Raghubir Singh. Grand Trunk Road, Durgapur, West Bengal. 1988. © Succession
Raghubir Singh.

1.

In Secret Knowledge, David Hockney proves beyond any reasonable doubt that Caravaggio and other 16th century painters used optical devices to draw spherical objects and understand perspective. It is also quite well known that with the birth of photography many painters found themselves on shaky territory and either adapted or perished. In India today, as in the West, it is common practice for painters to use photographs or photographic processes in their work. But not much of a reverse osmosis is seen among Indian photographers. Has photography in India allowed itself to be influenced by other art forms? More people today have access to a camera than ever before, what with camera phones and the like. However, do we see an improvement in the quality of the photographic images in circulation? It might be appropriate at this juncture to take an overview of contemporary photography and see how it jostles for space in an increasingly segmented market.

2.

As India was slowly taking off to embrace liberal capitalism, some time in the early '90s, you had to be in advertising if you wanted to make money from photography. All rich wannabes wanted to go to Brooks in Santa Barbara. Advertising photography was stratified - fashion was at the top, industrial photography was at the bottom. While international photojournalists were more than welcome to come to India, local photojournalists were sort of looked down upon by the advertising fraternity. If you were a 'portraitist' in the West, that would in itself, be considered your primary label. An Annie Leibowitz is booked years in advance, for example. In India, if you were a portraitist, you hung a white curtain behind the subject if the photo was for a Saudi visa or a de-mat account and a red one if it was for a US visa. In other words, most professionals were portraitists because it made good business sense, not because they were exercising a choice.

If you photographed Bollywood stars and your images appeared in Stardust or Cine Blitz, you were regarded as a lower mortal by elite photographers. Celebrity photography, however, has always allowed for self-promotion. Comparisons between the best international celebrity photographers and Indian celebrity photographers, though, show the latter in a bad light. While photographers like Snowdon, Avedon, Lichfield, and Lachapelle have managed to capture stars in a variety of contexts, revealing telling features, moods, and histories, most of their Indian counterparts have not succeeded in surprising the discerning viewer. This is partly thanks to our Bollywood actors, who form a significant part of their clientele, and who do not believe in ageing gracefully. Most of them adopt the same practised poses, wear the same expressions, and almost always, want to look 'evergreen'. The only time Bollywood celebrities were shot uniquely and interestingly was for a funny campaign for a peculiar organization called Home Trade.com. Home Trade was a Fast Moving Financial Goods (FMFG) company, which was found embroiled in a scam and went bust.