Authorship
Anish Kapoor as British/Asian/artist
in Productive failure
Abstract only
Log-in for full text

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

manchesterhive requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals - to see content that you/your institution should have access to, please log in through your library system or with your personal username and password.

If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/extracts and download selected front and end matter. 

Institutions can purchase access to individual titles; please contact manchesterhive@manchester.ac.uk for pricing options.

ACCESS TOKENS

If you have an access token for this content, you can redeem this via the link below:

Redeem token

This chapter illustrates the notion of a stable authorship or genealogy that is the bedrock of most racialized art histories is a fiction so as to begin to articulate art histories that were previously unthinkable. Anish Kapoor is one of the most critically and commercially successful artists of Asian descent in the West. In the early years of his career, Kapoor simultaneously drew on Arte Povera in his use of 'poor' materials, as well as Indian, or more specifically Hindu, cultural history. Thomas McEvilley framed Kapoor's artworks as British, rather than Indian, and he did so without eliding their connection to British colonialism. Throughout the 1990s, Kapoor's artworks were exhibited in roughly a dozen group exhibitions each year, as well as numerous international art biennials, all largely in Europe and North America.

Productive failure

Writing queer transnational South Asian art histories

INFORMATION

TABLE OF CONTENTS
METRICS

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 63 28 1
Full Text Views 31 12 0
PDF Downloads 22 11 0
RELATED CONTENT