FEATURE

To be or not to be…an art gallerist

Anubhav R Nath is a curator and director of Ojas Art and a founder member of Ramchander Nath Foundation. He is a keen observer of the art market and also advices on the same. Anubhav is making a point with the role of Galleries in the market. “A gallery cannot be a museum and should not even try to be as not only is there a conflict of interest but its simply unviable”, he says.

With Indian art translating into big bucks, more people are choosing to enter the field as artists, curators, writers, critics, dealers, educationists, restorers, researchers and gallerists. The expanding market is able to support the influx (atleast as of now).

For any person, the motivations to enter any profession are mainly – a love for the profession, wanting to contribute to the field and earning a livelihood through it. Right? So far so good, nothing wrong with it.

Among all the above-mentioned emerging professions in the art market, everyone expects to get paid for their services and rightfully so. For some reason, gallerists publicly feel or pretend to feel guilty about the money they are making.

The first loud proclamation of an aspiring gallerist, “I am not in this for the money. I am in this for my passion for art.” My advice – if passion for aesthetics is your guiding force then visit museums, take classes in art-appreciation, become a critic – why are you joining this not-so-pleasant society of gallerists?

Another favorite is, “I want to focus on documentation, establish a research center and have a reference library in the gallery” And of course, it goes without saying, “My gallery will be known for its experimental shows.”

This really pisses me off as I hate this pseudo-institutional pretence. A gallery cannot be a museum and should not even try to be as not only is there a conflict of interest but its simply unviable.

Visit the gallery once it is established and a year or two into business and the planned documentation center is an extension of the display space and the invites you get for the shows are all “big name shows” as they have a “reputation to live upto.” Experimental shows are not financially viable you see. Or not enough people visit.

Someone who is yet to start out says this it is annoying but still excusable as they don’t know any better at that time. But, when veteran gallerists, who have been in the business for years or decades; regularly consign works to the auction houses; have made a killing with their old stocks; make the same or similar statements it is more than just annoying. It is infuriating. Another favourite is “I want to do publications on so-and-so artist as I really believe in his/ her work.” (The reality probably is that the gallerist is stuck with certain inventory and is hoping to create some sort of excitement with a book.) Nothing wrong, in all businesses you need to try different marketing tactics.

All this, rally exemplifies the gallerist’s hypocritical double-standards and pseudo-intellect that he or she is trying so hard to portray.  By admitting to making money from this field, gallerists feel that their efforts towards aesthetics will be undermined and they will become the laughing stock among artists. Whereas the entire community knows each groups motives and what who is doing. When you are working hard and honestly to make your money, then why this pretence and pseudo-attitude?

Of course, this doesn’t mean that it’s justified for gallerists to extensively put a well-performing artists works on auction and ruin his artistic development and market.

Gallerists you should be proud for being able to transform intangible aesthetics into tangible monetary assets. It really is not an easy job and only the selected few, extremely talented marketing mavericks are capable of taking on a task like this.

I plan to be in the art business in the future and please, if anyone ever makes me making statements like this, please knock me on the head and make me read this piece. Amen!