Namita Kohli reviews the works of Om Prakash Sharma based on 'Tantra'. And boy, is she impressive or what! Just to pick from hither and thither from her review-
I am really impressed, Namita. You press all the right buttons and use the right art-jargonese to be a well and fully-formed contemporary art-critic. I am sure all those words mean something but I am too stupid to figure out, so pardonnez-moi.
Now after all that trumpets and drum can we roll out the masterpieces of Om Prakash Sharma? Here is the one featured large in the print edition of the HT(regd. required)-
(note -that 'a' is not part of the work but from the article headline)
Are all those important words describing the work above? Out of all that fog of obscure art-lingo comes this?! Couldn't we just say that this is a rotten work of 'art', neither attractive in it's beauty or even catching in it's ugliness. That it is drab, shabby and without a glimmer of talent? Couldn't we just say that and move on and do something nice instead?
But I suspect that if Namita ever wrote such a thing she might not be invited to the right arty-sharty parties.
A curiosity- where does one find a textbook of cosmic geometry?
(all emphasis mine)
Some call it ‘abstract expressionism’; others insist it’s just a visual interplay of cosmic symbols -----“Tantra originated from the union of Shiva and Shakti, an intense practice of rituals and customs ------It delves into the source and the core of existence,” says the artist who works with the mandalas (geometric patterns), pure colours and cosmic geometry -----Thus was born Neo-Tantra, a form that art critic Suneet Chopra cautiously refers to as a broadly ‘aesthetic and visual exercise’ or ‘non-figurative abstract,’ but not based on scriptures -----Some critics even called it ‘architectonics’,” he says. With a metaphysical and mystic quality in their work ----In this “changing” context, abstract artists like Neeraj Goswami whose works delve into ‘formlessness’, also fall broadly in the realm of Tantra. “My work with mysticism is a means to self-realisation---
I am really impressed, Namita. You press all the right buttons and use the right art-jargonese to be a well and fully-formed contemporary art-critic. I am sure all those words mean something but I am too stupid to figure out, so pardonnez-moi.
Now after all that trumpets and drum can we roll out the masterpieces of Om Prakash Sharma? Here is the one featured large in the print edition of the HT(regd. required)-
(note -that 'a' is not part of the work but from the article headline)Are all those important words describing the work above? Out of all that fog of obscure art-lingo comes this?! Couldn't we just say that this is a rotten work of 'art', neither attractive in it's beauty or even catching in it's ugliness. That it is drab, shabby and without a glimmer of talent? Couldn't we just say that and move on and do something nice instead?
But I suspect that if Namita ever wrote such a thing she might not be invited to the right arty-sharty parties.
A curiosity- where does one find a textbook of cosmic geometry?
(all emphasis mine)
Comments