Give photography a shot

The recent launch of Raghu Rai’s book, The Tale of Two, An Outgoing and An Incoming Prime Minister, has been creating ripples in Indian photography circles.

The book, which juxtaposes photographs of Manmohan Singh and Narendra Modi at party meetings shortly before the recent elections, builds around the contrast between the two leaders’ public persona, position in their respective parties and their vastly different emotions in the days leading up to the elections.

Notwithstanding the somewhat dubious political underpinning of the publication, it is undoubtedly a significant volume, specifically because it marks the septuagenarian’s return to his political photography roots after over a quarter of a century.

Raghu Rai is, and has been for a while, the indisputable poster boy of Indian photography. His unchallenged position at the helm of the photographic medium’s history in the country has been validated again and again, sometimes by the Foundation Henri Cartier-Bresson and Magnum Photos and on other occasions by the Padma Shri.

Yet, despite his tremendous success and repute as a practitioner, both in the national and international context, art investors and collectors still hesitate to purchase an original Rai print to add to their collection.

This trepidation is unrelated of course to Rai’s prowess as an artist and more to do with the status of photography in the contemporary Indian (and global) art scene, which typically positions picture-making at a rung lower than more conventional medium-based art.

As a result of this systematic disregard for photography by the art industry, returns from investments made in the field are also considerably lower than those made on paintings or sculptures.

Nascent stage The Indian contemporary photography market can, at best, be described as ‘nascent’ and largely undervalued. This is not to say that fruitful efforts have not been made to ‘assimilate’ it under the broad ambit of contemporary art in recent times. Most well regarded galleries in the country currently include a couple of photographers in their roster.

Recently found art establishments, such as PhotoINK (New Delhi) and Tasveer (Mumbai, Delhi, Bangalore), have dedicated themselves entirely to photography.

The onslaught of a variety of new photo fairs, most notably the newly-launched FOCUS Photo Festival (Mumbai) and the now two-year-old Delhi photo festival, have been well planned interventions into public spaces that have brought fresh attention to photography as an art form.

The Indian photography circuit has itself expanded considerably in the past few years (especially since the introduction of digital technology) and is currently speckled with young, ambitious, well-informed and trained practitioners. Its materialisation in the global scene (in a post-Raghu Rai scenario) has been cemented by Dayanita Singh’s recent exposition at the 55{+t}{+h} Venice Biennale and her consequent solo show at the Hayward Gallery in London, which were both a first by an Indian photographer.

Tepid investor interest Yet, despite its many recent triumphs and the obvious vitality of the ‘industry’, Indian photography still falls just a little short of favour in the eyes of the local art investor.

At the root of this seemingly inexplicable unpopularity lies the longstanding issue of reproducibility with regard to art.

The fundamental logic at the heart of investing in art hinges crucially on the uniqueness and, thus, the exclusivity of the art object purchased.

It is because being matchless is a mark of value that rare artworks, unseen paintings, or unusual works by recognised artists, are often considered desirable in the market scenario.

On the other hand, mass reproduction (an option available to photography) has historically been considered a detriment to artistic value.

Interestingly, photography is by no means the only reproducible form of art in the market today. Most contemporary artists who work in large formats use studio setups that resemble factory manufacturing units and frequently employ moulds and other forms of duplicating mechanisms for forging various individual elements in their works.

Subtly modified, ‘duplicated’ versions of signature works by well-known artists are also fairly common in the contemporary art market.

The overwhelming surge in the usage of digital prints and other forms of computer-generated graphics in contemporary art, has led to the possibility of mechanically reproducing almost all forms of art today.

That this has not reduced the overall artistic aura of mediums other than photography is perhaps the clearest exemplification of the latter’s marginalised position.

Affordable avenue This grossly underrated status of photography is, however, also advantageous to art investors in a number of ways. Being considerably affordable, photography is a fairly safe point of initiation for investors looking to turn to art for the first time. In comparison to the still astronomical figures required for works by renowned Indian artists in traditional mediums, photographic prints of even well established professionals in the field, such as Raghu Rai, Dayanita Singh, Ketaki Seth and Sheba Chachhi, all fall within the ₹1-5 lakh bracket.

Others such as Prabudhha Dasgupta and Pablo Bartholomew, who are equally renowned, may be acquired for even less.

Being a field largely ignored by buyers, advice and attention regarding investment options come willingly from gallery owners. Also, importantly, if the purpose of your acquisition is to a large extent for purely ornamental purposes, then photography, which works well as a decorative element in most average houses, is undeniably a ‘safe’ bet.

Ground rules

When venturing into investing in photography, it is best to keep a few ground rules in mind. Photographs are sold in ‘editions’, which is a term used to refer to the pre-stipulated number of prints of an individual photograph that the photographer wishes to publish. The price of a print is inversely related to the number of editions it is stated to have.

As a neophyte investor, it is essential to confirm the number of editions made/declared to be made. This will directly determine the return you may expect from it, in time. Also crucial is the need to ascertain how far back the date of the actual negative is from the date of the print in question.

The writer is an art critic based in New Delhi

COMMENT NOW