|
Contemporaries |
Chitralekha.org
MUKUL DEY ARCHIVES |
|
|
||
Quinquennial Report of the Government School of Art, Calcutta for the years 1927-28 to 1931-32 Editor’s Note
The Quinquennial Report of the Government School of Art, Calcutta for the years 1927—1932, which is reproduced here is a twenty-one page document created by Mukul Dey during his tenure as the first Indian Principal of that institution. The Report was printed at the Bengal Government Press in 1933. The record has a main body of text comprising twelve pages, and another nine pages comprising Appendices A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H. Out of these, C, D, E, F and G being merely of routine financial statements in nature, are omitted in this web page. The Report is important for various reasons. Firstly, at the very outset, it gives a brief history of the institution, which helps to set a perspective and context before the reader. It recalls the contribution by such eminent personalities as Rajendra Lal Mitra, Jotindra Mohan Tagore and Justice Pratt in forming the Industrial Art Society, which was instrumental in establishing the School of Industrial Art in Calcutta way back in 1854, as a private enterprise. This privately run School of Industrial Art was the predecessor of Government School of Art, Calcutta. Secondly, it was during the period under review that graphic art and printmaking received a thorough encouragement at this school for the first time. True, prior to Mukul Dey’s tenure as its Principal, wood-engraving and lithography were part of the School curriculum, but printmaking by the artists themselves as an integral part and pre-requisite of practicing graphic art was a notable contribution of Mukul Dey. In this regard it may not be out of place to mention that Dey had been doing his own printmaking since 1916 in the USA when he was elected a member of Chicago Society of Etchers—he was instrumental in introducing this art at the Bichitra Studio at the house of the Jorasanko Tagores, a year later in 1917. Mukul was introduced to the art of printmaking at the studio of American artists Bertha E. Jaques and James Blanding Sloan at Chicago. Thirdly, the Quinquennial Report tells us the effort exercised by the then Principal and his staff in organizing various exhibitions in the School premises so that the students may get a first-hand opportunity to study the works by master artists. At least two such exhibitions proved to be quite historic, to say the least. The first one was by Jamini Roy in September 1929 and the other by Rabindranath Tagore in February 1932. [Jamini Roy’s exhibition was opened by Sir Alfred Watson, then Editor of The Statesman, Calcutta. What Watson said in his inaugural speech (vide. http://www.chitralekha.org/jamini.htm) may well even now have not lost its relevance as far as art patronage in India is concerned]. Fourthly, the Report records effort by the contemporary management in trying to introduce a women’s section at the Government Art School, Calcutta. Though it took its own time to take a shape during the later years of Mukul Dey’s tenure, yet it is important to note that this initiative was taken towards the right direction in early 1930s. In this regard, it is pertinent to record that Sm. Karuna Saha, who later on was married to noted photographer Sambhu Saha, was one of the very first students to join this women’s section at the Art School. Not that alone, the Principal had encouraged his own wife Bina to join the women’s section as well. The last but not the least, the Report provides some candid insight into the contemporary student unrest and the internal politicking that the institution had to suffer. In the background, the problem was brewing for quite sometime. Artist Jamini Prakash Gangooly, a relative of the Jorasanko Tagores, was officiating as the acting Principal of the Government School of Art since last Principal Percy Brown’s retirement. It was anticipated by many influential Calcutta men that Gangooly will ultimately get the positive nod from the Government. Unfortunately that never did happen. Some of the real cultured and more influential men of London thought otherwise, who ultimately decided the appointment in Mukul Dey’s favour. Some of these Englishmen were: E. B. Havell, Laurence Binyon, Sir George Clausen, Muirhead Bone and Henry Tonks, just to name a few. [At Mukul Dey Archives we have a number of these written recommendations in their original manuscript, which we intend to upload at a future point of time as a set of most interesting evidence in favour of Mukul Dey]. Mukul Dey, the new Principal, was facing severe animosity right from his joining the institution. To complicate the matters further, a certain section of the students at this time started an agitation against Principal Dey. These boys were found to be rather lax in their relationship with the female models those were brought to the School for the purpose of the life class. These models, sex-workers mostly, were regularly taken to the Government Art School hostels by the students. The Principal protested, the students organized agitations, the Government hostel was abolished and the figure-study class, using a female model was abolished as well with it. The Principal had to rusticate a few students—artist Bhabesh Chandra Sanyal being one of them, who later established himself in Lahore, and much later in life, narrated his impression about this incident in his reminiscences. [Interested persons may please consult The Vertical Woman: Reminiscences of B. C. Sanyal, Volume I, 1998, National Gallery of Modern Art, New Delhi and Amar Katha, reminiscences of Mukul Dey in Bengali, Visva-Bharati, 1995]. Satyasri Ukil
Want to do research work at Mukul Dey Archives? Click
here for details. |
