• re: Teaching art to kids in a remote Indian village | Part 2
    |   by Uji Venkat   

    Pallavi, I’m enamored of your philosophy on teaching. You have so effectively embraced and captured the voices of your students. You have created a space for them to explore their creativity as opposed to squelching it, as we often do in demanding that students conform to a formal and traditional curriculum. I’m very interested in where you started, as an artist before you began teaching.

    I understand your perspective that art is an empty vessel to fill with the viewer’s personal connections, but I wonder how you avoid putting yourself in your work entirely. Is your art always created to illicit a response from the viewer? As an artist myself, I often use art as therapy, release, or an outlet for my own emotion?

    You say that, “theorizing about art appears after the existence of the art object in question as a hypothesis, an interpretation.” Does your art speak to you more after is complete? Do you get to interact with it as a viewer?

    • |   by pallavi das   

      Hi,

      It's a great pleasure for me to replying you. I am trying best to answer your question one by one.

      1. you asked me about my background before an art teacher. So, as usually I've studied fine art in universities. I have completed my bachelor and master degree in painting and continuing my practice till now. As my practice, mostly I worked with painting,  drawing, photography and sometimes experiments with different mediums as any other art practitioners.

      2.  No, as an artist, mostly I don't make art which has distance from me. Now it may confuse you. Actually, the statement I made as an art teacher but not as an artist. I keep little difference between them. As an Art teacher, my position is always as viewer where i have no chance of  personal connection with the works been made by the students. So, as any other conscious viewer, I observe that the meaning of a particular art work generate by the relation between the Art object and the beholder.  And it may change time to time, person to person.

      But when I'm the artist creating my own art works, unlike 60s american conceptual artists, i deliberately avoid to keep distance me from the art object. Though I still know that my work may not translate exactly my visuals to beholder. But still, as an art practitioner, and especially being a woman artist, I feel my stand should explore my subjectivity through my creations rather creating an objective piece of art which meant to trigger to the association and experience of the viewer.

      So, as an art teacher I get the privilege to analyse the Art Function in our receptive world.

      And as an artist I rather enjoy the exploration of my subjective relation with the world.

      3. Ahh, I like your last two questions. You asked to the artist self of me. I enjoyed.

      First of all, I do not enjoy art theorisation as i am not an Art theoritician. Yes, I believe that the theory start after the art object as an interpretation. But being an artist i never try to interpret my works. I am kind of artist who enjoy the process, the methodology, the emotional part of it and believe that it is dead after completion. I guess most of the artist feel same with me as you also mentioned that your art is an outlet for your emotion. After it finish, it is past, lifeless or simply it is finished, but fresh for the theoretician to play with it's meaning. Meaning doesn't bother me while creating it. I look for meaning or experience when I am the viewer.

      Thanks and feel free to converse more. It would be my pleasure.