Picturing possibilities

Of the numerous words which are related to the fine arts, visual arts in particular, it’s the word “picture” which is most interesting for the myriad and contradictory meanings it stands for. This is owing to the contexts within the various discourses it’s entwined with which defines (defies) the varied meanings of the word. The oxford dictionary offers a set of meanings for the word “picture” like a painting, drawing or a photograph, an image on a television screen, a cinema film. It’s also an impression formed from a description of something, and it also means to form a mental image of. What might interest us in Devaraj’s paintings are these three meanings of painting, a photograph and to form a mental image of. The reason for such an attempt is Devaraj’s indebtedness to (popular) photography and his passion for painting. What strikes immediately in his paintings is the amount of skill (labour) that he has put in making it. Often his paintings are based on photographs of people, objects and places which he himself pictures. Though high modernism had categorically rejected the realism or illusionism in painting, we know through various sources how the masters of western art themselves were indebted to photographs of models for doing their paintings and sculptures. But the argument about the pictures/paintings of Devaraj is not the same. We pass through another discourse of the ‘popular’ which in his case is very much local.
Devaraj comes from Mandya which is in between the all well stimulated metropolis of Bangalore and the cultural picturesque Mysore. He completed his graduation from CAVA, Mysore and is now working as a computer graphic designer in Bangalore. Even as a student he had been continuing the popular paintings like portraits, marriage set works/ backgrounds, photography, and public sculptures etc in Mandya and other places. This semi urban/rural mandya known as the sugar bowl of Karnataka has been recently in news for the tragic suicides of the very farmers. The visuality in and around Mandya is also very significant while talking about the works of Devaraj. In Mandya the tradition of figurative popular paintings are still continued in Bullock carts, popular film personalities in the cut outs, sign boards, advertisements and other public works. This would be the ideal ground for locating Devaraj’s works in contemporary context.
The idea of “popular commercial paintings” or colloquially called “order works” has been always seen as “supplement” or as the “other” of the fine art practice. The academic modernisms particularly in India have been instrumental in delocalising the culture and efficient in creating quasi national and international styles in painting/ works of art. Though there have been attempts for negotiating the local through the indigenous styles, the short coming was always the hypothetical attachment with the roots of tradition. Devaraj works opens up a possibility to read the local in its contemporary context without essentialising/ valorising the tradition. Devaraj tries to make a picture/painting according to the norms of art school training. But the reference for such a painting/picture is not necessarily what the discourse is ingrained with. The high art values are easily subverted by the mental images (picture) of his referents which can be read as the popular pictures. The popular signs and other forms have the efficiency to decontextualise any image and put it in own context there by ripping off the aura attached with the image/picture. In one of his works he uses the plaster cast models which were considered as the classical types of any academic studies are dethroned in his paintings. The high pedestals which they occupy within the discourse of the western art are replaced by the kitschy images. Interestingly they occupy the position below the popular lingerie sporting female busts. The female busts are references from magazines and dailies which were considered outside the realm of high arts. The replacement still but holds the idea of the male stereotypical representations. This but can be read as the popular reproduction of the idea of gender in his pictures. In the very painting though there is another cast over a pedestal we see that the pedestal itself is getting disengaged or dismantled. The peculiar technique of the popular painters is to merge the contradictory values in a single picture. This is also what we find evident in the pictures of Devaraj. He blends the ground where the photographic and the realistic (representation) occupy the same space. Thus he blends the mental and the mechanical to create a contest for the same space. His use of graphing technique to transfer the images from the photos of his choice is blended with the mental picture of what his painting is to be. His other paintings using the chess pawns with the photo realistic representation of the same in the real life also bring the analogical play of signs within the same picture. The painting with the lady praying over the chess board with the image of the crucifix is yet another example of the skilled labour. The background reminds of the aspect of “getup” as the popular artists (sign board, studio artist) give effects to their paintings. This brings us to the still debated criteria of defining the popular and the high. Though high art discourses have consumed the popular in varied ways like “pop art” and other languages. The popular realm still suffers owing to its stain of un-intellectuality and the investment on excessive manual skill/labour. Probably this makes his painting differ the meanings of picture making. His pictures can be then summed up as the curious contest/play of the mental and physical labour which is the deciding factor of what value the painting is to generate in the respective discourses it is entering into. It is this value then which decides/differs the meaning of the word “picture”.

V.Divakar