|
THE almost-30 works of M.Tuvshinbayar shown at Xanadu Art Gallery are all called Space Seen, with a serial number next the words. Since artists are not expected to just “see” things, as you and I do, I guess these are meant to be creative visions.
Now this vision, this seeing with the third eye, is a notoriously
difficult word. Lily Briscoe, the painter in Virginia Woolf’s To the
Lighthouse, had to wait until the very end of the novel to “have had”
her vision, which was then left tantalizingly vague, perhaps by the
failure of a proper medium of communication. The aspiration of a work
of art to reflect the essence of the artist’s vision of the world or
the space around him — or ekphrasis — is the basic reason behind
creativity. Horace had famously related writing and the visual arts in
his phrase, “ut pictura poesis”, which my rusty Latin translates to
mean “as painting so is poetry”.
Tuvshinbayar does not quite make it easy for the viewer to grasp what
he sees or even if he sees things with the same eyes. What is his
dominant feeling? Agony or ecstasy? The creative license allows artists
to be torn by such emotional polarities, soaring to peaks and sinking
to the pits? In the present exhibition, the artist shows no dread, or
even reluctance, to keep us wondering. The thematic meandering has
meant that not many of the works touch the deepest chords, but one does
see fine craftsmanship.
Tuvshinbayar is generous with his choice of mediums also. Among the
works in paper, ink and acrylic, two were striking, with distorted eyes
(No. 11), and angry teeth (No. 14), staring with unfriendliness from
apparent doodles. There is no diagrammatic arrangement in the way he
puts down lambent recollections from his subconscious.
Then we go to paper and ink and his treatment of space changes. The
edgy self-absorption expressed through emphatic bands now gives way to
nuances of black on white, especially in Nos. 8 and 9. At times, the
space is expansive, teasing the eye with inflections of texture and
tone.
In comparison the geometric ones look stilted. The elementary
rectangles and triangles, as in Nos. 3 and 4, does not extend
Tuvshinbayar’s language. There is one Swastika (No. 2) but the surface
of the arms is so littered with triangles, circles, squiggles and lines
– all standing for haphazard human interference — that the
sacred/sacrilegious emblem has become bereft of meaning. No. 2 is also
thought-provoking.
The series of water colors on paper, particularly Nos. 15 to 18, show
the artist introspecting. He is in psychic turmoil. There are whorls
of passion/confusion. A tentativeness stalks the series, lending the
works a kind of wry vulnerability.
The mood shifts in No. 21, where acrylic is used on canvas. It is an
extremely pleasant arrangement of large dots in colors, but when you
stand in front of it and concentrate, you begin to feel you are facing
a swarm of bees, intensely ready to scatter away from their geometrical
permanence. On occasion, you may feel that the artist has been a little
too fussy with the neatness of arrangements, even perhaps a wee bit
indulgent towards the smart and pretty.
This impression persists with the medium-sized oils on canvas — Nos.
20, 23, and 24. They appear a little too planned, too bright to be
genuine. No. 22, printed alongside, brings one back to reality with a
bang. There are enigmatic and playful ellipses: scraps of shapes and
motifs that seem to stick out, as though only partly exposed, hinting
at more that is hidden, buried. From afar the space seen may look
neatly patterned with playthings, but you come close and these
innocuous-seeming, abrupt little shapes seem to be insects, unicellular
destroyers, maybe objects used by humans. The gentle seduction of their
quiet, capricious simplicity unobtrusively gives way to fearful depths.
They are like random excerpts rather than a montage rooted in the
dynamics of logic. Narrative coherence is subverted, and in that
playful mystification lies Tuvshinbayar’s success.
|