Amrita shergill biography of william
Amrita Sher-Gil's paintings at Lahore (1937)
1937 exhibition of Amrita Sher-Gil's paintings at Lahore
The Hungarian-born Indian artist Amrita Sher-Gil, exhibited 33 of her paintings at her One-man Show in the ballroom at Faletti's Hotel in Lahore, British India, held from 21 to 27 November 1937. Four paintings were sold in total; The Little Girl in Blue (1934), The Story (1937), Pink Self-portrait, and The Vina Player (1937).
At the opening, Punjab's finance minister, Manohar Lal, praised the self-portrait she did not like. Charles Fabri commended the exhibition in general, though criticised the show for being too ornate. The attendance was good. With eight annas per entry, the exhibition made around ₹25 a day from entrance fees alone.
Preparation
The Hungarian-born Indian artist Amrita Sher-Gil exhibited 33 of her paintings, dubbed her "One-man Show", in the ballroom at Faletti's Hotel in Lahore, British India, held from 21 to 27 November 1937. Having checked into Faletti's a week before the opening, she arranged invitations, oversaw plans for lighting, and unpacked her artwork.
Opening
The exhibition was opened by Punjab's finance minister, Manohar Lal. Over 150 people attended on that day. Dressed in a gold-bordered sari, twice wrapped covering a brocade blouse, and wearing large Tibetan jewellery, Sher-Gil greeted guests at the entrance. Attendees included Dalip Singh Majithia, Badruddin Tyabji, Diwan Chaman Lall, Justice Bakshi Tek Chand, Lahore Museum's curator K. N. Sitaram, Kanwar Dalip Singh of Kapurthala, and Bhim Sen Sachar. Students of Punjab University attended. The Civil and Military Gazette's art critic Fabri was also present. It was there that Sher-Gil and Fabri first met. The governor, Sir Herbert William Emerson, and Lady Emerson, visited the exhibition for
Amrita Sher Gill
next →← prev
Amrita Sher Gill was an Indian painter from Hungaria, and so she has also been called a Hungarian-Indian painter. Amrita Sher Gill was born on 30 January 1913 and died on 5 December 1941. She was the greatest artist of the twentieth century; she was a modern artist and was also called the pioneer of modern art. Amrita Sher Gill started getting recognition at the age of 19 because of her first painting; she started getting training for painting when she was just 8 years old. Her paintings are very famous because of the inherited realism she uses to depict real life and real incidents through her paintings.
By nationality, Amrita Sher Gill was British Indian; she was born in Budapest, Hungary, and died in Lahore, Punjab, at the time of British rule. She died at the age of 28. The ideas of Amrita's paintings were always unique from other Indian painters, as her origin had a big impact on her life. Amrita Sher Gill had vast knowledge of different cultures, which is depicted in her works. Amrita Sher Gill has visited many countries in her life; she went to Turkey and France as well. Through such exhibits, she brought out the pre-colonial art styles and presented them in a unique form. Despite painting, she was very fond of reading; thus, she had a vast knowledge of different cultures of the world.
In those days, her paintings were given more importance than those of current Indian women painters. Her works were appreciated by many people throughout her career. Amrita Sher Gill was born to an Indian Jat Sikh, named Umrao Singh Sher-Gil Majithia; her father was an aristocrat and a scholar in Persian and Sanskrit. Her mother, Marie Antoinette Gottesmann, was a Hungarian-Jewish opera singer. Her parents met in 1912 for the first time when Marie came to Lahore. Amrita Sher Gill had a younger sister named Indira. They all came to India in 1921, as they were facing financial problems in Hungary. They moved to Summer Hills in Shimla and
India Belongs Only to Me: Amrita Sher-Gil
Journeys
Unknown, Amrita Sher-Gil in 1936, Wikimedia Commons.
Known for her evocative paintings, half-Indian, half-Hungarian artist Amrita Sher-Gil (1913—1941) explored complexities surrounding cultural heritage, identity, gender and social inequality, across her practice.
Her oil painting, Self Portrait as Tahitian (1934), marks a critical turning point in her artistic career.
Depicting herself in the nude, Sher-Gil’s pensive self-portrait looks beyond the frame of the picture. Her long black hair is tied loosely, flowing down the length of her back.
Standing upright with her arms crossed over her body, her posture conveys a firm and measured stance.
Inserting herself within the western canon of modern art history, she seems to be directly responding to paintings by the French painter Paul Gauguin (1848–1903), known for exoticising nude Tahitian women. Gauguin’s works have been critiqued for imposing an objectifying and subjugating lens on the non-western female body.
In contrast, Sher-Gil reverts the gaze of the male European artist by self-consciously playing up her own exoticism as an Indian woman. Exploring the tensions within her identity, being half-European and half-Indian, she uses her naked torso, brown skin and long, straight hair to evoke Gauguin’s portraits, but stands with a sense of pride and assuredness not granted to his subjects.
Sher-Gil was born in 1913, to an aristocratic family, and spent her childhood in Hungary before relocating to her family’s home in Shimla, India in 1919. At the age of sixteen, she was admitted to the prestigious École Nationale des Beaux-Arts in Paris, where she studied for the next five years.
We see her academic training reflected in the under-studied painting, Self-Portrait with Easel (1930), which she painted in her second year in Paris. With this work, she succeeds in fashioning herself as a serious artist, even though she is Characters
1. Who is the protagonist (main character)? What are his (or her) character traits? Weaknesses? Virtues?
2. What are the functions of the other characters? Do any serve to bring out certain aspects of the main character? How? Is there a character who seems to be the special vehicle for the director's message?
3. Who is the antagonist, if there is one? Is he or she complex (or “rounded”) character (a mixture of good and bad)?
4. If the play is a classical tragedy, does the main character have a "tragic flaw" (weakness, moral defect, or an error in judgment)? What part does chance play in his or her downfall? Is the main character noble enough to win our admiration and sympathy in spite of his shortcomings?
5. What technique does the director use to help develop the characters? Stage directions? Self-revelation by monologue or dialogue? Actions? Comments by other characters?
6. Does the director try to give minor characters well-rounded personalities? Are there any stereotypical characters?
Plot
1. What are the main plot elements? Into how many "chapters of action" is the play divided, regardless of the act or scene divisions? Can you summarize each chapter of action after you have read it? Is the progress of the action clear?
2. Is the plot of sufficient scope and importance to engage our interest?
3. What brings on the dramatic conflict? Where does the play really begin?
4. Are the incidents well-connected? How are gaps in time treated?
5. Is the resolution inevitable, or is the denouement brought about by coincidence?
6. Is there dramatic irony present? To what degree? What does it achieve?
Setting
1. Where and when does the play take place? Do the time or place change? If so, do the changes weaken the play? Are the changes necessary and natural?
2. How does the setting contribute to the theme and characterization? Is the particular setting important to the play?
Theme
1. What is the
Sher-Gil was born in
Characters
1. Who is the protagonist (main character)? What are his (or her) character traits? Weaknesses? Virtues?
2. What are the functions of the other characters? Do any serve to bring out certain aspects of the main character? How? Is there a character who seems to be the special vehicle for the director's message?
3. Who is the antagonist, if there is one? Is he or she complex (or “rounded”) character (a mixture of good and bad)?
4. If the play is a classical tragedy, does the main character have a "tragic flaw" (weakness, moral defect, or an error in judgment)? What part does chance play in his or her downfall? Is the main character noble enough to win our admiration and sympathy in spite of his shortcomings?
5. What technique does the director use to help develop the characters? Stage directions? Self-revelation by monologue or dialogue? Actions? Comments by other characters?
6. Does the director try to give minor characters well-rounded personalities? Are there any stereotypical characters?
Plot
1. What are the main plot elements? Into how many "chapters of action" is the play divided, regardless of the act or scene divisions? Can you summarize each chapter of action after you have read it? Is the progress of the action clear?
2. Is the plot of sufficient scope and importance to engage our interest?
3. What brings on the dramatic conflict? Where does the play really begin?
4. Are the incidents well-connected? How are gaps in time treated?
5. Is the resolution inevitable, or is the denouement brought about by coincidence?
6. Is there dramatic irony present? To what degree? What does it achieve?
Setting
1. Where and when does the play take place? Do the time or place change? If so, do the changes weaken the play? Are the changes necessary and natural?
2. How does the setting contribute to the theme and characterization? Is the particular setting important to the play?
Theme
1. What is the