Art critic Jonathan Jones and artist Bhupen- why this whining and moaning?

Jonathan Jones, the Guardian art critic and the new-found villain of Indian art fraternity, especially of the Baroda disciples, must be smiling behind his desk as Indian left liberal “nationalist” art custodians chant his name like “ Ram, Ram”!

And seeing the cacophony around a critic’s writing on his exhibition, the artist who lived his life breaking the mediocrity of cultural nationalism, if alive, would have hanged his head in desperation.

First of all, one has to understand that this critical write-up in question is coming from a writer who wrote “I wish I had a vast collection of dada art so I could burn it… The art world is entertainment for some of the world’s richest people, and today’s dadaist art is sold by galleries that are multimillion-euro businesses. Would the original dadaists be fooled for a second by a cardboard Hirschhorn installation patrolled by designer clad gallery staff? No. They would feel sick at the transformation of barely coherent rage to readymade cultural gimmick..” while writing about “A century of Dada: from anti-war artists to mainstream con artists”. So rest assured. In a country like India, where institutional criticism of art is a cozy pep talk of match fixing, this Jonathan language may sound strange and set alarm bells.  But one should not forget that craft that calls for critique, not pep talk is called art. To take that critique or reject it is one’s prerogative, a right one is entitled to in the art world.

Jonathan raises few fundamental questions about the Bhupen Kakkar’s show. 

First of all he questions Bhupen’s artistic credentials as he writes, “Please don’t think I mean that Khakhar was an ironically “bad” painter who deliberately shunned technical smoothness for sophisticated technical reasons. There is no self-knowing game or provocative crassness going on in his brightly coloured but emotionally inert paintings. He is genuinely just not much good”.   Must say, he is correct in his opinion since it is based on his comparison with other British artists and its contexts. Relevance of Bhupen and his art lies in Baroda narratives and not in British modernism. It makes no sense for us. So leave it at it. 

Second, he questions the validity of Tate “modern” (according to him the industrial temple- read a ritualistic place of process oriented profit making) showcasing an Indian painter whose credential does not live beyond Indian context and will not match the kind of provocative crassness (maybe he is referring to the crassness of Tate’s pet shop boys YBA?) of European artists.  He may be right again. When compared universally, Bhupen’s works certainly fall short in terms of content, treatment and method, since most of it was done to death in the west during Dada period or later- be it in visual language and its structure, sexuality and subversion or subaltern narratives and its profanity.  Certainly Bhupen’s role in Baroda narratives stands tall- but it is an Indian context , one should not confuse it with a universal relevance or priority.  So far in my limited knowledge, I have not come across anyone outside India considering Baroda narratives as a provocative art movement and developing a critical artistic engagement in that. Does it make “Baroda narrative works” a less important art? Answer is a big no. For us Indians and those who are interested in Indian arts, Baroda strands of art mark an important change in Indian visual art culture- a departure from constructive nation building to a reflective nation building. Its contribution to Indian art will always stand tall -so will Bhupen.  But ignoring critical historicity of international art, its continental politics and market, we cannot insist that it also has to become an international priority.

Third and most important, Jonathan questions the curatorial credentials of Tate showcasing a painter (according to him by the ones who are disconnected with painting for long and have an understanding of it. Also it unfortunately happened to be Bhupen, but it could have been anyone else as well) as a provocative art with an equally provocative title “you can’t please all” to a country, where their own painters of that strand don’t stand a chance to enter that hallowed building. I do not know how much of it is art criticism, since most of us have often felt the same when many of these “funded”  artists from other countries with minimum art and maximum hype thrust their crass work on our face. You can’t help that feeling- partly genuine and partly prejudiced.

So my dear liberal “nationalists” of art fraternity, please take a deep breath and inhale the criticism with nonchalance.  If you want to provoke, you will be criticized and if you want to provoke internationally by placing your art in some other country’s cultural symbols,  take it that you will be trashed  to the maximum since internationally art is not about criticality alone – there is also this geo-political, cultural, racial, financial, academic and market interest in it. Post 70s, provocation in art is understood as a gimmick for money.  So when we command money like New York, even our scrap will be celebrated and find its criticality. So till then don’t allow your tempers to be frayed.

Most important, according to liberal artistic idiom, “ artist cannot be the fascist dictator to order a viewer, how to view her/his work. In art, viewer’s diligence is as important as artist’s perception”.  So be it. Why this whining and moaning.

Whenever everybody attacked Minister Smriti Irani at the lowest level of decency for linking her educational qualification and many other including personal diatribes, personally I rejected them for the intellectual xenophobia of elite academic supremacists and their biases. My experience and knowledge may be limited, but within that limited capacity I never heard any institution or degree that enabled anybody as leader anywhere in the world or in history. We have ample proof in front of us in Indian politics to that effect. Kamaraj alone is enough to debunk such futile argument. Also considering she is a women in a patriarchal society and worse in a patriarchal party she deserved a level playing field, a "reservation" as a support to a women in Indian politics. The arrogance, many accuse of her also will have to be discounted as the survival instinct of a women among tyrant men (read orthodox MPs of Hindutva right, who can stoop to the level of counting used condoms). Many senior academics I spoke to have confirmed that unlike many of her predecessors, she is among the very few ministers who remains always well prepared while coming to meetings. Also it is the fact that she was the first BJP politician who stood up against Gujarat riots and who has never been with RSS brand of schools. 

Unfortunately her performance yesterday in parliament was turned out to be an unmaking of her or at least one see the beginning of it. Looks like she began to believe the current student crisis across universities are created to personally attack her!

Dear minister, you can not trivialise Rohit and Kanhaiya issues to your personal victimhood. It is much deeper and larger socio political issue of this country than your ministership, your government or Rohit and Kanhaiya themselves. 

If Rohit issue represents the social malice of Indian society that many elite of this country including your party's ideological mentors RSS and others want to preserve and its relevance in a functional democracy, Kanhaiya represents the role of liberal freedom and citizenship again in a 21st century democracy. 

The political democracy remains the biggest achievement of humanity, that resists the draconian argument of "survival of the fittest" and reassures the weakest of the weak to stand up among the might. This feminine philosophy, the motherly love is that Rohit and Kanhaiya, the weakest of the weak, the marginalised seek from the constitution of this country and its upholders the minister like you. That is exactly the patriarchal society including the regressive orthodox forces from your party and others are fighting against. 

Sadly yesterday making the issue personal in parliament you gave away Rohit and Kanhaiya and their herculean battle of honour and give in for those regressive forces who wants crush social justice for their personal privileges . Now the entire discourse will get trivialised about you and their aspersions on your character. The regressive forces and their patriarchal arguments will continue to remain dominant and Rohit's and Kanhaiya's blood will continue to spill over the streets.

There was this famous story about Akbar. One day Akbar came to court and announced to his elite advisors and ministers that in the morning somebody slapped him on his face and requested the advisors to suggest a suitable punishment. The entire court went into rage with anger and shouted 

" stone him to death, crush him under elephant, slash him into pieces, throw him to tigers cage....how dare somebody to slap the emperor..." 

But Akbar noted that even as entire court went into rage with anger and animated yelling and shouting only Birbal remained silent and smiling!. 

Akbar asked him " doesn't he has any feeling for his emperor? how can he remain silent and smiling when his emperor is slapped?" As soon as he finished, entire court became one chorus and they shouted " traitor ...traitor". 

But Birbal stood his ground and smilingly replied the emperor " your honour, if you ask me what punishment you should give that slapper, I would recommend " a tight hug and kiss"

While the entire court remained stunned to hear his suggestion, emperor asked an explanation from him for such a extreme suggestion. To that Birbal politely replied " who on earth, forget slapping, even dare to touch an emperor other than his own little children or grand children he love. It is not important what is done or said, but what is important for "rajneeti" is to consider who did it or said it. So the culprit of slapping needs a tight hug and kiss"

Akbar hugged Birbal for his wisdom.

My humble submission to the "anti national chorus groups, for a second sit back and think like Birbal do you use a hammer to tame a butterfly? and also isn't it the Law of the land a wisdom not a whip ?"

Do not pitch "uniformed patriotism" against "civilian patriotism" : this is a deadly game, don't forget we both are only Indians and we the civilians do love this country and sacrifice as much as any men in Uniform:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Last few weeks, like many ordinary Indians, I felt disgustive by this diabolical comparison by many both from government and uniform belittling ordinary Indian's love and patriotism against men in Uniform. 

I am not belittling the sacrifice of our military men and their patriotism, but politely wants to point it out that we are no less patriotic than our men in Uniform and not less sacrificing than our men in Uniform. 

Farmers of this country who are left to lurk in this country to fate (as much as 254000 farmers have sacrificed ( committed suicide owing to debt incurred to sustain their farms) their lives to sustain the food supply of this country during last 30 and odd years) are no less patriotic and sacrificial than anyone in this country. 

More than three million adivasis and villagers have been uprooted and displaced for the economic development of this country during the last 60 and odd year for mining , dam, nuclear plants, and industry are no less sacrificial than the men in Uniform. 

Millions of educated Indians who had to leave behind their loved ones, their home for an alien foreign land and within this country to earn and support their family back in India/ states and its economic prosperity are no less patriotic or sacrificial than any men in Uniform.

Millions of activists and politicians who in spite of getting dishonor for everything they do, who did not destroy democratic fabric of this country and whatever progress we made so far : from a poor developing nation to an economic power of reckoning , are no less patriotic and sacrificial than any men in uniform

The sweeper who clean and maintain our dirty streets and drainages making this nation serine and hygienic are no less patriotic or sacrificial than any men in uniform. 

Tata, Birla, Ambani, Adani and millions of other businessmen who sweat out in thick and thin of economic conundrums of global scale to sustain the economy of this country are no less patriotic or sacrificial than any men in uniform.

Doctors, Journalists, academics, engineers, artists, writers, crafmen, recyclers, technicians, bearcats, clerks and all those millions of ordinary mothers, fathers, brother and sisters who dedicate their lives to sustain socio-cultural values and their profession on good faith are also no less patriotic or sacrificial than any men in Uniform.

You may say they are doing it for their life and earning, so do the men in Uniform. If you say our men in uniform work in difficult terrain fighting terrorists and enemy nations, please do not forget ordinary citizen of this country inhabit those places with equal difficulty to make it Indian. If our men in uniform lost their life in combat operations, the count of civilian who lost life in the hands of terrorists are also stand equally or at times more in tally. 

So let us stop this superior patriotism vs inferior patriotism business. We all love our country and are also ever ready to do anything for it. Also do not forget this men in uniform did not come from heaven, it is the same inferior patriotic civilian parents are the one who offered them to this nation. 

So let us stop this nonsense of “superior Uniform patriotism” vs “inferior civilian patriotism” business. This discourse can degenerate very badly, especially when you pitch them against each other. It will be a tragedy. Many things might come out in the process including the discrepancy of officers death vs jawan’s, Army men vs BSF/ CRPF soldiers / ordinary police men so on and so forth and that would not be a good scenario for this country and its existence. 

We ordinary citizen’s have never belittled our soldier’s sacrifice or patriotism, so please do not belittle ordinary Indian’s love for the country as well. We all do our duty towards our nation : that is it

These custodians of "Nationalism" are funny, they are telling all the "Anti-nationals" not to celebrate Kanhaiya's release on bail since it is only an "interim bail" where the enquiry is only at a nascent stage as judge says and interestingly in the same breath they argue " the same interim order on a nascent stage of criminal enquiry but proves Kanhaiya's crime ! " 

Guys get some life smile emoticon

Prime minister Modi's rural and farmer focussed budget, if implemented can get you all the vote BJP needed to be in power. This nationalism business of blood thirsty neo-rich urban middle class psychopaths is not going to get you any vote in the coming elections. In all these states, majority are the rural and farmer voters and unfortunately their children are the one who is facing the brunt of your weird nationalism onslaught.

Your tax paid money, are you sure?

Of late many people have started remembering and reminding students about tax payer's money and the student's responsibility towards it. 

My dear friends, please do not confuse. Kanhaiya kind of leaders are not produced by your tax paid money. They are produced by your tax evasions and your crony capitalism that empties their parents hard earned little savings from the public banks ( to the tune of 8 lakh crore high net worth bad loans and also by your hoarded income that grows hundreds of thousands of times out of it). 

They are produced when their merit do not guarantee them any future and your nepotism guarantees your loved ones a secured living without any qualification. 

They rise again and again when you want to destroy the social affirmative action of reservation in basic jobs and you "reserve" the top level jobs and director board of public limited companies to your children, however disqualified they are. 

Also in the same tax payer's logic, they are not preaching to us from "bought time slots" of prime time news channels to that citizen like us whose taxes are automatically deducted from salary have paid to subscribe. Unlike you, who are there on tv screens only to protect your vested business interest or page 3 novelty, that not even your children want to watch, these student leaders are there because they are the children of 90% people of this country and they talk about their issues of life that they want watch.

And most importantly, Kanhaiya and Rohit Vemula kind of leaders are emerged in universities because they study meticulously and meritoriously. That is the reason they are in JNU sort of research school on Merit and not on any Capitation fees or NRI management quota. 

Please remember this is only a making of a beginning. Imagine all those eightly and odd percentage of rural India study and understand the knowledge and wisdom that are systematically denied to them all their lives and to their forefathers start emerge in every Indian universities ?. 

If you are finding this beginning itself is unsettling you, think about the future when they emerge everywhere in this country smile emoticon

Remember, this is only the beginning  smile emoticon

I always find the right wing arguments all over the world from trump to RSS fringe without any rational merit, below the belt aggressive, personally abusive and with threat of physical violence !!

Any explanations smile emoticon