Art market, law of economics and ROI

A recent news report in Forbes India (Dinesh Narayanan; Dealing with the young at art) concludes that the next few years present a good opportunity to put your money in the next generation of Indian artists.

The report starts off by stating, and rightly so: “A painting is not a bond. A sculpture is not a share certificate. You like an M.F. Husain or Tyeb Mehta painting because you can look at it for hours and marvel at the deft brush strokes that evoke history, politics, religion, philosophy; interpreting the scope of human existence itself within the four corners of an otherwise mute canvas.

It is a thing of beauty. And you appreciate it. That is why you are willing to spend a few lakhs or even crores to own one. It’s only incidental demand for these pieces of exquisite art will increase and the oldest law of economics will kick in, bringing you a fabulous return on investment (ROI).

"However, if that becomes the focal point of buying art, well, what's the point, the writer questions, and adds: “But then again, you can't wish away the market, especially when the reputation of an artist often swells with the price tag.”

So is it a conflict of interest or a chance to strike a fine balance between aesthetics and finance? It's up to you to decide. The lines have got blurred especially after Indian art and artists suddenly becoming cool across the world, previously defined by a few doyens or the modernists, such as M.F. Husain, Tyeb Mehta, Akbar Padamsee, V.S. Gaitonde, F.N. Souza and S.H. Raza.

As interest in India started to rise globally with its buoyant economic growth, young painters became the toast of collectors around the world, fetching them fame and fortune. Many of them, including Subodh Gupta, Atul Dodiya, Jitish Kallat, T.V. Santosh, Riyas Komu, N.S. Harsha, Sudarshan Shetty and Bharti Kher, became the flag bearers of contemporary Indian art.