Interview with K. P. Soman, artist, New Delhi - about art and activism interviewed by Nikolaj Kilsmark Soman, I would like you to tell us about your art works and the context of your work. Art is always for the public. If the public do not get art education, public art projects become useless. This will only help the artist to make his/her image and not help the public. In India, most public art projects are for the artist, not for the public. Lack of socio-political and historical perspective is the reason for this. Public art is a product of political consciousness. In India, fine art is confined to the elite class. Thus, it becomes an investment. In North India, the majority of the population does not receive education. Education is given only to certain people in the society. This means that the educated minority can keep people down - always. No voice will emerge. But anyone should have literacy. Everyone should know things and be able to question things – to question injustice – otherwise: what is life? Everyone needs the possibility to identify injustice and speak out against it. How does art play a role in this context? No one should teach people about “right and wrong”. No one person can judge for others. Sometimes, I may say: “This is right” when it actually is wrong, it may show up to be wrong later. Show things to the public! – make people aware, and they will see and choose the better things themselves. I hope new things will happen in India. I like to see the movement and be a part of it – pushing the boat, you know… the boat is on the bank and when people want to go, we push the boat into the water and we jump on board and become a part of the crowd. Someone must push the boat into the water from the land, and then the boat floats. I like to be “behind the curtain”. How do you relate to the actual political system in India? If any movement is to take place in India we really need people. For a large movement, we need the people to be part of the change in society. The people must be aware. Before we seek power, we should change the culture first. Otherwise, once we grab the power, we may not know what to do, and the same things will be happening in society again - and then: Why did we grab the power? Even if people are educated, there will always be people doing wrong. If a bad person become very literate and starts to know many things, he may play with that in a bad way instead of being kept down in ignorance. Literacy can actually be dangerous sometimes… So, if someone wants to get control and do new things, then mental and cultural changes in the public is needed. It is necessary to prepare the public for acting. When the public knows how to act, nobody will need to tell them what is right and what is wrong. How do you address political issues in your art works? All my art works are about absence and presence. The concept of absence is political and so is the concept of presence. It is “have” and “have not”…” You can say that it started with Cain and Abel, when they experienced death and time as a limitation. If something is missing, people will want that and there will be a struggle because of it. But absence results in presence, too. If a family member dies, it means absence, but it also means that the whole family is gathered. So absence results in presence and the other way round also. I work with the issue of the migration of landless workers from the agricultural areas to the industrial cities. There is an indirect violence due to land distribution and food distribution in India. Those who do not have land – those who cannot cultivate their own land -- they are slaves of the landlords. The distribution system is wrong in India. How do you see art in relation to activism? In Calcutta in 1984, I used to exhibit my political art works in a roadside teashop and I called it “art as activism”. At that time,  I was an artist using my artistic language in a form of activism. I also do collaborative works with people from rural areas. In these cases, I go to the public and work in a participatory and collaborative way. This is art as activism; we mix ideas from the artist with ideas from the public and do something together - it is a creative art form. But my goal is to do activism as art. The nature of some of the public art is like social work. When artists do social work, they call it public art. Then why don’t we call a social worker a public artist? Any- thing can become art, and anyone can become artist. A real public artist will see art in other peoples work also. Many artists separate themselves from the public. I think the artist is like a farmer. He does a research, I do a research, it is the same with a scientist and a philosopher. All people have specific important knowledge that others may not know. Even a social scientist can become an artist if you see activism as a possible art form. A social activist can develop activism into an art form. I use to work with illiterate people, and they do wonderful works - sometime I feel as if I am nothing in front of them. I think it is necessary to differentiate between art as activism and activism as art. It is two different things. In India today, I do not think we are at the level of activism as art. A few people in India are doing art as activism, it is not a perfect form and not proper either. The goal is to do activism as an art form – to do activism at a level that makes it art. After that it becomes art as politics – not as party politics, but real politics… Please, give us an example of one of your art projects The cultural tree is an idea of a parallel culture. Most people visiting the cultural tree will never go to a gallery. Sometimes, I have seen boys from the street go into a gallery and the owner has said: Why are you here? Get out. Gallery owners will not let ordinary people see the art works. If ordinary people come to a gallery, then rich people will think: “What kind of people are coming here?” I think art should be for the public. People like the cultural tree very much. In the beginning they were sceptic, but later they became very positive. My experience from Calcutta also is that within 2 - 3 months people will understand the concept. Then we start to get feedback from the public, and this feedback will help us to do other things. Slowly, we change the nature of art. People are curious, but they can’t understand in the first place, but you cannot blame them. They are not trained. So we are giving them training, by letting them see and participate and become a part of the movement. And then they themselves start to do wonderful things. We destroy the mystery of the artist as something special. Artists are not special. Anyone can create. The cultural tree got a lot of attention - even government was there with their video cameras. Activism is becoming art, and the public start to create art by themselves. We use clay as an important material, like in ancient times. It is a good material for making people’s first creative images. The project develops from there - the greater ideas, the greater freedom. It seams to me that you are generous with your ideas When I do projects like the cultural tree or art exhibitions, I normally invite activists to work with me. If someone asks whether they can use my material, I allow them to do so. The important thing is that art reaches the people. If it is in my name or someone else’s name, it is less important. I am happy when I see people do things. How does your kind of art relate to other art forms in India? If artists from abroad come to India to do community art - like political art in slum areas with marginalised people and Dalits - then Indian artists are ready to join the work immediately because they see it as a chance to develop their resumé for the purpose of going abroad. I have not seen any Indian artist doing a collaborative Indian public artwork in India; they all go abroad and do collaborative work. Why don’t they do it here if they are really committed to this thing? If political art becomes fashion, you will see many artists who call themselves “political artists”. The problem is that they do not mix with the public, and they do not take up community projects. That’s why I want art to mix with other professions and fields like science, common public and activists and writers. Other people and professions should take part in art and criticise and question art. Then new things will develop.  I do not write all my work in slum areas as my bio data, I will not include it as art work – it is my “activity”. I will not write it on my resumé and get credit for it as art work. How does art function in relation to the caste system in India? There are many feminist artists in India. They call themselves feminists and they get famous and popular. They do some paintings and various other materials, but they are not ready to go to areas where poor women live. Everything will be on the canvas, in their talk and in some books. They go abroad as feminist artists – that’s what they want with the feminist label. They do not want to mix with certain community people. It is difficult to imagine powerful political art in India. Individuals can do something, but in a collective way it is going to be very difficult. Most artists are not ready to work with the Dalits, so how can we work? We need to work and stay with the Dalits. Working in a Dalit area, I mainly work together with Dalits. My thoughts about public art are derived from my socio-political awareness. In the initial stages, my image as artist remained but later on, my involvement with the public changed. I worked with them not as an artist but as a person – one of them. I was doing political art. Later on, I realized that the marginalized people do their emotional visual expressions by themselves, which is genuine political art. So I started working with marginalized people in India to help them visualize their problems. Here I act as a technical assistant, not as an artist. How do you think the art scene in India will develop in the future? Most of the buyers and the promoters of art are weak in assessing art, so naturally it results in the promotion of lesser quality art through art galleries. The taste of the art promoter becomes the taste of the public and of the collector, and to a certain extent even to the artist. Many Indian artists who do studio art also do public art without knowing what public art is, because they think if one does not do public art they are outdated. So by just making an image, they practice doing public art. Some Indian artists get 2.500.000 rupees for a painting. I think it is a problem for Indian art. Because those people who get art prices up to this level will never allow another art movement to get publicity and access to art institutions. This is because it would result in the art investors losing their money. Self-satisfaction is not dependent on money, that is the real wealth... So building up a name and an expensive art brand is dangerous for the nature of art. It limits possibilities for new art forms to develop.