Osian's Auction Catalogue India The Passionate Detachment | February 2001

19 any fixed pattern in the creativity of an artist has its risks. Surprises might await us. The impulse of an artist can never be entirely reduced to a complete pattern. Unless we can chart with certainty every single work an artist ever created - a tall order indeed, especially for paper studies and the like - we must remain prepared to be astonished by the unpredictable. 3. Individual Style. If we ask the question, how a painter uses form and technique, the way in which he/ she approaches, visualizes and creates images, we are, in general, speaking of style. Style is, undisputedly, an important element in any artistic creation for recognizing its creator. Style can be analysed in terms of elements such as: line, mass, colour, modelling, spatial arrangement and the like. The distinct figuration, disposition, composition or mutual relations, are markers of style. Yet the analysis of style, its quantification with a view to a measured, discrete specificity, that might help us tie it up with a single individual and no other, is never quite possible. Style lies in the handling of method, material and subject matter - in other words, form and content - as a whole. No analysis can quite catch it - in principle. But a good, astute analysis can be immensely valuable; it can help us grasp the whole, through the parts. This is a matter of the analytical faculty training the intuitive sense. Sensitive stylistic analysis can also help one gauge subtle changes in style and assess whether a particular work is consistent with the style of a period in the development of an artistic tradition or an individual artist’s personal voyage. Though, admittedly, styles can be copied and faked, yet a detail-conscious, finely tuned insight into style will always be a key instrument in assessing authenticity. One might add in parenthesis here that authenticity can also be a relative matter, and genuinely so. Earlier art-cultures, which cared for aesthetic values as much as we do, were not as insistent on tracing a work to an individual creator as we are. Many modern artists, too, have relinquished the kind of unique and singular individuality that we prize today. Jamini Roy, one of our greatest moderns, claimed to be patua , a pata - painter in the old tradition. He had no qualms about almost exactly repeating an image for a new buyer. He worked with associates who, very often in his later career, participated, to a lesser or greater degree, in the creation of individual works, which then Jamini Roy would sign. He had achieved an astoundingly severe, unfussy style, easy to reproduce. It is easy to see why his work is favoured by copyists and makes collectors wary of him. But it is equally easy to forget that ’authenticity’ itself needs to be understood differently in different contexts. In the case of Jamini Roy we should, perhaps, look for degrees of authenticity, distinguishing works which are his alone from those, which are participatory. The latter may be less authentic, but they should not be declared inauthentic or fake. We could, in fact, - and perhaps we should - extend the meaning of authenticity in some contexts by thinking of authenticity as a centre extending towards a periphery with more and more grey areas. In the case of works such as the canvases from Early Bengal, which are assigned to individuals, this seems reasonable. It also seems reasonable in many cases to think of authenticity not in terms of individuals, but of schools and ateliers. The above thumb-rules are internal to the art-object, and may be termed interpretative considerations, implying historical and technical knowledge. They assume access to older works, in the original or in suitable reproductions. In this regard Osian’s is fortunate to have at hand an exceptionally rich archive of visual and textual data through HEART. Apart from the above, there are other considerations external to the work of art, which may be termed ’circumstantial’ considerations. One such is provenance: where has the work come from, how it came to be there - whom was it acquired from - and its previous history? Letters and other documents - sometimes by the artist themselves, and found on paintings given as gifts - give greater certainty to provenance. There is also what might be termed the element of associate details, which, along with other indications, can be helpful in judging authenticity. Frames, for example, have a history of their own, and can be dated. If a painting retains its old frame, this could give an idea as to the date of the painting itself. There can be other such associate details, which cannot perhaps be enumerated, but an eye to which can help identification. Take the ’placing’ of signature. Ara often signed his works at the back (besides the signature on the painting itself), while Swaminathan was not all particular about signing his work. Needless to add, however, that many of the above ’circumstances’ can be duplicated by knowledgeable but dishonest sellers, yet such is the bane of a market in art, with Indian art acquiring its worth also in financial terms. An inevitable requirement will sooner or later be that buyers should pay by cheque and insist on a certificate of provenance, so as to protect themselves and create a cleaner market place. Indeed, the participation of all art-lovers including buyers and collectors is a must for an informed and self-aware milieu of art. Osian’s invites feedback, knowledge and collaborations from all concerned, so as to help build a better system.