Art
History as a subject has always been a distant ally for art students
especially in the art colleges of Pune. The most important reason, we
feel, is the lack of interest in establishing the connection between
art history and art practice. This indifference is visible through the
design of the syllabus, less hours of art history teaching and a firm
belief that art making is only about spontaneity and has nothing to
do with thinking and conceptualizing.
The alarm bell rang for us
when we
actually started teaching in various art colleges and interacting
with the students. These limitations provided a lot of space to
explore and intervene in ways that would help us establish linkages
between art historical studies and contemporary art practice.
 |
| Presentation by Samudra Kajal Saikia Photograph: Noopur Desai |
A
two day workshop titled 'Making and Reception: A Workshop on Art and
Visual Culture' was one such attempt that would respond to these
concerns. Hosted by Maharashtra Cultural Centre, Pune at Sudarshan
Rangmanch, this workshop was conceived by Sudarshan Kaladalan team
including Madhuri Purandare, Nitin Hadap, Rucha Kulkarni and me in
collaboration with the Nine Schools of Art, New Delhi. The workshop
was facilitated by Rahul Bhattacharya, Abha Sheth and Samudra Kajal Saikia of Nine Schools of Art. They attempted to address some of the
crucial questions and issues that young artists face everyday such as
meaning of art history, definitions of contemporary art, underlying
connection between art history, art criticism and visual culture,
artists' perceptions on these concepts, etc through lectures,
discussions, games and exercises. The workshop received an amazing
response from art students, professionals as well as practitioners
from other disciplines such as architecture, archaeology and film-making.
The
resistance towards English as a medium of conversation mellowed down
a bit when the Pune team realised that the workshop would be
interactive, activity based and open to discussions in Marathi and
Hindi. Though we understand the concern that conducting such sessions
in Marathi would make it more inclusive and open to students from
local language backgrounds. At the same time, it is also important to
see that the contemporary art debates and writings are mainly in
English and if the students are to get clued into it, we need to tap
into these resources which would give the students a broader and
deeper sense of contemporary art field. This workshop proved to be a
great beginning in terms of both, the concept of the workshop as well
as the interactive format.
 |
| Participants in intense discussions Photograph: Noopur Desai |
Activity
based sessions:
The
workshop began with a word-game. Based on the format of an
antakshari, the participants were asked to come up with art
historical terms along with their explanations. The game generated a
lot of discussion around terms like expression, form, texture, taste,
nude and naked, essence, gaze, space etc. This brainstorming session
helped students define these terms in their own way and also
understand the dictionary meanings of some of these words from the
glossary that was provided by the facilitators. This initial warm up
game opened up a lot of possibilities for dialogue about some complex
concepts and ideas in the discipline of art history. This
collaborative process continued in the workshop throughout. Along with
in-between lectures and presentations, facilitators involved the
participants in various such activities.
 |
| Break out sessions Photograph: Noopur Desai |
 |
| Participants presenting their work Photograph: Noopur Desai |
In
one such exercise, the participants were divided into ten groups and
were given ten images to describe and analyse. The images were
accompanied by key words or terms which gave certain directions in
which participants could read the images. What was interesting in
this exercise was that the images were from popular culture and mass
media rather than art history textbooks which in a way broadened the
notion of art. It also equipped the participants with clues to read a
work of art or image from different perceptions and come up with
different interpretations. In another activity, Samudra conducted a
session on what are the ways in which artists or art students could
document their art works. This was followed by an exercise where
participants were asked to revisit, document and re-present their
surroundings with the help of a couple of keywords such as 'self',
'building', 'street', and 'memory'. The crux of this activity was to
understand how one can create a balance between the objective nature
of the process of documentation and creation of another work of art
out of it.
Linking
Theory with Practice:
The
lectures/demonstrations focused on the different techniques and
methods of reading a work of art. These lecture-based sessions
deliberated upon various concepts like formalism, modernism,
iconography, iconology, the contemporary, etc. Though the
facilitators tried to explain these complex ideas in their
presentations, some of the theory sessions were little hard to
understand. Though the conversations during games and exercises were
conducted mostly in Hindi, the lectures were delivered in English.
But more than the language, the issue was that some of these concepts
and authors' names like Greenberg and Panofsky were absolutely new to
the participants. The positive aspect was that the participants got
an exposure to these authors and their work. What we also feel is
that if these concepts could have been explained with Indian examples
or if facilitators could have connected them with artistic practices
from Maharashtra or India, the participants would have found it
easier to understand their positionings. The most interesting
presentation was done by Abha where she chose two images, one from a
sculptural relief panel from Mahabalipuram and another a folio from
Chaurpanchashika. While comparing these two works from different
regions, time periods and made in different mediums, Abha analysed
them using various art historical methods including formalism,
iconography, semiotics, feminism and Marxism. It was revealing for
all of us how one image can be interpreted in so many different
ways.
 |
| Abha Sheth in conversation with the participants Photograph: Noopur Desai |
 |
| Presentation by Rahul Bhattacharya Photograph: Noopur Desai |
The process that was taken up by the facilitators was one that of an evolving nature. The facilitators discussed the terms through conversations where they sometimes brought out various aspects to take the discussion forward or sometimes built up on each others points or even questioned each other. The concepts that were discussed during games and exercises were elaborated upon during lectures and presentations, at the same time, certain complex terms which required more clarification after the lectures were explained through discussions during exercises and open sessions. The most important aspect of these discussions was that they were completely open-ended and did not provide ready-made answers to the participants. All these sessions equipped them with methods and ideas which they could take forward with their thinking and practice. Right from the seating arrangement, which kept on changing the whole time, the workshop defied the set boundaries of class room methods of art history teaching. With a combination of lectures, presentations, break-out sessions and exercises establishing connections between theory and practice, this format of the workshop, we believe, would emerge as an enriching teaching method and could, therefore, enhance existing methods of art history teaching in art schools and colleges.
