It is growing increasingly irreverent and tiresome to hear Gautam Buddha and Mount Everest being used as reasons for Nepali pride. Both are geographical happenstances regarding which the Nepali nation made no conscious choice. When statements extolling Buddha and Mount Everest are made by a person as eminent as the Vice Chancellor (VC) of Kathmandu University, it reflects our national surprise of being Nepali. And it becomes a hopeless, thoughtless, ethnically tinged zeitgeist-mongering moment when the VC adds the Terai to the above two. He gleefully shared his happiness in having the Terai as a part of Nepal. The existence and apparent preeminence of such a rationale for patriotism is perhaps why Nepal needs federalism.
The event at which the VC shared his rather antiquated ideas was at an exhibition, aptly named, A Federal Life. It was jointly organized by the Kathmandu University Center for Art and Design (read: KuArt, did all the work) and the United Nations Development Programme (read: UNDP, spared some change). Given the VC’s speech, one wondered what these aspiring art students would produce. To be fair on the VC, he did claim to be a noob when it comes to politics, and for the longest time thought it didn’t really matter. I wondered if the curator was making an installation out of the opening ceremony itself.
In Nepal, reality is generally more fantastical than fiction and if art is a reflection of society, do we end up with fantastic art? Unfortunately, not always. The exhibition, featuring 22 young to very young artists, has a number of interesting and engaging pieces. As a collage of how youth understand Nepal’s current political impasse, it is interesting. As individual works of aesthetic choice and political commentary, most feel about as good as owning a Chinese replica of an iPhone. You know what it is, but you also know what it isn’t. Some pieces are thoughtful, others have a strong sense of their visual presence, while others are good at appropriating proven methods of conceptual/stylistic mimicry. Few have the ability to blend these elements into a cohesive whole.
The exhibition’s flyer states:
The objective of A Federal Life is to increase knowledge among youth on Nepal’s contemporary constitutional issues as well as to establish clarity and initiate dialogue among the citizens on the role of federalism within their national context. The programme’s design focuses on civic education in a way that supports active engagement and discussion on the concept of federalism and its governance implications for life in Nepal.
In the next section, in what can be safely assumed to be a part of the method of civic education chosen, it states:
The first phase, implemented on May 11th and 12th, was a workshop designed to educate local artists on the concept of federalism and the debate on federalism in Nepal, so that they could, thereafter, create contemporary artwork which expresses their perspective on the topic.
Two things should be obvious from the above statements. One, the exhibition is a conceptually charged agenda (irrespective of the debate on whether federalism is good/bad) driven by a development agency whose primary mission is to help Nepal meet its Millennium Development Goals. The second point that is implicit is that since “federalism” is the thing that one needs “clarity” and “debate” on and is what was intrinsically a part of the civic education (again, irrespective of whether federalism is good/bad), “federalism” becomes a form of/means to “development”. While this reviewer is not making a claim for or against federalism, this review is certainly raising a semantic question on association and meaning creation. It is also raising a question about whether the conceptual agenda behind the exhibition qualifies the art produced as propaganda.
A Federal Life: Exhibition
Without a doubt, the objective of the programme is to influence a particular segment of Nepali society. It is hardly surprising then to see that some of the paintings replicate Panchayat-era nationalistic imagery. The reappearance of such imagery might partly be because a national aesthetic to re-tool the nation’s visual imagery has largely been absent for the past few decades. However, the methodology of the workshop suggested that a good deal of lecturing and spoon feeding was used. This is evident in most of the paintings. Its clear that a lot of knowledge was shared, but little attempt was made to challenge the artists themselves to think and articulate. It left them ambivalent as to federalism itself, with few artists in the exhibit directly tackling the question of federalism or taking a stance on it. Instead, the general sentiment tended towards disengagement. Passing on the buck is probably not the most desirable outcome.
More starkly obvious (as if the VC’s speech wasn’t enough) was how dislocated most of the artists are from national politics. It is apparent that most cared little or knew barely enough. A number of the works come with artist statements that either state their lack of knowledge, express their indifference or avoid direct engagement with the issue of federalism. There is no work that is directly opposed to federalism, while a significant proportion suggests that federalism is the way to go. The primary reason cited is the resultant decentralization, equality and resource redistribution – all textbook statements that barely peer through the colours. The ideas are being used as placeholders, regurgitated spiels bereft of significance within the artwork.
It is questionable whether any debate centred on these works can be initiated precisely because of the weakness highlighted above. It could be considered a means to generate curiosity on what federalism actually means. Better late than never, one may suppose. In so failing to actually engage with federalism, the artworks fail to be the works of propaganda the programme had initially conceptualized. However, the semantic association of the organizers rings true even if the debate stutters. So overall, the programme perhaps could have done better in achieving its objectives, but can claim a modicum of success in meeting its set goals. But that is development for you.
There are signs of promise in most of the work, and an aesthetic sensibility in the artists’ awareness of colour comes through. The works are, overall, visually pleasing. However, if the artists aren’t able to internalize the sensibilities in themselves or in the world around them, their work will always be fancy-looking fakes.
Details on the exhibition available here:
The confusion, ambivalence and lack of political engagement in the exhibition reflects that of wider society as does the artists adherence to donor-driven themes. The review could have been even more interesting by exploring what conditions are needed for the production of radical or politically engaged forms of art in Nepal.