Thanks to a Facebook post by art critic Johny ML.
While going through the ceramic creations by B R Pandit, one of the pioneering ceramists of the Blue Pottery style of the North, I was thinking about what the historian Susanne Huntington had written in her voluminous study on the Indian art. According to Huntington, we see only the excavated artefacts made of rocks and rarely of clay. There have been corresponding clay and wood traditions in the similar styles whose prime patrons were the local people. That means, the emperors, kings, chieftains and merchants patronised rock based art (the reason is clear because rock is the most enduring material which would carry forward the patrons’ legacy) while the ordinary folks bought the clay and wooden artefacts.
Here, you see these exquisite ceramics by a veteran Artist, which needs careful handling and maintenance. That means only those people who have the means to those ends can afford to buy them. These high gloss and technically complicated works of art by virtue of their vulnerability become rare therefore hugely priced that could be afforded by the elites only despite the claim that the material comes from the earth or earth itself.
In sharp contrast, I could see another set of baked clay products which are called craft in the same premises, patronised by the middleclass. These works are also slightly overpriced if you compare them with the same products available in the local markets during the festival time. There are some quality differences, definitely.
Art of the earth inside and outside the gallery becomes different in appearance and finesse. You can’t help it. Craftspeople have their limitation as they are supposed to mass produce their works for larger consumption. And the desi patrons don’t entertain too many design experiments going to them. They want it raw and earthy! Meanwhile, the divide between the gallery based ceramists and cottage industry-subsidy based craftspeople grows beyond bridging.
-JohnyML