Christie’s is down-playing the stakes for tomorrow’s sale of Indian Modern and Contemporary art in Mumbai but local observers are see the event as a potential turning point for the market. Here’s commentary for an Indian gallery owner:

The questions on everybody’s minds are, “Will this auction herald an improvement in the sale of Indian art and improved prices? Will it open up the market for international buyers and can we expect this auction to lead to a season of improved prices”? These questions are being asked for a very good reason, since over the years, it has been established that Indian art fares far better abroad than in India. So much so that a leading art gallery owner ruefully stated, that art sales in India have reached rock-bottom stages and many are resorting to auctioning the works of important artists abroad, to keep their businesses going.

Christie’s CEO Steven Murphy would prefer to keep the scope of this sale small bore, according to Bloomberg:

“The objective for Christie’s is to be on the ground,” Murphy said. “The sold total for this week’s sale is not the most important thing by any means.”

The sale is seen as an important bellwether of the health of the local art market, which went into steep decline after the Lehman Brothers collapse in 2008, said Girish Shahane, a Mumbai-based curator and art critic.

“Everybody who bought got their fingers burned, and a couple of art investment funds had trouble paying back investors,” he said. “A lot is riding on this sale. It’s really a marker of whether the market can move forward.”

The Financial Times offers some important historical perspective:

Christie’s is not the first to test India’s market for its own art. In 1992, rival auction house Sotheby’s held an Indian art sale in New Delhi, and sold works worth £1.2m – a hefty sum at the time. But the auction faced stiff bureaucratic resistance, while then still strict foreign currency restrictions hindered profit repatriation. Subsequent auctions of Indian art by Sotheby’s – like Christie’s – have all been abroad.

The newspaper also spoke to a few old India art hands:

But Suhel Seth, a brand adviser and art collector, said some wealthy Indians may hesitate to participate in an auction at home, amid the pervasive gloom over India’s faltering growth. “Given the economic mood of the country, a lot of people may not want to be seen in public bidding,” he says. […]

Mr Seth expresses scepticism, saying art is seen as elite preoccupation in a society still struggling to deliver basic services like education and clean water. “Companies won’t want to be seen splurging on things considered elitist,” he says.

Art consultant Javed Abdulla, who organised Sotheby’s 1992 sale, says India would need years to develop a genuinely informed, and committed art collector base that might also support public access to the arts.

“The bulk of buying is driven by people who feel they have arrived,” he said. “They have a big house, a German car and they feel they have got to have a contemporary Indian master. It’s a symbol of their status, and a cipher for their wealth.”

Christie’s India auction to rekindle nation’s art scene? (MyDigitalFC)

Christie’s Expands With First India Art Auction in Mumbai (Bloomberg)

Christie’s takes maiden Indian art auction to Mumbai (Financial Times)

The Economic Times warns that the supposed recovery in the art market has come too quickly to correct profligate and irrational behavior among collectors:

Consider that it was only a year ago that even works by the beloved Progressive Modernists were available for a steal at auction ; consider that the majority of Contemporary artists who were thought desirable when the going was good, are a tough sell today in both primary and secondary markets ; consider that there has been no trickle down effect to emerging art forms. A topheavy market may generate headlines, but it doesn’t speak for 99% of the market, which still needs its own adrenaline shot.

Semantics merely holds symbolic, not real, value. As much as the auction houses claim that collectors are buying and speculators are out; the truth is everyone, no matter what their net worth or disposable income levels, is buying to invest. Today, the art that sells has to be of the investible worthiness of real estate and gold to summon up buyer excitement . While that’s good news for Traditional and Modern art, which is finally getting its due, it doesn’t bode well for present and future art practitioners for whom the support infrastructure has contracted considerably .Continue Reading

Recently, the Telegraph tried to get to the bottom of why so many wealthy Indians were buying homes (and art) in the UK. Christening them the Bollygarchs, Clive Aslet describes the appeal:

Although India is moving very fast in economic terms, entrepreneurs do not yet have access to sophisticated capital markets, such as those in London – and if you have a lot of money, it is nice to be near it.

Over the past couple of years, it is Indians who have made the market for homes costing over £10m. In this, the newcomers have followed the lead of Lakshmi Mittal, who bought a town palace in Kensington Park Gardens for £70m in 2003. The suave and immaculate Cyrus Vandrevala, a technology investor in his 30s, who started Intrepid Capital Partners, lived at Claridge’s for six months with his heiress wife Priya before buying somewhere for £20m at the end of 2008.

“The wealthy Indian community are not highly leveraged and are therefore in a perfect position to buy property at a hugely discounted rate,” he has said.Continue Reading

In the New York Times, Akash Kapur explores the conflict in Indian culture that is drawing students and money away from the arts in favor of technology. It’s easy to understand the appeal. Young people want to succeed and the energy in India’s economy is in the tech sector:

As India grows richer, its culture is changing. The question is whether that culture will be defined solely by the nation’s new prosperity — whether a nation in the midst of a consumerist frenzy can maintain noncommercial islands of intellectual and cultural endeavor, and whether a population determined to get rich can appreciate pursuits whose returns are less immediately tangible.Continue Reading