‘What’s wrong with that’

The ‘batch- 2006’ of students currently (in 2009) in the third year in our painting department poise their works on an intriguing expression - ‘what is wrong with that’.
Is this title of the show posted as a question? If so, is it at the face of their very choice of learning art, raised against the fag end of three years and at the end of a settling down of all adrenalin rush, artist-visibility and market success? Art world is under a peculiar hibernation in this early 2009.

Is this title expression thrown at the larger face of this world that instils inferiorities of various kind across cultures of which all of us are variables in some ways?

Or is it about their very own works of art that look like ‘objects to defend’ at this stage of their learning art when demands to perform goes higher towards the final year in an art college?

But, does it look like a ‘student question’ at all? Not really! It may function as ‘a teacher question’ as well, especially when somebody is trying to re-assert the quality of much revered ‘teachable language’ at the face of resistance to it from a student who goes through some strange and unfamiliar ways for many reasons. ‘Lack of capacity’ or ‘too much of laziness’ or ‘too much of adolescent whims’ may not always be the only thinkable reasons for the teacher.

Then? Is it that any way-ward in the classroom can ask this question? One may deserve the name ‘way-ward’ when he/she doesn’t clearly articulate the difference, let it be teacher or student. And one often becomes partially so at the face of art too. But anybody in art has equal probability to win articulations of difference at some stages. But if somebody already makes differences, there is no single answer as to ‘what’s wrong with that’ because it is structured more as a matter of ‘exclamation’, often pushing it outside the purview of established teaching / learning (art).

‘Teachers with (different) methodologies’! ‘Students with new found references’! What a marvellous sight. Isn’t it? It can be in other ways too.‘ Teachers with new found references’ and ‘students with (different) methodologies’. There is possible transmigration of soul everyday in an art college opening us to some inherent problems in our daily teaching / learning art.
First and foremost to mention, what is the material that needs to be taught at the level of so called ‘theory’ and ‘practical’. Or any such divided material need to exist really?

Can art have any ‘textbook’ material? Maximum possible task is making of a reading / reference list based on some general assumptions of masters and masterpieces and significance gained by some thing or somebody in the art discourses by some means. Isn’t it then a sharable continuum than a comprehensive list of any authorised material?

A familiar case as of now, the academic systems exercised as part of the so called ‘syllabus’, in effect undergoes some regimentation of sorts - of skill, creativity, observation capacity, preparatory sketches, finished work, ideal work, master piece reference etc. That is generally communicated depending on the awareness, practice and training accessed by the teacher and on his/her idea of ‘giving guidelines’. That may be important too. But we shall see to it that more the exposure to different kinds of teachers, people and references, more is the chance to make the whole ‘academic exercise’ of an art institution filled with questions and mutating methodologies and dialogues. Even jackfruits can teach an art student...we know it!
Let our contradictions surface daringly. Teachers and students can not ever stick to essential unshakable identities of ‘donor’ and ‘receiver’ in the same way as in other disciplines.
But how far we really open up our own contradictions? Let me briefly reflect on the participants of this show, for that matter.

Why do these people make so much of sub-terrain fantasies in some sort of ‘realism’ or the other?
Why some of them are going on ‘composing things’ than ‘painting things’?
Here is an impasto. Ok. Paint is a master’s clay.
There is a creak of ‘object art’ in couple of these artists. Have you ever thought of what comes first, the concept or the objects? ‘The things’ or ‘the compositions’? It looks anyway, as if you were pondering on them strictly separate tempting me to ask that same vein of question about hen and egg. Let us exercise futilities, but in a productive way?
Why do the elder artists, the so called ‘successful artist’ models they got to know recently are this much tried, tested and wasted in their works? Aren’t we in need to surpass the immediate models?

Oh somebody over there harks back to some master touches of Velasquez? Hopefully, the reasons for this might be demonstrated soon in the coming works...
Amusing stories are composed by somebody....fresh watercolours clotting at unpredictable points. There is a pitfall of ‘a colourist’ nearby. Let us take diversion from old masters at proper points.
Hopefully these artists will not close many possible ‘other exclamations’ and questions from the viewer’s part while posing this interesting title for their show. They have anyway invented a powerful door (title) that can shut or open at its magic wish.
This is a dialogic door to their world, probably. Enter but don’t get shut, Mr. Viewer!
Dear art-lovers and dealers, do watch out for this interesting lot of people this year from this college.

They are very artist-kind!