ETPanache Dialogues: Bose Krishnamachari believes art belongs to everyone; Sanjay Reddy says it's about love, emotions & investment

With artworks commanding astronomical prices and holding the immense potential of being financial assets, has art become too elitist? A distinguished panel deliberated on the subject at the inaugural ETPanache Dialogues.

Ownership and viewership are two unrelated aspects in art, argue some. You don’t always need to own a piece of art to enjoy it. But that’s not always true, is it?

When the gavel falls at the auction, and iconic works are lapped up for millions of dollars, the new owners are not always willing to share their purchases. At the inaugural edition of ETPanache Dialogues, an esteemed panel took on an important question — is art increasingly becoming the bastion of the rich? How does one make it accessible to all?

The hour-long conversation between Dr Sabyasachi Mukherjee, director general, Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Vastu Sangrahalaya, GV Sanjay Reddy, vice-chairman, GVK, Bose Krishnamachari, artist and president, Kochi-Muziris Biennale, Bhushan Gagrani, Principal Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Gayatri Ruia, director, Phoenix Mills, and Minal Vazirani, co-founder, Saffronart, took place on July 26 at the elegant Wine & Malt Lounge at The Taj Mahal Palace, Mumbai, with a Ram Kumar canvas from the Tata Group’s enviable art collection forming the perfect backdrop.
Edited excerpts:

Who does art belong to?
Bose Krishnamachari: Art should belong to everyone. When we talk about art, it’s not just about paintings, it’s about life itself. Whether it’s urban landscapes, architecture, fashion, photography — everything has aesthetics. We are not conscious of this when we study it at the school level. We are not taught aesthetics and design.

Sabyasachi Mukherjee: The way I look at art, based on the rest of mankind, art is directly or indirectly linked to creativity. Creativity is an element you find in all disciplines — science, art, culture, everywhere. Does art belong to a section? I agree with Bose. Art belongs to everyone. An artist, when he creates, he doesn’t keep any community or section in mind. Because of commercialisation, people commission art, but this was not part of ancient Indian traditions.


Sanjay Reddy: It’s obvious that art belongs to the people. Over time, that changes. It’s just a temporary phenomenon that someone holds it for some time and then it moves on to your family or to the families of other people. In terms of commissioning art, the importance of art or creativity in a society changes over time and depends on the patronage. Support and patronage are important. It’s only then that art is really appreciated.

Bhushan Gagrani: While I agree with them, there is a difference between who art belongs to and who it should belong to. Art should belong to the people. But like artist [Edgar] Degas once said, “Art is not what you see, but what you make others see.” Any visual art reflects a people’s movement. It starts as an anti-establishment surge into the art world and then slowly becomes elitist. Art first belongs to people, then it becomes elitist. As it should, because only then can a new art movement take place.

Is art then elitist?
Minal Vazirani: Obviously, the answer is no. But I want to define it a little bit. Over time, there has been patronage... Whatever art was created, it was ultimately acquired. There was a price paid for it. To acquire art, you have to have some free cash flow. So that physical ownership becomes limited to a smaller group. However, access to art has nothing to do with your economic level...You must separate ownership and appreciation.

But do some pieces belong just to the super wealthy? Like Leonardo da Vinci’s ‘Salvator Mundi’ that sold for $450 mn but has disappeared from the public eye since.
Gayatri Ruia: There are art treasures we may not ever see or know of because they are in a private forum or in someone’s home, circulating in spaces different from auctions or museums. But it’s such a cyclical process. From perhaps 600-700 years ago, there is sufficient work still in museums, like other Da Vinci paintings. Elitist art will exist, but at the same time, public art also needs to exist.


Reddy: Art takes different meanings over time. Some people collect for the sheer excitement and emotion. But there’s also the angle of investment that’s important. You may invest in land or stock, but people also invest in art. One doesn’t know where love ends and investment begins. Everybody says ‘I’m buying it for love’. I’m not sure that’s true. It’s just the degree. If someone pays $50-$100 million, it’s because they know that it will become more than that over time.

Gagrani: From an accessibility point of view, it is not possible for the common man to visit so many museums, regardless of time availability. Affordability is another question. So, accessibility is not necessarily physical. [Pointing to the Ram Kumar canvas on the wall], If you can go and appreciate this Ram Kumar piece physically, nothing like it. Many connoisseurs may not agree with me, but if it is available in the public domain, through augmented reality or may be on the internet, you can appreciate it right from your home.

Do you believe auction houses inflate prices of certain pieces, and, to quote Roberta Smith of The New York Times, “reduce art to dollar signs”?
Vazirani: The role of an auction, really, is to provide a public marketplace. You can come in and bid for this work. Obviously, the highest bidder wins the war. It’s a public market mechanism. So, it’s not as though we are setting the price. We may provide a price estimate, based on data and comparables but we are letting buyers decide.

I don’t think private acquisition of art inhibits public viewing. In fact, it’s exactly the opposite. A report from 2016 listed out 256 museums, which are public museums but are essentially private collections.

Mukherjee: I want to go back to the commercialisation point of view with regard to auctions. We are not against commercialisation as long as money is not corrupting creativity. We have the habit of giving examples of European and American museums, but their situation is different from the Indian ones. Many philanthropists like the Rockefellers collect art and donate it to museums. The law in the US is different. If you are donating your collection, you get huge tax benefits. Here, you don’t get anything.

The moment you give tax benefits to private collectors, they’ll be happy to share their collections with public institutes. Unfortunately, most public institutions have stopped acquiring art objects. We are an exception. National Museum, Delhi, has stopped since the past 16 years. The Indian Museum, Kolkata has also stopped [collecting].


In an earlier ETPanache interview, Kiran Nadar spoke about the problems she faced for her new museum project and said that the government was “not responsive because it’s art”. What is your view?
Gagrani: There always is a policy. However, to be candid, art-related things are always lower in the priority list. A lot of facilitation is being done by the government. A lot of institutes are supported by the government. But all said and done, this is not a priority item since we are a developing country. So, right now, a huge investment is not coming into the public sector by the government [in the arts space].

How often do Indian museums reach out to patrons to share their collections for temporary exhibiting? How easy is it to convince them?
Mukherjee: There are many who reach out to us. But it’s not that easy due to the existing laws. The Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972, remains unchanged and that prevents collectors from sharing collections, even when the works are in the country.

There are a few enlightened collectors. When we talk to them, they have a very strong desire to share. We did many shows sharing museum space with private collectors. In the early 20th century, there was no problem. When things were going out of the country, the Tata brothers were collecting and bringing collections to India. They donated their entire collection as a gift to the museum. But today, we hardly find that kind of a gesture.

Bose: In the past 20-25 years, I have observed how Indian art is discussed internationally. It is mainly because of the international curators, museum directors or institutions. Here in India, where do we show? How many curators or places do we have? We have a pavilion at the Venice Biennale after eight years this time. These are the kind of things [needed], it’s a kind of an investment.

You need a policy. For example, we have the India Art Fair in Delhi where works are brought to the city. There is some tax, customs clearance, insurance. I think there is a 30 per cent import duty.


Vazirani: 17.5 per cent.

Bose: That’s quite a lot.

Ruia: You have to move consignments, pay GST and then it gets reversed. It’s too much...We’ve recently done a Valay Shende exhibition at one of our malls and it has been well received. It made me realise that even if people don’t know about art, it is an inherent, intuitive desire to seek beautiful things and learn more about things that are aesthetically satisfying, especially in urban communities.

If an institution was to ask you to loan a piece for a temporary exhibition, what would guide your decision? Would it be the curator, the exhibit narrative or the institution’s name itself?
Reddy: I’m a first-generation collector of traditional Indian art. I don’t understand much about contemporary art. I’ve separated my personal collection from the public space.

Personally, I want to keep it low-key and if a museum approaches me, I’ll be happy to share it. But I don’t want to use it as a medium to promote my name as a collector. I’m not of that mindset. Because in the context of what India is, we must be very careful because perceptions are greater than reality. People have a perception of what you are based on how you behave. So, I want to keep that part quiet.

Is it easier to loan collections if a Guggenheim approaches you?
Reddy: I am quite frankly not at all enamoured by those names. For me it’s all about India.


Any thoughts on how we can encourage patrons to support public institutions vs building their private collections, that will make art accessible to all?
Gagrani: From the government point of view, ensure them [the collectors] the safety of their artworks, and provide all necessary permissions if at all they are required. That itself will give a boost to sharing private art pieces with the public.

Ruia: At the grassroots level, education needs to incorporate some sensitivity towards art. My daughter’s Russian piano teacher said something interesting: They learn math, literature, and art [at the school level]. That’s how they look at studies. I think we need to start that here. We need a severalpronged effort from the public sector, private sector, education, and others. We’ll get there.

Bose: More than 600,000 people visited the Kochi-Muziris Biennale last year. It [the crowd] was not museum-going people. They were normal people … people from every class and creed. I think it is important to have cultural investment. The government needs to make new policies for the art and culture space

The Venue
Every evening, the Palace Lounge at The Taj Mahal Palace, Mumbai, transitions into a one-of-its-kind WINE & MALT LOUNGE. Open to all guests — residential and non-residential — this brand new lounge bar is the perfect place to unwind after a busy day.