[Reader-list] OPEN LETTER TO LALIT KALA AKADEMI

[subba ghosh]

"Dear Shri Ghosh,
 Thanks for your visit to Lalit Kala Akademi and submission of your 
project. We understand that you need some electronic equipments for 
your project "Was this Atlas?"  We regret to inform you that the 
akademi has no process of providing electronic equipments for the 
participants of the exhibition. However, your request for 15 ft. wide 
painted wall could be made available. As you know that the Akademi has 
to provide space to almost 60 Indian artists it would be difficult to 
provide  absolute dark area for the projection. However, efforts could 
be made as far as possible to suit to your project. 
D.K. Banerjee "
 
 
Dear Mr Bannerjee,
Thank you for your reply, text of which is given above. I am
disappointed to know that the Lalit Kala Akademi has, as part of its
International exposition decided not to support video based
installations or other technologically mediated works by denying 
facilities for projection and not providing the required i.e. darkened
spaces for it. More than the mere fact that video based works are
formats that many contemporary artists have incorporated into their
language of expression, almost all international exhibitions, similar
to the Triennale, showcase video based works as a matter of regular
practice.This arbitrary and discriminatory practice in the Indian
section towards a certain art form brings to the fore more important
questions primarily that of curatorial direction and organisation of
the triennale, by the Lalit Kala Akademi, which in the interest of the
contemporary art practice in India needs to be urgently addressed.
Artistic practice in the fragmented post modern world today, is
visibly plural. The continuous overlap of categories has made the
theoretical discourse all the more interesting. It has enabled the
artistic gaze to envisage a panorama that encapsulates a wide range of
expression. History is evidence that greater freedom of expression
leads to flourishing of artistic expression, but as we see today it is
not an easy path and one has to struggle to achieve it. Such a
plurality in the discourse has also enabled the artist to democratize
his/her practice. One of the fallout of this overlap is that, media
like that of cinema and television, that were generally developed for
dissemination of information and public services came under the
scrutiny of the creative eye.
One such important juncture was the development of television within
the social structure and its transformation into becoming a conduit
and arbitrator of public opinion. Television not only brought the
public voice into the private home of the individual, but at some
points replaced it as well. This rupture of the private - public
border was embedded with possibilities of artistic expression as it
allowed the artist to traverse the hidden psychosis of society.
The modern urban artist was quick to react to this possibility, more
so because any artistic practice in order to retain its edge, has to
be radical, which within the contemporary ethos would mean a
continuous questioning of status quo and resist being incorporated
into it by retaining the space for criticism directed inwards and
outwards as well, otherwise artistic production remains nothing but
another product for consumption in the market. One can also see a
parallel here with the development of printmaking in the late 19th
century and early part of 20th century. One could say that video art
is a valid and dynamic response of the artist to the present.
This brings us to the discriminatory attitude towards this practice
within the portals of the Akademi and its general failure to respond
to the voices of contemporary art. While outside its precincts video
art seems to be practiced by many Indian artists and with some amount
of success. The Triennale by failing to acknowledge it seems to be
blind to what Indian contemporary art practice now accepts as a valid
form. The failure to accommodate video art in the Indian section of
the Triennale exposes several weaknesses in the ideological structure
of the academy and its world view of contemporary Indian Art. One of
the major fault lines lies at the core of the curatorial premises of
the Triennale itself.  For one the letter of invitation for the
Triennale did not consist of any curatorial brief or concept note that
would enable the invited artist to locate oneself. Either the
Triennale is totally evacuated of the need to have such a conceptual
foundation or the curatorial team, which incidentally remains hidden
for mysterious reasons, is incapable of formulating any. Conceptually
adrift the only primary international show of art, in India remains a
vague amalgam of contradictions thereby generating poor response from
other countries who find it hard to take this show seriously.
Quantity cannot replace quality at any point of time. This opacity of
practice by the Lalit Kala Akademi is not only anti-democratic but
also opens up this public institution to manipulations and
malpractice. While the Akademi was conceived as an institution
primarily managed by the artists, for the artists, it seems to have
been reduced to another government department, which in turn seems to
project that the artists at the helm of affairs are incapable of
imparting any radicalism to this institution or are merely regressive
and conservative in their view points. Whatever the reason for this
sorry state of affairs the loss is that of contemporary Indian art,
because at the given juncture this Institution, funded by the tax
payers money, does represent the majority of artists in India, who I
am sure would like to see the Akademi be an active participant in
giving a dynamic shape to contemporary art in India or has it become
another Titanic?
The Triennale as the Akademi's showcase exhibition in more than one
way fails to meet the minimum requirements of International
exhibitions and which is the reason it has deteriorated over time. The
reason being, one by the absence of a curatorial premise as mentioned
earlier, secondly by not responding openly to contemporary artistic
practices by Indian artists. While other Biennales and International
shows all over the world make it a point to have conceptual clarity
and give adequate time for the invited artists to respond, the Akademi
interestingly send its letter of invitation on 1st of November 2004
and wanted a response by 20th of November 2004. What was it doing for
the last three years? Paucity of funding cannot atone for
mismanagement, rather calls for better management.
Given such a poor response of the Akademi to contemporary art
practices it is time for Indian artists to take some action. Either
this body has to be restructured or deemed redundant in order to save
the tax payers money and reconstituted as a more federal structure.
Maybe it is also a call to all artists interested in progressive
aspect of artistic practice to shed the Akademi and form a network of
independent platforms as an alternative.
Subba Ghosh