In conversation with Suryakant Patel, Rasik Shah and Bhupen Khakhar on Art and Architecture
Apoorva: Prof. Patel, What do you feel about Bhupen's works?
Suryakant Patel: I know his work and I like it very much. His work impressed me because of its uniqueness. It was different from people doing routine Expressionist and Abstract paintings in Baroda, when we met for the first time.
Apoorva: I have always wondered if artists and architects can meaningfully co-exist as co-professionals. Did you have any discussion related to this?
Bhupen Khakhar: We have thought about it. We also feel that a seminar or meeting involving architects and artists has not happened in India. Here a discussion of topics would generate an interest in people. The reasons for this probably are that we have not given this serious thought of this sort of coexistence.
Now it has started happening in a way but I doubt if it is coexistence the way you mean it. I think, the only time when it has happened was when Charles Correa designed The British Council building in New Delhi and Howard Hodgkins did a mural which is a part of the building.
Suryakant Patel: Yes, it acts as part of the building and does not become like a small photo frame. The mural overlaps and appears to go in and out. I think that is a correct fashion. One cannot commission artists after the building is complete and ask him to do something on the walls. That is of no meaning. The problem is that this sort of work is often considered as mere decoration.
Apoorva: Baroda has a long history of good art and architecture for almost 200 years. The kind of participation that you are talking about is lacking here and also in the people educated from here.
Bhupen Khakhar: No, there are two things. What are you saying is a work of collaboration, working together. The point we pointed out is, seeing each others work and enjoying it. This has happened but the former has not happened even though 100 years have passed.
Apoorva: What you are saying is that there is some lack of understanding on the clients' part or on Government’s part?
Suryakant Patel: Not just from the government. To convince the client is a difficult job. Above all there is always this confusion about the choice of the artist or the architect who will collaborate. In this confused scenario where does the collaboration come into picture?
Bhupen Khakhar: I agree, This is a big problem.
Rasik Shah: Suryakantbhai, I look at it in a different way. See, we are talking at a very professional level, but even at the level of educating the artist or architect the interaction is lacking. At a later stage we do not treat it as an integral part. I think it should be built into our work culture.
Apoorva: In India, though art and architecture have existed simultaneously, there has been very little interaction even at the institutional level. In Europe Art and Architecture are not distinctly different entities. Here apparently it is the other way round, so what could be the reason for this?
Bhupen Khakhar: To a certain extent artists ignore architectural movements and vice versa. Speaking of which, I have ignored architectural movements like say the Postmodern movement. I would have known them then if I would have interacted with an architect whether this building is Post Modern or not. On the other hand in Art movements occur that perhaps an Architect will not be able to recognize or distinguish.
If you see now in Faculty of Fine Arts, the work has remarkably changed now. The directions are very different from what they used to be a decade back. Now, perhaps you will see some semi abstraction in the work. Mostly symbols which industrial societies use. I observe it in the Art field but I do not know much about Architecture.
Suryakant Patel: See, many forces are at work. One is the client, who gets a priority because he is going to occupy the space. You cannot impose things that he does not really like. Of course you can educate him to a certain level, but you cannot go beyond that. If the client is very appreciative then this is possible. I have always seen this happening. For instance, if I work for Dr. Kurien in Anand, the work is always published. We appreciate his feelings and we develop our works to the highest level.
Bhupen Khakhar: We also do not have any experimenting museums here in India. Today, in Europe, museums initiate numerous experiments. Here, are no funds available for such activities. Museums act as institutions providing a forum for such related activities. It becomes difficult for an individual to come up with funds. This has not developed yet.
Suryakant Patel: Here, bureaucracy is the greatest obstruction.
Rasik Shah: If we look at the European history of art and architecture, let's say in 1915-20 and about Corbusier, Picasso, etc. Their work reflected each others influence. These movements and influences have not occurred here. I feel is there is a big gap.
Bhupen Khakhar: No, It has occurred slightly. In art an inquiry into the indigenous way of painting has happened, Something that relates to our things that we see around. Similarly in architecture also our climate and our materials and I suppose our "pol" housing and all I could see the beginnings somewhere.
Suryakant Patel: It is happening. After all, it is continuity of our glorious history.
Bhupen Khakhar: People have realized that making big boxes is of no use. Now in India the use of spaces is different. In India, we use bedrooms mainly at night. The drawing room and kitchen are the most heavily used. So architecture has evolved and people have accepted not to have doors between kitchen and dining which was happens in Europe.
Suryakant Patel: Earlier, if your architecture looked Western, it was considered progressive. For appreciation, it had to have the Western or European stamp. Now, thankfully, it is different. Architects do explore regional expressions and reinterpret them.
Apoorva: Simultaneously, I believe a similar movement had also happened in Art?
Bhupen Khakhar: It had happened in 1950. Our Indian artists who had gone to Europe, were influenced by Europe. People in India found it very exotic because for we were seeing it for the first time.
Many artists have come back and most of them have come back to our own roots. So there is also a change there.
Apoorva: What could be the reason for this simultaneous shift in both the fields?
Suryakant Patel: The thought process is a continuous process, it may be in literature, it may be in art, it may be in architecture.
Bhupen Khakhar: Politics also. In the sixties, Jawaharlal Nehru & Kennedy always talked about International relations.
But now things are very different. Now everyone thinks about their region, their country.
Rasik Shah: I think that is a very crucial when we talk about regionalism.
Suryakant Patel: I believe that is the right way of looking at your material and technology. If we cannot make bricks the way Britain does then why worry? We should use our bricks in the best way you can.
Apoorva: So, instead of aspiring to some other standards we are now setting our own Standards?
Bhupen Khakhar: Yes, and slowly we will set our own aesthetics also.
Apoorva: Prof. Patel, What do you feel about Bhupen's works?
Suryakant Patel: I know his work and I like it very much. His work impressed me because of its uniqueness. It was different from people doing routine Expressionist and Abstract paintings in Baroda, when we met for the first time.
Apoorva: I have always wondered if artists and architects can meaningfully co-exist as co-professionals. Did you have any discussion related to this?
Bhupen Khakhar: We have thought about it. We also feel that a seminar or meeting involving architects and artists has not happened in India. Here a discussion of topics would generate an interest in people. The reasons for this probably are that we have not given this serious thought of this sort of coexistence.
Now it has started happening in a way but I doubt if it is coexistence the way you mean it. I think, the only time when it has happened was when Charles Correa designed The British Council building in New Delhi and Howard Hodgkins did a mural which is a part of the building.
Suryakant Patel: Yes, it acts as part of the building and does not become like a small photo frame. The mural overlaps and appears to go in and out. I think that is a correct fashion. One cannot commission artists after the building is complete and ask him to do something on the walls. That is of no meaning. The problem is that this sort of work is often considered as mere decoration.
Apoorva: Baroda has a long history of good art and architecture for almost 200 years. The kind of participation that you are talking about is lacking here and also in the people educated from here.
Bhupen Khakhar: No, there are two things. What are you saying is a work of collaboration, working together. The point we pointed out is, seeing each others work and enjoying it. This has happened but the former has not happened even though 100 years have passed.
Apoorva: What you are saying is that there is some lack of understanding on the clients' part or on Government’s part?
Suryakant Patel: Not just from the government. To convince the client is a difficult job. Above all there is always this confusion about the choice of the artist or the architect who will collaborate. In this confused scenario where does the collaboration come into picture?
Bhupen Khakhar: I agree, This is a big problem.
Rasik Shah: Suryakantbhai, I look at it in a different way. See, we are talking at a very professional level, but even at the level of educating the artist or architect the interaction is lacking. At a later stage we do not treat it as an integral part. I think it should be built into our work culture.
Apoorva: In India, though art and architecture have existed simultaneously, there has been very little interaction even at the institutional level. In Europe Art and Architecture are not distinctly different entities. Here apparently it is the other way round, so what could be the reason for this?
Bhupen Khakhar: To a certain extent artists ignore architectural movements and vice versa. Speaking of which, I have ignored architectural movements like say the Postmodern movement. I would have known them then if I would have interacted with an architect whether this building is Post Modern or not. On the other hand in Art movements occur that perhaps an Architect will not be able to recognize or distinguish.
If you see now in Faculty of Fine Arts, the work has remarkably changed now. The directions are very different from what they used to be a decade back. Now, perhaps you will see some semi abstraction in the work. Mostly symbols which industrial societies use. I observe it in the Art field but I do not know much about Architecture.
Suryakant Patel: See, many forces are at work. One is the client, who gets a priority because he is going to occupy the space. You cannot impose things that he does not really like. Of course you can educate him to a certain level, but you cannot go beyond that. If the client is very appreciative then this is possible. I have always seen this happening. For instance, if I work for Dr. Kurien in Anand, the work is always published. We appreciate his feelings and we develop our works to the highest level.
Bhupen Khakhar: We also do not have any experimenting museums here in India. Today, in Europe, museums initiate numerous experiments. Here, are no funds available for such activities. Museums act as institutions providing a forum for such related activities. It becomes difficult for an individual to come up with funds. This has not developed yet.
Suryakant Patel: Here, bureaucracy is the greatest obstruction.
Rasik Shah: If we look at the European history of art and architecture, let's say in 1915-20 and about Corbusier, Picasso, etc. Their work reflected each others influence. These movements and influences have not occurred here. I feel is there is a big gap.
Bhupen Khakhar: No, It has occurred slightly. In art an inquiry into the indigenous way of painting has happened, Something that relates to our things that we see around. Similarly in architecture also our climate and our materials and I suppose our "pol" housing and all I could see the beginnings somewhere.
Suryakant Patel: It is happening. After all, it is continuity of our glorious history.
Bhupen Khakhar: People have realized that making big boxes is of no use. Now in India the use of spaces is different. In India, we use bedrooms mainly at night. The drawing room and kitchen are the most heavily used. So architecture has evolved and people have accepted not to have doors between kitchen and dining which was happens in Europe.
Suryakant Patel: Earlier, if your architecture looked Western, it was considered progressive. For appreciation, it had to have the Western or European stamp. Now, thankfully, it is different. Architects do explore regional expressions and reinterpret them.
Apoorva: Simultaneously, I believe a similar movement had also happened in Art?
Bhupen Khakhar: It had happened in 1950. Our Indian artists who had gone to Europe, were influenced by Europe. People in India found it very exotic because for we were seeing it for the first time.
Many artists have come back and most of them have come back to our own roots. So there is also a change there.
Apoorva: What could be the reason for this simultaneous shift in both the fields?
Suryakant Patel: The thought process is a continuous process, it may be in literature, it may be in art, it may be in architecture.
Bhupen Khakhar: Politics also. In the sixties, Jawaharlal Nehru & Kennedy always talked about International relations.
But now things are very different. Now everyone thinks about their region, their country.
Rasik Shah: I think that is a very crucial when we talk about regionalism.
Suryakant Patel: I believe that is the right way of looking at your material and technology. If we cannot make bricks the way Britain does then why worry? We should use our bricks in the best way you can.
Apoorva: So, instead of aspiring to some other standards we are now setting our own Standards?
Bhupen Khakhar: Yes, and slowly we will set our own aesthetics also.
