I landed from Delhi and made my way straight to Show at Jehangir Art Gallery. After navigating the nightmare of Mumbai traffic, I was greeted by a buzzing opening preview—an eager crowd of familiar faces from the city’s art circle, all gathered to mark the occasion. The atmosphere was festive, the energy palpable, and it was a pleasure to reconnect with colleagues and acquaintances.
Yet once the formal speeches were done, the celebratory mood quickly dissolved into disappointment. Walking through the exhibition felt less like encountering a thoughtfully curated show and more like scrolling through a random Google search for “Indian art”—a jumble of images without context, hierarchy, or purpose. There was no attempt to explain why these works were chosen, or what larger narrative they were meant to construct.
With over sixty artists represented, the show became, in the local parlance, a bhel puri of artworks: a confusing mix of old masters, established names, and newly-minted “influencer-artists” and some really bad artists. To organize for star power alone does not amount to curation. Instead of a dialogue between works, there was no sense - paintings and sculptures put together competing for attention, and indifferent lighting that flattened rather than elevated the experience. What might have been a moment of reflection on twenty-five years of artistic journeys devolved into the visual equivalent of a college annual exhibition, where each work shouts only for itself—not in brilliance, but in desperation—at the mediocrity of the show.
Curation at its best provides coherence, rhythm, and meaning, weaving diverse works into a compelling narrative. At its worst, it reduces even strong works to fragments of incoherence. Sadly, this exhibition fell into the latter category. All works are jammed together like leftovers at a buffet. Star names were sprinkled in like garnish, but even they couldn’t rescue the mess. This wasn’t curation; it was a jumble sale.
What makes the situation more perplexing is the presence of a “senior curator, well known critic and cultural theorist” at the helm. The only explanation offered in the curatorial note was the phrase “an assembly of diverse voices.” But if the task is merely assembly, then a gallery boy (assistant) could have achieved the same result. Why position such a random collection under the guise of curation? The show squandered its potential, leaving behind only frustration and a sense of missed opportunity.
Perhaps next time “the curator” might take the responsibility of shaping a vision rather than simply arranging objects Into a chaotic marketplace—or better yet, decline projects that reduce the role of curation to little more than decoration as a glorified assembler for the wealthy.
( Text by Ai)
Delhi -2025
