On M.F. Husain and Art

There was a controversy in the Indian art scene recently after M.F. Husain, one of India's most well-known artists and formerly a menber of the Progressive Group of Artists, signed a very lucrative deal to paint a hundred paintings in the coming year - he has been paid a huge amount not for paintings already in existence but for paintings he has yet to begin and is expected to finish within the time-frame of one year. Concerning this one reader wrote to the Times of India, asking -
1. How can you justify mass production of art under the bondage of a deadline?
2. How can you put a price tag on works of art before a single line is drawn?
3. Is this an attempt to create a brand in the arts too? If so, will it serve any purpose for creativity?
4. Don't we need a Lakshman Rekha (boundary line) between art and business?

This person, self admittedly, is not an artist, but the questions he has asked have been put forward, albeit perhaps in different ways by various practitioners of art too. The general feeling seems to be that Husain, apparently not content with hurting the delicate sensibilities of the Hindu Fundamentalists by painting nude Saraswatis, is now treading the similarly fragile egos of the Artistic Community by showing such a more obvious regard for money than for the 'sanctity of art', the 'hub of creativity'.

Since I'm an artist myself, not to mention a fellow human being, I can understand these sentiments - it is always a bit galling when someone else is getting paid more than anything you ever received and apparently - or so you think - a whole lot more than he deserves. On the other hand, it would be perfectly reasonable if it were us on the receiving end of such munifence. So, in my opinion, it would be equally reasonable to stop griping about someone else's windfall. M.F. Husain is no doubt a master of self-promotion - but why not? - it benefits him and it makes him happy. Instead of expecting him to tone down his act, the artistic community might try polishing up theirs - and, if that is plain impossible, then just remember Dr. Samuel Johnson's maxim about only an idiot writing for anything but money - now I don't mean to sound like a philistine here, but this maxim applies in a smaller or greater degree to artists as well. Of course there is the thing about self-expression, which is why one starts out to write or paint to begin with, but if that were the only thing why would anybody bother exhibiting their works in the first place? Why would anyone go out in public and insist on talking about self-expression? I have not heard of any art practitioner so far - although, of course, there may be such eccentric beings - who have worked their entire lives and not shown even a single one of their works to any single person in the whole world. The fact is that artists, like everyone, thrive on appreciation - and being paid and paid very well for one's work is one form of appreciation everyone likes. That notion about an artist starving in some garret - and doing some amazing work amidst all the continuing deprivations - is nothing but an urban legend. Nobody with a modicum of sense would want to be starved and deprived of the good things in life - and we artists are supposed to be highly intelligent people with a well-developed sensitivity for the fine things. No, we may start out in a garret - because it is cheaper to rent and paint is expensive, and we may even linger there for the space and the atmosphere, but we certainly don't intend to starve in it. And we usually don't if we are sufficiently talented, hard-working, and opportunistic. And being opportunistic isn't a bad thing - I'm talking here of availing prudently of the many business opportunities that come your way. Many great artists aside from M.F. Husain - people like Picasso and Chagall - were hard-headed businessmen too and that didn't detract from their art - rather wealth and fame made it easier to be more creative since there were few worries now about the basic needs of everyday living. Money doesn't kill creativity, but the lack of it certainly can. I'm speaking from personal experience here. For two years after Art College, I had a tough time getting started in my Freelance career and made practically next to nothing - I didn't starve, because I have a very supportive family - but financial dependence on others doesn't exactly work miracles for the self-respect - atleast it didn't mine and thankfully I'm no longer in that position. But I really would like artists, established as well as emerging - and especially non-artists - to STOP romanticizing this aspect. Believe me it's no fun - perpetually struggling and rarely achieving is more like FRUSTRATING. Art is a vocation, yes - it is a special gift, a spiritual experience, and all that - but it is also damned hard work. And like any other damned hard work, deserves its proper dues and there is really no reason to be coy about that. So do we need a Lakshman Rekha between art and business? Not in my opinion. Artists should educate themselves as much as possible about business matters, if you ask me. Anyone who thinks otherwise should draw a Lakshman Rekha themselves - between their own work and the business of getting paid for it.

Now to the question about the justification of mass production of art under the bondage of a deadline. I personally think of a deadline as a discipline not a bondage - and every artist needs to have discipline if she or he intends to get anything worthwhile done - here we dispel another romantic notion about art, perhaps the most idiotic one of all - the artist painting when and only when the mood grips him/her - a person waiting for inspiration never gets inspired. As for mass production, why is that so bad? Indian Miniature Paintings were mass produced.

And as for how can you put a price tag on works of art before a single line is drawn - well, perhaps you take into account the artist's previous works and keep your fingers crossed that the upcoming batch will be as good or possibly better - artists usually improve with practice - with an artist like M.F. Husain, who has been working constantly over the years, that is a distinct possibility.

As for attempting to create a brand in the arts too, I'm not sure how that will work out, considering that every work of art, even by the same artist, is intrinsically different.

Will this futile attempt serve any purpose for creativity? Why not? Everything's grist for the mill.