Ramachandran’s career as an artist and his oeuvre may be seen as a study in contrasts. While the grotesque imagery of works from his early period was received favorably (even lauded) by art critics, many patrons of Indian modern art would not appreciate them. The images and themes, according to them, were too political, highly morbid and displeasing to the eye to grace their living and office spaces. Not surprisingly, many early works would remain in the possession of Kumar Gallery (who then represented the artist), unsold for a long period of time.

Conversely, the works from his later period despite being snapped up by buyers and often mesmerizing viewers by their scale, opulence of colors and imagery have, nevertheless, faced the constant charge of being saturated with beauty and sensuality, devoid of political content.

An added point of contention within art circles in India has been the unabashed reference by the artist to Indian classical art traditions and the aesthetic iconography of other, largely non-Western art contexts. Narrowly assessed in such terms, the ‘traditional’ elements woven into yet reinterpreted in Ramachandran’s works are often treated as ‘anti-modern’, backward, and regressive pitted in antagonism and opposition to the modern, progressive strains in Indian contemporary art.

Author, art restorer, and Chairperson of Neemrana Hotels in India, Aman Nath addresses these criticisms in a tongue-in-cheek manner in this extract by underscoring the intricate integrative elements of Ramachandran’s visual grammar: