Are city artists not investment worthy?

Few years ago Souza''s paintings sold for Rs 3-4 lakh. Today, the same works are worth Rs 70 lakh. The Indian art market today is worth Rs 500 crore-plus. Art as an investment option gained momentum a few years ago and now there are banks offering advice on art investments to clients. However, what is surprising (and appalling) is that none of the works by Bangalore artists are seen as "safe-investments".
Sources claim that people are not willing to invest in city artists."They prefer to buy a 1'' by 1'' Anjalie Ela Menon for Rs 2 lakh rather than a 6'' by 5'' Yusuf Arakkal or a painting by SG Vasudev for the same amount," said a gallery owner. "It could be because their works do not appreciate as much as an MF Husain or a Raza."
A Husain that sold for Rs 2 lakh ten years ago is worth Rs 20 lakh today. A 4'' by 4'' Raza which was worth Rs 4 lakh in ‘97, would fetch you Rs 40-50 lakh today. Ten years ago a Yusuf Arakkal sold for Rs 15,000, today it costs Rs 2-3 lakh. "Yusuf''s paintings appreciated considerably in the last three years, but today they are stagnant," says a gallery owner. "But works of other senior artists from the city do not even feature on the investor''s list." This despite the fact that there are Bangalore buyers who invest up to Rs 5-8 lakh every two months or so.
Art appreciates due to various reasons: demand and supply; trading (the more a painting changes hands the more the price increases); rarity of the work; and awareness about the art.
But Yusuf Arakkal puts it down to "orchestrated marketing." He says, "If I want to be seen as a ‘safe-investment'' all I have to do is go to Mumbai for six months and manipulate the market. Mumbai and Delhi hold 75 per cent of the art market in the country. And South Indian artists have always been discriminated."
"Investing in art is akin to investing in the share market," says art investor Vatsal Poddar. "For example, a Husain painting might not appreciate as much as a Balasubramaniam. Still, you would invest in a Husain because you can sell it overnight if the need arose, unlike a work by Balasubramanium." Vatsal states difficulty in liquidation as a reason for city artists not being considered "safe investments".
Artist Milind Nayak blames the gallery owners in the city for the situation. "Some of the galleries here function like grocery shops. They should have the competence and expertise to advise prospective buyers. They neither invest in the works of the artists nor nurture an artist''s image unlike their counterparts in Mumbai and Delhi."
Arakkal dismisses the business of art investment. "During Van Gogh''s time there were many artists who sold for a very high price and were considered investment-worthy. Van Gogh himself did not sell any paintings all his life. Today, his paintings are considered a yardstick for art investment. Where are the other artists of his time?"
Meanwhile, those who possess a Souza are elated. After all they are sitting on a gold mine.
sudhapillai@indiatimes.com