June 13, 2011

OCAD CRCP2B02 Assignment #2

Embellished Reality: Indian Painted Photographs at the Royal Ontario Museum by Shani K. Parsons

Situated within the monumental Asian galleries comprising the Philosophers Walk Wing at the Royal Ontario Museum (fig. 1), Embellished Reality: Indian Painted Photographs is a small exhibition housed within the comparatively tiny Herman Herzog Levy Gallery. Not marked by name on museum floor plans and therefore extremely difficult to find, the H.H. Levy Gallery is set apart from the larger exhibition spaces on the floor through the atypical use of blonde wood facing which delineates a prominently labeled entrance and two walls bearing exhibit cabinetry within (fig. 2). A permanent credit wall to the right of the entrance states that the gallery is dedicated to Asian Feature Exhibitions and is named in honour of a long-time benefactor of the museum who made a major bequest for the purchase of close to 300 objects of East Asian art. Manulife Financial, a leading Canadian-based financial services company which, according to The Economic Times (May 4, 2010), has in recent years been making its first forays into the overseas South Asian market, is credited as Asian Feature Exhibitions partner in smaller text near the bottom of the wall. To the left of the entrance, the exhibition title wall is painted a deep, rich teal, bearing the exhibit title in rainbow hues along with a decorative graphic scrollwork of unknown origin. No curator is named anywhere within the exhibition or on any supporting materials for the show.

Embellished Reality features more than 60 never-before-shown works from the ROMs permanent collection (fig. 3). Presented as cultural and artistic precursors to the Bollywood cinema showcards being shown concurrently in a larger, more splashily marketed exhibition at the ROMs Institute for Contemporary Culture (fig. 4), the works on display were selected to contextualize the 1950s1980s Indian film advertisements being shown in the larger exhibition. The timing of both shows coincides with the International Indian Film Academy (IIFA) Awards being held this summer in Toronto for the first time, as well as the Canadian national celebration of 2011 as The Year of India, which was designated as such through a bilateral treaty between India and Canada in 2010. The IIFA exists to promote and represent Indian cinema, fashion, and culture globally, while The Year of India, according to the ROM and Year of India websites, is designed to offer Canadians an opportunity to know more about India, its diversity, its colourful culture, ancient traditions, bounteous nature and so much more, with the ultimate stated goal of highlighting India as a preferred destination for Canadian travellers (fig. 5).

Local considerations surely factor into museum decisionmaking as well, with Torontonians of South Asian descent representing a sizeable potential audience at greater than 10 percent of the total GTA population according to the latest census. As the local South Asian community begins to parlay its well-established economic affluence into increasingly influential political and cultural spheres, it would stand to reason that both Embellished Reality and Bollywood Cinema Showcards are strategically targeted to increase viewership within this growing demographic.

Indeed, special gratitude for hard work and brilliant contributions is extended to the Friends of South Asia, an affiliate group within museum membership, in a message from Museum Director Janet Carding also acknowledging main exhibit sponsors CIBC, Cineplex, Moira and Alfredo Romano, and the Government of Ontario. In a letter to members published in the June 2011 issue of ROM Magazine, Carding asserts that the Bollywood exhibitions speak to the South Asian Diaspora of Ontario while illuminating for everyone the history of this increasingly international art form, and that as a museum of world cultures and natural history, we have something for everyone, and we are there for everyone.

As companion exhibition to Bollywood Showcards, one might expect Embellished Reality to address the cultural history of painted photographs in India, and perhaps trace the development of techniques from the earliest days of photography. Indeed, the exhibition is bookended historically by the 1860s, a few decades after the invention of photography, and the 2000s, well after the widespread adoption of colour photography. Promotional materials state that painted photographs exemplify a hybridity characteristic of modern visual forms in India, where past and present techniques have often been combined as new technologies are introduced. The introductory wall text goes further, establishing the centrality of the visual image among the extraordinarily diverse cultural regions of South Asia and arguing that the practice of using colour to embellish upon an existing photograph rather than merely enhance realism of black and white images is a uniquely Indian departure from other cultures historical use of similar techniques, one which suggests a divergent understanding of the concept of photograph as more than simply a documentation of reality. Through the use of colour and paint, sometimes applied liberally enough to almost entirely cover the photographic print, the introduction states that the makers of these works used photography to achieve the otherworldly goals of paintingwith some startling and beautiful results. (fig. 6)

This introduction suggests that the objects can be viewed equally as works of art as well as artifacts of Indian culture, and I was interested to see how one might organize such an exhibition. The H.H. Levy Gallery space is delineated by four glassed-in wall cases forming the northern and southern boundaries as well as one freestanding glass case forming the western wall (fig. 7). These appear to be permanent fixtures to the room. Four large vitrines sit on tables currently arranged along the central East-West axis of the space. The objects on display are hung on the walls inside the standing glass cases or laid on decks below the hanging works and inside the vitrines on the tables (figs. 8, 9). Works appear to be grouped according to case, although closer inspection ultimately doesnt bear this out. Light blue panels carrying exhibition subtitles and text denote each sections beginning and explain the rationale behind each grouping. Spacing between works in the show is regular and minimized, seemingly with an eye toward efficient use of available space rather than any clearly considered juxtaposition of works in relation to the wall/deck or one another. Extended labels occupy the spaces between or below works, except in one case where the label had fallen off the wall and was lying forlornly on the floor (fig. 10). Lighting is dim, yet reflections on the glass, indeed the glass itself, impedes close inspection or even satisfactory viewing of the often highly detailed work. The effect is overwhelmingly one of the standard ethnographic treatment, wherein objects are encased as artifacts produced by a culture distinguished mainly by is differences from the typical viewer, and valued as specimens of a type rather than

as works of individual or collective expression. As artist Fred Wilson observes in Constructing the Spectacle of Culture in Museums utilizing ethnographic exhibition techniques similar to these effectively transformed the works in his own displaysworks became exotic, they looked like something made by someone you could never know; the works in many instances were dehumanized because of the way they were installed, and the same is true here. Tucked as it is between large ethnographic displays of Chinese and Japanese art and objects, and indeed formed by the very casework which exemplifies an ethnographic approach to display, the H.H. Levy Gallery presents a challenge even to the determined curator who might question the validity or appropriateness of these modes of thinking with regard to exhibiting works of art.

Indeed, given the difficult preconditions of the space, curatorial strategies in displaying and interpreting the work become all the more important in the framing of the objects for the viewer. After all, as Debora J. Meijers observes in The Museum and the Ahistorical Exhibition, the museum is an institution which plays a decisive part in determining the significance of works of art. Based on the shows premise as set out in the introduction, perhaps a historical arrangement tracing the evolution of the form as it developed alongside photographic technologies would be appropriate. However a closer look at the section titles reveals that the exhibition is arranged ahistorically, without a linear narrative or clear chronology linking the objects in time. As a mode of display, the ahistorical exhibition abandons the traditional chronological arrangement, often with the aim of revealing correspondences between works from what may be very distant periods or cultures. [Meijers] Particularly since Embellished Reality includes international contemporary artists, it would make sense to arrange Embellishing Reality thematically, perhaps by exploring the range of strategies employed by the artists to combine paint and photograph, or by examining the various cultural uses for such works, for example. In so doing, the exhibition would fall into line with a curatorial tradition that developed out of turn-of-the-century interest in non-European art, when the ahistorical exhibition was seen as a way to demonstrate parallels between modern and so-called primitive art. [Meijers] In the process, ethnographers and art historians gradually came to regard the artifacts as works of art, a development which would appear to have relevance with regard to the treatment of objects in Embellished Realitymight it be possible to arrange the objects in such a way as to draw out themes common to a 19th century miniature painting and a 21st century digital print? However, the exhibition again confounds expectations, as it is neither arranged according to a single consistent theme nor a clearly related group of themes. Instead the section headers reveal a motley assortment of groupingssome focused on use, others focused on context, still others focused on technique, which would be fine if there werent many confusing instances of overlap between them and the groupings didnt seem somewhat arbitrarily determined by the existing casework.

The section headers within the standing glass cases divide the objects accordingly: Royal Portraiture, Nathdwara School, Bollywood and Contemporary Art, and Family Portraiture (fig. 11). Inexplicably, the freestanding glass case at the gallerys west end has neither a section header nor any explanatory text relating it to another section. Hung with a large textile backdrop of unknown origin, this case is treated completely differently than the other standing cases, and appears to contain a mixed bag of works which were perhaps too large to fit elsewhere in the show (fig.

12). The section labels on decks below the four vitrines read: Antecedents (with subheads Miniature Paintings on Paper, Paintings on Ivory, and a further subcategory, Cartes-de-Visite), Merchant Portraits, Courtesan Portraits (at the subhead level), and Black and White Embellishment (also at the subhead level). Despite the appearance of order implied by such labeling, it quickly becomes evident that there is so much slippage between categories that almost every section is populated by works which could just as easily have been assigned to a different section.

Other problematic decisions relate to the groupings themselves. The Nathdwara School section features information and objects that seem only tangentially related to the rest of the exhibition, with just one of the eight works on display actually being a painted photograph (fig. 13). Certain works were of such questionable relevance that I found myself wondering if they had been selected to fill space, or were somehow part of a campaign for inclusion by some interested party behind the scenes. And the inclusion of contemporary art, while a welcome added dimension to the show, is a complete surprise given the complete lack of any mention of it in the intro text or promotional materials for the show. The placement of three contemporary works within the case housing the single Bollywood showcard in the exhibition makes sense from a chronological perspective (fig. 14), yet strangely this case is situated in the middle of the exhibition no matter how one makes an approach, squandering a curatorial opportunity to provide a jumping off point for the viewer who may want to proceed to the Bollywood Cinema Showcard exhibition two floors up.

Many of the works themselves are indeed beautiful. Beginning with a stunning royal portrait from the 1890s which is featured in promotional materials for the exhibition, the show opens with a work by the most well-known artist of the Nathdwara School, Ghasiram Hardev Sharma, who was trained as a traditional miniature painter (fig. 15). In this image, the underlying photograph is almost completely covered in paint, with only the face, hands and feet, and part of the chair revealed. Other works in the show illustrate the extent to which photographic conventions impacted the composition and colouring of painting, such that straight paintings began to idealize and resemble painted photographs, although no underlying print existed (fig. 16). The painted photograph evolved from its earliest use as an expression of status and legitimacy sought by royalty to its widespread adoption by a rising middle class as a way to emulate high society, commemorate special occasions, and honour the deceased. With its ability to highlight and intensify the emotional impact of an image, paint confers an otherworldy dimension to photography which seems particularly well-suited to memorial portraiture, whether the intended effect is one of fantastic embellishment (fig. 17) or of a more subdued realism (fig. 18).

In the problematic Nathdwara School section, no further elaboration on the aforementioned well-known artist Sharma is provided, nor is there any real explanation on why this school figures so prominently other than to say that the works on display show how painted photographs were one among a range of formats embraced by Nathdwaras artists. Confusingly, the objects featured in this section appear to have been chosen based on their narrative value in depicting the origin myth for a sect served by Nathdwara artists rather than for any clear relationship to painted photograph form or history (fig. 19, 20). The sole painted photograph shown does exemplify one particularly interesting artistic strategy used by Nathdwara artists, that of cutting and pasting a pilgrims head onto a generic

devotional scene, thereby using photography and paint to personalize a mass-produced image (fig. 21). Produced in 1910 by the Bharat Art Studio, this image is a skillful synthesis of painting, photography, and collage which embodies a uniquely Indian expression of the form and function of painted photography at the turn of the century.

Fast forward to the 1980s and the section titled Bollywood & Contemporary Art, where introductory text explains how the vast arena of Bollywood advertising adopted painted photography techniques and conventions for their highly expressive potential (fig 22). When digital technologies came to the fore in the 1990s, the hand-painted advertising industry collapsed. However, a handful of contemporary artists have picked up where the advertising industry left off, experimenting with painted photographs in new ways. Works by Pamela Singh, P. Mansaram, and the partnership of Alexander Gorlizki and Riyaz Uddin exemplify three distinct artistic strategies in utilizing the painted photograph for personal expression. Since the 1990s, Indian-born Pamela Singh has used paint and assemblage to embellish and contextualize her surroundings in a series of self-portraits. However unlike the portraiture historically seen within the painted photograph format, Singh conceals her face, bringing greater attention to the details of her environment (fig. 23). Ontario-based artist P. Mansaram utilizes photography to document the architectural beauty of India where he lived as a child. Paint is applied to intensify the otherworldly magnificence of these palaces while heightening contrasts between art and commerce, tradition and modernity, splendour and decay (fig. 24). British-born Alexander Gorlizki has collaborated for the past decade with Jaipur-based Riyaz Uddin on a series of meticulously detailed works directly referencing the painted photograph format and its antecedent, miniature painting. Through the use of new iconographies, Gorlizki and Uddin fully realize the painted photographs potential for representing fantastical hybrid worlds (fig. 25).

Each of the artists produce works which reflect and extend the painted photograph format in ways which bring its history and development into sharper focus. Through the lens of contemporary art, it becomes possible to understand the historical works in deeper, more nuanced ways. For example, colonialism is merely touched upon in one extended label describing an album commemorating the coronation of King George V (fig. 26). Similar to how Fred Wilson desires to bring history to the museum because the aesthetic anesthetizes the historic and keeps this imperial view within the museum and continues the dislocation of objects from their true context, I feel it would have been interesting to learn more about how the contemporary artists appropriation of painted photography speaks to their personal experiences within this contested history. Incidentally, information on the artists who made the earlier works on display is even more sparse, although some effort is made to draw attention to the fact that an artist did make them through the attribution Unknown painter where applicable. It goes without saying that the exhibition would have been greatly enhanced by more information on these earlier artists backgrounds, training, and practices as well.

The objects in Embellished Reality make for fascinating viewing, although the jumbled organization of the exhibition resists and ultimately impedes both the seeing of the work and the understanding of its context. This is unfortunate, and a grave disservice to the objects, the artists, and to exhibition viewers. While the reasons for the current presentation of these objects may be tied to the difficulty of displaying artwork within the limiting confines of pre-

existing glass cases and other more subtle dimensions of museum politics, the curator could have worked within the cases to organize the show to better effect, through more consistent labeling and clearer hierarchies within and between groupings, for example. Fewer objects could have been displayed, particularly those with only tangential relationship to the exhibition topic, which would allow for more breathing room and perhaps better quality information on the history and context of the individual pieces. The sequence of the exhibition sections also seems ill-considered, jumping back and forth through time and between types; perhaps a loosely chronological arrangement beginning with antecedents and ending with contemporary art would have been a more helpful way to frame the overall exhibition, with detours in the form of subsections along the way to more closely examine topics of interest such as sociocultural context or painting technique. As a hybrid between the traditional historical exhibition and the more recently developed thematic exhibition, this curatorial strategy would seem especially appropriate given the hybrid nature of the works on display. Similar to Richard Hills description in Meeting Ground: The Reinstallation of the Art Gallery of Ontarios McLaughlin Gallery of how the design of the gallery space was informed by objects in the exhibition, the arrangement of Embellished Reality could itself be designed to reflect and reinforce the characteristic hybridity of the works on display. Such careful consideration of artwork placement and labeling would shape a more compelling narrative, the importance of which is asserted by Meijers in her favorable review of Peter Greenaways 1991 ahistorical exhibition, The Physical Self. Embellished Reality would thus become a more dynamic and engaging exhibition which brings the history of the painted photograph alive and demonstrates its relevance to contemporary art and culture. If one believes, as Fred Wilson does, that how things are displayed in galleries and museums makes a huge difference in how one sees the world, then a viewer who leaves Embellished Reality with a greater understanding of how Indian miniature paintings from the 1800s are inextricably linked to global expressions of art and commerce today would be a true measure of the exhibitions success.