Implicit in our appreciation of art is our consideration of its originality: to what extent is the artwork we are viewing ‘original’? In the art market, the word ‘original’ is countered by the terms ‘fake,’ ‘forgery,’ ‘copy’ or ‘imitation.’ The distinction between straightforward originals and forgeries however, is quite clear-cut. I am more interested in exploring nuanced terms often used as synonyms of ‘imitation’ by writers attempting to either affirm or debunk the notion that non-metropolitan Indian arts lack originality. Metropolitan art being art that is produced in city and town centres and displayed in cultural institutions, ‘non-metropolitan arts’ is an umbrella term for folk, tribal and ritual art. Despite clear distinctions among these three arts, the umbrella term – also called ‘traditional arts’ in this essay – becomes appropriate because they are collectively deemed inferior to metropolitan arts.

The first part of this paper draws on art-historical and critical writing to support my assertion that there exists a clear hierarchy in Indian arts. It also identifies theoretical frameworks within which previous debates have taken place. The second part questions the assumptions that lead to the perceived hierarchy of metropolitan over traditional arts. Two misunderstandings, I believe, contribute to the notion that traditional arts lack innovativeness. The first is to assume that these arts are invariably ‘repetitive,’ their practitioners merely ‘imitating’ what their predecessors did. The second possibly stems from the different learning methods adopted by metropolitan and traditional artists. While the latter tend to learn by imitationexperience, the former usually learn through study and theory. As the literature cited in the first part only substantiates the presumption that traditional arts are repetitive, I focus on this misunderstanding in the latter half of this essay. It is by exploring the semantics of contemporary Indian arts discourse that this paper challenges our underlying conceptions of what constitutes originality or innovativeness in visual art. Although I refer to various Indian arts, I use specific examples from my primary research – a tribal art school in Madhya Pradesh (central India) and the floordrawing tradition of Andhra Pradesh (south India). These illustrations hint at the distinctions among traditional arts. Lastly, in discussing the valuation of Indian arts, I pay particular attention to their socioeconomic contexts and the art market’s pervasive influence on this valuation.