When Was Modernism?

Home , Geeta Kapur

> Asian Art & Cultures When was Modernism? When was Modernism? is a compilation of thirteen essays, many of which have been ati Guha-Thakurta to write that ‘[Kapur] new insight into the complexities of reworked for this volume and which themselves are the result of over two decades of has been the singular dominant pres- modernity, nationalism, post-colonial- research. Never mind that many essays were published previously (between 1987 and 1997), ence in the field - to a point that her ism, and globalization. as there is no denying that the compilation is more than a sum of it parts. When was writings alone seem to have constitut- Modernism? constitutes a body of scholarship that reflects Geeta Kapur’s deep and ed the whole field of modern Indian art - Kapur, Geeta, When Was Modernism? sustained examination of and thinking on twentieth-century, South Asian, cultural practices. theory and criticism…’ (quoted on back Essays on Contemporary Cultural Practice cover, from Biblio, May-June 2001). in India, New Delhi: Tulika Press, (2000 & By Deepali Dewan Kapur points out, India has no avant- When was Modernism? is required read- 2001), pp. 454, ISBN: 81-85229-48-1 Asian Art > garde since the rebellious and progres- ing for art historians of South Asia South Asia he first set of essays on ‘Artists and sive features of artistic development wanting to expand the survey course to Deepali Dewan, MA received her PhD in TArtwork’ concentrates on the lives were channeled into the nationalist the modern period and for art histori- South Asian art history from the University and work of Amrita Sher-Gil, Nalini cause. So, Kapur asks, ‘when, if the ans who want to expand the modern art of Minnesota. She is Associate Curator of Malani, Arpita Singh, Nasreen avant-garde has been thus blocked or survey beyond the ‘West’. Furthermore, South Asian Art at the Royal Ontario Muse- Mohamadi, K. G. Subramanyan, and deferred or deviated by what one may it should be read by all the humanities um and teaches at University of Toronto. Raja Ravi Varma. In the second, call the national cause, was modernism and social science disciplines to con- Her research focuses on nineteenth- and ‘Film/Narratives’, the cinematic pro- in India art?’ (Kapur, p. 300). This ques- sider how South Asian cultural practice twentieth-century visual culture in South duction of Ritwik Ghatak (Jukti Takko tion does two things. First, it inherent- in the twentieth century can contribute Asia. [email protected] ar Gappo), Satyajit Ray (Apu and Devi), ly demands questioning the definition and V. Damle and S. Fattelal (Sant of the term ‘modernism,’ revealing its Tukaram) are examined. Lastly a broad eurocentric terms of reference. Second, range of artists’ works are scrutinized having thus cleared the space for other in order to arrive at a complex under- possible definitions, it allows one to look standing of Indian cultural practice for other types of modernisms in the during the course of the twentieth cen- Indian context. tury. More specifically, Kapur examines In the Indian context, Kapur argues, the engagement in Indian art with the ‘modernism’ forms a double discourse ‘traditional’, the ‘modern’, nationalism, with nationalism (see: p. 288) and the internationalism, and globalization. national and the modern are in constant Kapur’s intellectual range is impressive dialogue. Nationalist art, for example, and is exactly what a proper examina- promoted the use of traditional or tion of modern Indian art requires. She indigenous motifs. Modernism had con- gracefully and skilfully manoeuvers structed a paradoxical view of such between Indian artists and non-Indian motifs – sometimes rendering them as ones such as Frida Kahlo, Matisse, and progressive signs, at other times sub- Anges Martin. Further, she draws from verting them as conservative and tradi- a broad theoretical background, such as tional (see: p. 293). Yet, this paradoxical the work of Frederick Jameson, Homi position is a marker of India’s particular Bhabha, and Raymond Williams – from form of modernism: ‘Given India’s sus- whose work the title When was Mod- tained struggle for independence and ernism? derives. The essays do not fol- the precise mode of its decolonization, low a chronological or geographical its cultural life is alternately conservative sequence, nor do they limit the discus- and progressive’ (p. 341). The relation- sion of a particular artist or concept in ship between the notion of tradition and neatly bound chapters. Rather, the nationalism and modernism is a essays ‘spill into one another’, cross-ref- particular feature of cultural develop- erencing to data from each other, thus ment in post-colonial societies. Kapur reflecting how Kapur’s thinking in one demonstrates that the nature of this rela- essay is informed by her research in tionship changes with time and in each another. Together the essays add up to artist’s work. The collection of essays a profound articulation about twenti- carefully maps out the different articu- eth-century cultural practice in India by lations in a wide range of artists’ works. one of the most exceptional thinkers in In the last essays, Kapur begins to trace the field today. various disjunctures in contemporary Kapur’s title is a provocative question artistic practice in order to name the pos- that sets the stage for the book. It alludes sible avant-gardes-in-formation in the to the multiple meanings that the term South Asian context. ‘modernism’ can signify. On the one The book is dense and partly delib- hand, Kapur acknowledges, modernism erately so. In several essays, Kapur’s is a term that claims universality yet rhetorical form follows her subject mat- comes out of the particular context of ter, communicating ideas about an Western art history. As a specific period artist’s work not only through what she in the development of Western art, it says, but also in the way the words are nurtured an avant-garde that went strung together. Yet this density is also against the academic establishment a disadvantage: complex sentences that supported by the state. In these terms, include references without explanation make it seem Kapur is talking to herself rather than to the larger audience for whom the book is intended. In several instances, extensive footnotes explaining the background of an artist in plain language would better have been included in the main body of text. Nonetheless, battling through the tough parts is a worthwhile enterprise – the product in the end is a rich and complex discussion of twentieth-century cultural practice in South Asia. When was Modernism? is the most advanced and mature examination of contemporary culture practice in India that I have yet read. Geeta Kapur truly stands out in her field and finds herself virtually alone in terms of the breadth and depth of her scholarship. Out- standing enough that is, to compel Tap-

44 IIAS Newsletter | #29 | November 2002