As for this present exhibition, one can only say that the style they proposed is still at its infant stage. If they remain stuck to their declared faith, future may bring success, for which the criterion is either authenticity or aesthetic integrity.
Tanvir Parvez and Syed Azizur Rahman, at firsts gaże, look like an odd pair. The former artist, a tall, bespectacled young man and the later, small, thin, glum faced young man, both of them, aficionados of avant- garde of the west and intent on experimenting with sight specific art works.
Rahman wanted address the issue of the product oriented culture that at present, threatening to engulf all the human achievements that enrich our present and will undoubtedly build our future. His intention was social satire in the form of installation. Upon several cardboard boxes he drawn sketchy pictures of human body and written words that correspond to various kinds of products like-'fragile', 'handle with care', 'export quality' and few other comments of his own concoction further elucidate his stand regarding the market madness. These boxes of different size are placed in the gallery according to the hierarchy of height to illuminate the human condition in its stark directness. He does not believe in ambiguity, and his intensity of intention is also being heightened by the presence of two boxes (tallest of them all). On the top of each squire glass jar that contain blindfolded. human head is placed. The statement is as clean as it can be.
Problem number one lies in the arrangement of the boxes, there is not much space in between so that a viewer can comfortably roam about among them which could have given this work not only a visual quality but also made its obvious message written on the boxes easily readable. Problem number two has to do with its obviousness, which may not seem like a problem to all. Social comments in art, always puts the artist in a difficult position. The dilemma of whether to turn the thought into a phenomenon that is recognised by personal motifs - - which make the art work personal, as such, even a little ambiguous, or whether to remain faithful to the message and also to the viewers-- making the meaning too obvious. Perhaps, true satire and socially preoccupied art finds its force from both of these two conflicting poles of thoughts. But for Rahman it is the intention that got the upper hand. He did not trust the imagination of the viewers. But, true art should always leave some space where the onlooker's imagination can work towards a meaningful discovery; a process that may or may not lead the viewer to the artist's exact message, but certainly in the vicinity of his thoughts and expression.
Although Parvez professed to have installed sight specific works, there were only two installed contrivances and others were five painting done on polyethylene sheets. In one squire painting, he pasted a found circular plastic object with marvelous visual effect. But his artistic experimentation has found its proper expression in a sound- box-like device that had three peepholes attached to it, each providing opportunity to look at a picture of a painting cleverly installed inside the box. But what unfurl in front of the viewer, are not simple arrangement of three different works of three different painters. One at the bottom is Les Demoiselles d'Avignon', by Picasso, and the bottom one, monet's 'Luncheon on the Grass' and in the middle, one of Chandra Shekhar's usual exotic lady in all her sensual vigour. The comment is not obvious but the artist did provide a cue. Across the peephole in the middle, he puts a comment of Shekhar on his own artistic endeavour; Parvez lifted it up from the catalog of the artist's last solo. In the form of a motto, the word 'Simply art' not only make the intended pun clear, but it also provide a punchline and in turn the viewers stand closer to understanding the vapidity that clearly define our national destitute state regarding aesthetic thoughts. But to be able to follow the cue, one will have to be acquainted with the masterpieces and what they signify and also the indigenous one by Shekhar and what it fails to achieve.
The painting that Parvez did are crammed with forms. Though free of any rigid delineation of easily recognisable elements, somehow, his paintings are unable to woo the viewer to their own domain. Paiting is not only here to be appreciated alone, it is about to be absorbed by its imageries and seeing things from the point view of a different person. Then, again one can say that time will tell whether he would be able to work the magic that he so successfully done with his peepshow box. The drawings on separate sheets of glasses and their arrangement-his second installation- does not seem to strike the right cord. But, variety in expression always provides the chance for the artist to explore uncharted territory.
As an American critic wrote "May the true artist be called partisan in the assertion of his individuality and freedom, in his faith in the integrity of his expression". This faith these two young artists do have and partisan, they are, regarding their approach towards art and what they say. What left to be seen is that they remain the same both in action and thought.
0 comments:
Post a Comment