Recently, I was invited by the Religare Arts Initiative to view an exhibition “Found Objects, Lost Planet” with the photographic works of two artists who remained anonymous to the critic (even the title of the exhibition remained unknown to us at that time).
The premise was to form a judgement or opinion of the works on view with no prior information about the artists or their background. In order to construe a virgin response, the art critic was required to, in a way, forget everything – put aside knowledge and experience – and come up with some answers to the works at hand.
My question is – is this even possible? My contribution was a short argument making a case for preconditioning in art. Is it a necessity for good judgement or is it merely a pretext for ad hoc assumptions?
A Short Note on Preconditioning in Art
Preconditioning is a powerful and inescapable phenomenon. What are we if not the product of our ideas, thoughts and past actions? Moreover, we are also the product of everything that we absorb from the world around us – its fleeting sensations, the influences of others and our own myriad perceptions of reality that are constantly shifting. Is there such a thing as ‘essence’ or an original response system that can cut out all that we have experienced, learned and incorporated into our own thought/belief systems? The moment we see, we think, and when we think, we cull from what we know.
“I am the product of my own history as well as human history. I am not separate from it.” If we accept this premise as accurate, then we must also countenance the agency of preconditioning in the choices we make. Alternatively, if we question the value of preconditioning, we enter into a continuous cycle of self-doubt. What is the starting point for forming a qualitative judgement then? Preconditioning is essential for approaching art and evaluating it. Art is neither created in a vacuum, nor should our judgement of it hibernate in one. Without the essence of knowledge and experience, art becomes subject to taste, which – converse to history – is transient.
Preconditioning creates a value system. The ‘I’ that responds to the world is the same as the all-seeing eye that looks at art. It’s no surprise then that our views of art are inextricably entwined with our world views. So, the quality of preconditioning – by the same token – is hinged on the desire of the individual to garner knowledge and experience of themselves and the world at large. Experience is self-evident. But one has to ask, what is knowledge and where does one go to get it?
Knowledge is certainly not contingent on information which, especially in today’s Wikipedia age, is always incomplete, obscure and subjective – and easy to get an overdose of. Knowledge is about gleaning. Knowledge comes through layers of study. Knowledge takes time to grow. The more time we spend gleaning and studying the art of the past, the more poised we become to recognize great art of the present and the future. Too often, we get distracted by what is ‘new’ as if it were a radical departure from history. But newness is not a rejection of the past but an implicit acceptance of it, and a counter-response to it. In truth, great art is a manifestation of everything that has preceded it.
If we look at the works of the two photographers – whom I will refer to as X and Y – and attempt to construe a ‘virgin’ response to their works, we are immediately placing ourselves in a vacuum. Within that vacuum, we can come up with elaborate descriptions and points of reference that are limited only by our imagination. But what purpose does it serve and where does it take us? Is good art defined only by the skill of an artist to render an image? Or is it based on a much more complex system of analysis?
Firstly, judgement requires a proper understanding of the artist’s oeuvre; for example, how is the art work situated within his (or her) conceptual and formal development? Secondly, analysis necessitates contextualizing the artist’s oeuvre within his (or her) immediate environment; are the artist’s concerns rooted within the local or do they pose a challenge to them? Thirdly, one has to examine whether the artist’s oeuvre engages in a dialogue with what’s happening in the world; does his (or her) work incorporate an understanding of the history of art, of contemporary art practices and/or of global issues?
If we fail to ask these basic questions, we have already compromised our better judgement. Description is only the starting-point and it is a useful tool for determining if we like something or not, but it doesn’t allow us to plumb the depths of an artist’s practice or their relevance to the greater scheme of things. In the end, we need more than a first impression to recognize genius when we see it.
-Sharmistha Ray, artist, writer and Director of Bodhi Art
Tags:contemporary art, IndianArt, Religare
No comments yet. Add your own »