1. Although the story is rendered anonymous, the price data is real, if rounded o . The numbers are typical of the most volatile portion of the Indian contemporary art market. 2. See Mukti Khaire and R. Daniel Wadhwani, “Changing Landscapes: The Construction of Meaning and Value in a New Market Category— Modern Indian Art,” Academy of Management Journal 53, no. 6 (December 2010): 1281–1304. 3. See Nataliya Komarova, “The Meanings of Discounts in Contemporary Art Markets: The Case of India,” Cultural Sociology 9, no. 4 (2015): 567–82. In March 2006 I visited a New York gallery that specialized in Indian contemporary art to see new work by one of India’s hottest artists. The exhibition was solid, composed mainly of the type of works for which the artist is best known. There was one truly exceptional piece, a work that extended the artist’s normal practice into a new medium. It was a continuation of a series that had been shown in India in 2004. The owner of the gallery came over to say hello, and as we were chatting she reported, excitedly, that a work from the 2004 series had just sold at auction for over $140,000, getting more than two times its high estimate. I immediately understood why she was agitated—the work of art in front of me was now “worth” more than twice what it was priced. What should she do, the gallerist mused, half-jokingly. Hold steady? Or raise the price? I demurred. The presence of similar works in the primary and secondary markets seemed dangerous—a clear symptom of an overheated market. But even in the midst of a boom, prices are a touchy topic, surfacing into public view only on commercial gallery price lists and in auction results. These two sites happened to intersect in this moment, a coincidence I remember as representative of the chaotic market at that time. In the calm that followed the boom’s end, the market fate of the work I saw is fairly easy to track: it was held in the dealer’s collection and shown in two major exhibitions of Indian contemporary art before it was sold, at auction, in 2011. In the post-recession market, the work garnered just a little over $90,000—no small price, but significantly less than it might have gotten at the height of the market, especially given its exhibition history. This story is a small demonstration of the everyday struggle of actors in the Indian contemporary art world—a network of institutions both in and outside India—to grapple with the rapid expansion of the market, its e‘ects on art and art institutions, and its implications for questions of value. Growth in the Indian art market can be traced to the 1991 liberalization of India’s economy, or the opening of the country to foreign direct investment. The first auction of Indian modern art in India by an international house occurred just one year after liberalization, 1992, with sales in New York in the same category beginning in 1995. Both the modern and contemporary subsegments of the primary and secondary markets accelerated quickly between 2003 and 2008, when the global recession caused a severe contraction. In the years that followed the recession, the market rebounded for modern Indian art, defined as art from the turn of the twentieth century through around 1990. The market for contemporary art has rebuilt itself much more slowly, but, as I will discuss, it also became “South Asian,” by incorporating Pakistani and, to a lesser extent, Bangladeshi and Sri Lankan art (Nepali and Afghani artworks are still typically excluded). Both the extraordinary rise and the 35 percent drop in price for the work I saw in New York were typical of the hottest portions of the contemporary art market across this period. Those involved in the market—including artists, gallerists, writers, and collectors—complained about alternating feelings of euphoria and unease during the period of market volatility. In the midst of the boom, one Mumbai gallerist said that she and her colleagues working in the market would be genuinely grateful if my research could explain what was happening. In 2012, when I conducted Karin Zitzewitz

中文翻译：

---

实时档案：南亚艺术世界的八卦和猜测

1. 虽然故事是匿名呈现的，但价格数据是真实的，如果四舍五入 o 。这些数字是印度当代艺术市场最不稳定的部分的典型代表。2. 参见 Mukti Khaire 和 R. Daniel Wadhwani，“不断变化的景观：新市场类别中意义和价值的构建——现代印度艺术”，管理学院杂志，第 53 期，第 2 期。6（2010 年 12 月）：1281-1304。3. 见 Nataliya Komarova，“当代艺术市场折扣的意义：印度案例”，文化社会学 9，第 1 期。4（2015）：567-82。2006 年 3 月，我参观了一家专门从事印度当代艺术的纽约画廊，观看了印度最炙手可热的艺术家之一的新作品。展览很扎实，主要由艺术家最著名的作品类型组成。有一件非常特别的作品，将艺术家的日常实践扩展到新媒介的作品。这是 2004 年在印度展出的系列作品的延续。画廊的老板过来打招呼，在我们聊天时，她兴奋地报告说，2004 年系列的一件作品刚刚拍卖了超过 140,000 美元，是最高估价的两倍多。我立刻明白了她为什么激动——我面前的艺术品现在“价值”是它定价的两倍多。她该怎么办，画廊主半开玩笑地沉思着。持稳？还是涨价？我不服。一级和二级市场上出现类似作品似乎很危险——这是市场过热的明显征兆。但即使在繁荣时期，价格也是一个敏感话题，仅在商业画廊价目表和拍卖结果中出现在公众视野中。这两个地点恰好在这一刻相交，我记忆中的巧合代表了当时的混乱市场。在繁荣结束后的平静中，我看到的这件作品的市场命运相当容易追踪：它被收藏在经销商的收藏中，并在 2011 年拍卖之前在印度当代艺术的两个主要展览中展出. 在经济衰退后的市场中，这幅作品的价格仅略高于 90,000 美元——这不是一个小数目，但远低于市场高峰时的价格，尤其是考虑到它的展览历史。这个故事是印度当代艺术界（印度内外的机构网络）的参与者日常斗争的一个小例子，以应对市场的快速扩张及其对艺术和艺术机构的影响，及其对价值问题的影响。印度艺术市场的增长可以追溯到 1991 年印度经济的自由化，或该国对外国直接投资的开放。1992 年，国际拍卖行在印度首次拍卖印度现代艺术品，同一类别的拍卖从 1995 年开始在纽约进行。一级和二级市场的现代和当代细分市场都在迅速加速。 2003 年和 2008 年，当时全球经济衰退导致严重收缩。在经济衰退之后的几年里，现代印度艺术市场反弹，定义为从 20 世纪初到 1990 年左右的艺术。当代艺术市场的重建速度要慢得多，但正如我将要讨论的，它也变成了“南亚”，包括巴基斯坦以及在较小程度上包括孟加拉国和斯里兰卡的艺术（尼泊尔和阿富汗的艺术品通常仍被排除在外）。我在纽约看到的作品价格的惊人上涨和 35% 的下跌都是这一时期当代艺术市场最热门部分的典型代表。市场参与者——包括艺术家、画廊主、作家和收藏家——抱怨在市场波动期间兴奋和不安交替出现。在热潮中，一位孟买画廊主说，如果我的研究能够解释正在发生的事情，她和她在市场上工作的同事会非常感激。2012 年，当我指挥 Karin Zitzewitz 时