First published on 23rd August 2024
Roshini Vadehra from Vadehra Art Gallery, Shefali Somani and Anahita Taneja from Shrine Empire, Tariq Allana from Art Heritage Gallery, New Delhi, along with Mortimer Chatterjee and Tara Lal from Chatterjee & Lal, Mumbai, address this subject and other questions related to the contemporary Indian art scene and market.
CC: In the 520 billion world art market (2023), the Indian art market generates 300 million USD annually. How do you see this as representative of India’s wealth and global presence, and what would be the factors that determine these figures?
Roshini Vadehra (RV): If one looks at India’s overall economy and growth, the size of our art market and our share in the world art market should be a lot more. Our art market is not growing at the same rate, because of the lack of state support and infrastructure in our country. The absence of tax benefits or financial incentives means that there are not enough private collectors motivated to set up museums, and increase their patronage from simply collecting to establishing foundations and institutions which would hugely contribute to the overall market.
Mortimer Chatterjee (MC) and Tara Lala (TL): The size of the Indian art market is measured by sales in the public domain, which is essentially the auction (or secondary) market. The top end of the international auction market and the top end of the Indian auction market are incomparable: the former can produce results such as the sale of “Salvator Mundi”, attributed to Leonardo, for more than USD 450 million. At the same time, however, the size of the primary market - the one in which galleries are vested -- is very difficult to assess, given that sales are generally not made public. Anecdotally, the pricing of a mid-career artist of Indian origin and that of their peers worldwide is not that dissimilar in 2024. In bringing some kind of parity to the pricing, Indian galleries have fulfilled an implicit mandate that artists from the region have rightfully expected.
Shefali Somani (SS) and Anahita Taneja (AT): The statistics mentioned highlights both the current potential and limitations of the Indian art market. As Indian gallery owners, we see this figure as a reflection of a market that is still in its early stages, but one that has grown rapidly in the past 15 years, and continues to expand, driven by the rising Indian economy and incomes. This trend suggests that spending on cultural assets like art will continue to increase as more wealth is generated.
The challenge lies in developing the market infrastructure -- such as galleries, auction houses and art fairs -- to support this growth. Additionally, since the growth of the market is closely tied to the broader Indian economy, it is sensitive to economic fluctuations.
International outreach is also crucial. Like many other galleries in India, we are showing artists from our roster, like Neerja Kothari, Baaraan Ijlal, Sangita Maity and Protick Sarkar, at prestigious international fairs such as Art Dubai, Asia Now, Art Singapore, Art Basel Hong Kong. Artists like Tayeba Begum Lipi and Sajan Mani are also participating in international biennales, triennales and museum shows. These platforms help raise the profile of the artists and subsequently attract higher valuations. The exposure also brings critical engagement for the artists, as curators from important museums and institutions visit these events.
While the Indian art market’s current size may not fully reflect India’s wealth and global presence, the increasing interest from both young and experienced collectors indicate a market with significant untapped potential. By strategically engaging with these dynamics, there is a strong opportunity to position Indian art as a more prominent player on the global stage.
Tariq Allana (TA): My research of the global art market suggests it is of a far smaller size -- USD 65 billion. Nonetheless, the Indian art market at USD 300 million does form only a very small fraction of this market.
In a country like India, where a significant part of the population struggles to survive, it is premature to think whether an art market size is representative of its wealth and global presence. A more appropriate question would be to ask whether those of means are avid supporters and patrons of the arts. This relationship does not seem to be established in India or within the Indian diaspora globally.
A few possible reasons could be the lack of exposure to and knowledge about the art world (not just artworks), limited understanding of how different parts of the art ecosystem connect, and, finally, that art has over time come to be considered as an investment vehicle and asset (and is thus viewed predominantly in business terms, rewarding only ‘safe’ or ‘established’ works at the cost of ‘riskier’ unestablished artists).
CC: In some respects, most Indian galleries of note have Pakistani or Bangladeshi artists on their roster, as well as the occasional Western artist. However, this phenomenon is limited and seems somehow out of sync with European art galleries representing many more artists from the Global South. Do you see Indian galleries making a greater effort to internationalize their exhibitions? What would work as a trigger? Or does a neutral haven like the Middle East, which is hospitable to many global communities, fulfil that need?
MC and TL: First and foremost, regulatory issues and import duties make it inhospitable to bring art into the country. Secondly, Indian galleries exhibit works by artists that they think their collector base will acquire. For several historical reasons, collectors in India and from the larger Indian diaspora have tended to buy artists who have an association with the subcontinent. Even international galleries mainly feature Indian artists on their roster when they exhibit in our country. If Indian galleries have recently found success in offering works by international artists, these largely pertain to decorative pieces. This is because acquisitions are often made to furnish a space rather than build a collection.
SS and AT: Our gallery, Shrine Empire, is committed to promoting South Asian artists both within India and on the international stage. We actively work to introduce their practices to influential curators, who can include their works in prestigious biennales and triennales worldwide, helping them gain the recognition they deserve. For us, it is essential to engage with South Asia as a whole, recognizing that our histories and cultural narratives are deeply interconnected. Artists from this region are addressing critical contemporary issues that resonate globally, making it vital to bring these discussions to international platforms.
Having said that, we also agree that the Middle East has outdoneIndiaontheartmarket front and serves as a neutral meeting point for diverse global communities. It has emerged as one of the leading promoters of artists from the subcontinent and South Asia, providing them with more exposure than they can find in India.
RV: Indian collectors are now looking to expand their collections to the larger South Asian region and are also turning to Western artists. Collectors are getting to know about more international names and a greater range of artists, not only when they travel abroad, but also when they attend events within the country, such as the India Art Fair and the Kochi Biennale. Increased education and exposure have encouraged them to acquire works beyond their old comfort zone.
TA: Whether art galleries in India can regularly support international artists depends on whether the art ecosystem here is making collective efforts to enable them to do so. If galleries are to regularly show international artists, other entities have to be in place to ensure that these artists are appreciated and viewed as commercially viable in the country. Though there are efforts to include international artists at venues like the Kochi Biennale, Serendipity Art Festival and the India and Mumbai Art fairs, more work needs to be done in this regard. Placing the burden of internationalizing exhibitions solely on individual galleries feels onerous, since these galleries are constrained by the challenges of running their own small businesses.
Internationalization of an art scene is also about how many international art fairs and galleries want to set up shop in the country -- something that is determined not only by authorities within the art ecosystem, but also by initiatives taken and incentives offered by the government to encourage international businesses to invest in the Indian art market. Incentives might include streamlining import activities and reconsideration of the tax/duty structure when importing and selling an artwork. For this to happen, there has to be a lot more discussion between private businesses and the government, so the latter is educated on the challenges and opportunities thrown up by the art economy, and can accordingly develop policy.
Efforts like those undertaken at Sadie Coles in London a few years back, or the presence of Indian galleries at art fairs in London, New York, Singapore, Hong Kong and Dubai, or international platforms like Artsy help raise awareness about the Indian art scene. This has gradually enhanced the presence and profile of the Indian art market and ecosystem globally.
CC: A noticeable aspect among newer galleries is their accommodation of artists and positions of different minority groups, such as those from the LGBTQI+, tribal and Dalit communities. How does this change the reception of art, particularly on international curatorial platforms?
TA: The entire point of an art scene within a country is to bring to the fore a commentary and discussion of what is happening on the political, societal and cultural spheres at any given time, and sometimes even before the time might have come. That galleries, museums, biennales and foundations in India are highlighting and contributing to different artistic voices is critical to an ongoing dialogue both within the country and outside it. It shows that India is very much engaged in the world, and as a thriving democracy. It also shows the universality of the human condition.
SS and AT: As a gallery, we believe it is crucial to remain authentic to the dialogues within our country and the broader subcontinent. We are committed to working with artists who engage with indigenous, Dalit and LGBTQI+ communities, addressing personal identity issues, and seeking recognition within the larger societal framework. This allows us to ensure that thus far marginalized perspectives and experiences are also seen and heard. This shift in focus enriches the reception of art on international curatorial platforms, making the global art conversation more inclusive and reflective of the complex social dynamics in various regions.
MC and TL: Every business globally should be alert to representing and empowering diverse voices within their organizations. This is not a radical position. At the same time, the programming of exhibitions that exhibit works that explicitly deal with issues of identity, often made by artists who are not necessarily themselves from minority groups, needs to be approached thoughtfully. There is danger in yoking identity politics to an exhibition programme: it can become reduced to gesturing to international taste-makers, especially curators, already on the lookout for a certain kind of art from the region. We do not think it is uncharitable to say that galleries need the Dalit movement, for example, much more than the Dalit movement needs galleries.
RV: Diversity has become increasingly important across all platforms and industries. In that same vein, galleries realize the need to be more inclusive and represent minority groups and artists in their programmes and exhibitions. This widens the audience they cater to, leading to a deeper engagement and conversation with different communities.
CC: In 2021, the digital platform, South-South, was launched, as a commercial and curatorial platform for art from the Global South, with its inaugural programme, Veza. The intent was to shift the focus away from a Eurocentric model. To what extent has this initiative been successful?
RV: The platform was very successful during the Covid pandemic years, especially as the world started engaging more with digital platforms. This led to interesting conversations and collaborations between galleries from the Global South, which gradually spread to the rest of the world. Recently, there has been increased interest from various institutions looking to do exhibitions of artists from the region.
MC and TL: To the best of our knowledge, South-South has been fairly inactive since 2022. Perhaps, it was another example of a well-meaning pandemic-era project that lost steam. Or it was always bound to fail, since from the outset, it presented itself, at least in India, as representing the interests of galleries with international fair presence and vying for an audience that was precisely the same as that at any global art fair. At a time when India’s gallery-going audience is burgeoning (witness the crowds during the Kochi-Muziris Biennale or the India Art Fair), it seems to us that South-South should have gone about attracting a truly South-South audience.
CC: A current comment on Indian art production is that it is hardly manifest in major global shows and biennales. It has increasingly veered towards design and ‘safe’ art, especially in the last ten years, and does not attractcuratorial interest in the way that it did in the late 1990s and early 2000s. As a gallerist, do you agree with this view?
SS and AT: While we acknowledge that there may be some validity to this observation, we believe it is too broad a generalization that does not capture the full spectrum of what is happening in the Indian art scene today. As a gallery, we strive to challenge this trend by promoting experimental and socially engaged art.
For instance, Baaraan Ijlal’s Change Room Archives is exemplary in its exploration of complex emotional landscapes through sound installations. The project creates a space for anonymous storytelling, where participants share their fears, apprehensions and desires, driving change through acts of telling, listening and witnessing.
Similarly, Sajan Mani’s work, where he uses his own body as a canvas, confronts the oppressive physicality and corrupted power discourse surrounding marginalized bodies, bringing critical attention to Dalit issues.
Nandita Kumar’s practice is another example of our commitment to boundary-pushing art. Her work explores the intricate connections between technology, ecology and human interaction. Through her glass jar installations, she creates immersive experiences that encourage viewers to reflect on the delicate balance of ecosystems and the impact of human actions on the environment.
While there may be a broader trend towards safer, more commercial art, we believe that Indian art still has the potential to be bold, unusual and impactful on the global stage.
RV: I would not agree with this statement. There has only been exponential interest in Indian artists in global shows and biennales. Almost all recent major biennales (Like Sharjah and Venice) have substantial representation from our region. Several artists are being included or given major solo exhibitions in museums worldwide, and are also being acquired for their permanent collections. International galleries have also represented several artists, increasing their audience and collector base.
MC and TL: As a gallery invested in design histories, we think that the framing of this question only cements misunderstandings between fine art and the commercial arts. Design in India has a stellar pedigree throughout the 20th century, and galleries should celebrate the historical intersections between design and art. But yes, a lot of the kind of art you term as ‘safe’, which we think of as ‘decorative’, is being produced in India and globally.
We would also contest the implicit conflation in the question between major global shows/biennales and quality. Referring to an earlier question, we would add that international curatorial platforms are increasingly looking to present works that deal directly with issues related to identity, especially work made by artists out of, or regarding, South Asia. This severely restricts the kinds of art and artists likely to be included in such shows.
TA: I would start by asking, have we set up a strong foundation for critical and curatorial engagement? Are our academic institutions fostering students to be informed and imaginative practitioners and/or scholars of the arts? Have our media outlets devoted enough funds, space and time for a discussion of the arts, even though they may not be rating bonanzas? Have our public institutions promoted patronage and open discourse around the visual arts with regular programming? When we have had a chance to promote ourselves as a country on a global art world stage, have we made the most of it? And coming back to the very first question -- do we feel that as India’s wealth and global presence grows, it should be somewhat reflected in our artistic capital?
CC: Finally, the platforms that support discursive readings of art, via seminars, conferences, journals, books and other forms of print media, have shrugged off this responsibility, allowing the focus to rest almost entirely on the art market. Thus, even as there is more money in the market, there is less critical engagement. Do you see this as a lacuna, and how should it be addressed?
MC and TL: This is not a new phenomenon. The very definition of Indian contemporary art has been a product, first and foremost, of collecting habits. Certainly, ever since the mid-1990s, with the establishment of Indian art auctions in New York and London, the market has been responsible for the production of a group of canonical artists -- mostly male painters, ranged around the nucleus of the Progressive Artists Group, who dominated Indian art for much of the second half of the 20th century, until the coming of the Baroda School. This patently false narrative has received woefully little pushback from within the academy, and it is of no surprise that the contemporary situation is equally badly served today. We cannot wish into existence a state-backed arts economy that can push against the commercialism of the South Asian arts ecosystem (in the form of organizations such as the Arts Council of England). Instead, we have argued that we should be encouraging private collectors to open up their holdings to the wider public, including the academy, through residencies, exhibition loans, and even online resource banks.
RV: This is certainly a problem in the Indian art world. There simply is not enough serious and critical engagement. It is up to the galleries to encourage this practice by commissioning writers and curators to engage more, and perhaps deeply, with their exhibitions and artists. Only if this is initiated will there be a snowball effect, and hopefully it will trickle down to print and digital media and other platforms.
SS and AT: We do agree that there has been a shift in focus towards the market at the expense of critical engagement in the art world. It is true that many traditional platforms for discursive readings of art, such as seminars, conferences, journals, and print media, have become less prominent. This is precisely why we started the Prameya Art Foundation (PRAF) to address the lacunae in critical discourse and to foster deeper engagement with art. It is committed to maintaining a discursive space, and encourage young and mid-career curators and art writers, through initiatives like Art Scribes. PRAF Participatory invites international artists to interact with students from Indian art schools through workshops, fostering a cross-cultural exchange of ideas. Additionally, through the Asian Curatorial Forum, it brought together curators from across Asia to address industry concerns and work collaboratively. By supporting and expanding initiatives such as these, we aim to restore the balance between market forces and affective and intellectual rigour that makes art truly impactful.
TA: Concerning the matter of engagement with Indian artists for curatorial projects fromoutsideIndia, myimpression isthatthere are more such engagements than before, and on platforms that are quite prestigious. What has not been done is a thorough review of the same. So, it might not be readily visible as to how well or poorly the Indian artist is represented on a global stage. Such a project should probably be funded yearly.
As far as publication and critical discourse is concerned, it is true that articles in the papers are more about reporting than analysing an artist’s work or a gallery’s show, and occur with little regularity to provide a true sense of the health of the country’s art ecosystem. Having said that, there are still essays and publications being brought out that throw light on different and nuanced aspects of artistic practices. Overall, my impression is that there is more scholarly work now being done on the Indian art scene than ever before.