Conceptualizing the Space for Activism in Art

Posted June 5th, 2010 by Andrianq

(I)

Premise:

     Activism ‘in’ Indian art, currently, faces a crisis due a dilemma of its own making. If the phrase ‘activism-in-art’ is appropriate, rather than being right, left or wrong, then it also implies that art in itself lies outside the premise of activism. Hence the usual question: “what did the artist do to the society, other than being an artist?”, for instance*1*

     Perhaps, the act of ‘activism called art’, as different from activism-in-, includes everything, excludes nothing, and seem bourgeoisie and diluted in attitude, for the same reason. ‘Activism in art’ is the best phrase possible between those three words, today. Activism called art also seems to be a premise of the lethargic, conventionalist and the insular artists. Activism in relation to art is the one that has brought in an equation between bourgeoisies, dilution, lethargy and convention. The history of contemporary Indian art, by and large, is the history of this very double shift from activism-through-art to activism-in-art and vice versa!

     In other words, a call for activism in art is to presume a certain ‘absolutist personality’ of art. It means (a) a lack of a certain avant garde or even activism on one hand; and (b) a presumption of art as a pre-defined referent. Refer to the history of post-independence Indian art: the history of art communities (Bengal Renaissance, Cholamandalam, Radical and those groups in-between them) is pedagogically preferred over that of individual ventures, because of the very belief that communities are analogous to activism. More than that, arguably, till the open market hit the country, individual stars were held to be the arrogant production of the then gallery structure. The dilemma of individual heroes evolving out of such art communities, time and again, puts the notion of activism into a dilemma. What is the definition of and why is theRE relevance of activism ‘in’ art? is a seemingly singular question which has wings all around it. It flies but to nowhere.

(II)

      But, if you observe it closely, the demand for a relation between activism and art is becoming more popular and expects a certain thrill similar to that in Pop culture which has taken over the attention of the bourgeoisie through the increase in Indian electronic media. Very simply, the one phenomenal growth of Indian visual media-artistic, aesthetic or otherwise-in the last few decades was a certain metamorphosis of the personality of activism (itself), in relation to representation itself!  In other words, the shift of visual language from absolutist position of its definition to relativist structure, is an endorsement of the fact that art has a position beyond being a physically finale product*2* In fact, it is the activism in (relation to) art, that simultaneously facilitated and structured the meaning of post-independence Indian art. 

      Very simply, the increase of the Indian television channels, a traditional expectation of the hierarchy between international, national and the local news were dissolved into the phrase ‘Breaking News’. Similarly the technological facilitation availed to a nation which was subject and pioneer of postcolonial discourse, also, arguably brought in two devises of art making: (a) spectacle and (b) dramatic narratives.

      The result of an urban enhancement device of visual representations as against the hyper text-both artistic and political-was to legitimize the creation of news instead of collection of news wherein both these phrases could not be distinguished from each other. Translate this into the mainstream language of visual representation within the premise of art. An affiliation with the new media and the gender awareness (mainly) broke the hierarchy set within the conventions of earlier representations: a hierarchy within known medias, specifically distinguishable from each other (as in painting from sculpture) was made extinct and were rediscovered outside the pedagogic premise of LKAS (Lesser Known Art Schools).*3*

                                                                      (III)

      Activism and art were mutually connected in certain ways owing to the way the language of visual representation became a specialist preoccupation in two ways: (a) by being ‘away’ from the public discourse and (b) hence becoming a specialist language of its own kind. In fact this is wherein the relation between activism and third culture becomes very relevant.

      On the other hand, the various dimensions that activism-within-art has been presuming within India is worth an addressal. It is as debatable as saying that there is much more that painting as a media/genre/mode of representation can offer in the age of public art and art in public. Very rarely does one see the language of painting and public art crossing each others path without the presumed notion of both being arm twisted.

                                                     (IV)

       The new media is a phrase which rather highlights the word ‘activism’ in the phrase ‘activism-in-art’. In fact, those involved in new media immediately acquire affiliation to four kinds of visa cards called as being radical, progressive, alternative and public art. Arguably nothing wrong with this, the problem is that the very choice becomes an achievement. An attempted mediocre new media work has activism written all over it, more than a well achieved painting. Representation beyond the convention is at the heart of activism, perhaps. There is an interesting twist to this story: conventional media addressing socio-political issues thematically was a cliché, while newer media outside the physicality of aesthetic premise is a fashion statement for the theoreticians. The renewed agencies that support that ventures have come to treat activism as a radical trophy in itself. Nevertheless, radical is always an extremist position. Anything that the moderates express is held to be a sober radical rather than a radical being branded as drastic moderates!

FOOTNOTE:

                                 *1* I am referring to the way activism within visual representation being segregating from activism ‘of’ politics/social networking/NGOs and the like. For instance, in the backdrop of Indian actors in general and south Indian actors in particular having a history of active political participation, the question is as old as five decades. Even to this day, one of the main question that is alive regarding M.G.Ramachandran, Dr. Raj Kumar, N.T.Ramarao is, “what has he done to the society, apart from amassing comfort of being a star?” In fact, this question tangentially connects to the issues within the debate of M.F.Hussain acquiring Quatar-citizenship and more importantly doing away with Indian citizenship. Societal participation in a political sense seems to be ‘the’ premise for activism in art. On the contrary, activism-as-art is something that was at stake and seems to be gaining more ground in the recent years of Indian art. 

                                       *2* It is still a meaningful question as to whether art itself changed or the discourse about art became sophisticated due to cultural discourses or whether our very perception of visual representational nuances became multi-disciplinary. In this regard, gender studies, neo-avant garde, categorization of physical spaces of galleries into conceptual white cubes, the notion of multidisciplinary in Foucault’s sense and finally the Derridian approach to our very approach to learning about (and as) art were some of the frameworks and names that activism acquired. Simply, these are the various avatars that Indian art(classical/modern/contemporary/craft)-in-the-form-of-activism has passed through in the last few decades./