They're still feeling their way around Indian art, but Chinese collectors could be the next big thing in the contemporary market.
Somebody should have seen the signals earlier, but when the economy was still booming, and Indian art could command any obscenity by way of an asking price, no one bothered about what lay on the fringes. The Chinese are not anything if not meticulous, and with Chinese art prices way ahead of Indian art even till last year (Zhang Xiagang sold for $16 million, Zeng Fenzhi for $9.7 million, Yue Minjun for $5.9 million, as opposed to F N Souza at $2.48 million), it was only a matter of time before the more developed Chinese market began to look around for other alternatives for its museums and art funds.
No one seems to have paid attention to the Chinese interest in Indian art, even though the nibbles had begun a few years ago. Several galleries have confirmed that they have sold the odd works to people of Chinese origin, and these works, with rare exceptions, have been in the contemporary space. This is an interesting observation. The modern art movement completely evaded China, which is why it has little understanding of art of that period, and as a result, very little interest in it. Its knowledge of contemporary art, on the other hand, is quite extraordinary.
Another important facet is the growing might of Chinese art fairs. Both Shanghai and Beijing are now part of worldwide art calendar events, while Hong Kong has traditionally been Asia’s most important art centre, especially for auctions. Indian artists have been showing at the Shanghai Art Fair as well as at Art Beijing for some time now, and auctions at Hong Kong have drawn attention to Indian art in a big way. Both Christie’s and Sotheby’s have seen interest in especially younger contemporary artists’ works finding Chinese or Chinese-origin collectors. It could be, as was pointed out to this columnist, part of Chinese collectors’ interest in building an international collection, but equally, it could be part of a mandate to acquire Indian art for museums, and more importantly, for Chinese art funds, usually veiled in more secrecy than Indian ones.
Jitish Kallat’s solo show in Beijing in 2007 seems to have created a growing familiarity in his work among Chinese collectors, which could be the reason why his Universal Recipient 1 was acquired by a Chinese collector at the recent Asian art auction in Hong Kong organised by Christie’s. The work fetched Rs 52 lakh. At the same auction, T V Santhosh’s Hundred Square Feet of Curse also found a Chinese buyer at Rs 45 lakh. Other Indian works — some moderns, including Progressives, and other contemporaries — among them Subodh Gupta and Thukral & Tagra — were bagged by Indian or Western collectors.
To some extent, Indians have tended to have a blind spot about their collectors. A very large number of collectors of Indian art — and not just collectors of the level of Chester Herwitz, for instance, or Kitty de Boer — have tended to be neither Indian nor NRIs. Indian art has enjoyed a high level of Western interest, both among modern and contemporary artists, and the Christie’s auction of South Asian art in London today has 97 lots of which at least 36 appear to have been consigned by either Western collectors including a “Baroness” and an “European gentleman” as well as a “private collection” from, among other countries, the Netherlands. They may be selling now, but Western collectors have had a huge interest in buying Indian art — though their interest might traditionally have veered towards the moderns.
If the Chinese tend to ignore the moderns, they are interested enough in art antiquities, and have been among the more important buyers of classical Indian art at auctions in Hong Kong, as well as at sales in Taiwan and Macao. Recently, somewhat overt interest has been noticed among Chinese-origin Taiwanese and Koreans in contemporary Indian art, and this could have been fuelled chiefly by prices — you can still afford Indian art, especially with the prices currently being subdued, but these are likely to rise and return investment on their value sooner rather than later. That Indian artists enjoy importance outside the community of Indian collectors is something Chinese collectors seem aware of.
But since Chinese interest has been largely peripheral, two scenarios seem possible. If the collectors are genuine, a slow growth in the Chinese market for Indian art is possible. But if the interest is driven by investment value, then artists and galleries in India should anticipate a surge in Chinese buying. Will that be good for the Indian art market? Yes, if the movement will help to create a revival in an otherwise moribund market; no, if it means the art will lie buried in the vaults of Chinese art funds.
