The New York Times is essentially perfect in its review of a current major exhibit at the Philadelphia Museum of Art, on the painter Nandalal Bose. The exhibit was put together by the San Diego Museum of Art and the National Gallery of Modern Art in New Delhi (which is also, incidentally, very much worth a visit). We went there a couple of weeks ago, and enjoyed it (though it certainly helps that the Philadelphia Museum of Art has a play area for children in the basement; otherwise, 2 year olds and art museums are usually not compatible.)
The key question the exhibit addresses is: what did it really mean to make “modern” art in an Indian idiom in the latter years of the British Raj? From the dominant colonial point of view, there was no such thing as “modern Indian art”: by and large, the British were mainly interested in ancient Indian art, including traditional Indian art produced in the modern era. (One prominent exception was Ernest Binfield Havell, who actively supported Bengali artists who aimed to invent a modern style in Indian painting.) Probably the best known Indian artist in the era just before modernism took hold was Raja Ravi Varma, who painted in the academic realist mode of 19th century western art. He made some very accomplished paintings, like this one, for example, but critics found his direct emulation of European painting styles unsatisfactory.
The modernist school that emerged at Santiniketan, with Rabindranath Tagore as a kind of god-father, and Rabindranath’s nephew, Abanindranath Tagore as the most talented early painter, aimed to move away from academic realism, and towards a style of painting that was at once distinctly modern and formally and thematically Indian.
Sometimes, the path wasn’t entirely clear — several of the major figures in the Bengali school, after rejecting European realism, embraced Japanese minimalism instead. Indeed, a number of Nandalal Bose’s own paintings do this. Perhaps they found the Japanese style less foreign; it wasn’t until the 1930s that it became apparent that Japan could be every bit as “Imperialist” as western nations. In any case, for the most part Indian artists moved away from the influence of Japanese art as well in the 1920s and 30s. (The artist who did this most brilliantly might be Nandalal Bose’s student, Benodebehari Mukherjee, who probably deserves his own show.)
The weak part of the current exhibit from an aesthetic point of view is probably the series of paintings and linocuts from Bose’s “nationalist” period, in the 1930s and 40s. Some of Bose’s work from that era became quite famous, including this linocut of Mahatma Gandhi, from 1940. But the paintings Bose did for the meetings of the Indian National Congress (the Haripura Congress of 1938) seem overly simplistic — works of propaganda, not personal inspiration.
I did find some of Bose’s paintings of tribal life in Bengal (of the Santhal community) quite powerful: see New Clouds, for instance. These are paintings Bose was doing around the same time as he was painting large religious murals on commission, and nationalist posters for the Congress Party. But they are quite different from those other works. Bose’s paintings of tribals aim to quietly capture a local reality, not a magnified, iconic myth of Indian nationhood.
The last room of the exhibit has paintings by recent Indian artists who have been clearly influenced by Nandalal Bose and the Santiniketan school. I was particularly impressed by Atul Dodiya and K.G. Subramanyam, both of whom are painters I’d like to see more of.
If you’re going to be in Philadelphia in the next couple of weeks, I would definitely recommend you check out this exhibit. Otherwise, you might catch it in India (where the show is headed next).
Excellent post, Amardeep. Sepia Mutiny should do more pieces about Indian art, other than music and movies.
contemporary indian art is really happening at the moment. the new rich are collecting as an investment. also, an enterprising nri in mumbai has set up an art storage vault where these pieces can be stored at the right conditions and temperature if one can’t display them at home. a good friend of mine in mumbai can afford to have 2 studios now and he travels all over the world showing his sculpture and installations. i was in mumbai and delhi recently and i went to some art gallery openings and the art is appreciated genuinely and not just seen as an investment. personally, i’m a bit gauche and i like those old fashioned paintings of movie posters especially ones from the 60s and 70s 🙂
I thought Amrita Sher Gill was also at the vanguard of modern Indian art.
Jamini Roy is one of the most underrated artist of India. Hundreds of Art Galleries have sprung up in Delhi, Mumbai, Bangalore, Pune etc. Anyone can get a copy made of any painting, including original artist signature. I would recommend any serious collector to only work with established Art Galleries.
Thanks for this post. would love to see more India contemporary art discussed on SM. I know the numbers may be limited but there are desis in the visual arts out there. I’ve always thought that a lot of early 20th century Indian art was heavily derivative of European modernism but recently have been noticing uniquely Indian traits.
A really good book on all of this is Partha Mitter’s Art and Nationalism in Colonial India 1850-1922, though unavailable at Amazon it can be gotten from libraries.
That painting glorifies Sati, the burning alive of widows.
Amardeep: Thanks for the post. I second the comment by Condekedar @ 1. I sent this inf. yesterday to my high school buddy Amit Amabalal from Ahmedabad. I met M. F. Hussain at his son’s wedding few years ago. He is a big name in India, exhibiting at various art galleries of Asia and Europe. His style is unique and he has written a classical book on Nathadwara Paintings, depicting Lord Krishna. Of course, Nandlal Bose is a worldwide phenomenon. I might drive up to Philly to see this. Thanks again.
Nice post, Amardeep. I find most Indian art work, with notable exceptions of course, derivative, Frieda Kahlo inspired, too much of “women oppressed” or some kind of iconoclast which is also derivative. While Ravi Varma is indeed lovely and quite intriguing, and definitely a style unto himself, his Botticelli inspired rotund pink bodies and chubby faces are also a bit disturbing. For all these reasons the work titled New Clouds that you have mentioned is particularly interesting. I think Indian modern art depicting tribals seems to capture a more nuanced idea of India, and produces most original and successful work. Thanks for sharing this lovely exhibit.
The NYT article covering the exhibition began with the following comment which I think is REALLY important.
“Along with detailed information about one artist’s life and times, the show delivers a significant piece of news, or what is still probably news to many people: that modernism wasn’t a purely Western product sent out like so many CARE packages to a hungry and waiting world. It was a phenomenon that unfolded everywhere, in different forms, at different speeds, for different reasons, under different pressures”
It is quite amazing just how many people in every day conversation casually suggest that the “West” has a monopoly on modernity.
10 · Aniruddha said
What exactly is modernity? If you want to use it as a signifier of the ‘present’ times as opposed to the ‘old’ times as is frequently used colloquially by English speaking Indians then it is one thing. But the article talks about modernism which is rooted in a specific western cultural context. I am not sure Indian history or culture accepts or subscribes to this kind of western classification. The attempt by the author to ‘universalise’ the specific European and later western cultural term is just a means to look at developments in other cultures through a western lens and western categories. An English medium educated, western oriented Indian may try to translate Indian categories into understandable western categories for other’s or his own understanding. That is how late twentieth century Indian trends become Indian ‘modernism’, whatever that means and Indian traditions become Hindu’ism’ a religion in the western mould and so on and so forth!
By the way, Nandalal Boses’ works displayed here look excellent, but Atul Dodiya’s works don’t speak to me.
11 · Mod said
========================== The site you linked also defines Modernism as
Is there ‘modern’ Indian art that encapsulates the above idea which is not necessarily rooted in Western culture?
Atul Dodiya is the truth.