September 27, 2003

Amra Ali wonders at the content of some of the art shows by bestseller artists

To become known as an artist or even a writer on art in Pakistan has become a task too easy, for we only need to trace the tracks made already by the last generation. What it requires is a gallery, preferably in an affluent area, an artist and a good opening where enough high quality photos of the paintings are circulated to the press. A few kind words by known artists on the invitation card, and a lot of public relationing, and of course some ART! And, if the artist is foreign-educated, there is all the more credibility.

Critics flock in to meet the artist, discuss art, and take notes. To one’s surprise, some of these notes may be the exact words of the artist or the gallery owner, or words from a press release, only to be reproduced word by word under the name of the ‘critic’. You must have seen it happen over and over again.

An artist can talk around the work, but the work must speak a language of its own. Apart from the cynicism that is bound to surface under such circumstances, there are many other issues that must be brought into focus; those that require serious consideration and contemplation on our part as active members of the art community.

It can be said in defence of many art galleries, at least in Karachi, that art is a matter of taste and the age-old saying that beauty lies in the eye of the beholder. Even if we don’t fully comprehend or wish to embrace Kant’s judgments of taste or beauty, in which he traces a hierarchy of ‘taste’, there is in general ‘good’ and ‘bad’, a conclusion we may be able to draw when exposed in a continuous interaction to art of varying kinds.

Of course, this conclusion is based on and limited to the person who makes the judgment. Having said that, we must insist on certain standards in art that need to be part of a gallery owner’s guide, both in terms of the art displayed and the way it is displayed and marketed.

A recent exhibition of Mohammad Kazim’s paintings at The Art Gallery, in Karachi is a point in case. One repetitious image after another painted in the most mundane manner is hung clumsily together, creating an aura of nothing but of kitsch and decadence. Yet, for many an uninitiated buyer, it may pass for a ‘thing of beauty’. Paintings, as it is explained in the invitation brochure, that are ‘set in the period of the ancient Indus Valley Civilization style,’ and also that ‘ the calligraphy painting are ‘impressive’.

Firstly, a sweeping statement that these paintings are impressive does not increase an ounce of understanding of the works in question. More importantly, why take shelter from images of a past civilization if there is nothing new to say about them? What is the artist’s connection to that particular era? And then, these images seem more to be about sensationalizing the female body in a limited way that only makes the bodies appear as erotic objects. Perhaps it has not been the intention of the artist to do so, but the writing on the wall reads loud and clear.

The question between where we ought to draw the line between ‘good’ art and ‘bad’ remains unclear, and is bound to fluctuate, but there will always be that art which asks new questions and that which merely copies and reproduces. Most people will buy art to match their drawing room furniture, but some will buy it for the vision within it. In this context, does it not become the responsibility of the ‘critic’ and the editor to help elevate the standard and understanding of art?

In our tightly incestuous art circle, the same critics continue to sing praises of the same artists without really ever realizing that art criticism ought not to be about praise. And editors are usually happy enough if there are crisp photographs to go with an article; and if the review is not too controversial, as friends are usually involved.

If an artist happens to be a ‘senior’ then there may be even more egos involved, and hence no questions asked. There are, of course the egos of art critics in question as well. When an art critic does dare to question and wonder at contents of an offering, artists flock to the ones who will write more favourably about them.

The fact is that as artists and writers, we are equally to blame, for we seem to have lost sight of the purpose of art, which is not to promote and be promoted. Perhaps, instead of becoming a mirror to the fallacies of our surroundings, we have become part of the very fallacy.