Comparisons in the world of art are never odious. You compare an artist's style with another's. You even compare an artist's early period with that of his later works to see how he has developed. You compare an artist with those who have influenced him - Satish Gujral with the indomitable Freida Kahlo, F N Souza with Pablo Picasso, S H Raza with Mark Rothko, and so on. Some critics take umbrage about evaluating an artist's work based on his value and market rather than the painting's quality and ability to arouse emotions, but collectors compare prices for reasons of parity and as a benchmark of success. Artists claim to be unaffected by the market, but that's not the truth. Once they might have lived straitened lives in devotion to their art but recent aspirations are rather more commonplace - a second home, a larger car, foreign holidays, champagne in the fridge.
V S Gaitonde could have experienced all that and more on Thursday night when, at Rs 23.7 crore, an Untitled painting by him became the most expensive Indian work of art to be auctioned. Christie's debut in India claimed a second benchmark, Tyeb Mehta's Mahisasura winning a bid at Rs 19.7 crore, the second painting that night to trounce S H Raza's earlier record at Rs 16.4 crore. Other records were set for works by artists Ram Kumar, Bhupen Khakhar, Ganesh Pyne and Manjit Bawa. And a painting by Rabindranath Tagore claimed a marquee price of Rs 2.9 crore. Which brings us to another comparison, and question: Why have prices for the modernists of the Bengal school remained more subdued than those of the Mumbai Progressives?
The answer is rather obvious. Souza, Husain, Raza & Co laid claim to their popularity, and to an extent their notoriety, by disparaging the efforts of the Calcutta (as it then was) and Santiniketan artists. These brasher artists were mentored by a group of Europeans in what was then Bombay who were patrons but also closely linked with a prominent media house, thereby providing them both patronage and publicity. The scale of their works in comparison with the Bengal artists - Jorasanko's Tagore and his nephews Abanindranath and Gagendranath who spearheaded the efforts of the Bengal and Santiniketan artists Nandalal Bose, Ramkinkar Baij and Benode Behari Mukherjee - was larger and the Western style more appealing to a society in transition. The denouement of the Bengal school despite its extensive documentation and unfair comparisons about its effete style compared to Mumbai's more robust expression led to its neglect in subsequent decades. With Tagore's recent valuation, justice might yet be served as they get the chance to compete with the current stars on a more equal footing irrespective of the size of the painting or its medium.
Another comparison that bears investigation is China's powerhouse market vis-à-vis India's more timid one. Recent years have seen the strengthening of Shanghai in comparison to London and New York, with China now the world's largest market for art. India pales by comparison. The shift in business from the West to Asia has captured the interest of galleries, museums and auction houses, while India has proved a disappointment for many if the experience of the India Art Fair is any indication. Where Chinese collectors have begun the process of accumulating Western artists, India remains hidebound, its interests provincial. Its market is so small a fraction of China's that it shines only when viewed from the perspective of its neighbours like Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. Only their more nascent markets make India's look gigantic in comparison.
