To,
The
Under Secretary (S&F),
Ministry
of Culture,
Government
of India,
New
Delhi.
Sub:
Reg. the Selection Procedure of ‘Junior Fellowship’ in the field of Visual Arts
(2011-12)
Sir,
With reference
to the recently held interview (August 2013) and the results announced in the
website of Ministry of Culture, we would like to bring to your notice, our
observations and certain reservations in the entire process of implementing the
scheme of granting fellowships in the field of Visual Arts (This is an open
letter which would be circulated through social media and
other forms):
v The applications
were invited during 2012 and a total of 808 ‘short-listed’ candidates were
called for the interview during the month of August 2013 (Graphics-113, Photography-37,
Sculpture-143, Pottery & Ceramics-6, Painting-439, Other areas-70) for an
available Fellowships less than 50 in ‘Visual Arts’.
v It is a general
practice for any selection procedure in Visual Arts, that certain number of
visual documents (images of works created during the past 1-2 years) are
invited along with the application, so that it becomes easier to shortlist the
applicants. In this case no such procedure was followed and the applicants were
asked to send only a project proposal. The procedure would work for the field
of literature or similar areas whereas for visual arts it is the ‘work samples’
which should become the primary criteria supported with an artist’s statement.
v This resulted in
a whopping number of more than 800 candidates called for the final interview
which was held for 16 days. So the average number of candidates interviewed per
day was more than 50. As we have witnessed the process, the selection panel
spent an average of hardly 5 minutes to interview each artist….!
v Since the
members of the jury have not seen any images or woks samples of the artists
before, they had absolutely no clue about the artists’ practice and concerns.
It is really surprising that even for the personal interview, the Department
didn’t mention in the letter asking the artists to bring any original works!
But most of the artists brought their works voluntarily. We wonder how it is
possible to select a Visual Artist for a fellowship by just going through a
project proposal without even looking at his/her works…! Practically it is impossible to read,
understand and discuss with the artists about the project proposal in detail
and also see the original works in 5-10 minutes.
v It is hard to
understand the criteria followed by the Department of Culture in appointing the
panel of jury who are supposed to be the ‘experts’
in that particular area. The jury appointed had absolutely no clue about the
contemporary art practice and finding it difficult to understand the basic
language and technical aspects involved in visual art practice. We didn’t find
any ‘expert’ belonging to Visual Art in the panel (they may be experts in other
fields). Some of them were asking awfully ridiculous and stupid questions and
it was obvious that they don’t have any basic information about visual arts.
Some samples: ‘aap ka photo dikhayiye…? (to be understood as images of
works..!); ‘aap ka kaam research oriented hai, to itna badha fund kyon
chahiye?; ‘water colour jo light se dark hota hai, wahi hai na?
v After witnessing
all these kind of drama and trauma, we think the artists’ community has all the
right to question the ability of the members of the jury as well as very
unethical system followed in the entire process of implementing the ‘Fellowship
Scheme’. With complete authority and due respect for the jury members as
‘individuals’, we would like to bring it to your notice that, most of the
candidates appeared for the interview are better informed and knowledgeable
than the members of the jury panel in the field of visual arts.
v We urge you to
consider these suggestions so that the procedure would be more transparent and effective
in future:
*
Make it mandatory to send certain number of images of the artist’s works along
with
the application and other documents.
* The images should become the
primary criteria supported with the project proposal.
* A well qualified team of jury
members should short list the candidates; the number of
candidates called for the final
interview should be limited, so that the jury could spend
more time with each candidate
going through the works and interacting with them.
* The jury members should be highly
knowledgeable, aware of contemporary art practice
and be open to discuss and
understand the concerns of the artists from various
geographical and cultural backgrounds.
* Most of the time the applications
for a particular year will be called in the next year and
the interview will be held a year after. (In this
case for 2011-12 is held during 2013 and
results announced by late 2013).
The ‘scheme’ should be fast tracked so that it is
implemented in the particular
year itself. It is because the artist’s proposals are mostly
relevant for that particular time
and the concerns and thought process could change in a
long period of time.
*
There is huge imbalance between the number of artists selected between
Performing and
Visual Arts. In this case only 52 Visual Artists
were selected (from 808 shortlisted)
compared to 148 from the Performing Arts..! The list of
selected artists proves that,
there is also a bias towards the artists
from South India which is strongly objectionable.
We
request you kindly consider the contents this letter as the concerns expressed
by a large number of young artists who are disappointed and feeling letdown
with the entire procedure of implementing the ‘scheme’ of fellowships under the
Ministry of Culture.
Thank
you.
Yours
sincerely,
not+in+Town..!.jpg)
