• re: Teaching art to kids in a remote Indian village | Part 2
    |   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.

    • |   by Uji Venkat   

      Hi Pallavi,

      I love how open minded you are in your approach to teaching and to your students' work. When did you choose to become a teacher? I mean, as opposed to remaining solely an artist?

      On the contrary, I also appreciate how you continue to make your own art personal. I agree that there is strength in the vulnerability of who we are and what we believe. I too, see art as an exploration of my trials and tribulations. It is from unique, personal views that art creates an impact on society.

      You brought up the beautiful idea of transference. A piece has life born out of it's artist mind and heart but as soon as it is complete, a viewer must breathe new life into it. It is first an receptacle, and then a vessel based on the eye of the beholder. Artists and viewers are required for art to have life. Without that line of communication, art loses its purpose, to see and be seen.