Lounge
‘Madras Modern’: An ongoing show explores the last bastion of Indian modernism
Summary
An ongoing exhibition highlights the making of the Madras Art Movement and places this late phenomenon of modernity in southern India within the national contextThe ongoing exhibition, ‘Madras Modern: Regionalism and Identity’, at DAG, New Delhi, offers a rare viewing experience. It’s not often that you get to witness the trajectory of significant artists such as S.G. Vasudev, K.M. Adimoolam, M. Reddeppa Naidu, S. Dhanpal, J. Sultan Ali, S. Nandagopal and K.V. Haridasan, who added to the Indian modernist vocabulary through their works. By taking a deep dive into their practices, the exhibition highlights the making of the Madras Art Movement—considered by art scholars as the last bastion of Indian modernism—and the Cholamandal Artists’ Village, a residential work-centre for artists envisaged by K.C.S. Paniker in the 1960s. The works of each of the artists, who formed an integral part of this movement, while being unique and individualistic, are tied together in their exploration of regional and folk iconography and mythology.
The show, as well as the accompanying book, place this modern art movement—a late phenomenon of modernity in south India—within the national context. “It developed as a regional phenomenon that began to take shape from the mid-1950s onwards as a search for authenticity in modernism derived largely from the region’s cultural heritage," states the introduction to the book, authored by art historian-curator Ashrafi S. Bhagat, which has the same title as the exhibition.
The genesis of the Madras Art Movement can be traced back to the Government School of Arts and Crafts (now Government College of Fine Arts in Chennai) established in 1850. It all started when D.P. Roy Chowdhury took over as the first Indian principal of the college between 1930 and 1957, and shifted the focus from a purely craft-based curriculum to a study of fine arts. “[He] put forth an empirical and perceptual approach to art making, and axed the colonial pedantry of human form study based on classical statuary. These ideas were extended by K.C.S. Paniker who, as the next administrative head, brought in a study of European masters," mentions Bhagat in the book.
Also read: ‘Minor Detail’: A group show interprets the meaning of home
She goes on to describe how Paniker’s pedagogy opened avenues for technical and creative explorations that became a hallmark of the school, contributing towards the development of the art movement in Madras (now Chennai). Though the movement was named after the city, its fabric was determined by artists coming in from the four southern states—Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka that made up the erstwhile Madras Presidency—thus bringing in different approaches and visual vocabularies.
While the names of Roy Chowdhury, J. Sultan Ali and Paniker are familiar to most art enthusiasts, in the show and the book, one meets many more figures who contributed to the rise of this modern art movement. In that sense, ‘Madras Modern: Regionalism and Identity’, on view till 6 July, becomes extremely significant. “This kind of north-south divide that we experience regularly impacted the art world back then as well. For artists, who practised out of the southern states, the familiarity with art centres in Mumbai and Delhi was a little less forthcoming," says Kishore Singh, senior vice-president, DAG. “Though the artist collective, Group 1890, did try to include one artist from the region, Reddeppa Naidu, but it phased away in a year after its exhibition in 1963 held in Delhi. Artists from the southern states remained neglected in the national mainstream for the longest time, and that is a pity as the art school in Chennai was the oldest in the country."
Paniker, as the administrative head of the institution, grappled with the factors behind this neglect for a long time. Both through his personal practice and role as a mentor, the artist tried to arrive at what was Indian and what was regional. “Many artists, whether figurative or abstract in their language, began to look at the regional as their central pivot. And it is from that idea that the Madras Modern emerged," adds Singh. Take, for instance, the example of S. Dhanpal, who set up the sculpture department at theGovernment School of Arts and Crafts. He redefined the sculptural vision within the movement by creating a bridge between the modern and the traditional elements of temple design and architecture.
Also read: ‘Blasphear’: Playing sacred games in Pakistan
“He became well established within the national art scene, as did J. Sultan Ali, who spent a fair amount of time in Delhi before returning to Cholamandal," says Singh. Another well-known figure to emerge from the movement was painter and filmmaker, V. Viswanadhan, who was also one of the co-founder of the Cholamandal Artists’ Village. Today, he lives and works between Paris and Cholamandal. “But if you look at the spate of other names, you will be surprised to see the sheer sophistication of their art. K. Ramanujam, L. Munuswamy, C. Douglas, R.B. Bhaskaran and more, were such brilliant artists. The depth of their vision and the breadth of their practice is something else. ‘Madras Modern’ is in a way a course correction in bridging the gap between the regional and the mainstream, and hopes to bring in familiarity to these names," elaborates Singh.
It is also interesting to witness the journey of women artists within the Madras Art Movement, who pursued their careers against all odds. “Those who went on to win national acclaim included Arnawaz Vasudev née Driver (1945-88), T.K. Padmini (1940-69), Rani Pooviah née Nanjappa (1935-91), Anila Thomas née Jacob (b. 1941), and Premlatha Hanumanthiah Seshadhri (b. 1947)," states Bhagat in the chapter onWomen Artists Within the Madras Art Movement in the book. While Vasudev, Padmini and Pooviah were painters, Thomas became a sculptor. “The progressiveness of these artists in the 1960s was at odds with the role of women within the conservative Madras milieu. Institutionally, their progressiveness lay in their acceptance by ‘male’ artists, endorsed by Paniker who opened the doors for women’s admission in the art institution. Anila professed to the helpful attitude and encouragement of her male peers. If so, it opened up questions about the structure of male power and a gaze not so much sexual as condescending," writes Bhagat.
As you walk through the exhibition, you can’t help but wonder if there was ever a dialogue between the various modern art movements taking place in the country. After all, each of these emerged out of a rejection of whatever had come to signify the establishment. For instance, the rise of Santiniketan was linked to a rejection of the romanticism of the Bengal School. Later, the Progressives found an affinity with the modernism that filtered in from the West. “But they wanted to embark on their own journey, rooted in the Indian culture and aesthetic. For Group 1890, the process was more important than anything else. For the artists in Baroda, intellectualisation of art became significant. And for the Madras Art Movement, localisation or regionalisation became the pivot," explains Singh.
Also read: Plan your week ahead with these 5 buzzy events
Their idea gained strength as they were able to work together as a community in Cholamandal. There, they lived, practised and ideated together. It became a platform for dance, theatre, poetry and music as well, with international visitors coming in from time to time, bringing in their artistic ideas. Its location was significant, situated right next to Kalakshetra, which was based on a similar idea, and a stone’s throw away from Mahabalipuram, which had been a workshop for sculptors and architects since the medieval period. “Like the other modern art movements, the Madras Art Movement allowed for a rejection of what was becoming the norm elsewhere. It was united with the rest in the idea of resistance and finding its own path," says Singh.
