Osian's Auction Catalogue The Masterpieces Series | March 2010

85 The Masterpieces SerieS 45 K. S reenivaSulu (1923 – 1995) Untitled Crayon and watercolour on paper, 1963-4 21.1 x 42.5 in (53.6 x 107.9 cm) Condition Preservation work has been carried out in 2010 by the Osian’s Conservation Department, Mumbai. INR 640,000 – 960,000 US$ 13,330 – 20,000 “Sreenivasulu recognized a kindred heart in Jamini Roy whom he admires deeply. While it is not unlikely that Sreenivasulu was immensely moved by the bold well-knit design and the compact use of colour of Jamini Roy, his work does not show evidence of any direct influence. There are points of similarity as well as of difference in both the conceptual and the formal aspects of their work. In the most typical works of Jamini Roy there is not even the suggestion of chiaroscuro. His composition is straightforward to the utmost degree, almost stark in its strength and contour. Likewise his colours are laid as flat areas, and the overall pictorial impact is one of both power and simplicity. In his search for the essential form he purges his work of all superfluity. Sreenivasulu’s approach is quite different. He delights in ornament, in minute details… On the other hand, both have been moved by the formal strength and simplicity of folk art in their respective regions. The Sukhalis of Rayalaseema may have had the same impact on Sreenivasulu as the Santhals on Jamini Roy. Both have derived sustenance from folk theatre. The ‘pats’, folk toys, terracottas from Bankura, Birbhum and Midnapur fascinated and effectively determined the very personal style of Jamini Roy, jut as the Kondapalli and Tirupati toys, the leather puppets and temple paintings moulded the style of Sreenivasulu. Lepakshi played the same role in determining Sreenivasulu’s early style as the terracotta tiles of Vishnupur and Danihat Sculpture did in the case of Jamini Roy.” – S.A. Krishnan, rpt. in Sreenivasulu, LKA Monograph, 1966, np. “In Sreenivasulu and his compeers you encounter folk forms thrust into a medley of unsuitable detail; you see them pulled, battered and thrown unfeelingly out of shape; these forms were certainly not of the folk vocabulary, and do not come within the logic of their visualisation.” – K.G. Subramanyan, rpt. in ‘Folk Art and the Modern Indian Artist’, in LKC 10 , September 1969, p.18.