Throughout my visit to the “Modernism in the Ganges” exhibit, I took note of the different ways in which photographic art could be used to convey a narrative, keeping in mind my previous experience at the Miskin Gallery. While Sternberger’s photographs kept the focus on key facial expressions of different public figures, the exhibit at the Met was clearly more dedicated to depicting a lifestyle, particularly that of post-colonial India, and its living conditions.
An immediate quality present in all Raghubir Singh’s works was definitely the aspect of rawness in each photograph. Though some photographs, particularly the “boy at the bus stop,” and the “pedestrians” works did include some characters looking at or around the camera, as a general matter, Singh’s works give the impression of observation, or capturing an authentic moment of post-partition Indian society. In a certain sense, Singh’s collection seems like what an average person in India would photograph on their phone, had they had smartphones in his time. Each photograph lacks an organization usually associated with photography, and instead provides a sense of reality, as if the camera was merely a pair of glasses.
One of the ways in which Singh was able to successfully capture the reality of post-colonial India had to do with the diversity of his works. Within the collection, Singh incorporated photographs that captured the poverty related, everyday struggles that the people of India endured on a daily basis. The photograph “Housewife” depicts what seems to be an ordinary housewife, dressed in a most likely ethnic attire, performing some household chore as she stands in a room where rags of clothing are drying near walls with visible accumulations of dust and dirt. As Singh probably intended, this photograph displays poverty and a poor material standard of living. On a lighter note, many works in Singh’s collection, though still exhibit the same tone of poverty, shift the focus to the cultural unity of the people. Works such as the “Ganapati Immersion” are clearly photographs aimed at emphasizing the appreciation and practice of the Indian culture, in spite of the commonality of their poor living conditions. With some light research, I discovered that the people in this photograph are participating in an aquatic tribal dance around a statue of Lord Ganesha, the Lord of Beginnings and the Remover of Obstacles of both material and spiritual kinds, as part of the popular Ganesh Festival.
With the kind of observational photos that Raghubir Singh included in this exhibit, incorporating such a diverse depiction of India emphasizes the wholeness of the post-colonial Indian culture, and suggests that though the people experienced unimaginable poverty and subpar living conditions, their culture stayed intact. In fact, as it relates to photography, one thing that we cannot conclude from photographs such as Housewife is the attitude and worldview of the people. Though living was undoubtedly a matter of toil and hard work, something that citizens of the developed world find difficult to imagine, the photographs indeed fail to capture the emotional and spiritual content of post-colonial Indian society, but instead, offer an interpretation of Singh’s take on the state of India after independence from the British.
Ronald Osherov
I enjoyed and agree with how you mentioned that Singh’s photographs were meant to capture reality, rather than display people/objects in different lights as many other photographs do. Where many photographs seek to disilude, Singh’s photgraphy gives us a very real look at a place that is rarely given its share of attention given its significance. Your write-up was a pleasure to read and I look forward to reading your future writing.
Ronald, I couldn’t agree more with your closing statement when you basically sum up the essay as a whole. ” diverse depiction of India emphasizes the wholeness of the post-colonial Indian culture, and suggests that though the people experienced unimaginable poverty and subpar living conditions, their culture stayed intact.” Very well said, I couldn’t agree more. Throughout my own exhibition of the exhibit I questioned this thought of “struggle” because it seemed to naive of me since the culture stayed so in place. Really something to keep in mind. Great Blog!
Ronald, I love the way you described Raghubir’s shots in relation to observing vs. interpreting reality. I felt the same way you did; that Singh’s photography were works of mere observation, but I feel like you definitely voiced your thoughts a lot more eloquently than I did! Your thoughts on Singh’s failure to capture the true emotions behind the community of post-colonial India had me thinking about my own response to this prompt. I thought a certain emotion seeped through many of Singh’s photographs, but perhaps I was looking at it from too narrow a perspective. After reading your response, I found myself asking: did I really see an emotion that was able to capture the emotional and spiritual content of a post-colonial India? Or was I only seeing the emotion of a single individual, or strictly just Singh himself?
I found your blog post very illuminating. I also found the picture “Housewife” fascinating. I understand where you’re coming from in your view that Mr. Singh did not capture the emotional and spiritual standpoint of post-colonial India but rather depict the reality of life in that time. I’m not sure I agree with you on this point- I found many of the pictures to evoke a feeling. For instance, the photograph Dhabewallah or Professional Lunch Distributor, to me, evokes the sense of independence that the people in this time had.
On a side note, I appreciate how you compared this exhibit to the Mishkin gallery.