![]() Malvika Maheshwari THE ART OF SECULARISM: THE CULTURAL POLITICS OF MODERNIST ART IN CONTEMPORARY INDIA By Karin Zitzewitz Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2014, pp. 206, Rs. 1795.00 VOLUME XXXIX NUMBER 7 July 2015 Chapter 4, on page 99 of Zitzewitz’s
book The Art of Secularism begins with a quote by painter Gulammohammed Sheikh
where he says, ‘in one sense it is the communal situation that opened doors to
understand the role of religion in life. Then you are told who you are. Until
then, you are an artist.’ Unlike the beginnings of so many chapter fours of so
many other texts, this statement—almost half way into the book, hauntingly
accompanies the reader for the rest of the hundred and odd pages, as much as it
proves to be a pivotal moment to reflect on the ninety-eight page journey
undertaken till now. Sheikh’s words in many ways capture the problematic that
the author grapples with, the slant of her arguments and the ‘normative
secularity’.
Zitzewitz in this book explores the relationship between modern art and
the problematic of secularism in present-day India. She does so by observing
‘changes in artistic practice wrought by the rise of Hindu nationalism’ and
with this in mind, studies closely the lives and works of five eminent figures
of the modern Indian art world— Sheikh is one amongst them. Others include
painters M.F. Husain, K.G. Subramanyan, Bhupen Khakhar and gallerist Kekoo
Gandhy. It is these five, Zitzewitz argues, who have been ‘less able—and less
willing— than many of their fellow artists to accept the idea that art’s
autonomy translates into its isolation from public discourse.’
Divided thematically, the first two chapters on Husain and Subramanyan
‘compare artistic treatments of Hindu iconography;’ the third and the fourth on
Gandhy and Sheikh respectively look at ‘art world institutions as distinctly
secular spaces,’ and the last chapter on Khakhar explores the ‘social role of
the artist.’ In studying these, Zitzewitz’s central aim is to show how ‘Indian
artists have produced a sophisticated “secular critique of secularism,”’ a
phrase she borrows from Rajagopal. Two things are important to note here:
first, she argues that ‘when compared with the Indian public discourse at large,
the art world shares different assumptions about central issues associated with
secularism, including the public role of religious authority, the constitution
of political subjectivity, and the very definition of religion itself.’ Artists
have not only found in ‘iconographies of devotion and religious practice a
richness that counters the apparently thin cultural vocabulary ... Table of Contents >> |