Gayatri Sinha (GS): In the last ten years, galleries in India have seen a profound shift. There has been a proliferation of new galleries, while some of the older ones have become somewhat subdued. How do you read this? Is it because exhibitions and trade around the modernists have become scanter and there is the rise of a newer crop of artists?
Renu Modi (RM): The art market has moved and continues to evolve. Newer galleries have surely come in, but older ones still have their roles. Everybody’s focus changes over the years. There are a few older galleries whose programming may not be very robust. Even if they wish to deal with and invest in modern art, finding good quality works of modernists is difficult. Since the availability of these works is rare, organizing a solo show around a single modernist requires a lot more effort. But at the same time, I think trade in modern art is increasing. Even as there is a new crop of artists, they will take their own time to grow. It is also true that the time we take to promote these emerging artists has become much faster, thanks to social media and other online tools.
Peter Nagy (PN): I am not sure I agree that the numbers of galleries has proliferated. Certainly, there are a few more serious galleries in Delhi and Mumbai, but I do not see much happening elsewhere in India (with the exceptions of Experimenter in Kolkata and Ashvita’s in Chennai). India desperately needs more galleries to show young artists, and slowly build an audience and market for them. Someone who does one show a year (albeit a serious show) in a rented space does not qualify as a “gallery”.
If older galleries have become “somewhat subdued”, that can be attributed to the simple fact that their owners are becoming older and have less energy. Also, even though it may lead them to seem “subdued”, it is only in the nature of a gallery to grow old with a group of artists that it has represented over the years. We cannot expect galleries to always be “cutting edge” for decades.
Sharan Apparao (SA): Older galleries have dealt with older artists and works that are not so easily available. They find it difficult to source works in the current market. Older artists are available in the secondary market, which is more active in trading than in exhibitions. But the large number of fakes floating in the secondary market has ensured that older galleries stay away from it. They have to find new working formulae and not all of them can come up with the ideas or money required to change. The newer generation of galleries has fresh ideas and more young energy. They also cater to a new generation of viewers, participants and buyers.
Ranjana Steinruecke (RS): I agree with Sharan. The work of the modernists has mainly been in the hands of dealers in the secondary market, and not so much with the galleries. Among the few exceptions are Delhi Art Gallery (DAG), and Akara Art to a certain extent. These works are increasingly difficult to come by. So Akara Art has decided to expand its scope by opening a second space where they show contemporary art. There is also Vadehra Art Gallery, which has participated in many major international art fairs, enjoying their unique position of representing all generations of Indian modern and contemporary art.
The growth in the art market and the number of artists in it has allowed younger galleries to make a mark. Two Kolkata galleries have opened spaces in a second city -- Experimenter in Mumbai and Akar Prakar in New Delhi. This October, my gallery, Mirchandani + Steinruecke, will also inaugurate a new space in Delhi. Delhi is a very vibrant, exciting place for art, and we can no longer do justice to our audiences and artists by remaining restricted to Mumbai.
Prateek Raja (PR): All galleries go through their own journeys. Younger galleries do bring fresh energy, but older ones still do thoughtful, nuanced shows (even if they take more time to gestate, they turn out to be well-researched and deliberated). There is also still so much to uncover among artists from previous generations. I do not think that older galleries have subdued. I would agree though that the younger ones seem more buoyant and are keen to show a whole new range of artists. Thanks to them, various contemporary experimental practices are finding avenues.
GS: Galleries have altered their outlook since the 1980s and ’90s. Several of the newer ones have floated foundations and awards and organized their own art weeks in different metros. They are also directly negotiating shows with international museums rather than depending on state agencies. Do you see this as a necessary intervention?
PN: One cannot really compare the Indian art scene of the 1980s and ’90s with today. Private galleries are doing more for their artists, which includes more international museum shows, commissions, etc. But this is standard practice throughout the world and part of the contract of representing an artist. I think the shifts you mention are just a reflection of Indian galleries becoming more mature. Much like their artists, they have more to do on different levels these days. Also, developing a private non-profit foundation enables a gallery to do things it cannot as a commercial endeavour.
RM: In the 1980s and ’90s, galleries never thought of showing abroad or collaborating with foreign institutions as much, because there was hardly any international interest in Indian art. But with growing economic power, along with events such as the India Art Fair in Delhi, the Serendipity Arts Festival in Goa, and the Kochi Biennale, India has garnered greater attention from the international art community.
Visibility has also become easier to attain these days. It is easier to show Indian artists at shows abroad. My own gallery, Espace, also sells to museums abroad. For instance, we recently sold one of Manjunath’s large works to the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA).
Having said that, one must also add that artists are not only dependent on international platforms for exposure anymore, because of the visibility they can gain within their own country. Moreover, many artists, such as those working with public art, may look at venues beyond the traditional gallery or museum.
RS: In the absence of state support, Indian galleries have been at the forefront of international negotiations. Bose Pacia and Nature Morte had the first major collateral exhibitions for India during the 2005 Venice Biennale, titled iCon: India Contemporary.
Galleries have also played an important role in bringing leading exhibitions of international contemporary art to India. For instance, Mirchandani + Steinruecke hosted solo exhibitions with stars such as Kiki Smith and Jonathan Meese soon after we opened in Mumbaiin2006.Weflewdown the artists and organized conversations and performances around them. Earlier, only museums would be able to host something this big in the Indian art scene.
Gallery Weekends of course exist all over the world, so that is not unique to India. But yes, foundations established by galleries are new platforms that offer support to young artists and curators.
PR: I do see a need gap in art grants, foundations and awards. Given the lack of publicly funded and government supported contemporary programming, it is up to private enterprise to constitute these initiatives. Also, it is clear that the art ecosystem cannot exist with only commercial enterprise. It is very important to do non-profit, educational work, which is a constructive way of giving back to the community. For example, we started the Experimenter Curators Hub from the beginning of Experimenter, and it is an entirely education-led initiative which has today successfully entered its 14th edition. We also began a Learning Program Foundation in 2018, which came from a need to expand knowledge. Several other non-profits have emerged over time, and I feel these initiatives by commercial galleries are necessary, because there is simply not enough being done in this context.
SA: This has to do with building visibility and value. Yes, private galleries do not depend on others. Foundations allow for some profits to be used and plowed back. Awards and international museum shows give exposure to artists, which also makes the gallery attractive to buyers and collectors. If there are gaps in funding and support that exist outside of galleries and museums, they are being filled to a certain extent by organizations like the India Foundation for Arts (IFA) and Khoj. However, one also needs large non-art foundations to support the arts. Other countries have foundations and tax laws to benefit these foundations. But sadly, modern and contemporary art is not a priority for CSR programmes or the government in India.
GS: Would you agree that even as art fairs and auction houses have increased, and galleries have a busy calendar both internationally and in India, the discursive space of catalogue texts, talks and debate on art works has shrunk? In the long run, how do you believe this absence will influence Indian art history?
PR: I think it has always been difficult to nurture critical writing and curatorial work in the arts across disciplines. This is true not just for the visual arts, but also for the performing arts and literature. There seems to be very little economic impetus for writers to make a living in today’s high inflationary situation through writing alone. Yet, good quality writing with discursive depth is needed now more than ever before.
RS: While art fairs have become a prominent feature, academic discourse also continues to have a good platform. For instance, the Kiran Nadar Museum of Art consistently presents art historical exhibitions and well-researched texts around them, both at home and abroad. Galleries are also increasingly hosting talks and discussions. I think we all see the significance of this. My own gallery for one is always keen to bring new writers into the fold. We often have two essays written for a single show. That being said, we still have a long way to go. For instance, our visual arts could use a lot more contextualization in relation to other disciplines.
RM: What you have observed is a worldwide phenomenon. Even though catalogue texts, talks and debates around art in India have really shrunk, galleries cannot really help it, because the readers and audiences have also declined with time. I think the tolerance of each other has also shrunk in the Indian art world.
We do have a busy calendar both nationally and internationally, but we also have to navigate and bring out more. I still have a personal interest in publishing and hope to produce more catalogues and a book with all the essays Espace has commissioned so far. Publications are still a major avenue through which Indian art can be shown more, especially before international curators. The decline in publications has hurt younger and mid-career artists, who are getting ignored. In the long run, this absence will also hurt Indian art history, since there will be little left for us to discuss.
SA: This is a very big problem. If we do not do something now, our history will be scattered and not well defined. I will not say it will be lost altogether; but it will not be strong.
PN: Even though I partly agree with your observations, I would like to add that this should not be seen as a part of the digital media revolution, that has made everything faster and (maybe) more superficial. I think there is still ample amount of serious dialogue and written texts to ensure that the present and future of Indian art history will not be hampered. I think private and public institutions have increased their discursive activities, so this acts as a balance.
GS: Younger galleries are also the first to host projects related to new media, such as game installations, AI, NFTs etc. To what extent have older institutions been able to adapt to these changing needs? Do you feel galleries can influence the patterns of art production? Please cite some examples in your response.
RS: Younger galleries are indeed more open to showcasing new horizons in art. A major case in point was an exhibition in Mumbai last month, titled Digital Fine Art Collection. It featured over 20 contemporary artists, in what the invitation said was “a revolutionary fusion of Art & Tech”, and was supported by some big names in the field.
RM: I have always been on the lookout for experimental work happening across different mediums of Indian art. We built an entire programme around video art at a time where other galleries were only sporadically showing works in the medium through occasional solo shows.
With regard to AI and NFTs, it is still a grey area which I do not know much about and have not really explored. But I think it will become more important and impactful for us in the coming future.
With regard to art production, it all depends upon the artists. Some artists turn to galleries for advice. At Espace, we do mentor some of our younger artists; but I cannot influence the art production of mid-career or senior artists. I cannot push someone who is focusing on drawings to shift to the digital. Having said that, I do point out to artists if I feel they keep producing the same kind of art. The art then becomes repetitive and boring, and may reduce in market value. I also think we need more discussions on where Indian art stands now, whether it be in the South Asian or the global context.
PN: If there are opportunities to support and exhibit new patterns in art production,they will certainly be more visible.But galleries are ultimately businesses that rely on the sale of art, so their hands are tied as to how much they can get involved with new types of work, especially if they do not involve objects. In terms of digital media, it is a space that non-commercial institutions are better equipped to deal with, and we see that happening quite a bit in India (with Khoj being a leader, at this point). If we look back at the beginnings of Nature Morte in Delhi in the late 1990s, the “new media art” that I promoted and brought into the commercial realm was predominantly photography and “installation art” (the catchall phrase for any sort of sculpture, using found objects or unconventional media). But, as I knew then, these were art forms that could be accommodated into the market (which is what happened). Digital art forms are, however, very different. When Nature Morte hosted an exhibition on AI Art in 2014, it had little commercial possibilities. It is not something that we continued with, but we did see more artists making this type of art coming to us afterwards.
SA: Newer galleries are especially looking at new media. For instance, Terrain.Art did an NFT show. I am unsure if the works found a real market, but they definitely picked up the idea when it was new. I saw it as a passing trend and wanted to wait and see what happened, as it did not make sense to me. Method in Bombay does some interesting exhibitions, as does Srila Chatterjee, who works with multimedia and put together an effective show for Tahir Sultan. Galleries will support emerging practices as long as they see a return. If it is an idea that is not commercial, then support will have to be sought from organizations like IFA and Khoj.
PR: Contemporary galleries are contemporary, because their artists work with media that is reflective of the times, be it AI, NFTs or other digital mediums. It is another matter if certain kinds of art remain passing trends or are not sustainable. Galleries must take a personal call along with artists in these matters. If you look at the history of video art, most of it was initially artist-led initiatives, which were met with resistance by galleries. As video became more popular and museums and institutions expanded their scope of understanding, the relevance of this medium in contemporary culture grew, as did its inclusion in discourse, and the acknowledgement of its indelible impact in art history.