Looking at one of Kulkarni's pieces, a Peasant in the City, oil on canvas done sometime in the 1960s, we see a trend in modern Indian art in which the protagonist is featured as a part of an abstract background. Literally, the piece is a snapshot of a man and a beast, at night in a large urban area. The man is downcast, downtrodden, with no discernible ethnicity or age. He is a mixture of gray, and his elongated facial features suggest that he is, or has been, weeping. The single animal by his side could be a dog, a cow, or a representation of simply an "animal." The animal's front leg is extended, ostensibly onto the fence in which the man is leaning. The houses are abstract, made up of geometric lines and some color, designed it seems to indicate that they are lit. The moon is full, but there is a strange shadow appearing on the inside of the mood, one in which we are not really certain if a large tree or mountain is blocking our view, or if some figure is walking towards us. The blues in the sky, swirling outward, are somewhat reminiscent of Van Gough's Starry Night. The city is somewhat of a study in cubism, broken angles fading in and out of focus.
One of the striking interpretive issues of the piece is actually not the focal point, but the background. The way the city is portrayed seems to be a bit of a commentary on modern urbanism -- crowded tenements hastily put together, the individuality completely absent, and the lack of much color or decoration suggesting abject poverty, a coldness and futility. This is certainly enhanced when we move to the man and his companion. In a sense, a Peasant in the City is defined by its title, and while we know it was painted by an Indian, it could be any peasant in any city. However, perhaps Kulkarni was also reacting...
One theme that is rife within literature in the post-colonial period is that of the dehumanization of the individual. The Raj certainly provided India with structure, and the view that all things good were European. For Kulkarni, the peasant in the city is suggestive of the depths of frustration that the Raj left for India -- and thus the process of dehumanization is not precisely stuck with the British, but with what may have become of the cities in flux- especially for the peasant. In the new India, castes are theoretically absent, but in Kulkarni's world, the only companion for the lonely peasant is his trusty animal -- and that animal seems pining for something as well -- perhaps simply to be acknowledged and perhaps to offer solace.
Too, we can almost see this work as homage to a simpler time, a time in which the peasant culture was not only predominant, it was celebrated. Thus, Kulkarni gives us a dual purpose -- a modernist approach to Indian history combined with a modernist social critic of imperialism; all with very real, cogent images that transform the mundane into something quite unique and special. We do not really need to know why the peasant is sad -- it is enough to know that he is lonely, isolated and dejected in a new world in which he may or may not fit.
REFERENCES
Datta, S. (2006). K.S. Kulkarni: Life of Form in Art. Kumargallery. Retrieved from: http://www.kumargallery.com/forthcomingexhibitions/kskulkarni/kskulkarnireview.htm
Krishna Shamrao Kulkarni -- Profile. (2012). Saffronart. Retrieved from: http://www.saffronart.com/artist/artistprofile.aspx?artistid=260&a=Krishna%20Shamrao%20Kulkarni
