|
Magazine
ART
The idea of cultural specificity
MEENAKSHI THIRUKODE
|
We need new frameworks to contextualise and understand art that creates a universal resonance by adapting specific, non-Western traditions.
|
Photo: Meenakshi Thirukode
Statements in space: Anish Kapoor’s “Cloud Gate” installed at the Millennium Park, Chicago.
Anish Kapoor was born in 1954 to an Indian father and a Jewish Israeli mother. Considered to be a prominent figure in British contemporary art, his works are described as blurring the borders between painting and sculpture. During the initial stage o
f his career, critics discussed his works with regard to his Indian background. Since then, most literature deals with his work in terms of Western ideals and interpretations.
However, a deeper understanding of the philosophies and intention that the artist espouses through his art brings to light a single iconographical thread that connects it all. His art is influenced tremendously by Shaivaite iconography and religious architecture. Yet a critical review of the literature on the artist demonstrates the lack of prudence on part of critics and writers in recognising this aspect of his work. This, despite Kapoor’s own admission and statements that form compelling evidence in support of culturally specific sources informing his art. While they have touched upon the numerous facets of Indian religious symbolism and philosophy in Kapoor’s works, there has been no clear sustained attention to this topic.
Engaging with art
While specific interpretations are often avoided by most critics, the significant point is that a work of art can have definite sources of influence and yet connect to its viewer regardless of their social, political or cultural conditioning. What is ultimately pertinent is the object of art itself, that is, the physical or intellectual embodiment of the artist’s vision and intent, and how it relates to the individual who engages with it.
However, when it comes to art historical contextualisation of non-Western art gets complex. Anish Kapoor serves as a perfect example. In fact, Kapoor himself, at various points in his career, strongly opposed the idea of his art being discussed in relation to his ethnicity. The reason behind his hesitation lies in the fact that his works were being labeled as “exotic”. Any art that is non-Western rarely escapes being tagged with words that historically have a negative connotation. It is important that this point of view changes, especially in an art environment that is constantly redefining itself, where countries such as China and India play a pivotal role both at the primary and secondary markets.
Regardless, Indian sources of influence deserve the same level of credibility and seriousness as any other religious or philosophical system. It is not merely Western ideologies and religious systems that have the power to lend significance and universal resonance to a given work of art. The fact of the matter is, our understanding of supposedly neutral and universal meaning is typically based on Western historical paradigms. Consequently, the question emerges as to who judges what fits within this contextualisation and what does not. It has always been an issue of contention when discussing works that are non-Western. Bringing to light cultural specificity without drawing attention to the fact that a difference between the West and East exist is a tough path to tread.
The specific as universal
While reliefs in Hindu temples are seen as decorative and the stories of sages and apsaras who entice and test the faith of these austere men are seen as “exotic”, the frieze that runs through the Parthenon and the stories of apostles and martyrs are not perceived in the same light. While Lacan’s discussion of the Mirror Stage in psychoanalytical theory is considered to be universal, the philosophy of the Atman and Brahman as embodied in the Upanishads is not. This leads one to question why discussing an artist’s work more in terms of Western philosophies and belief systems are considered universal while comparable non-Western sources are regarded as marginal and “exotic”.
The answer lies in perception — one that has been ingrained into the art historical fabric from the time of colonialism, wherein the intellectual, philosophical and artistic practices of non-Western cultures have been misinterpreted and misrepresented. This perception is what has led artists such as Kapoor to shy away from being pigeonholed or “harmfully” labelled. One critic had gone so far as to claim that Kapoor’s willingness to discuss more openly “the Indian element in his sculpture” lies in the fact that he’s reached a stage in his career where he needn’t be frightened to do so anymore. But Kapoor should not fear admitting an Indian influence in the first place or go through phases in his career where he alternatively feels fear and confidence of his cultural influence. It also leads us to question when the right time to discuss an artist’s roots and its influence in his work is, without curbing its power and forming compelling evidence of a deep intellectual contemplation.
Another aspect with an artist such as Kapoor is the complexity that arises when an artist of mixed race is adopted by an entirely different nation as its own. In Kapoor’s case, being an Indian and producing works in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when multiculturism was an angle of discussion and debate, meant that critics inevitably focused onto the very aspect that Kapoor felt was in some way denying the power of his works. The artist was right to feel that way because, as mentioned earlier on, most of the insinuations were inclined towards the “exotic”, touching just the surface of what should have been very strong artistic conceptions. This fear of typecasting based on very loaded words such as “Other” and “ethnic” led Kapoor to refuse being part of an exhibition held at the Hayward Gallery in 1989 titled “The Other Story: Afro-Asian Artists in Post-War Britain,” curated by Rasheed Araeen. The exhibition tried to address the issues artists in Britain deal with because they belong to an ethnic minority. Although the artists were either born in Britain or came to the country wishing to participate in its artistic community, they felt excluded and attributed the reason of such marginalisation to racial bigotry typical of conformist “white” attitudes in the West.
In his review of the show for the special issue of African Arts published in 1991, John Picton mentions the refusal on part of Kapoor and a few other artists to participate in this exhibition. Their hesitation seemed warranted in light of some of the critical reactions. As Picton explained, “Brian Sewell, the art critic of the London Evening Standard, wrote off ‘The Other Story’ as second rate and had the effrontery to recommend that the artists involved should stick to their own art traditions.” He further explains:
In addressing their problems, Rasheed Araeen was in danger, given the need to overcome these divisions, of perpetuating their existence, and apparently for this or related reasons some artists did not participate. These included Anish Kapoor (Indian)….In any case, it would be a mistake to think of the dominant and radical art worlds as hermetically sealed categories. For one thing, nothing in human affairs is ever that simple. For another, Anish Kapoor was selected to represent Britain at the 1990 Venice Biennale.
Context of art
Although it would seem that Kapoor had some foresight into how such an exhibition would have been received, it should not be misconstrued as a self-loathing denial of his Indian background and how it relates to his art. This leads us to question and understand the idea of specificity, be it in terms of culture, philosophy, content or even form. Being averse to cultural specificity is problematic because it is impossible for an artist to not be inspired by various external and internal factors, some of which become dominant over others as the work evolves. Similarly, it is impossible for art historians and critics to not be inclined towards a particular reading of a work based on certain systems of interpretation that fall within their purview. Therefore, cultural specificity can be used to describe both Western and non-Western societies.
However, throughout art history that term has been used to describe art that belongs to the “Other”. This is the root cause of all the problems that arise when dealing with the work of artists such as Kapoor. It is high time that critical and historical frameworks transcend these issues and kindle an insightful level of understanding when it comes to the cultural ethos of a non-Western country and its place in re-defining the presupposed notion of art historical contextualization. Anish Kapoor’s oeuvre brings to light the true meaning of a successful adaptation of one’s culture in creating works of art that resonate universally, thus making the object of art most significant. He achieves this effectively through his biomorphic pigmented forms from the 1980s and the metallic reflective installations created more than two decades later.
The writer, based in New Jersey, has worked for the Jindal Art Foundation and the Kala Ghoda Art Festival and is passionate about Indian art and writing.
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Magazine
|
