a single person like Sri Hehhar or Sri Panikkar or somebody else with a definite point of view took tbe' responsibility it would result in a unified image however different from last.

K. G. Subramanyan

â&#x20AC;˘

I have learned from the last two issues of Vrishchik that the mode of selection adopted for the Indian sectioit, will . defeat these norms. The idea of drawing up a list of names of the award winners of the Akademi, as possible invitees is an undisguised attempt to secure entry for the artist-bureaucrats of the Akademi in the Trienn,le, who" by proper standards of evaluation would be highly inelligible. This is an excellent example of using democratic methods to protect and promote mediocrity.

It was from the French delegate Mr. Guy Weelen that I learned the opening date of the Triennale ( ~ hope I am not diVUlging the secret by revealing it : 23-1-'71). I wonder when the Akademi will deem it fit to inform the possible ' participants, but may be participation in the Triennale is considered such an honour that one may overlook a last minute invitation.

Akbar Padamse â&#x20AC;˘

R. N. 15189/69

~

VRISHCHIK November 1970 Year: 2. No. 1.

Editors : Gul.m Sheikh Bhupen Khakhar 4 Residency Bungalow University Office Compound lI oroda-2, Gujarat. India .

.â&#x20AC;˘

Space donations: I 2 3 4

Dynam o Dilectrics, Baroda .

Bharat Lindner Pvt. Ltd ., Baroda.

Chika Ltd., Bombay'.

Mercury Paints and Varnishes, Bombay.

With thi s number Vrishchik eliters the second year of its publication. It does not aspire to be a culture-magazine, which the readers must have noticed. From this year, fo r th e convenience of those who want to b~ its regular read'ers, a minimum rate of subscription Rs. 10/- is fixed.

OUf readers in fo reign countries may send contributions along with postal cbarges.

We publish here a selection of letters and views over the second Indian Triennale. We are fortunate to have views , of bo!h the parties, the artists in piotest and a member of the Triennale committee. As r,egards the truth behind the matter (as stated by ,Shri Hebber in his small, formal letter) we have relied on the proceedings of the . meetins of the Triennale, sub-committee held on 27th and 28th May 1970. If any changes have taken place after this meeting, no one ( including members of the Akademi ) has been inforincd.

It is sympto matic of the Akademi's ineffi ciency that no

decisions have been taken to inform the p,ossibt'e pa rticipants yet, wlien the exhibition is scheduled in January next. We hear Akademi has difficulties in collecting the jurors for the National Selection Committee !

A number of artists have already decided to boycott the Triennale. We call to all thinking artists of India to join in this boycott of the Triennale, and send their letters of refusal to the chairman of the Akademi.

Our stand would be - if Akademi remains a national institution - it should function in the interests of art and artists of India . . Otherwise it be dissolved and reformed, with changes in the constitution to be adopted through an all India artists' collvention.

Otherwise all thin king and genuine artists would leave the Akademi, and will give it the name it deserves ~ It can still function undisguised as an academic institution. We may even help it to unburden the facade of modernism by suggesting that they should have exhibitions of works of the members of the Akademi, on/y o And they may have retrospective~ of Thakur Singh, Venkatappa, Haldar etc., during the Triennale, as Akademi has recognised their importance by including them in their publication programme: â&#x20AC;˘ This will suit the image and temperament.of tbe Akademi tbat it is or aspires for. And all the genuine artists of India will have notbing to do witb it.

Pu blished by Gulam Sheikh from 4 Residency Bungalo w, University office Componnd , Baroda- 2 and printed by A. N. Joglekar at1 3- A . Associates, 4- 5 Laxmi Estate. Bahucharaji ,Road. Baroda. '.