Skip to main content

Art, a business?

This was the question that made its way into my head when a friend of mine brought it up.

Being a student of an unconventional art school, FAD International, people (or rather artists) around me are quite open-minded, and listening to their thought processes making way to ceaseless discussions is a delight for someone like me. It was in one of those discussions when my friend said that Art is business after all. Before saying anything, for that one moment, it did cross my mind - Is it a business?

I wish I could agree with him, but I don't. If making money was my sole purpose of getting into art, I would rather have stayed and slogged as an engineer, eating dusty wada-pavs and sugary tea on site. In fact, as far as I can see, not one artist is into art because it will bring him money.

I believe the moment you start measuring your art as business, it loses its meaning and your creativity becomes a horse with reins; the purity of art is corrupted and all you have in your hand is just a business deal. That being said, on the heals of it another valid point came up - How am I going to pay for my food? (There were many questions that followed this one simple question on my mind. But, nothing beats the food.) So, what am I supposed to do, now that art is not a business for me?

I'm not saying that I won't accept the money that I get out of my paintings. Money is definitely important to keep oneself happy; only, how much money should be the concern. Somehow, even after jumping from a good job to the life of student didn't disturb the fluidity of my life. Somehow, I managed to tune myself into it; thanks to the world of colours that I have got myself into. If art is a choice that a person makes, then there's nothing that will stop that individual from being happy in it.

Art has given me a way to let out my thoughts in more understandable manner. I'd rather let it mesmerize me instead of controlling it.

~ RN

Popular posts from this blog

Drawing from Life

I was only awkward until the robe came down; once it was down I was bare and felt liberated. In my head, it all sounded poetic, like there were gongs of freedom chiming in the background. But when I took a quick look at the faces around me, it brought me back to think how normal it actually is to pose nude for drawing. All artists in their own rights, going about drawing me like they would draw any other model, learning and practicing how the light played on the contours of my body. Not to say that the sense of liberation I felt was not legitimate. 
It all boils down to the aspect of where I come from. If and when my parents or the extended family back in India comes to know that I pose nude, I wouldn't know how they would react. They maybe okay with it or taken aback by the very act. It wouldn't change my view or decision in any way, but still I just indulged in these thoughts, like trying to interview myself in my head.
I recently came across this article from a few months ago…

Do you still read comics?

I've often met with derisive sighs when they find me reading a graphic novel. It can be credited to the fact that in India graphic novels are not generally excepted as a literary piece or even a piece of art for that matter; but the bigger reason is the lack of knowledge about what goes behind the conjuring of a good graphic novel.
Let me not use a fancy term as Graphic Novel. Let me just call it a comic book.
So, what's not to like in a good comic book? The artwork is amazing, the literary material top-notch, the story a thoughtful experience! So, why is it that generally it's labelled to be read only by kids? Why not adults? I attribute it to the perception that adults (as opposed to children) know better. I believe as we grow we start compartmentalizing our experiences - these are childish, these are immoral, these are stupid, these are bad, these are good; all categorized in that invisible shelf inside our head. It's not our fault; it is because of the regular condit…

Van Gogh's lust for life

I had the pleasure of watching the movie, Lust for Life, recently. Vincent Van Gogh's life rolls in front of our eyes with crisp colours and sharp chiaroscuro all around. I was just amazed that the filmmakers actually managed to bring out the characteristics of Van Gogh's painting into the movie itself, and this was back in 1956. The entire movie is weighed on the dialogues that flow quite poetically, and Kirk Douglas's Vincent Van Gogh, Anthony Quinn's Paul Gauguin, and James Donald's Theo Van Gogh are apt and convincing in their roles.
The warmth and love between the brothers, Vincent Van Gogh and Theo Van Gogh, the conversations and conflicts between Vincent Van Gogh and all other real-life  characters (Paul Gauguin in particular), the narration of the letters from Vincent to Theo in the background, the representation of Van Gogh's real paintings and more, everything adds to a delightful experience. 

Paul Gauguin's sarcasm and quick mockery of Symbolism ad…