Who was Mrinalini Mukherjee: 'A Story of South Asian Art: Mrinalini Mukherjee and Her Circle' at the RA
November 19, 2025
Beautiful, Uncanny, and Virtuosic. Discover the work of Mrinalini Mukherjee and her circle at the RA’s latest exhibition A Story of South Asian Art. We spoke with Assistant Curator Rebecca Bray to find out more.
Who was Mrinalini Mukherjee?
She was an absolutely trailblazing Indian sculptor working throughout the 20th century. She started out making these fantastic ‘Hemps’, sculptures that we have dotted around the exhibition, and that's what she's probably best known for. She spent several decades making these, then eventually she transitioned into making bronzes and ceramics. So, again, we have her sculptures from different periods in her career dotted around the exhibition. The exhibition is arranged roughly chronologically, but Mrinalini punctuates that chronology to show how those connections and influences were working throughout her life.
That leads into the next question: Why was Mrinalani chosen as the central thread to tell the story of this constellation of avant-garde artists?
We really felt that she was long overdue for a critical reassessment, particularly in the UK. She died in 2015, just days before her retrospective opened at the National Gallery of Modern Art in New Delhi. So she died on the cusp of really reaching international recognition. In 2019, there was a solo show at the Met in New York, but there hadn't been a show of her work in the UK since one at Modern Art Oxford in the 90s, which was while she was still mid-career. At that stage, she hadn't started working in ceramics and bronze, so it was just looking at her textiles. We chose the title of the exhibition to be ‘A Story of South Asian Art’ to point to the fact that we chose these artists. There could have been many, many more, but we chose these artists due to their close, familial, and friendship ties with Mrinalini. And she had a fascinating life, she grew up in Santiniketan, where there was a pioneering art school founded by Rabindranath Tagore, which the first room of the exhibition is dedicated to. She then went to the Baroda Art School in the 1970s, which, at the time, had taken over the baton from Santiniketan. As the pioneering art school, it drew heavily on indigenous Indian techniques. Then, she moved back to New Delhi, where she was at the heart of this kind of fascinating artistic community. So, her work is spectacular and deserves a show, and we felt that she just connected with so many fascinating artists and networks that we wanted to represent.
Can you tell me a bit more about the influence of her parents, who were both artists as well? I was also wondering if she ever collaborated on any work with her parents?
That I know of, we don't have any works that were direct collaborations with her parents. Her mother, Leela, had been a student at Santiniketan, and her father, Benode, had also been a student and then taught at Santiniketan. So, that’s why they were there while Mrinalini was growing up. I think their influence throughout her childhood really comes out, particularly in the attention that she pays to nature in her work. Apparently, when she grew up, she wanted to be a botanist, but her parents said, “No, no. Don't be silly, you have to be an artist,” which I always find really funny, because it's kind of the opposite of a lot of parents! Her father was visually impaired, and during her childhood, she would go around Santiniketan describing plants and flowers to him so that he could identify them. So, I think that really unlocked for me: understanding how she had this really close look at nature, which is then metamorphosed in her works.
Did she ever face challenges as a woman artist working in India?
I think the fact that she, as I was saying earlier, didn't receive recognition until literally the very end of her life – I mean, she had recognition within artistic networks, but not that kind of public, institutional recognition – I think that definitely points to maybe a slight gender imbalance. I think if you look at the careers across this exhibition of male and female artists, they definitely, particularly in the case of Leela, her mother, were shaped quite differently. I mean, I find it quite shocking that the Google Arts page, when I last checked it, still said that Leela Mukherjee was the wife of Benode Mukherjee, rather than focusing on her amazing sculpture. So, I think it definitely had an impact on her, but interestingly, she was really adamant that she was not a feminist artist. Nilima Sheikh, who is also in the exhibition, definitely addresses women's sociopolitical issues directly in her work. And Mrinalini was invited to be part of a group of women artists exhibiting at a feminist exhibition, but she explicitly rejected that invitation. So, whilst obviously the fact of being a woman in 20th-century India would have had an impact on her career, it wasn't something that she was particularly wanting to address.
What were the dominant art movements in 70s-80s India when she was first working? And how did Mrinalini and her circle break with them?
Well, I don't know that I'd say necessarily break with them… I think the interesting thing about this exhibition is that you move through the different movements that were particularly influential throughout time. So, we start in this room, there's a lot of emphasis on Contextual Modernism, which was something that really did grow out of Santiniketan and the Bengal School. And that was really talking about placing Modernism within the context of people's lives, particularly within the context of Bengali art traditions. So, you can see the works are Modernist, but they also really speak to traditions. Then, later in her career, she was particularly close with Jagdish Swaminathan; he broke away from that and began to focus on India's indigenous and tribal artistic practices. And I think Mrinalini interacted with all of these throughout her career, but she didn't really align herself with any particular movement. So she was both working within and punctuating the dominant artistic narratives.
How did she marry indigenous and traditional Indian art with Modernism in her work?
I think it's particularly when you look at her techniques, for example, the hemp, she was using local materials. It’s right at the very root of her work. That was also something that she was really encouraged to do by KG Subramanyan, who is the focus of the second room. He was her teacher in Baroda. And it was he who steered Mrinalini to work with textiles and that kind of engagement with indigenous techniques.
Is or was her work received differently in the West compared to back home in India?
There are two parts to that question. I think that during her career, a slightly orientalising, othering lens was applied to her work and some of her exhibitions. She travelled really widely. She spent time in the Netherlands, where she particularly focused on ceramics, and also spent time in Australia and the UK. But, I think when her work was exhibited, it was sometimes looked at quite reductively… just too essentialized to whatever cliches there were about India and Indian culture, I think now... particularly since the Met show, and hopefully this show will help to build that, her work is seen as something apart, really from anything else. When you look at her, placed within her contemporaries, her work is just so strikingly different. I hope that's what people really take away.
How has that impacted the curatorial choices you've made in this exhibition?
So, yeah, as I mentioned, we've generally followed a chronological direction, but we chose to punctuate it with her works out of chronology, because they are so different. And as I was saying before, about how she kind of referenced different movements but wasn't really within any of them. I just don't think it's the right way to look at her work to try to place it within the movements.
If you had to sum up her work in three words, what would they be?
Ooo.. I would say beautiful… Uncanny. Third word.. Virtuosic. Technically virtuosic, if I can?
Virtuosic? That's a great word.
Yes, well, she didn't plan how her textile sculptures, particularly, were going to be conceived, so the mental acuity she had to create these forms from knots was impressive.
Like almost organically?
Exactly. Working with conservators, looking at them, they were just fascinated by how they'd been physically constructed.
A Story of South Asian Art: Mrinalini Mukherjee and Her Circle runs from 31 October 2025 to 24 February 2026 in The Jillian and Arthur M. Sackler Wing of Galleries at The Royal Academy.
Beautiful, Uncanny, and Virtuosic. Discover the work of Mrinalini Mukherjee and her circle at the RA’s latest exhibition A Story of South Asian Art. We spoke with Assistant Curator Rebecca Bray to find out more.
Who was Mrinalini Mukherjee?
She was an absolutely trailblazing Indian sculptor working throughout the 20th century. She started out making these fantastic ‘Hemps’, sculptures that we have dotted around the exhibition, and that's what she's probably best known for. She spent several decades making these, then eventually she transitioned into making bronzes and ceramics. So, again, we have her sculptures from different periods in her career dotted around the exhibition. The exhibition is arranged roughly chronologically, but Mrinalini punctuates that chronology to show how those connections and influences were working throughout her life.
That leads into the next question: Why was Mrinalani chosen as the central thread to tell the story of this constellation of avant-garde artists?
We really felt that she was long overdue for a critical reassessment, particularly in the UK. She died in 2015, just days before her retrospective opened at the National Gallery of Modern Art in New Delhi. So she died on the cusp of really reaching international recognition. In 2019, there was a solo show at the Met in New York, but there hadn't been a show of her work in the UK since one at Modern Art Oxford in the 90s, which was while she was still mid-career. At that stage, she hadn't started working in ceramics and bronze, so it was just looking at her textiles. We chose the title of the exhibition to be ‘A Story of South Asian Art’ to point to the fact that we chose these artists. There could have been many, many more, but we chose these artists due to their close, familial, and friendship ties with Mrinalini. And she had a fascinating life, she grew up in Santiniketan, where there was a pioneering art school founded by Rabindranath Tagore, which the first room of the exhibition is dedicated to. She then went to the Baroda Art School in the 1970s, which, at the time, had taken over the baton from Santiniketan. As the pioneering art school, it drew heavily on indigenous Indian techniques. Then, she moved back to New Delhi, where she was at the heart of this kind of fascinating artistic community. So, her work is spectacular and deserves a show, and we felt that she just connected with so many fascinating artists and networks that we wanted to represent.
Can you tell me a bit more about the influence of her parents, who were both artists as well? I was also wondering if she ever collaborated on any work with her parents?
That I know of, we don't have any works that were direct collaborations with her parents. Her mother, Leela, had been a student at Santiniketan, and her father, Benode, had also been a student and then taught at Santiniketan. So, that’s why they were there while Mrinalini was growing up. I think their influence throughout her childhood really comes out, particularly in the attention that she pays to nature in her work. Apparently, when she grew up, she wanted to be a botanist, but her parents said, “No, no. Don't be silly, you have to be an artist,” which I always find really funny, because it's kind of the opposite of a lot of parents! Her father was visually impaired, and during her childhood, she would go around Santiniketan describing plants and flowers to him so that he could identify them. So, I think that really unlocked for me: understanding how she had this really close look at nature, which is then metamorphosed in her works.
Did she ever face challenges as a woman artist working in India?
I think the fact that she, as I was saying earlier, didn't receive recognition until literally the very end of her life – I mean, she had recognition within artistic networks, but not that kind of public, institutional recognition – I think that definitely points to maybe a slight gender imbalance. I think if you look at the careers across this exhibition of male and female artists, they definitely, particularly in the case of Leela, her mother, were shaped quite differently. I mean, I find it quite shocking that the Google Arts page, when I last checked it, still said that Leela Mukherjee was the wife of Benode Mukherjee, rather than focusing on her amazing sculpture. So, I think it definitely had an impact on her, but interestingly, she was really adamant that she was not a feminist artist. Nilima Sheikh, who is also in the exhibition, definitely addresses women's sociopolitical issues directly in her work. And Mrinalini was invited to be part of a group of women artists exhibiting at a feminist exhibition, but she explicitly rejected that invitation. So, whilst obviously the fact of being a woman in 20th-century India would have had an impact on her career, it wasn't something that she was particularly wanting to address.
What were the dominant art movements in 70s-80s India when she was first working? And how did Mrinalini and her circle break with them?
Well, I don't know that I'd say necessarily break with them… I think the interesting thing about this exhibition is that you move through the different movements that were particularly influential throughout time. So, we start in this room, there's a lot of emphasis on Contextual Modernism, which was something that really did grow out of Santiniketan and the Bengal School. And that was really talking about placing Modernism within the context of people's lives, particularly within the context of Bengali art traditions. So, you can see the works are Modernist, but they also really speak to traditions. Then, later in her career, she was particularly close with Jagdish Swaminathan; he broke away from that and began to focus on India's indigenous and tribal artistic practices. And I think Mrinalini interacted with all of these throughout her career, but she didn't really align herself with any particular movement. So she was both working within and punctuating the dominant artistic narratives.
How did she marry indigenous and traditional Indian art with Modernism in her work?
I think it's particularly when you look at her techniques, for example, the hemp, she was using local materials. It’s right at the very root of her work. That was also something that she was really encouraged to do by KG Subramanyan, who is the focus of the second room. He was her teacher in Baroda. And it was he who steered Mrinalini to work with textiles and that kind of engagement with indigenous techniques.
Is or was her work received differently in the West compared to back home in India?
There are two parts to that question. I think that during her career, a slightly orientalising, othering lens was applied to her work and some of her exhibitions. She travelled really widely. She spent time in the Netherlands, where she particularly focused on ceramics, and also spent time in Australia and the UK. But, I think when her work was exhibited, it was sometimes looked at quite reductively… just too essentialized to whatever cliches there were about India and Indian culture, I think now... particularly since the Met show, and hopefully this show will help to build that, her work is seen as something apart, really from anything else. When you look at her, placed within her contemporaries, her work is just so strikingly different. I hope that's what people really take away.
How has that impacted the curatorial choices you've made in this exhibition?
So, yeah, as I mentioned, we've generally followed a chronological direction, but we chose to punctuate it with her works out of chronology, because they are so different. And as I was saying before, about how she kind of referenced different movements but wasn't really within any of them. I just don't think it's the right way to look at her work to try to place it within the movements.
If you had to sum up her work in three words, what would they be?
Ooo.. I would say beautiful… Uncanny. Third word.. Virtuosic. Technically virtuosic, if I can?
Virtuosic? That's a great word.
Yes, well, she didn't plan how her textile sculptures, particularly, were going to be conceived, so the mental acuity she had to create these forms from knots was impressive.
Like almost organically?
Exactly. Working with conservators, looking at them, they were just fascinated by how they'd been physically constructed.
A Story of South Asian Art: Mrinalini Mukherjee and Her Circle runs from 31 October 2025 to 24 February 2026 in The Jillian and Arthur M. Sackler Wing of Galleries at The Royal Academy.
Beautiful, Uncanny, and Virtuosic. Discover the work of Mrinalini Mukherjee and her circle at the RA’s latest exhibition A Story of South Asian Art. We spoke with Assistant Curator Rebecca Bray to find out more.
Who was Mrinalini Mukherjee?
She was an absolutely trailblazing Indian sculptor working throughout the 20th century. She started out making these fantastic ‘Hemps’, sculptures that we have dotted around the exhibition, and that's what she's probably best known for. She spent several decades making these, then eventually she transitioned into making bronzes and ceramics. So, again, we have her sculptures from different periods in her career dotted around the exhibition. The exhibition is arranged roughly chronologically, but Mrinalini punctuates that chronology to show how those connections and influences were working throughout her life.
That leads into the next question: Why was Mrinalani chosen as the central thread to tell the story of this constellation of avant-garde artists?
We really felt that she was long overdue for a critical reassessment, particularly in the UK. She died in 2015, just days before her retrospective opened at the National Gallery of Modern Art in New Delhi. So she died on the cusp of really reaching international recognition. In 2019, there was a solo show at the Met in New York, but there hadn't been a show of her work in the UK since one at Modern Art Oxford in the 90s, which was while she was still mid-career. At that stage, she hadn't started working in ceramics and bronze, so it was just looking at her textiles. We chose the title of the exhibition to be ‘A Story of South Asian Art’ to point to the fact that we chose these artists. There could have been many, many more, but we chose these artists due to their close, familial, and friendship ties with Mrinalini. And she had a fascinating life, she grew up in Santiniketan, where there was a pioneering art school founded by Rabindranath Tagore, which the first room of the exhibition is dedicated to. She then went to the Baroda Art School in the 1970s, which, at the time, had taken over the baton from Santiniketan. As the pioneering art school, it drew heavily on indigenous Indian techniques. Then, she moved back to New Delhi, where she was at the heart of this kind of fascinating artistic community. So, her work is spectacular and deserves a show, and we felt that she just connected with so many fascinating artists and networks that we wanted to represent.
Can you tell me a bit more about the influence of her parents, who were both artists as well? I was also wondering if she ever collaborated on any work with her parents?
That I know of, we don't have any works that were direct collaborations with her parents. Her mother, Leela, had been a student at Santiniketan, and her father, Benode, had also been a student and then taught at Santiniketan. So, that’s why they were there while Mrinalini was growing up. I think their influence throughout her childhood really comes out, particularly in the attention that she pays to nature in her work. Apparently, when she grew up, she wanted to be a botanist, but her parents said, “No, no. Don't be silly, you have to be an artist,” which I always find really funny, because it's kind of the opposite of a lot of parents! Her father was visually impaired, and during her childhood, she would go around Santiniketan describing plants and flowers to him so that he could identify them. So, I think that really unlocked for me: understanding how she had this really close look at nature, which is then metamorphosed in her works.
Did she ever face challenges as a woman artist working in India?
I think the fact that she, as I was saying earlier, didn't receive recognition until literally the very end of her life – I mean, she had recognition within artistic networks, but not that kind of public, institutional recognition – I think that definitely points to maybe a slight gender imbalance. I think if you look at the careers across this exhibition of male and female artists, they definitely, particularly in the case of Leela, her mother, were shaped quite differently. I mean, I find it quite shocking that the Google Arts page, when I last checked it, still said that Leela Mukherjee was the wife of Benode Mukherjee, rather than focusing on her amazing sculpture. So, I think it definitely had an impact on her, but interestingly, she was really adamant that she was not a feminist artist. Nilima Sheikh, who is also in the exhibition, definitely addresses women's sociopolitical issues directly in her work. And Mrinalini was invited to be part of a group of women artists exhibiting at a feminist exhibition, but she explicitly rejected that invitation. So, whilst obviously the fact of being a woman in 20th-century India would have had an impact on her career, it wasn't something that she was particularly wanting to address.
What were the dominant art movements in 70s-80s India when she was first working? And how did Mrinalini and her circle break with them?
Well, I don't know that I'd say necessarily break with them… I think the interesting thing about this exhibition is that you move through the different movements that were particularly influential throughout time. So, we start in this room, there's a lot of emphasis on Contextual Modernism, which was something that really did grow out of Santiniketan and the Bengal School. And that was really talking about placing Modernism within the context of people's lives, particularly within the context of Bengali art traditions. So, you can see the works are Modernist, but they also really speak to traditions. Then, later in her career, she was particularly close with Jagdish Swaminathan; he broke away from that and began to focus on India's indigenous and tribal artistic practices. And I think Mrinalini interacted with all of these throughout her career, but she didn't really align herself with any particular movement. So she was both working within and punctuating the dominant artistic narratives.
How did she marry indigenous and traditional Indian art with Modernism in her work?
I think it's particularly when you look at her techniques, for example, the hemp, she was using local materials. It’s right at the very root of her work. That was also something that she was really encouraged to do by KG Subramanyan, who is the focus of the second room. He was her teacher in Baroda. And it was he who steered Mrinalini to work with textiles and that kind of engagement with indigenous techniques.
Is or was her work received differently in the West compared to back home in India?
There are two parts to that question. I think that during her career, a slightly orientalising, othering lens was applied to her work and some of her exhibitions. She travelled really widely. She spent time in the Netherlands, where she particularly focused on ceramics, and also spent time in Australia and the UK. But, I think when her work was exhibited, it was sometimes looked at quite reductively… just too essentialized to whatever cliches there were about India and Indian culture, I think now... particularly since the Met show, and hopefully this show will help to build that, her work is seen as something apart, really from anything else. When you look at her, placed within her contemporaries, her work is just so strikingly different. I hope that's what people really take away.
How has that impacted the curatorial choices you've made in this exhibition?
So, yeah, as I mentioned, we've generally followed a chronological direction, but we chose to punctuate it with her works out of chronology, because they are so different. And as I was saying before, about how she kind of referenced different movements but wasn't really within any of them. I just don't think it's the right way to look at her work to try to place it within the movements.
If you had to sum up her work in three words, what would they be?
Ooo.. I would say beautiful… Uncanny. Third word.. Virtuosic. Technically virtuosic, if I can?
Virtuosic? That's a great word.
Yes, well, she didn't plan how her textile sculptures, particularly, were going to be conceived, so the mental acuity she had to create these forms from knots was impressive.
Like almost organically?
Exactly. Working with conservators, looking at them, they were just fascinated by how they'd been physically constructed.
A Story of South Asian Art: Mrinalini Mukherjee and Her Circle runs from 31 October 2025 to 24 February 2026 in The Jillian and Arthur M. Sackler Wing of Galleries at The Royal Academy.
Beautiful, Uncanny, and Virtuosic. Discover the work of Mrinalini Mukherjee and her circle at the RA’s latest exhibition A Story of South Asian Art. We spoke with Assistant Curator Rebecca Bray to find out more.
Who was Mrinalini Mukherjee?
She was an absolutely trailblazing Indian sculptor working throughout the 20th century. She started out making these fantastic ‘Hemps’, sculptures that we have dotted around the exhibition, and that's what she's probably best known for. She spent several decades making these, then eventually she transitioned into making bronzes and ceramics. So, again, we have her sculptures from different periods in her career dotted around the exhibition. The exhibition is arranged roughly chronologically, but Mrinalini punctuates that chronology to show how those connections and influences were working throughout her life.
That leads into the next question: Why was Mrinalani chosen as the central thread to tell the story of this constellation of avant-garde artists?
We really felt that she was long overdue for a critical reassessment, particularly in the UK. She died in 2015, just days before her retrospective opened at the National Gallery of Modern Art in New Delhi. So she died on the cusp of really reaching international recognition. In 2019, there was a solo show at the Met in New York, but there hadn't been a show of her work in the UK since one at Modern Art Oxford in the 90s, which was while she was still mid-career. At that stage, she hadn't started working in ceramics and bronze, so it was just looking at her textiles. We chose the title of the exhibition to be ‘A Story of South Asian Art’ to point to the fact that we chose these artists. There could have been many, many more, but we chose these artists due to their close, familial, and friendship ties with Mrinalini. And she had a fascinating life, she grew up in Santiniketan, where there was a pioneering art school founded by Rabindranath Tagore, which the first room of the exhibition is dedicated to. She then went to the Baroda Art School in the 1970s, which, at the time, had taken over the baton from Santiniketan. As the pioneering art school, it drew heavily on indigenous Indian techniques. Then, she moved back to New Delhi, where she was at the heart of this kind of fascinating artistic community. So, her work is spectacular and deserves a show, and we felt that she just connected with so many fascinating artists and networks that we wanted to represent.
Can you tell me a bit more about the influence of her parents, who were both artists as well? I was also wondering if she ever collaborated on any work with her parents?
That I know of, we don't have any works that were direct collaborations with her parents. Her mother, Leela, had been a student at Santiniketan, and her father, Benode, had also been a student and then taught at Santiniketan. So, that’s why they were there while Mrinalini was growing up. I think their influence throughout her childhood really comes out, particularly in the attention that she pays to nature in her work. Apparently, when she grew up, she wanted to be a botanist, but her parents said, “No, no. Don't be silly, you have to be an artist,” which I always find really funny, because it's kind of the opposite of a lot of parents! Her father was visually impaired, and during her childhood, she would go around Santiniketan describing plants and flowers to him so that he could identify them. So, I think that really unlocked for me: understanding how she had this really close look at nature, which is then metamorphosed in her works.
Did she ever face challenges as a woman artist working in India?
I think the fact that she, as I was saying earlier, didn't receive recognition until literally the very end of her life – I mean, she had recognition within artistic networks, but not that kind of public, institutional recognition – I think that definitely points to maybe a slight gender imbalance. I think if you look at the careers across this exhibition of male and female artists, they definitely, particularly in the case of Leela, her mother, were shaped quite differently. I mean, I find it quite shocking that the Google Arts page, when I last checked it, still said that Leela Mukherjee was the wife of Benode Mukherjee, rather than focusing on her amazing sculpture. So, I think it definitely had an impact on her, but interestingly, she was really adamant that she was not a feminist artist. Nilima Sheikh, who is also in the exhibition, definitely addresses women's sociopolitical issues directly in her work. And Mrinalini was invited to be part of a group of women artists exhibiting at a feminist exhibition, but she explicitly rejected that invitation. So, whilst obviously the fact of being a woman in 20th-century India would have had an impact on her career, it wasn't something that she was particularly wanting to address.
What were the dominant art movements in 70s-80s India when she was first working? And how did Mrinalini and her circle break with them?
Well, I don't know that I'd say necessarily break with them… I think the interesting thing about this exhibition is that you move through the different movements that were particularly influential throughout time. So, we start in this room, there's a lot of emphasis on Contextual Modernism, which was something that really did grow out of Santiniketan and the Bengal School. And that was really talking about placing Modernism within the context of people's lives, particularly within the context of Bengali art traditions. So, you can see the works are Modernist, but they also really speak to traditions. Then, later in her career, she was particularly close with Jagdish Swaminathan; he broke away from that and began to focus on India's indigenous and tribal artistic practices. And I think Mrinalini interacted with all of these throughout her career, but she didn't really align herself with any particular movement. So she was both working within and punctuating the dominant artistic narratives.
How did she marry indigenous and traditional Indian art with Modernism in her work?
I think it's particularly when you look at her techniques, for example, the hemp, she was using local materials. It’s right at the very root of her work. That was also something that she was really encouraged to do by KG Subramanyan, who is the focus of the second room. He was her teacher in Baroda. And it was he who steered Mrinalini to work with textiles and that kind of engagement with indigenous techniques.
Is or was her work received differently in the West compared to back home in India?
There are two parts to that question. I think that during her career, a slightly orientalising, othering lens was applied to her work and some of her exhibitions. She travelled really widely. She spent time in the Netherlands, where she particularly focused on ceramics, and also spent time in Australia and the UK. But, I think when her work was exhibited, it was sometimes looked at quite reductively… just too essentialized to whatever cliches there were about India and Indian culture, I think now... particularly since the Met show, and hopefully this show will help to build that, her work is seen as something apart, really from anything else. When you look at her, placed within her contemporaries, her work is just so strikingly different. I hope that's what people really take away.
How has that impacted the curatorial choices you've made in this exhibition?
So, yeah, as I mentioned, we've generally followed a chronological direction, but we chose to punctuate it with her works out of chronology, because they are so different. And as I was saying before, about how she kind of referenced different movements but wasn't really within any of them. I just don't think it's the right way to look at her work to try to place it within the movements.
If you had to sum up her work in three words, what would they be?
Ooo.. I would say beautiful… Uncanny. Third word.. Virtuosic. Technically virtuosic, if I can?
Virtuosic? That's a great word.
Yes, well, she didn't plan how her textile sculptures, particularly, were going to be conceived, so the mental acuity she had to create these forms from knots was impressive.
Like almost organically?
Exactly. Working with conservators, looking at them, they were just fascinated by how they'd been physically constructed.
A Story of South Asian Art: Mrinalini Mukherjee and Her Circle runs from 31 October 2025 to 24 February 2026 in The Jillian and Arthur M. Sackler Wing of Galleries at The Royal Academy.
Beautiful, Uncanny, and Virtuosic. Discover the work of Mrinalini Mukherjee and her circle at the RA’s latest exhibition A Story of South Asian Art. We spoke with Assistant Curator Rebecca Bray to find out more.
Who was Mrinalini Mukherjee?
She was an absolutely trailblazing Indian sculptor working throughout the 20th century. She started out making these fantastic ‘Hemps’, sculptures that we have dotted around the exhibition, and that's what she's probably best known for. She spent several decades making these, then eventually she transitioned into making bronzes and ceramics. So, again, we have her sculptures from different periods in her career dotted around the exhibition. The exhibition is arranged roughly chronologically, but Mrinalini punctuates that chronology to show how those connections and influences were working throughout her life.
That leads into the next question: Why was Mrinalani chosen as the central thread to tell the story of this constellation of avant-garde artists?
We really felt that she was long overdue for a critical reassessment, particularly in the UK. She died in 2015, just days before her retrospective opened at the National Gallery of Modern Art in New Delhi. So she died on the cusp of really reaching international recognition. In 2019, there was a solo show at the Met in New York, but there hadn't been a show of her work in the UK since one at Modern Art Oxford in the 90s, which was while she was still mid-career. At that stage, she hadn't started working in ceramics and bronze, so it was just looking at her textiles. We chose the title of the exhibition to be ‘A Story of South Asian Art’ to point to the fact that we chose these artists. There could have been many, many more, but we chose these artists due to their close, familial, and friendship ties with Mrinalini. And she had a fascinating life, she grew up in Santiniketan, where there was a pioneering art school founded by Rabindranath Tagore, which the first room of the exhibition is dedicated to. She then went to the Baroda Art School in the 1970s, which, at the time, had taken over the baton from Santiniketan. As the pioneering art school, it drew heavily on indigenous Indian techniques. Then, she moved back to New Delhi, where she was at the heart of this kind of fascinating artistic community. So, her work is spectacular and deserves a show, and we felt that she just connected with so many fascinating artists and networks that we wanted to represent.
Can you tell me a bit more about the influence of her parents, who were both artists as well? I was also wondering if she ever collaborated on any work with her parents?
That I know of, we don't have any works that were direct collaborations with her parents. Her mother, Leela, had been a student at Santiniketan, and her father, Benode, had also been a student and then taught at Santiniketan. So, that’s why they were there while Mrinalini was growing up. I think their influence throughout her childhood really comes out, particularly in the attention that she pays to nature in her work. Apparently, when she grew up, she wanted to be a botanist, but her parents said, “No, no. Don't be silly, you have to be an artist,” which I always find really funny, because it's kind of the opposite of a lot of parents! Her father was visually impaired, and during her childhood, she would go around Santiniketan describing plants and flowers to him so that he could identify them. So, I think that really unlocked for me: understanding how she had this really close look at nature, which is then metamorphosed in her works.
Did she ever face challenges as a woman artist working in India?
I think the fact that she, as I was saying earlier, didn't receive recognition until literally the very end of her life – I mean, she had recognition within artistic networks, but not that kind of public, institutional recognition – I think that definitely points to maybe a slight gender imbalance. I think if you look at the careers across this exhibition of male and female artists, they definitely, particularly in the case of Leela, her mother, were shaped quite differently. I mean, I find it quite shocking that the Google Arts page, when I last checked it, still said that Leela Mukherjee was the wife of Benode Mukherjee, rather than focusing on her amazing sculpture. So, I think it definitely had an impact on her, but interestingly, she was really adamant that she was not a feminist artist. Nilima Sheikh, who is also in the exhibition, definitely addresses women's sociopolitical issues directly in her work. And Mrinalini was invited to be part of a group of women artists exhibiting at a feminist exhibition, but she explicitly rejected that invitation. So, whilst obviously the fact of being a woman in 20th-century India would have had an impact on her career, it wasn't something that she was particularly wanting to address.
What were the dominant art movements in 70s-80s India when she was first working? And how did Mrinalini and her circle break with them?
Well, I don't know that I'd say necessarily break with them… I think the interesting thing about this exhibition is that you move through the different movements that were particularly influential throughout time. So, we start in this room, there's a lot of emphasis on Contextual Modernism, which was something that really did grow out of Santiniketan and the Bengal School. And that was really talking about placing Modernism within the context of people's lives, particularly within the context of Bengali art traditions. So, you can see the works are Modernist, but they also really speak to traditions. Then, later in her career, she was particularly close with Jagdish Swaminathan; he broke away from that and began to focus on India's indigenous and tribal artistic practices. And I think Mrinalini interacted with all of these throughout her career, but she didn't really align herself with any particular movement. So she was both working within and punctuating the dominant artistic narratives.
How did she marry indigenous and traditional Indian art with Modernism in her work?
I think it's particularly when you look at her techniques, for example, the hemp, she was using local materials. It’s right at the very root of her work. That was also something that she was really encouraged to do by KG Subramanyan, who is the focus of the second room. He was her teacher in Baroda. And it was he who steered Mrinalini to work with textiles and that kind of engagement with indigenous techniques.
Is or was her work received differently in the West compared to back home in India?
There are two parts to that question. I think that during her career, a slightly orientalising, othering lens was applied to her work and some of her exhibitions. She travelled really widely. She spent time in the Netherlands, where she particularly focused on ceramics, and also spent time in Australia and the UK. But, I think when her work was exhibited, it was sometimes looked at quite reductively… just too essentialized to whatever cliches there were about India and Indian culture, I think now... particularly since the Met show, and hopefully this show will help to build that, her work is seen as something apart, really from anything else. When you look at her, placed within her contemporaries, her work is just so strikingly different. I hope that's what people really take away.
How has that impacted the curatorial choices you've made in this exhibition?
So, yeah, as I mentioned, we've generally followed a chronological direction, but we chose to punctuate it with her works out of chronology, because they are so different. And as I was saying before, about how she kind of referenced different movements but wasn't really within any of them. I just don't think it's the right way to look at her work to try to place it within the movements.
If you had to sum up her work in three words, what would they be?
Ooo.. I would say beautiful… Uncanny. Third word.. Virtuosic. Technically virtuosic, if I can?
Virtuosic? That's a great word.
Yes, well, she didn't plan how her textile sculptures, particularly, were going to be conceived, so the mental acuity she had to create these forms from knots was impressive.
Like almost organically?
Exactly. Working with conservators, looking at them, they were just fascinated by how they'd been physically constructed.
A Story of South Asian Art: Mrinalini Mukherjee and Her Circle runs from 31 October 2025 to 24 February 2026 in The Jillian and Arthur M. Sackler Wing of Galleries at The Royal Academy.
Beautiful, Uncanny, and Virtuosic. Discover the work of Mrinalini Mukherjee and her circle at the RA’s latest exhibition A Story of South Asian Art. We spoke with Assistant Curator Rebecca Bray to find out more.
Who was Mrinalini Mukherjee?
She was an absolutely trailblazing Indian sculptor working throughout the 20th century. She started out making these fantastic ‘Hemps’, sculptures that we have dotted around the exhibition, and that's what she's probably best known for. She spent several decades making these, then eventually she transitioned into making bronzes and ceramics. So, again, we have her sculptures from different periods in her career dotted around the exhibition. The exhibition is arranged roughly chronologically, but Mrinalini punctuates that chronology to show how those connections and influences were working throughout her life.
That leads into the next question: Why was Mrinalani chosen as the central thread to tell the story of this constellation of avant-garde artists?
We really felt that she was long overdue for a critical reassessment, particularly in the UK. She died in 2015, just days before her retrospective opened at the National Gallery of Modern Art in New Delhi. So she died on the cusp of really reaching international recognition. In 2019, there was a solo show at the Met in New York, but there hadn't been a show of her work in the UK since one at Modern Art Oxford in the 90s, which was while she was still mid-career. At that stage, she hadn't started working in ceramics and bronze, so it was just looking at her textiles. We chose the title of the exhibition to be ‘A Story of South Asian Art’ to point to the fact that we chose these artists. There could have been many, many more, but we chose these artists due to their close, familial, and friendship ties with Mrinalini. And she had a fascinating life, she grew up in Santiniketan, where there was a pioneering art school founded by Rabindranath Tagore, which the first room of the exhibition is dedicated to. She then went to the Baroda Art School in the 1970s, which, at the time, had taken over the baton from Santiniketan. As the pioneering art school, it drew heavily on indigenous Indian techniques. Then, she moved back to New Delhi, where she was at the heart of this kind of fascinating artistic community. So, her work is spectacular and deserves a show, and we felt that she just connected with so many fascinating artists and networks that we wanted to represent.
Can you tell me a bit more about the influence of her parents, who were both artists as well? I was also wondering if she ever collaborated on any work with her parents?
That I know of, we don't have any works that were direct collaborations with her parents. Her mother, Leela, had been a student at Santiniketan, and her father, Benode, had also been a student and then taught at Santiniketan. So, that’s why they were there while Mrinalini was growing up. I think their influence throughout her childhood really comes out, particularly in the attention that she pays to nature in her work. Apparently, when she grew up, she wanted to be a botanist, but her parents said, “No, no. Don't be silly, you have to be an artist,” which I always find really funny, because it's kind of the opposite of a lot of parents! Her father was visually impaired, and during her childhood, she would go around Santiniketan describing plants and flowers to him so that he could identify them. So, I think that really unlocked for me: understanding how she had this really close look at nature, which is then metamorphosed in her works.
Did she ever face challenges as a woman artist working in India?
I think the fact that she, as I was saying earlier, didn't receive recognition until literally the very end of her life – I mean, she had recognition within artistic networks, but not that kind of public, institutional recognition – I think that definitely points to maybe a slight gender imbalance. I think if you look at the careers across this exhibition of male and female artists, they definitely, particularly in the case of Leela, her mother, were shaped quite differently. I mean, I find it quite shocking that the Google Arts page, when I last checked it, still said that Leela Mukherjee was the wife of Benode Mukherjee, rather than focusing on her amazing sculpture. So, I think it definitely had an impact on her, but interestingly, she was really adamant that she was not a feminist artist. Nilima Sheikh, who is also in the exhibition, definitely addresses women's sociopolitical issues directly in her work. And Mrinalini was invited to be part of a group of women artists exhibiting at a feminist exhibition, but she explicitly rejected that invitation. So, whilst obviously the fact of being a woman in 20th-century India would have had an impact on her career, it wasn't something that she was particularly wanting to address.
What were the dominant art movements in 70s-80s India when she was first working? And how did Mrinalini and her circle break with them?
Well, I don't know that I'd say necessarily break with them… I think the interesting thing about this exhibition is that you move through the different movements that were particularly influential throughout time. So, we start in this room, there's a lot of emphasis on Contextual Modernism, which was something that really did grow out of Santiniketan and the Bengal School. And that was really talking about placing Modernism within the context of people's lives, particularly within the context of Bengali art traditions. So, you can see the works are Modernist, but they also really speak to traditions. Then, later in her career, she was particularly close with Jagdish Swaminathan; he broke away from that and began to focus on India's indigenous and tribal artistic practices. And I think Mrinalini interacted with all of these throughout her career, but she didn't really align herself with any particular movement. So she was both working within and punctuating the dominant artistic narratives.
How did she marry indigenous and traditional Indian art with Modernism in her work?
I think it's particularly when you look at her techniques, for example, the hemp, she was using local materials. It’s right at the very root of her work. That was also something that she was really encouraged to do by KG Subramanyan, who is the focus of the second room. He was her teacher in Baroda. And it was he who steered Mrinalini to work with textiles and that kind of engagement with indigenous techniques.
Is or was her work received differently in the West compared to back home in India?
There are two parts to that question. I think that during her career, a slightly orientalising, othering lens was applied to her work and some of her exhibitions. She travelled really widely. She spent time in the Netherlands, where she particularly focused on ceramics, and also spent time in Australia and the UK. But, I think when her work was exhibited, it was sometimes looked at quite reductively… just too essentialized to whatever cliches there were about India and Indian culture, I think now... particularly since the Met show, and hopefully this show will help to build that, her work is seen as something apart, really from anything else. When you look at her, placed within her contemporaries, her work is just so strikingly different. I hope that's what people really take away.
How has that impacted the curatorial choices you've made in this exhibition?
So, yeah, as I mentioned, we've generally followed a chronological direction, but we chose to punctuate it with her works out of chronology, because they are so different. And as I was saying before, about how she kind of referenced different movements but wasn't really within any of them. I just don't think it's the right way to look at her work to try to place it within the movements.
If you had to sum up her work in three words, what would they be?
Ooo.. I would say beautiful… Uncanny. Third word.. Virtuosic. Technically virtuosic, if I can?
Virtuosic? That's a great word.
Yes, well, she didn't plan how her textile sculptures, particularly, were going to be conceived, so the mental acuity she had to create these forms from knots was impressive.
Like almost organically?
Exactly. Working with conservators, looking at them, they were just fascinated by how they'd been physically constructed.
A Story of South Asian Art: Mrinalini Mukherjee and Her Circle runs from 31 October 2025 to 24 February 2026 in The Jillian and Arthur M. Sackler Wing of Galleries at The Royal Academy.
Beautiful, Uncanny, and Virtuosic. Discover the work of Mrinalini Mukherjee and her circle at the RA’s latest exhibition A Story of South Asian Art. We spoke with Assistant Curator Rebecca Bray to find out more.
Who was Mrinalini Mukherjee?
She was an absolutely trailblazing Indian sculptor working throughout the 20th century. She started out making these fantastic ‘Hemps’, sculptures that we have dotted around the exhibition, and that's what she's probably best known for. She spent several decades making these, then eventually she transitioned into making bronzes and ceramics. So, again, we have her sculptures from different periods in her career dotted around the exhibition. The exhibition is arranged roughly chronologically, but Mrinalini punctuates that chronology to show how those connections and influences were working throughout her life.
That leads into the next question: Why was Mrinalani chosen as the central thread to tell the story of this constellation of avant-garde artists?
We really felt that she was long overdue for a critical reassessment, particularly in the UK. She died in 2015, just days before her retrospective opened at the National Gallery of Modern Art in New Delhi. So she died on the cusp of really reaching international recognition. In 2019, there was a solo show at the Met in New York, but there hadn't been a show of her work in the UK since one at Modern Art Oxford in the 90s, which was while she was still mid-career. At that stage, she hadn't started working in ceramics and bronze, so it was just looking at her textiles. We chose the title of the exhibition to be ‘A Story of South Asian Art’ to point to the fact that we chose these artists. There could have been many, many more, but we chose these artists due to their close, familial, and friendship ties with Mrinalini. And she had a fascinating life, she grew up in Santiniketan, where there was a pioneering art school founded by Rabindranath Tagore, which the first room of the exhibition is dedicated to. She then went to the Baroda Art School in the 1970s, which, at the time, had taken over the baton from Santiniketan. As the pioneering art school, it drew heavily on indigenous Indian techniques. Then, she moved back to New Delhi, where she was at the heart of this kind of fascinating artistic community. So, her work is spectacular and deserves a show, and we felt that she just connected with so many fascinating artists and networks that we wanted to represent.
Can you tell me a bit more about the influence of her parents, who were both artists as well? I was also wondering if she ever collaborated on any work with her parents?
That I know of, we don't have any works that were direct collaborations with her parents. Her mother, Leela, had been a student at Santiniketan, and her father, Benode, had also been a student and then taught at Santiniketan. So, that’s why they were there while Mrinalini was growing up. I think their influence throughout her childhood really comes out, particularly in the attention that she pays to nature in her work. Apparently, when she grew up, she wanted to be a botanist, but her parents said, “No, no. Don't be silly, you have to be an artist,” which I always find really funny, because it's kind of the opposite of a lot of parents! Her father was visually impaired, and during her childhood, she would go around Santiniketan describing plants and flowers to him so that he could identify them. So, I think that really unlocked for me: understanding how she had this really close look at nature, which is then metamorphosed in her works.
Did she ever face challenges as a woman artist working in India?
I think the fact that she, as I was saying earlier, didn't receive recognition until literally the very end of her life – I mean, she had recognition within artistic networks, but not that kind of public, institutional recognition – I think that definitely points to maybe a slight gender imbalance. I think if you look at the careers across this exhibition of male and female artists, they definitely, particularly in the case of Leela, her mother, were shaped quite differently. I mean, I find it quite shocking that the Google Arts page, when I last checked it, still said that Leela Mukherjee was the wife of Benode Mukherjee, rather than focusing on her amazing sculpture. So, I think it definitely had an impact on her, but interestingly, she was really adamant that she was not a feminist artist. Nilima Sheikh, who is also in the exhibition, definitely addresses women's sociopolitical issues directly in her work. And Mrinalini was invited to be part of a group of women artists exhibiting at a feminist exhibition, but she explicitly rejected that invitation. So, whilst obviously the fact of being a woman in 20th-century India would have had an impact on her career, it wasn't something that she was particularly wanting to address.
What were the dominant art movements in 70s-80s India when she was first working? And how did Mrinalini and her circle break with them?
Well, I don't know that I'd say necessarily break with them… I think the interesting thing about this exhibition is that you move through the different movements that were particularly influential throughout time. So, we start in this room, there's a lot of emphasis on Contextual Modernism, which was something that really did grow out of Santiniketan and the Bengal School. And that was really talking about placing Modernism within the context of people's lives, particularly within the context of Bengali art traditions. So, you can see the works are Modernist, but they also really speak to traditions. Then, later in her career, she was particularly close with Jagdish Swaminathan; he broke away from that and began to focus on India's indigenous and tribal artistic practices. And I think Mrinalini interacted with all of these throughout her career, but she didn't really align herself with any particular movement. So she was both working within and punctuating the dominant artistic narratives.
How did she marry indigenous and traditional Indian art with Modernism in her work?
I think it's particularly when you look at her techniques, for example, the hemp, she was using local materials. It’s right at the very root of her work. That was also something that she was really encouraged to do by KG Subramanyan, who is the focus of the second room. He was her teacher in Baroda. And it was he who steered Mrinalini to work with textiles and that kind of engagement with indigenous techniques.
Is or was her work received differently in the West compared to back home in India?
There are two parts to that question. I think that during her career, a slightly orientalising, othering lens was applied to her work and some of her exhibitions. She travelled really widely. She spent time in the Netherlands, where she particularly focused on ceramics, and also spent time in Australia and the UK. But, I think when her work was exhibited, it was sometimes looked at quite reductively… just too essentialized to whatever cliches there were about India and Indian culture, I think now... particularly since the Met show, and hopefully this show will help to build that, her work is seen as something apart, really from anything else. When you look at her, placed within her contemporaries, her work is just so strikingly different. I hope that's what people really take away.
How has that impacted the curatorial choices you've made in this exhibition?
So, yeah, as I mentioned, we've generally followed a chronological direction, but we chose to punctuate it with her works out of chronology, because they are so different. And as I was saying before, about how she kind of referenced different movements but wasn't really within any of them. I just don't think it's the right way to look at her work to try to place it within the movements.
If you had to sum up her work in three words, what would they be?
Ooo.. I would say beautiful… Uncanny. Third word.. Virtuosic. Technically virtuosic, if I can?
Virtuosic? That's a great word.
Yes, well, she didn't plan how her textile sculptures, particularly, were going to be conceived, so the mental acuity she had to create these forms from knots was impressive.
Like almost organically?
Exactly. Working with conservators, looking at them, they were just fascinated by how they'd been physically constructed.
A Story of South Asian Art: Mrinalini Mukherjee and Her Circle runs from 31 October 2025 to 24 February 2026 in The Jillian and Arthur M. Sackler Wing of Galleries at The Royal Academy.
Beautiful, Uncanny, and Virtuosic. Discover the work of Mrinalini Mukherjee and her circle at the RA’s latest exhibition A Story of South Asian Art. We spoke with Assistant Curator Rebecca Bray to find out more.
Who was Mrinalini Mukherjee?
She was an absolutely trailblazing Indian sculptor working throughout the 20th century. She started out making these fantastic ‘Hemps’, sculptures that we have dotted around the exhibition, and that's what she's probably best known for. She spent several decades making these, then eventually she transitioned into making bronzes and ceramics. So, again, we have her sculptures from different periods in her career dotted around the exhibition. The exhibition is arranged roughly chronologically, but Mrinalini punctuates that chronology to show how those connections and influences were working throughout her life.
That leads into the next question: Why was Mrinalani chosen as the central thread to tell the story of this constellation of avant-garde artists?
We really felt that she was long overdue for a critical reassessment, particularly in the UK. She died in 2015, just days before her retrospective opened at the National Gallery of Modern Art in New Delhi. So she died on the cusp of really reaching international recognition. In 2019, there was a solo show at the Met in New York, but there hadn't been a show of her work in the UK since one at Modern Art Oxford in the 90s, which was while she was still mid-career. At that stage, she hadn't started working in ceramics and bronze, so it was just looking at her textiles. We chose the title of the exhibition to be ‘A Story of South Asian Art’ to point to the fact that we chose these artists. There could have been many, many more, but we chose these artists due to their close, familial, and friendship ties with Mrinalini. And she had a fascinating life, she grew up in Santiniketan, where there was a pioneering art school founded by Rabindranath Tagore, which the first room of the exhibition is dedicated to. She then went to the Baroda Art School in the 1970s, which, at the time, had taken over the baton from Santiniketan. As the pioneering art school, it drew heavily on indigenous Indian techniques. Then, she moved back to New Delhi, where she was at the heart of this kind of fascinating artistic community. So, her work is spectacular and deserves a show, and we felt that she just connected with so many fascinating artists and networks that we wanted to represent.
Can you tell me a bit more about the influence of her parents, who were both artists as well? I was also wondering if she ever collaborated on any work with her parents?
That I know of, we don't have any works that were direct collaborations with her parents. Her mother, Leela, had been a student at Santiniketan, and her father, Benode, had also been a student and then taught at Santiniketan. So, that’s why they were there while Mrinalini was growing up. I think their influence throughout her childhood really comes out, particularly in the attention that she pays to nature in her work. Apparently, when she grew up, she wanted to be a botanist, but her parents said, “No, no. Don't be silly, you have to be an artist,” which I always find really funny, because it's kind of the opposite of a lot of parents! Her father was visually impaired, and during her childhood, she would go around Santiniketan describing plants and flowers to him so that he could identify them. So, I think that really unlocked for me: understanding how she had this really close look at nature, which is then metamorphosed in her works.
Did she ever face challenges as a woman artist working in India?
I think the fact that she, as I was saying earlier, didn't receive recognition until literally the very end of her life – I mean, she had recognition within artistic networks, but not that kind of public, institutional recognition – I think that definitely points to maybe a slight gender imbalance. I think if you look at the careers across this exhibition of male and female artists, they definitely, particularly in the case of Leela, her mother, were shaped quite differently. I mean, I find it quite shocking that the Google Arts page, when I last checked it, still said that Leela Mukherjee was the wife of Benode Mukherjee, rather than focusing on her amazing sculpture. So, I think it definitely had an impact on her, but interestingly, she was really adamant that she was not a feminist artist. Nilima Sheikh, who is also in the exhibition, definitely addresses women's sociopolitical issues directly in her work. And Mrinalini was invited to be part of a group of women artists exhibiting at a feminist exhibition, but she explicitly rejected that invitation. So, whilst obviously the fact of being a woman in 20th-century India would have had an impact on her career, it wasn't something that she was particularly wanting to address.
What were the dominant art movements in 70s-80s India when she was first working? And how did Mrinalini and her circle break with them?
Well, I don't know that I'd say necessarily break with them… I think the interesting thing about this exhibition is that you move through the different movements that were particularly influential throughout time. So, we start in this room, there's a lot of emphasis on Contextual Modernism, which was something that really did grow out of Santiniketan and the Bengal School. And that was really talking about placing Modernism within the context of people's lives, particularly within the context of Bengali art traditions. So, you can see the works are Modernist, but they also really speak to traditions. Then, later in her career, she was particularly close with Jagdish Swaminathan; he broke away from that and began to focus on India's indigenous and tribal artistic practices. And I think Mrinalini interacted with all of these throughout her career, but she didn't really align herself with any particular movement. So she was both working within and punctuating the dominant artistic narratives.
How did she marry indigenous and traditional Indian art with Modernism in her work?
I think it's particularly when you look at her techniques, for example, the hemp, she was using local materials. It’s right at the very root of her work. That was also something that she was really encouraged to do by KG Subramanyan, who is the focus of the second room. He was her teacher in Baroda. And it was he who steered Mrinalini to work with textiles and that kind of engagement with indigenous techniques.
Is or was her work received differently in the West compared to back home in India?
There are two parts to that question. I think that during her career, a slightly orientalising, othering lens was applied to her work and some of her exhibitions. She travelled really widely. She spent time in the Netherlands, where she particularly focused on ceramics, and also spent time in Australia and the UK. But, I think when her work was exhibited, it was sometimes looked at quite reductively… just too essentialized to whatever cliches there were about India and Indian culture, I think now... particularly since the Met show, and hopefully this show will help to build that, her work is seen as something apart, really from anything else. When you look at her, placed within her contemporaries, her work is just so strikingly different. I hope that's what people really take away.
How has that impacted the curatorial choices you've made in this exhibition?
So, yeah, as I mentioned, we've generally followed a chronological direction, but we chose to punctuate it with her works out of chronology, because they are so different. And as I was saying before, about how she kind of referenced different movements but wasn't really within any of them. I just don't think it's the right way to look at her work to try to place it within the movements.
If you had to sum up her work in three words, what would they be?
Ooo.. I would say beautiful… Uncanny. Third word.. Virtuosic. Technically virtuosic, if I can?
Virtuosic? That's a great word.
Yes, well, she didn't plan how her textile sculptures, particularly, were going to be conceived, so the mental acuity she had to create these forms from knots was impressive.
Like almost organically?
Exactly. Working with conservators, looking at them, they were just fascinated by how they'd been physically constructed.
A Story of South Asian Art: Mrinalini Mukherjee and Her Circle runs from 31 October 2025 to 24 February 2026 in The Jillian and Arthur M. Sackler Wing of Galleries at The Royal Academy.
Beautiful, Uncanny, and Virtuosic. Discover the work of Mrinalini Mukherjee and her circle at the RA’s latest exhibition A Story of South Asian Art. We spoke with Assistant Curator Rebecca Bray to find out more.
Who was Mrinalini Mukherjee?
She was an absolutely trailblazing Indian sculptor working throughout the 20th century. She started out making these fantastic ‘Hemps’, sculptures that we have dotted around the exhibition, and that's what she's probably best known for. She spent several decades making these, then eventually she transitioned into making bronzes and ceramics. So, again, we have her sculptures from different periods in her career dotted around the exhibition. The exhibition is arranged roughly chronologically, but Mrinalini punctuates that chronology to show how those connections and influences were working throughout her life.
That leads into the next question: Why was Mrinalani chosen as the central thread to tell the story of this constellation of avant-garde artists?
We really felt that she was long overdue for a critical reassessment, particularly in the UK. She died in 2015, just days before her retrospective opened at the National Gallery of Modern Art in New Delhi. So she died on the cusp of really reaching international recognition. In 2019, there was a solo show at the Met in New York, but there hadn't been a show of her work in the UK since one at Modern Art Oxford in the 90s, which was while she was still mid-career. At that stage, she hadn't started working in ceramics and bronze, so it was just looking at her textiles. We chose the title of the exhibition to be ‘A Story of South Asian Art’ to point to the fact that we chose these artists. There could have been many, many more, but we chose these artists due to their close, familial, and friendship ties with Mrinalini. And she had a fascinating life, she grew up in Santiniketan, where there was a pioneering art school founded by Rabindranath Tagore, which the first room of the exhibition is dedicated to. She then went to the Baroda Art School in the 1970s, which, at the time, had taken over the baton from Santiniketan. As the pioneering art school, it drew heavily on indigenous Indian techniques. Then, she moved back to New Delhi, where she was at the heart of this kind of fascinating artistic community. So, her work is spectacular and deserves a show, and we felt that she just connected with so many fascinating artists and networks that we wanted to represent.
Can you tell me a bit more about the influence of her parents, who were both artists as well? I was also wondering if she ever collaborated on any work with her parents?
That I know of, we don't have any works that were direct collaborations with her parents. Her mother, Leela, had been a student at Santiniketan, and her father, Benode, had also been a student and then taught at Santiniketan. So, that’s why they were there while Mrinalini was growing up. I think their influence throughout her childhood really comes out, particularly in the attention that she pays to nature in her work. Apparently, when she grew up, she wanted to be a botanist, but her parents said, “No, no. Don't be silly, you have to be an artist,” which I always find really funny, because it's kind of the opposite of a lot of parents! Her father was visually impaired, and during her childhood, she would go around Santiniketan describing plants and flowers to him so that he could identify them. So, I think that really unlocked for me: understanding how she had this really close look at nature, which is then metamorphosed in her works.
Did she ever face challenges as a woman artist working in India?
I think the fact that she, as I was saying earlier, didn't receive recognition until literally the very end of her life – I mean, she had recognition within artistic networks, but not that kind of public, institutional recognition – I think that definitely points to maybe a slight gender imbalance. I think if you look at the careers across this exhibition of male and female artists, they definitely, particularly in the case of Leela, her mother, were shaped quite differently. I mean, I find it quite shocking that the Google Arts page, when I last checked it, still said that Leela Mukherjee was the wife of Benode Mukherjee, rather than focusing on her amazing sculpture. So, I think it definitely had an impact on her, but interestingly, she was really adamant that she was not a feminist artist. Nilima Sheikh, who is also in the exhibition, definitely addresses women's sociopolitical issues directly in her work. And Mrinalini was invited to be part of a group of women artists exhibiting at a feminist exhibition, but she explicitly rejected that invitation. So, whilst obviously the fact of being a woman in 20th-century India would have had an impact on her career, it wasn't something that she was particularly wanting to address.
What were the dominant art movements in 70s-80s India when she was first working? And how did Mrinalini and her circle break with them?
Well, I don't know that I'd say necessarily break with them… I think the interesting thing about this exhibition is that you move through the different movements that were particularly influential throughout time. So, we start in this room, there's a lot of emphasis on Contextual Modernism, which was something that really did grow out of Santiniketan and the Bengal School. And that was really talking about placing Modernism within the context of people's lives, particularly within the context of Bengali art traditions. So, you can see the works are Modernist, but they also really speak to traditions. Then, later in her career, she was particularly close with Jagdish Swaminathan; he broke away from that and began to focus on India's indigenous and tribal artistic practices. And I think Mrinalini interacted with all of these throughout her career, but she didn't really align herself with any particular movement. So she was both working within and punctuating the dominant artistic narratives.
How did she marry indigenous and traditional Indian art with Modernism in her work?
I think it's particularly when you look at her techniques, for example, the hemp, she was using local materials. It’s right at the very root of her work. That was also something that she was really encouraged to do by KG Subramanyan, who is the focus of the second room. He was her teacher in Baroda. And it was he who steered Mrinalini to work with textiles and that kind of engagement with indigenous techniques.
Is or was her work received differently in the West compared to back home in India?
There are two parts to that question. I think that during her career, a slightly orientalising, othering lens was applied to her work and some of her exhibitions. She travelled really widely. She spent time in the Netherlands, where she particularly focused on ceramics, and also spent time in Australia and the UK. But, I think when her work was exhibited, it was sometimes looked at quite reductively… just too essentialized to whatever cliches there were about India and Indian culture, I think now... particularly since the Met show, and hopefully this show will help to build that, her work is seen as something apart, really from anything else. When you look at her, placed within her contemporaries, her work is just so strikingly different. I hope that's what people really take away.
How has that impacted the curatorial choices you've made in this exhibition?
So, yeah, as I mentioned, we've generally followed a chronological direction, but we chose to punctuate it with her works out of chronology, because they are so different. And as I was saying before, about how she kind of referenced different movements but wasn't really within any of them. I just don't think it's the right way to look at her work to try to place it within the movements.
If you had to sum up her work in three words, what would they be?
Ooo.. I would say beautiful… Uncanny. Third word.. Virtuosic. Technically virtuosic, if I can?
Virtuosic? That's a great word.
Yes, well, she didn't plan how her textile sculptures, particularly, were going to be conceived, so the mental acuity she had to create these forms from knots was impressive.
Like almost organically?
Exactly. Working with conservators, looking at them, they were just fascinated by how they'd been physically constructed.
A Story of South Asian Art: Mrinalini Mukherjee and Her Circle runs from 31 October 2025 to 24 February 2026 in The Jillian and Arthur M. Sackler Wing of Galleries at The Royal Academy.
Beautiful, Uncanny, and Virtuosic. Discover the work of Mrinalini Mukherjee and her circle at the RA’s latest exhibition A Story of South Asian Art. We spoke with Assistant Curator Rebecca Bray to find out more.
Who was Mrinalini Mukherjee?
She was an absolutely trailblazing Indian sculptor working throughout the 20th century. She started out making these fantastic ‘Hemps’, sculptures that we have dotted around the exhibition, and that's what she's probably best known for. She spent several decades making these, then eventually she transitioned into making bronzes and ceramics. So, again, we have her sculptures from different periods in her career dotted around the exhibition. The exhibition is arranged roughly chronologically, but Mrinalini punctuates that chronology to show how those connections and influences were working throughout her life.
That leads into the next question: Why was Mrinalani chosen as the central thread to tell the story of this constellation of avant-garde artists?
We really felt that she was long overdue for a critical reassessment, particularly in the UK. She died in 2015, just days before her retrospective opened at the National Gallery of Modern Art in New Delhi. So she died on the cusp of really reaching international recognition. In 2019, there was a solo show at the Met in New York, but there hadn't been a show of her work in the UK since one at Modern Art Oxford in the 90s, which was while she was still mid-career. At that stage, she hadn't started working in ceramics and bronze, so it was just looking at her textiles. We chose the title of the exhibition to be ‘A Story of South Asian Art’ to point to the fact that we chose these artists. There could have been many, many more, but we chose these artists due to their close, familial, and friendship ties with Mrinalini. And she had a fascinating life, she grew up in Santiniketan, where there was a pioneering art school founded by Rabindranath Tagore, which the first room of the exhibition is dedicated to. She then went to the Baroda Art School in the 1970s, which, at the time, had taken over the baton from Santiniketan. As the pioneering art school, it drew heavily on indigenous Indian techniques. Then, she moved back to New Delhi, where she was at the heart of this kind of fascinating artistic community. So, her work is spectacular and deserves a show, and we felt that she just connected with so many fascinating artists and networks that we wanted to represent.
Can you tell me a bit more about the influence of her parents, who were both artists as well? I was also wondering if she ever collaborated on any work with her parents?
That I know of, we don't have any works that were direct collaborations with her parents. Her mother, Leela, had been a student at Santiniketan, and her father, Benode, had also been a student and then taught at Santiniketan. So, that’s why they were there while Mrinalini was growing up. I think their influence throughout her childhood really comes out, particularly in the attention that she pays to nature in her work. Apparently, when she grew up, she wanted to be a botanist, but her parents said, “No, no. Don't be silly, you have to be an artist,” which I always find really funny, because it's kind of the opposite of a lot of parents! Her father was visually impaired, and during her childhood, she would go around Santiniketan describing plants and flowers to him so that he could identify them. So, I think that really unlocked for me: understanding how she had this really close look at nature, which is then metamorphosed in her works.
Did she ever face challenges as a woman artist working in India?
I think the fact that she, as I was saying earlier, didn't receive recognition until literally the very end of her life – I mean, she had recognition within artistic networks, but not that kind of public, institutional recognition – I think that definitely points to maybe a slight gender imbalance. I think if you look at the careers across this exhibition of male and female artists, they definitely, particularly in the case of Leela, her mother, were shaped quite differently. I mean, I find it quite shocking that the Google Arts page, when I last checked it, still said that Leela Mukherjee was the wife of Benode Mukherjee, rather than focusing on her amazing sculpture. So, I think it definitely had an impact on her, but interestingly, she was really adamant that she was not a feminist artist. Nilima Sheikh, who is also in the exhibition, definitely addresses women's sociopolitical issues directly in her work. And Mrinalini was invited to be part of a group of women artists exhibiting at a feminist exhibition, but she explicitly rejected that invitation. So, whilst obviously the fact of being a woman in 20th-century India would have had an impact on her career, it wasn't something that she was particularly wanting to address.
What were the dominant art movements in 70s-80s India when she was first working? And how did Mrinalini and her circle break with them?
Well, I don't know that I'd say necessarily break with them… I think the interesting thing about this exhibition is that you move through the different movements that were particularly influential throughout time. So, we start in this room, there's a lot of emphasis on Contextual Modernism, which was something that really did grow out of Santiniketan and the Bengal School. And that was really talking about placing Modernism within the context of people's lives, particularly within the context of Bengali art traditions. So, you can see the works are Modernist, but they also really speak to traditions. Then, later in her career, she was particularly close with Jagdish Swaminathan; he broke away from that and began to focus on India's indigenous and tribal artistic practices. And I think Mrinalini interacted with all of these throughout her career, but she didn't really align herself with any particular movement. So she was both working within and punctuating the dominant artistic narratives.
How did she marry indigenous and traditional Indian art with Modernism in her work?
I think it's particularly when you look at her techniques, for example, the hemp, she was using local materials. It’s right at the very root of her work. That was also something that she was really encouraged to do by KG Subramanyan, who is the focus of the second room. He was her teacher in Baroda. And it was he who steered Mrinalini to work with textiles and that kind of engagement with indigenous techniques.
Is or was her work received differently in the West compared to back home in India?
There are two parts to that question. I think that during her career, a slightly orientalising, othering lens was applied to her work and some of her exhibitions. She travelled really widely. She spent time in the Netherlands, where she particularly focused on ceramics, and also spent time in Australia and the UK. But, I think when her work was exhibited, it was sometimes looked at quite reductively… just too essentialized to whatever cliches there were about India and Indian culture, I think now... particularly since the Met show, and hopefully this show will help to build that, her work is seen as something apart, really from anything else. When you look at her, placed within her contemporaries, her work is just so strikingly different. I hope that's what people really take away.
How has that impacted the curatorial choices you've made in this exhibition?
So, yeah, as I mentioned, we've generally followed a chronological direction, but we chose to punctuate it with her works out of chronology, because they are so different. And as I was saying before, about how she kind of referenced different movements but wasn't really within any of them. I just don't think it's the right way to look at her work to try to place it within the movements.
If you had to sum up her work in three words, what would they be?
Ooo.. I would say beautiful… Uncanny. Third word.. Virtuosic. Technically virtuosic, if I can?
Virtuosic? That's a great word.
Yes, well, she didn't plan how her textile sculptures, particularly, were going to be conceived, so the mental acuity she had to create these forms from knots was impressive.
Like almost organically?
Exactly. Working with conservators, looking at them, they were just fascinated by how they'd been physically constructed.
A Story of South Asian Art: Mrinalini Mukherjee and Her Circle runs from 31 October 2025 to 24 February 2026 in The Jillian and Arthur M. Sackler Wing of Galleries at The Royal Academy.
Beautiful, Uncanny, and Virtuosic. Discover the work of Mrinalini Mukherjee and her circle at the RA’s latest exhibition A Story of South Asian Art. We spoke with Assistant Curator Rebecca Bray to find out more.
Who was Mrinalini Mukherjee?
She was an absolutely trailblazing Indian sculptor working throughout the 20th century. She started out making these fantastic ‘Hemps’, sculptures that we have dotted around the exhibition, and that's what she's probably best known for. She spent several decades making these, then eventually she transitioned into making bronzes and ceramics. So, again, we have her sculptures from different periods in her career dotted around the exhibition. The exhibition is arranged roughly chronologically, but Mrinalini punctuates that chronology to show how those connections and influences were working throughout her life.
That leads into the next question: Why was Mrinalani chosen as the central thread to tell the story of this constellation of avant-garde artists?
We really felt that she was long overdue for a critical reassessment, particularly in the UK. She died in 2015, just days before her retrospective opened at the National Gallery of Modern Art in New Delhi. So she died on the cusp of really reaching international recognition. In 2019, there was a solo show at the Met in New York, but there hadn't been a show of her work in the UK since one at Modern Art Oxford in the 90s, which was while she was still mid-career. At that stage, she hadn't started working in ceramics and bronze, so it was just looking at her textiles. We chose the title of the exhibition to be ‘A Story of South Asian Art’ to point to the fact that we chose these artists. There could have been many, many more, but we chose these artists due to their close, familial, and friendship ties with Mrinalini. And she had a fascinating life, she grew up in Santiniketan, where there was a pioneering art school founded by Rabindranath Tagore, which the first room of the exhibition is dedicated to. She then went to the Baroda Art School in the 1970s, which, at the time, had taken over the baton from Santiniketan. As the pioneering art school, it drew heavily on indigenous Indian techniques. Then, she moved back to New Delhi, where she was at the heart of this kind of fascinating artistic community. So, her work is spectacular and deserves a show, and we felt that she just connected with so many fascinating artists and networks that we wanted to represent.
Can you tell me a bit more about the influence of her parents, who were both artists as well? I was also wondering if she ever collaborated on any work with her parents?
That I know of, we don't have any works that were direct collaborations with her parents. Her mother, Leela, had been a student at Santiniketan, and her father, Benode, had also been a student and then taught at Santiniketan. So, that’s why they were there while Mrinalini was growing up. I think their influence throughout her childhood really comes out, particularly in the attention that she pays to nature in her work. Apparently, when she grew up, she wanted to be a botanist, but her parents said, “No, no. Don't be silly, you have to be an artist,” which I always find really funny, because it's kind of the opposite of a lot of parents! Her father was visually impaired, and during her childhood, she would go around Santiniketan describing plants and flowers to him so that he could identify them. So, I think that really unlocked for me: understanding how she had this really close look at nature, which is then metamorphosed in her works.
Did she ever face challenges as a woman artist working in India?
I think the fact that she, as I was saying earlier, didn't receive recognition until literally the very end of her life – I mean, she had recognition within artistic networks, but not that kind of public, institutional recognition – I think that definitely points to maybe a slight gender imbalance. I think if you look at the careers across this exhibition of male and female artists, they definitely, particularly in the case of Leela, her mother, were shaped quite differently. I mean, I find it quite shocking that the Google Arts page, when I last checked it, still said that Leela Mukherjee was the wife of Benode Mukherjee, rather than focusing on her amazing sculpture. So, I think it definitely had an impact on her, but interestingly, she was really adamant that she was not a feminist artist. Nilima Sheikh, who is also in the exhibition, definitely addresses women's sociopolitical issues directly in her work. And Mrinalini was invited to be part of a group of women artists exhibiting at a feminist exhibition, but she explicitly rejected that invitation. So, whilst obviously the fact of being a woman in 20th-century India would have had an impact on her career, it wasn't something that she was particularly wanting to address.
What were the dominant art movements in 70s-80s India when she was first working? And how did Mrinalini and her circle break with them?
Well, I don't know that I'd say necessarily break with them… I think the interesting thing about this exhibition is that you move through the different movements that were particularly influential throughout time. So, we start in this room, there's a lot of emphasis on Contextual Modernism, which was something that really did grow out of Santiniketan and the Bengal School. And that was really talking about placing Modernism within the context of people's lives, particularly within the context of Bengali art traditions. So, you can see the works are Modernist, but they also really speak to traditions. Then, later in her career, she was particularly close with Jagdish Swaminathan; he broke away from that and began to focus on India's indigenous and tribal artistic practices. And I think Mrinalini interacted with all of these throughout her career, but she didn't really align herself with any particular movement. So she was both working within and punctuating the dominant artistic narratives.
How did she marry indigenous and traditional Indian art with Modernism in her work?
I think it's particularly when you look at her techniques, for example, the hemp, she was using local materials. It’s right at the very root of her work. That was also something that she was really encouraged to do by KG Subramanyan, who is the focus of the second room. He was her teacher in Baroda. And it was he who steered Mrinalini to work with textiles and that kind of engagement with indigenous techniques.
Is or was her work received differently in the West compared to back home in India?
There are two parts to that question. I think that during her career, a slightly orientalising, othering lens was applied to her work and some of her exhibitions. She travelled really widely. She spent time in the Netherlands, where she particularly focused on ceramics, and also spent time in Australia and the UK. But, I think when her work was exhibited, it was sometimes looked at quite reductively… just too essentialized to whatever cliches there were about India and Indian culture, I think now... particularly since the Met show, and hopefully this show will help to build that, her work is seen as something apart, really from anything else. When you look at her, placed within her contemporaries, her work is just so strikingly different. I hope that's what people really take away.
How has that impacted the curatorial choices you've made in this exhibition?
So, yeah, as I mentioned, we've generally followed a chronological direction, but we chose to punctuate it with her works out of chronology, because they are so different. And as I was saying before, about how she kind of referenced different movements but wasn't really within any of them. I just don't think it's the right way to look at her work to try to place it within the movements.
If you had to sum up her work in three words, what would they be?
Ooo.. I would say beautiful… Uncanny. Third word.. Virtuosic. Technically virtuosic, if I can?
Virtuosic? That's a great word.
Yes, well, she didn't plan how her textile sculptures, particularly, were going to be conceived, so the mental acuity she had to create these forms from knots was impressive.
Like almost organically?
Exactly. Working with conservators, looking at them, they were just fascinated by how they'd been physically constructed.
A Story of South Asian Art: Mrinalini Mukherjee and Her Circle runs from 31 October 2025 to 24 February 2026 in The Jillian and Arthur M. Sackler Wing of Galleries at The Royal Academy.
.png)
.svg){kind=logo}
