Domus Vulgus

By: Meenakshi Thirukode

It all starts with the question of Place. Place is an interesting piece of fiction. We define it in terms of the physical, the material, the psychological, emotional and the individual. Place - Our place, my place, your place. Apnavi Thacker explores the myriad complexities within the socio-political realm of this idea of Place, through her works on canvas and a site specific installation in her solo DOMUS VULGUS.

DOMUS VULGUS, implies House of the Common People. Such a Place is in essence an idealistic envisioning. This would be the thread that connects Thackers intellectual struggle and thought process. It also seems to have dictated the visual, formal and aesthetic means she has chosen to work with – graffiti and street art, often times on the surface of a canvas (if not on the walls of the gallery, as permitted this time around), as well as pseudo-urban installations. One particular manifestation is seen in her use of particular words in her canvases (DYSTOPIA, VULGUS, DISPOSABLE) that are not necessarily an attempt at being didactic but is more inclined towards a kind of catharsis.

There is a nasty metamorphosis that cities within so-called developing nations undergo that is unlike any process of development within urban centers in the West. In a deeply schizophrenic process Thacker genuinely attempts at using the formal ‘anti’ aesthetic of street art (Western Idealism) to express another kind of ‘anti’ – that of the politics, geography and social hierarchy’s in India. (Non-Western Idealism).

And so it makes sense to go back to Thacker’s beginnings. The struggle of Place is evident in the dichotomy of two very different cultures that she has been exposed to. Having grown up in Switzerland, the artist was drawn into street art and DYI culture. Subsequently her move to Bombay opened up an entirely different lens from which both   the idea, and the anti, of “urban landscape” meant. In particular, the artist was intrigued by the vast network of slum dwellings in the city. The idea that a vast network of 100 sq mt shacks flow meticulously, as a functioning system, defining the characteristic of an urban metropolis, is quite staggering. And it is within each individually defined 100 sq mt space/place that the most intimate and precious human acts involved with creating and nurturing grows while simultaneously they decay. In essence while the human inclination to nurture varied relationships from family and friend to master, lover and subordinate, there is this inevitable shadow of deformity, an underbelly of rotting, corrupt residues stemming from those relationships.

Now, graffiti/ Street art as she knew it in the context of Western culture is virtually non-existent in Bombay. Yet, the common factor that ties in these cultural separations’ is the fact that there is a sense of rebellion that both circumstances instigate within her work. Thacker’s literal installation of a rusted tin shack in the middle of the gallery space, complete with tarp, faded found posters and decayed wooden frames for the structure, is a manifestation of the rebellion as well. The residue we talked about earlier on, Glorified Decay, being reconstructed in the pure and neutral space of the institution.

Place exists simultaneous to its Nonexistence. This has been a matter of discussion with street art in particular, because it has for a long time now been established as a form of  anti-establishment. The whole idea of graffiti was anti-establishment before the establishment took it over and supported that idea.

At an individual level, Thacker’s act of spray-painting the wall apart from treating a 5’ x 7’ primed canvas like a pseudo wall, presents an interesting polarity of existence and non-existence of this idea of going ‘anti’ on place/space. The canvas is the glossed perfection, the ideal space/place. the dimensions are perfect, the space glorified, every sq foot of it is the ideal place, the valued place, economically and hierarchically in a manner similar to the idea of possessing a piece of urban land in Bombay. It reiterates that by virtue of systems set into place, you can own a piece of real estate and therefore every part of the structure. There is a nonexistence of the rebellion when layers of acrylic, spray paint and wheat-glued strips of aesthetically composed photographs of Bombay’s skyline deprecate the canvas on purpose. At the same time there is a subtle existence of the rebellion in the spray painted wall of the gallery. Intentionally or not there is an implied state of torn anxiety, and this anxiety triggers the dialog about Thacker’s work. This struggle is between the individual and the establishment because at a formal level there is an anxiety in expressing street culture and having to use the canvas or the walled space resulting in a kind of constriction and inherent risk.

At the macro level of social hierarchy (and the related urban hierarchy) the polarity of existence and non-existence is seen in Place/Space imperatives within the domestic realm. It is evident in how one demarcates the place as Home. Theres the living room, the dining room, the bedrooms – Master and Guest. In high priced real estate, the few sq mts that denotes the living room often times remains empty, unused and unlived, making for a blatant devilish play of existence and non-existence, while in the slum shack its diametrically opposite to the extent that’s its repulsive and shocking. Thacker’s shack exudes this paradox rather brilliantly. The basic structure is made of found material, identical to those found in Bombay slums. The interiors are as shoddy and recreate actual living conditions. In being a recreation, the shack exists as a doppelganger, a trace, and one that is completely devoid of any human activity. Its existence is nonfunctional reflecting rather ingenuously the lifestyle of the middle or upper class property owners in the city of Bombay. DYSTOPIA.