Do you show the old traditional work to a gallery, or what they will like more?

Namaste to all ji. I want to ask one thing from those who have approached galleries.

My own case: a gallery in Delhi asked for my work, and I sent the Mithila painting as it is done in our family, natural colours, fish and peacock, the old stories. They replied saying it is "very traditional" and asked whether I also do something more modern. I did not change. I said this is the work, this is what my mother and grandmother did. Nothing came of it.

But I am still thinking. Some people told me I should have sent a mix, old work plus some new style, so they see the range. Others said no, if a gallery wants you to become someone else, that is not your gallery.

So my question to you: when you went to a gallery the first time, did you show your real work or the work you thought they wanted? And how did it go for you.

Tell me honestly, I will not feel bad. 🙏

6comments

Add your reply to this discussion…

6 comments

Dani Okafor·1w

honestly the "very traditional" thing makes me so tired and you were right not to change. a gallery asking for your work and then asking if you do something "more modern" is basically saying they wanted the aesthetic of your tradition without the tradition, like the pattern without the meaning behind it. and the fish and peacock and the old stories in natural colours, that's not a limitation, that's the whole point.

I'm coming at this from watercolor and gouache, so a different world, but I get the same thing in a smaller way, people hear "watercolor" and assume it's soft and easy and decorative when actually it's the most unforgiving thing I've ever worked in, one wrong wash and it's over. so when someone calls your work "just traditional" they're doing the same move, flattening something that took generations to refine into a category they can dismiss.

the only thing I'd push back on is the idea that you have to pick between old and new at all. you can keep painting exactly what your mother and grandmother painted and still let it evolve, not to please a gallery but because you're a living person in the middle of it. that's not selling out, that's lineage moving forward. anyway nothing came of that one Delhi gallery but that doesn't mean the work failed, it means they weren't the right room for it. have you found any galleries or spaces that actually get what you're doing?

Karen Wessel·1w

The watercolor thing drives me up the wall too. People see a wash and think it just happened, like you didn't sit there planning every one of them. I do acrylics and I still get "oh that must be quick" from people. Sure, quick. Only took me three Sundays.

You're right about the pattern without the meaning. I don't know anything about Mithila work really, but I know what it looks like when someone wants the look of a thing and none of what's holding it up. Good on you for not budging.

Ramesh JhaOP·1w

"Only took me three Sundays" - ha, ji, that is the whole truth of it. People think slow work means nothing was done, but the slow is the doing. And you do acrylics so you know, planning is planning, whether the colour is wash or thick.

You said you don't know Mithila work. That is fine, because what you said next, "the look of a thing and none of what is holding it up," you understand it better than some who have seen it many times. Half the people buying see fish and peacock and think decoration. But the fish is not decoration only. In our tradition fish means fertility, good fortune, the line of the family. The pattern is a prayer. Take away the meaning and you have only a nice design, and a nice design any printer can make.

So no, I did not budge, and thank you ji for saying good on me. It cost me the gallery. But if I had changed, what would I be selling them? Not my mother's work, that is for sure.

Ramesh JhaOP·1w

You have said it very well ji. "The pattern without the meaning" - this is exactly the thing. When they ask for modern, they are not asking for new work, they are asking me to remove the reason the work exists. Then what is left? Only decoration.

And your point about people assuming watercolor is soft and easy, that is the same disease. They see the outside only. In our painting also, people think folk means simple, no skill. But the fine line work, the filling of every small space, one mistake and whole panel is spoiled. My mother would make us sit and do line practice for months before touching the colour.

One thing I will say to you also, since you are doing your hares and herons and not changing them, do not get tired of it. The galleries of today are not the only ones who will come. Keep the work honest and let it be seen where it is seen. Our tradition survived many generations without any gallery. 🙏

Niall Doherty·1w

Ah here, the "very traditional" line. Near every one of us carving anything rooted has got it at some stage. I do linocuts in Galway, hares and herons and boghills, and I had a gallery woman once hold up a print and ask could I "loosen it up a bit, make it less, you know, folk." I said it is loose, that's the hare, that's the whole hare. Same outcome as yourself and I'd do it again.

Here's my honest read. You answered a question they never should have asked. When a gallery asks "do you do something more modern," they're not asking about your range, they're telling you the work doesn't fit what they sell. And that's fine, that's information, not a verdict on the work. Someone who wants the family fish and peacock, the natural colours, your mother's hand in it, they exist, they're just not that room in Delhi.

On the mix thing, the people telling you to send half and half, I half buy it. Showing range is a real thing and a smart maker can do it without selling the soul. But here's the catch, the moment you send the modern one beside the old one, the modern one becomes the work and the old becomes the heritage piece they hang in the corridor. You'd be teaching them the old stuff is the quaint one. So no, I don't think you lost anything.

What I'd say is your mother's and grandmother's work is the whole point, not the entry ticket. Keep it as it is. Find the rooms and the people who come for that, and there are more of them than a Delhi gallery's email reply would have you believe. Took me a long time and a few bad patches to stop chasing the ones who wanted me to be someone else, and the work got better the day I stopped. Good luck with it, ji.

Ramesh JhaOP·1w

Ah ji, "make it less, you know, folk" - that is the whole thing in one line, no? And you said it is loose, that is the hare. That is the correct answer, even if the gallery lady did not hear it.

The linocut, the hare and herons and the boghills, that is your place the same way the fish and peacock is mine. If you take the folk out of it, what remains? Only the shape. The meaning has gone somewhere else.

What you said about the question, that they are not asking about range but telling you it does not fit - I have been turning this in my mind since the gallery reply came. I think you are right, and it is a relief also to hear it said plainly by somebody who has stood in the same spot. I sent the work as my mother did it and I would do the same again. So we are two fools together, and I am not sorry for it.

One thing I will say. The gallery in Delhi, maybe they were not the right door. There are people who want the old work as it is, they are fewer but they are there. Keep carving your hares. The pattern without the meaning is nothing, as you have said better than I could.