Pros and cons of getting identified with a particular subject or style

Is that a section of buyers don’t really want and like their chosen artists to experiment too much? This is the issue that often draws contrasting responses. The Business Standard columnist Kishore Singh tries to tackle the subject in one of his recent columns.

Artists, as all of us know, tend to get closely identified with the subject matter that they paint, sculpt or install, he rightly points out, and barring a few exceptions, they mostly work in a certain identifiable content and style. He cites the example of artist Subodh Gupta, whose name invariably alludes to steel utensils. Then there are Shuvaprasanna’s crows, s H Raza’s bindus, FN Souza’s grotesque nudes and heads, Sunil Das’s snorting bulls and Thota Vaikuntam’s Telengana beauties.

In essence, each artist is associated with a certain image that the collectors find closer to their heart. The writer describes this phenomenon as ‘banking on familiarity’. Just to extend the argument, he gives more examples by stating Fawad Husain is known for his erotic satire put in domestic settings. Then there is MF Husain known for his legendary horses, or artist Jayasri Burman very much famous for her goddesses. On the other hand, you can separate Rameshwar Broota from his peculiar ode to the masculine torso. When you refer to Manjit Bawa, what strikes more than anything else is his popsicle colors and serene Sufi imagery.

The examples are literally countless. Bikash Bhattacharjee is popular for his surrealism, whereas established contemporary artist Bharti Kheris quite appreciated for her usage of bewildering bindis. Paresh Maity is identified with his haunting seascapes, and Rekha Rodwittiya fort those iconic female figures. When you think of Arpita Singh, her concern and affinity for the fragile feminine world holds you. The writer essentially argues that the association is too strong to be challenged.