Group 6
Visualising realities

The general tendency of searching commonalities within a group has the pitfall of erasing many peculiarities and individual subjectivities for a homogenizing common subject, theme or style. My objective in this writing would be in reading the heterogeneity of these works and the significance of each individual’s subjectivity. This is not to say that the works cannot have a common ground or I am against any subjective grouping. Rather by searching the peculiarities we could reach at a significant point where these differences meet. This juncture would be then a platform where one is not guided through a bracketed context rather a platform where free play of different modes of imaginations is encouraged. Hence the attempt in this writing would be primarily to investigate the various imaginative modalities, which are but the linguistic signs employed to achieve respective ends.


Nataraj’s images often speak of a world which is logically in rupture with reality. The situations are like a dream which occurs commonly but with an underlying understanding that those are not possible in this (hyper) “real” world. The image referred is the man pulling the elephant’s tail through the safety pin. The absurdity of the image is easily forgotten for the humor it is embedded with. The question is not whether the pin is made larger or the human and the elephant are made smaller. Rather the question could be where is it rupturing with reality? It’s in the dreams and the fantastical imaginations that the real is in absolute conflict. The made believe ‘impossible’ (possible) as fed to us through various structures of society are put to test. The instinctual self contradicts this impossibility by positioning ones individuality as better and abler to contest. Interestingly the moment is then not a triumph or overcoming but an attempt to question, contradict, there by create a rupture with the given (hyper) “real”.


Tikendra Kumar’s images are about deviations. This is because the banality and eroticization he boldly takes up is a deviation probably according to the generally accepted societal imaginations on sexuality. His eroticizations of the figures are individual fantasies nurtured by hyper real visuality. The print and video inferences are readily evident in his forms. His interference happens when he uses those erotic images by clothing with a humor which makes it consumable. This he achieves by camouflaging his figures with excessive hues of colours or by his other technique of embossing. He also plays with the title to keep the layer of humor. His paintings are hints at our contemporary times where the now completely open area of web pornography traps the youth and nurtures a fantasy which is possible only in the hyper real world. He interestingly also uses symbology where objects of everyday life are eroticized and also celebrates the youthful instincts. He also juxtaposes popular visuals with thematically similar images from history.


Hope and nostalgia are the recurring themes in the works of Thirumala Trupathi. The untitled work where the dry scaffolding itself regenerates to sprout again is a significant symbol of the underlying hope. Interestingly the scaffolding is just a supportive structure which is not permanent and is to be dismantled once the main structure is built. He gives a positive meaning to this temporary structure by making themselves alive again. The question is whether these structures grow to bloom in posterity are would they be dismantled when the main structure is over. Can these structures be permanent? The scaffolding in his painting gains its significance because the future concrete structure is not depicted; rather a vague flat space occupies the background. There are graphical images of ladder floating on the dripping surface of colours. Can we read them as the impending tragedy? Or can we read them as the simultaneous existence of tragedy along with the hope with which the figure in the painting is constructing the ‘living’ structure.

Rollie Mukherjee’s works speak of a self which attempts to question stereotypes. This she does by placing herself in positions which are mythlogically and traditionally celebrated and venerated. By assuming those roles which are assigned to the male she tries to question the patriarchal archetypes. Her use of the text in the painting “I am not born out of my Adam’s rib” is very interesting. The image is of lord Vishnu, here she is herself the lord. The great oceans are the upturned words/ texts. The images themselves refer to the contents they stand for subversively. Creation which has been regarded as from the male germ alone in various scriptures around the world is inverted. The image of the women lying over this upturned ocean of gendered texts signifies the assertive celebration of womanhood. Also in her other works she attempts at a critique which is against bondage by symbolizing Prometheus as the captured clouds.

Lingaraju uses contradictory sensibilities to talk about the problems of the society within his work. He attempts to see conditions and problems not as isolations but in relation to each other. He tries to bring contradictory metaphors to play within the same work. This he does by either treating different forms in different styles or even by juxtaposing different linguistic modes. The image of flower juxtaposed along a rocky landscape is a recurring theme in his works. The portrait of the girl engaged in a domestic (cooking?) is done with at most care and empathy. This image is juxtaposed with a lady hurrying with water pot for fetching water. The background is treated flatly with stripes of horizontal and vertical which though remain passive creates a virtual space where the juxtaposed flowers float within the same surface. His identification with the Dalit and downtrodden particularly women opens up a significant possibility of future works.

Mouni’s hyper real images can be seen as representing the flat reality of our times. The crisis of our times is portrayed in a very skillful manner. His repertoire of images varies from famous media images which have shaped our imaginations about communities to locally relevant objects. He skillfully translates them to the canvas by adding his views which may not necessarily completely differ from the original meanings other than the dexterous handling. He also takes cues from the now famous bar code and other popular linguistic motifs.
If we surmise that there is a thread of thought which finds a common ground within these selected works, it would be the attempt to create alternative realities. I would also prefer to say that it is the existential contradictions of our time which urges individual for imagining these alternatives. What is visible is the increasing crisis of the constructed realities which are obviously hegemonic and does not give scope for individual imaginations. This denial of identification with the real and suppression of the subjectivity finds its vent through these art works. These youthful attempts then can be seen as alternative possibility of “real” which might be close to individual imaginations and free from the clutches of the monitoring hegemonic structures. Probably it’s in these varied versions of the real that each individual could celebrate ones freedom which is nothing but a bare necessity of existence.

V.Divakar
Bangalore