In attempting to locate in perspective the position of fine arts in Sri Lanka, I would like to draw attention to two events that took place in February 1998.   That is, two art exhibitions organized by two different groups to mark 50 years of Sri Lankan independence.  The state with the help of the Ministry of Cultural Affairs was responsible for one exhibition while the other was organized by a group of young artists.
The reason for highlighting these two events is that they captured and displayed starkly the past and present failures, successes and hopes of fine arts in Sri Lanka.  The state exhibition included 256 works by well-known artists from the past as well as the present.  It also included the work of lesser-known contemporary artists.  All this work quite literally covered much of the wall space of the National Art Gallery where the exhibition took place. The other exhibition was held at another well-known art venue, the Lionel Wendt Art Gallery where only the works of eleven contemporary artists were exhibited. The demands and challenges of present realities were reflected in the ideology, methodology and content of the works of these artists. Both these exhibitions drew critical evaluations from numerous sources for different reasons.  While the state sponsored exhibition was critiqued for its unprofessional management of the entire exhibition and its total lack of curatorial sense, the other exhibition was found fault with for its lack of conventional aestheticism that could be called truly Sri Lankan.  The bottom line is that while one was located on a conventional ideological premise, the other was placed in a context that searched for new concepts in art, which challenged the already established and over hacked conventions.  To assess this dichotomous position of the Sri Lankan art scene and its prevailing politics, one has to go beyond the contemporary and trace the history of its evolution in the post independence era.
At this point, I would suggest that the art history I will attempt to trace is the history of modern art in Sri Lanka.  One should also note that the practice of traditional art continues alongside modern art.  By traditional art, I mean artistic production based—at least to some extent—on conventions of pre-colonial traditions, styles and methodologies, which has also much to do with religion and ritual.  However, contemporary mainstream art in the secular sense in Sri Lanka is derived from the European art traditions that was introduced by the British in the latter part of the 19th century.

The history of modern visual arts in Sri Lanka in the post independent era cannot be discussed without going further back into moments and processes in the pre-independence period.  This is due to the simple reason that most of the changes and new developments in art, if there were any, that happened in the post independence era were either initiated or the outcome of events that took place before 1948.  At the beginning of the century, the most influential art body was the Ceylon Society of Arts established in 1891 under British patronage.  It focused mainly on promoting painting, sculpture and photography that was representative of Victorian academism of the European art tradition.  In 1920, the Ceylon Art Club was established by the painter C. E Winzer, an Inspector of Art in Schools appointed by the British colonial government.   It promoted a different outlook on art than the conventional orthodox views of the Ceylon Society of Arts. It had considerable impact on the painters and their work at the time, which later manifested as the 43’ Group in the 1940s.  Another art body, the Art Council of Ceylon, was established in 1951 under the provisions of the Soulbury Commission to promote and revive traditional art forms in regional areas.  The post independence political elite believed that such art forms existed in these areas in a “purer” form.  The majority of cultural events that took place during this time were sponsored, organized or initiated by these councils.  The present day National Art Gallery, where a permanent collection of work by well known Sri Lankan artists is on display was initiated by the enthusiastic support of the Ceylon Society of Arts and their charismatic members. If there was an art awareness and revival in the immediate post independence period, much of the credit for that goes to the visionary capabilities of these art bodies and their enthusiastic members. The effects of the trends they created along with their ideologies and politics is felt todate in the field of art in Sri Lanka.

The main institution for art education in Sri Lanka at the beginning of the 20th century was the Colombo Technical College established in the later part of the 19th century where courses on drawing and painting were conducted among others.  In 1949, a separate and autonomous body called the Government College of Fine Arts was created specifically to teach fine arts. In addition, independent ateliers maintained by different artists offering a variety of art education also existed.  One such famous atelier was the artist A.C.G.S. Amerasekera's under whose guidance most of the early members of the modern art movement, especially the 43 group members got their initial art education.
The 1940s and 1950s mark the most significant period in the history of painting and sculpture in 20th century Sri Lanka.  In 1943, a group of artists, as a reaction to the prevailing ideology of painting which promoted a restrictive academism, pseudo-oriental impersonations and imitations of Victorian naturalism of western art, established the 43 group.  The political and cultural revivals that were taking place in the country at the time did provide a backdrop for the formation of an ideological position for the group, which was acolonial and anti Victorian.  The struggle for independence was high in the political agenda of the local elite at the time, and nationalist sentiments were quite obvious in the cultural scene as well.

However, it must be noted that many of these artists were not opposed to contemporary art trends in Europe.  For instance, the 43 group absorbed inspirations from the art movements in Paris and London as well as influences from India where some of the members had affiliations with Shantiniketan.  Coming from affluent upper and upper middle class families, these artists had the opportunity and the financial capability to be accessible to an education that went far beyond national art education.  Most of them at one time or another had their art education in Paris and London where their work was exhibited regularly.  They successfully fused the indigenous draughtsmenship and color schemes with the idioms of the West in an original way that paved the way for a new hybrid form of painting to emerge.  They created a secular painting tradition that was palatable within a Sri Lankan context unlike the restrictive and culturally alien easel painting tradition introduced by the British and promoted by the Ceylon Society of Arts.  Of the members of the 43 group, painters such as George Keyt, Justin Daraniyagala, Richard Gabriel and Ivan Peris became welknown beyond the borders of Sri Lanka.   Lionel Wendt was a photographer and musician, as well as the formulator of the 43 Group.  His untimely death at the age of 44 cut short a life of a great artist and the source of energy behind the group. Then onward the responsibility of mobilizing the group fell on another member, Harry Pieris who later donated his house and studio, now called the “Sapumal Foundation” for the advancement of art in Sri Lanka.

In the immediate post independence era, there was a culmination of activities, which tried to create, promote and implement an awareness of Sri Lankan art. This was part of a process of finding and building a cultural identity that could be called truly Sri Lankan, which was perhaps needed at the time.  However, once the heat of the independence euphoria was over, the enthusiasm and grand visions for the advancement of art too fizzled out.  The influence, paradigms and premises of the 43 group remained intact within modern art in Sri Lanka for a long time.  They still continue to seduce the artists as well as the viewers within the contemporary art scene.  This longstanding dependency of the 43 group for inspiration in a way illustrates the stagnation experienced by the community of artists.  Since the 43 Group, there has been no evidence of any major group or a movement that pushed art into new ideological grounds. In this barren situation, artists like Tissa Ranasinghe who initiated a style of sculpture equivalent to Alberto Giacometti, and painters Stanley Abeysinghe and H.A Karunarathne did provide hope at certain moments.  Nevertheless, such moments merely remained as such, and they were unable to rescue Sri Lankan art from its paralyzing slumber.

If one tries to locate the state’s intervention and contribution to art in the post independence period, certain important initiatives come to mind.  These include the establishment of the Government College of Fine Arts (which later became the Institute of Aesthetic Studies of the University of Kelaniya) and establishment of the Ministry of Cultural Affairs.  The ministry was supposed to promote cultural activities with the help of the Art Council of Ceylon. Even with such bureaucratic structures in place, the state failed to give an impetus or to create an atmosphere for the arts to grow or to conceive a vision for the future.  Unfortunately, this state of affairs typifies much of post independence politics in Sri Lanka.  The only school created for fine arts failed to produce artists who were capable of independent thought and action.  Moreover, the rest of the state structures failed to bring about an awareness of art in society, which in turn produced an institutional base that was deaf, dumb and blind to art.  Schools continue to give minor attention to art education, while socialization in the wider society represent art merely as a hobby.  For some, painting was simply a decorative craft that adorned temple walls.  This lack of an art awareness in the general public prevented the emergence of progressive and interventionist structures that are necessary to support and promote art. No system of art galleries, art patrons, critics and dealers ever developed.  On the other hand, neither the private sector, the public nor state sectors ever came forward to establish an art museum or large private or public collections. Without a supporting and endorsing apparatus, and stuck with a public who is oblivious to art, and a state without a vision, most local artists were in a state of barrenness working within their own confined spaces for the larger part of the 50 years after independence.

This situation started changing to some extent in the 1980s, which at the moment, has created a certain current that seems to stir and kindle the innovativeness in the art community.  In recent times, a few artists have emerged entertaining new ideological directives.  Although the absence of a sophisticated operative structure in endorsing, promoting and marketing art still exists, an interest has been created in certain sectors of the public. It could be due to many factors.  For instance, even in a small scale some changes are happening in the Institute of Aesthetic Studies with the recruiting of a handful of new lecturers who have been able to give a different ideological perspective to art.  Consequently, in recent times, it has produced few promising artists.   On the other hand, organizations such as the German Cultural Institute, George Keyt Foundation, Alliance Francaise, Heritage Gallery and the British Council began to provide significant patronage to local artists, particularly in sponsoring and organizing exhibitions.  Similarly, the Vibhavi Academy of Fine Arts, an art institute initiated by Chandragupta Thenuwara, one of the new wave of artists, has been able to provide an alternative art education that functions on a different ideological position than the conventional. More recently, a few private galleries have also emerged opening up spaces for young artists to exhibit their work.  One such gallery is the Heritage Gallery where these new wave of young artists regularly exhibit their work.
The culmination of all these factors have brought about a small but a visible change in the community of local artists.  Particularly, a group of young painters and sculptors mostly based in Colombo have been bold enough to formulate radical methodologies and ideologies that have allowed some to break away from the situation of stagnation referred to above.  Some of these artists who are associated with this progressive group are Chandragupta Thenuwara, Jagath Weerasinghe, Druvinka, Balbir Bodh and Kingsley Goonetilleke who have undertaken—quite successfully—to direct Sri Lankan fine arts in new ideological directions.  Being a practicing painter and sculptor my self, I have close affinity with their work, their beliefs and their expectations. These artists represent a diverse set of aesthetic principles and methodologies, but are united in their belief of creating an ideological perspective that traverse beyond the modernist conventions established by their predecessors, the 43 group.   Based on a physical context located in the present sociality than the metaphysical and the spiritual of the modernist art, these artists represent a different project.   It is a project that enunciates their narratives about their own experiences in a way those very narratives demand.  This project challenges the conventional aesthetics of modern art that have been popularized for nearly 50 years since the emergence of the 43 group.

Such derailment of popular acceptance and appreciation of aesthetics does not always bring in the endorsement of the masses or the art connoisseurs in Colombo.  Their works have often drawn severe criticism and ridicule from critics and media.   It is obvious that a vast gap exists between this new art and the art consumers in their taste as well as in their aesthetic epistemology.  It would take much effort by these artists and their endorsers in convincing the masses into accepting their work as art, and reconcile the divide that exists in their appreciation of art. It is appropriate to mention here that it has taken almost 50 years and at the brink of the 21st Century for such a change to happen in the artist community, even in relatively modest scales.

In conclusion, one could say that while the earlier mentioned state sponsored exhibition reminds us of the position that overwhelmed the Sri Lankan art scene for 50 years, the exhibition initiated by the new generation of artists can be seen as a gesture made to visually reflect upon the constipated process of reaching the starting point of their liberating journey from the past.  One would also hope that this exhibition is a vision for the future.