Known as the “power couple” of the Kolkata art scene, Prateek and Priyanka Raja took a leap of faith to open the first Experimenter art gallery in 2009, leaving behind plush corporate jobs to do so. Today, Experimenter operates from three locations — its original Hindustan Road venue, a large space at Ballygunge Place that opened in 2018, and a Mumbai outpost in Colaba, launched in 2022.

Within a few short years, Experimenter has established itself within the international contemporary art circuit, not only for their galleries, which are premier art destinations in India, but also for creating vital spaces for incubating art practices in South Asia through their non-profit arm. With a strong focus on alternative and critical artistic practices, it has adopted models that have helped the art market mature in the region. 

The Rajas’ vision looks at the space of the gallery as both a platform for exhibitions and a hub for curatorial discourse, artistic production, and knowledge exchange. At present, the gallery runs multidisciplinary modules including talks, residencies, performances, and even a publishing arm. In 2016, it launched Experimenter Books for experimental publications, followed by the Experimenter Learning Program Foundation in 2018, and Experimenter Outpost in 2019, which brought art into unconventional city spaces.

Perhaps the most well-known of the Rajas’ many efforts is the annual Curators’ Hub, a major forum for discussing curatorship and contemporary art, featuring global participants. Launched in 2010, the Hub has been attended by Shaina Anand, Lydia Yee, Zoe Butt, Anita Dube, and Bonaventure Soh Bejeng Ndikung, to name just a few. 

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Rajas expanded their digital reach with initiatives like Experimenter Labs, Generator (an art production fund), and platforms like Filament and Experimenter Radio. Representing both Indian and international artists and art collectives, Experimenter regularly exhibits at major global art fairs, reinforcing its role as a critical centre for contemporary art in the region.

A few days after Experimenter’s 2025 Curators’ Hub event concluded on July 19, I caught up with Prateek and Priyanka on a busy Monday afternoon at their Ballygunge location.

Rush Mukherjee: The Experimenter’s 2025 Curators’ Hub concluded this past July. Every year, you send out a “provocation” email to participants. Can you tell me a little bit about this? What was this year’s “provocation” that the hub was centred around?

Priyanka Raja: When we started the hub, we wanted this to be a place where the people who are attending, whether in person or virtually, are able to take away something quite personal and relevant to the self, as opposed to a panel-based or topic-based, group-think dialogue. We were interested in knowing the individuals who were invited a bit more deeply — what their position is, what their agenda is, what has been their life’s learning. The idea was to explore whether, through that process of story sharing, we can then build our own vocabulary of understanding what curatorial thought leadership stands for in this corner of the world. So, each year we send that “provocation” mail, which is a private piece of correspondence between us and the person we’re sending it to. And then, we build from there.

To answer your question — what were we thinking about this year? There were multiple ideas. There was the situation from August last year in Kolkata (the RG Kar Hospital rape-murder case), of a whole year going by since the Gaza war started — we were thinking about the futility of everything. So then, what is really our role? How can we use our platforms to think about engaging with society, to build lexicons of communication within the visual art world? So with the ideas of these fissures structuring our lives, in a moment where the world seems to be completely collapsing, who are these individuals who can help us find the language to respond, and what have they done in their lives?

Also, at a time when everything you put out there has to be seen through the eyes of censorship, what is the role of a curator? What do they stand for? Can we then look at what they have done and then maybe find a language of our own? So that was the crux. That was what was addressed in that provocation letter to this year’s selection of guests. That was our interest.

Prateek Raja: The idea of making a vocabulary of resistance, resilience towards these fissures, which are being exclusively generated or infused into our ways of thinking, guided this year’s hub. When we were thinking about who to invite to the 2025 Curators’ Hub, we were thinking about how these individuals build this kind of vocabulary of resistance and resilience, but at the same time do path-breaking work, which is important, not only to our viewing audience, but the practicing community as well.

Mukherjee: The words “debate” and “dissent” come up a lot when you discuss your work. Was this the seed around which Experimenter was built? 

Priyanka: A hundred percent. Even as an organisation, how we function — it is always about the possibility to dissent. As a result, the discursive elements within our programming are quite wide — the learning modules, publishing, residencies, the hub and other events we do continuously. For us, even the process of exhibition-making is not a passive act of just looking or seeing; it’s about creating an active space of engagement. 

Prateek: Discursive thinking is very much in the DNA of the gallery, and that’s why Experimenter is based in Kolkata. The city had, or still has, to an extent, the possibility to entertain alternate points of view, which is not, for whatever reason, the case elsewhere. 

Mukherjee: In what ways has Kolkata shaped Experimenter?

Priyanka: We see ourselves very much as a Kolkata gallery, no matter where we show in the world. Kolkata shapes us — Kolkata’s way of life, Kolkata’s intellectual capacity and capability, Kolkata’s sort of humble far-sightedness, where you don’t have to prove to anybody that we are citizens of tomorrow. Prateek often gives this example, which I absolutely love — we are a deltaic city, where everything seems to be converging, and then diverging as well. This city makes us and we take great pride in it. Even if we have future outposts anywhere in the world, like the one we have in Mumbai, we will remain a Kolkata gallery. 

Mukherjee: Another word that seems reflected in your practice is “curiosity.” Another Kolkata quality?

Priyanka: Yeah, I think so, don’t you? (to Prateek)

Prateek: Definitely, I think there’s a certain sense of fearlessness. I think the fearlessness comes from the fact that the city is beyond these kinds of definitions of success. Success here comes from the way people think, the way people approach life, the way people always have counter points of view, whether it’s against something or for something. The city really is about passion, and very much about feeling. Also, I feel that for whatever reason — and I’m not holding on to nostalgia or anything — that this is a post-capitalist city, in my opinion. It has been, for many years, because of our political and social conditions, our interest in literature and the arts. We resist capital to an extent in general, our priorities lie elsewhere as well. And when that happens, there comes a certain kind of fearlessness, a certain kind of possibility too. That is why inquisitiveness and curiosity are part of the city’s DNA. And they are part of Experimenter’s DNA too. 

Priyanka: But also, this idea of curiosity — if we didn’t have curiosity, how could a gallery call itself Experimenter? We want to experiment — in form, in language, in the choice of artists, what the artist may show, the lives they lead. To say this sort of drive for experimentation doesn’t exist anywhere else in the world would be a stretch — perhaps it does. But, it is just that we have not discovered it, not the way it presents itself in Kolkata.

Mukherjee: So does this kind of the context of the place play a role in the aesthetics of Experimenter exhibitions or thematic elements? 

Priyanka: Yes! Like, without batting an eyelid. We could have an Alexandra Bachzetsis, who has an extremely vicious performance practice, which deals with the body, which deals with ideas that are very provocative and future-driven. It is the same with any of the other artists whose work we have shown since 2010 — their art has never been something difficult to digest for anyone here, no matter how avant-garde. Also remember, people do not associate the gallery with the transaction of capital. They don’t come here necessarily to buy. Compared to Bombay (Mumbai) — because that’s a space we also inhabit — where it’s very, very standard practice to come to the gallery to buy privately. So, if you aren’t buying, then you’re only going to go on an open day, like a big opening or an event, or whatever. But I’ll proudly say, in the three years that we’ve been in Bombay (Mumbai), our doors have been so wide open that it has brought in newer audiences; more people who are drawn to the gallery’s ethos. 

Mukherjee: Matching collectors to pieces is a process for the gallery. You don’t just sell a work to anyone, it has to go to the “right” person. Can you tell me a little bit more about that, of holding that kind of principle when you interact with the larger art market?

Priyanka: This morning, one of the reasons I was a few minutes late for our chat was because I was working on finding the right collector for (Sri Lankan multimedia artist) Pushpakanthan Pakkiyarajah’s work. We have an active base of 20-odd thousand collectors. Around five to six hundred of them are matched to specific artists. Then, between just the four or five of us, we’re writing about 120-130 emails or WhatsApp texts or making phone calls, depending on who the collector is to customise, tailor, and build that relationship. To just call and introduce them to the practice, personally. They don’t have to buy or anything — some of them will eventually buy and some of them may not. But what will happen is the artist’s work will be presented to institutions like the MoMA or the Tate, or to an individual collector in Sao Paulo or in Johannesburg or in Paris. So this idea of matching the collecting institution or individual to the artist is really what we do. 

Prateek: We face an equal amount of pressure, an equal amount of responsibility towards every show — from the first show we ever held — because we are sole representatives of many from our roster of artists from all over the world. So it’s our responsibility to be able to help their voices reach audiences, and to help find the right kind of places for their work. 

Mukherjee: Experimenter runs quite a few initiatives — from book publishing to the learning program, from the Experimenter Labs and micro bursaries to digital initiatives like Filament, Black Box, and Outpost. These are rich sites of knowledge-making practices. Could you tell me a little bit more about them? 

Priyanka: You’ve picked up on an important node in the way we see our work. It is about working with multiplicities. Our work builds within a multiplicity of thoughts, of expressions. I think we’re really building knowledge for those who attend in different ways. Our calendar, you’ll see, does not have a regular cadence. We don’t say, “every month, we have this.” It is only when a certain program is necessitated by either a current show or a current zeitgeist of thought, that we organise something. So we don’t have to contend with the pressure of having to churn out programmes, like a machine, because then quality can become a problem. 

Prateek: The Learning Programme Foundation is separate from the gallery as an entity and it runs on a shoestring budget. We also try to make the most of our knowledge networks. If someone’s visiting with us, we ask — can they give us a day, or can they give us a weekend? And also, of course, we bring other people in. None of these things are possible if it is just the two of us. So, it’s a full-on team effort. We are all wearing different hats.

Mukherjee: What are your thoughts on the larger South Asian art scene in the context of what you refer to as your knowledge network?

Prateek: I am not a trend follower, but what I can say very clearly is that South Asian art, or arts from the Global South, is now being included and recognised in a wider way across the world. In the last 150 years, Western hegemony has meant many global institutions and programs have missed out on a chunk of the overall narrative. There are big gaps to fill. There are major European museums that have nothing about a certain moment in time because they didn’t have the knowledge, they didn’t have the people, they didn’t have the funds, or they had the funds but they were pursuing certain other  narratives that were not inclusive. But now they realise that, you see?

Discourse on South Asia, its culture, its intrinsic qualities, whether through a sociological lens, a political one or its history — all of that is now coming out in a certain larger way. There is a huge interest or focus on South Asian arts and artists from a scholarly point of view and therefore also an exhibition-making point of view. If a curator is trying to make an exhibition that is a global exhibition, you cannot have three artists from South Asia and then have 25 artists from the Western world, because that is not representative. So that has changed.

If you go back, even 10 years, this was not the case. And the rare occasion when there was this real intermingling, those exhibitions are really considered brilliant. Okwui Enwezor, who passed away a few years ago, for instance, was recognised as a brilliant person. Why? Because he brought the voices of the African artists to the fore. He brought the voices of the artists from the Middle East and North Africa to the world stage. Similarly, Adam Szymczyk’s exhibition at Documenta 14 is considered as one of the greatest… he showed the works of artists who had never been seen before.

Mukherjee: You mentioned being a mirror or an archivist for the times we are living in…

Priyanka: Absolutely. So that’s why it’s not so much an idea or a topic, but really about the time. If the time needed Be-khaufi (an Experimenter 2024 programme about resistance) to happen, it did. The team felt that this is a way we could respond, because this is our work, and we’re using our platform to respond. And we responded. I think to be able to mirror the times we are living through, to be able to do that, in itself, is a privilege, because there are many who aren’t able to do that today.  

Mukherjee: What are the challenges that you’re currently facing?

Priyanka: I think our main challenge is the very speedy flow of the art world. We are doing a whole lot, and that needs you to constantly be on the top of your field, and I don’t know if that’s the pace that we want to maintain for all our work. We enjoy doing what we do so much that we might continue doing this to our very last breath. But, I think this very frenetic pace of our system could be rewired. Certain parts of our overall programming could go at one pace, while other cogs, other parts of the Experimenter motor, can chug along at a slower pace. We want to build a newer system to allow for this.

Mukherjee: In the Global South context, especially in India, funding artists is a challenge so that they can keep their work going. Can you speak about Experimenter’s micro-bursaries initiative, Generator, in this context? What are other ways to meet this challenge? 

Priyanka: All individuals have to keep doing what they can do, and then suddenly you have a bigger system of social change, right? So we feel responsible. We thought the Generator could be a way forward. Up until July 2025, over a period of approximately five years, 95 artists have received support. But, I mean, we’re a country of 1.4 billion. Even our 1% is a number bigger than many countries, right? So if that 1% decides to pledge even a little, we have so much support for the arts. So, I’m very hopeful. I often say, “Oh, this is Generator. This is a great model, and you should do it!” The idea is that everyone does something similar. 

Prateek: I was telling you earlier that it’s a separate entity altogether, because although we all do it together, there is no employee that the foundation pays. So there are zero organisational costs. So whatever money comes, goes entirely into funding these bursaries. Number two, the entity is structured by law. We are supposed to give out 95% of what we receive, as contributions, to fund artists. So it is a model structured around giving and it’s not difficult to establish. And if several institutions set up such bursaries, artists will get the support they need.

Priyanka: Some big organisations have told us, “Oh, we’ll see if our company’s CSR budget can go towards this.” So maybe this kind of contribution by companies will increase, and the Generator can give thousands of grants because it was modelled on this Netherlands-based grant called the Fonds Podiumkunsten Performing Arts Fund. If you look it up, it’s very equitable, and it’s all year round. So some day, that’s also a possibility. See, any of the things we do can be scaled up, but funding is a big part of it. We are actually more idealistic than realistic!

Mukherjee: Speaking of being realistic, you once said that in India, there’s no afterlife when it comes to curatorship. Of how there’s no place to discuss what actually happens in the business of exhibition-making — what goes into it. Do you think the annual Curators’ Hub has succeeded in changing that somewhat?

Priyanka: I certainly think so. And not just through live discussions with an audience, but also creating an archive that is there for the future. I do know that many people — students, scholars, and the like — access the hub archive. Every single presentation so far is available online. You can download, use it in your research. Everything is videographed, of course, and it’s all available. So there’s a huge amount of material that has been built, over time, for people to mull over in the archive — material that future generations can take away lessons from. Then, there is all this effort that we put in for the Documenta, the Venice Biennale and the smaller exhibitions, or even the gallery’s own exhibitions, or anything presented in a public space — it is important to study the process of deconstructing and constructing these exhibitions. 

Prateek: It builds a lexicon. A way to model possibilities. These things (of what goes into creating an exhibition) may not have been thought of in a separate way, but because the Curators’ Hub has been able to sustain itself over these many years, there is now a ready model of knowledge production. 

Priyanka: I have to say, one of the things Experimenter loves, is to be copied! We feel like we build models that work. When one of our programs sustains itself and has worked for the audiences (here), then it could work in Vietnam or Thailand. It should work in another place where everything is still nascent, like in India, where models are still being built. So our programs become shared learning models. We are invited to so many different places to replicate what we do here, and we say, “No, no, we will do this in Kolkata. That’s where our home is. You build your own model, use the same structure, and it will work for you.” Because it seems to have worked for an uninitiated audience. 

Prateek: People often ask us, “Why don’t you take the hub elsewhere? Why don’t you make it larger?” I don’t think we need to make it larger. I think the architecture of that space in the gallery allows for a kind of inert self-reflection… It creates the fertile ground for thought. So we have succeeded already.

Rush Mukherjee is a freelance journalist, writer, translator, and poet. They consult for BBC Monitoring and contribute to several print and digital outlets. They also run the queer news newsletter, ‘Queering About.’