As the chief curator of the Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art Sri Lanka (MMCA Sri Lanka), Sharmini Pereira reveals a breadth of knowledge and depth of thinking that can only come from decades of practice in her field. Highly sought after for her expertise, she has been part of the curatorial teams for several prestigious art events across the world, right from being appointed the guest curator for the Abraaj Capital Art Prize (2011) to co-curating the first Singapore Biennale (2006). In 2014, she also guest curated Garden of Ideas – Contemporary Art from Pakistan, the opening exhibition of the Aga Khan Museum in Toronto.

Deeply invested in knowledge-sharing and art research, Pereira has founded and run two internationally recognised, Sri Lanka-based organisations — Raking Leaves, the award-winning publishing company that has commissioned and published contemporary artists’ work as book projects, and the Sri Lanka Archive of Contemporary Art, Architecture and Design. Not surprisingly, Pereira was one of the headline speakers for the Experimenter Learning Program’s 2025 Curator’s Hub. On the sidelines of the July event, Pereira sat down for an expansive conversation, which touched upon a range of topics — from the Sri Lankan art scene to lessons about institution-building in the Global South.

Rush Mukherjee: Who do you think are some of the most interesting artists right now on the Sri Lankan art scene? What are some of the preoccupations that underpin their work?

Sharmini Pereira: What I would say is that in Sri Lanka, from a museum’s perspective, we are really only starting to explore the landscape — because the art scene has been highly dominated by artists from mostly Colombo. And so the landscape… We’ve started to think about spatial contexts. A very big part of what I think is starting to now emerge is an engagement with what artists from other parts of the country have been thinking about, what have they been doing? That’s a very exciting challenge because it has made us (at MMCA) almost rethink what we thought was happening. So without naming artists, the centre of art production is, I think, more important to think about. 

One of the things that has been very noticeable, and comparable to the situation in Pakistan, is the impact of artists teaching as pedagogues in Sri Lanka. It’s something that artists in Sri Lanka take very seriously. You really notice how different artists are teaching other artists different ways of thinking. 

And then there are questions around navigating the commerce aspect. For artists right now, I think the challenge is more about how to survive doing what you do, without having to compromise because of the market. I think there’s a real strain and pressure on artists to survive financially, to create a practice that is sustainable. Artists, more often than not, almost start to have two parallel practices (one for the market, and one unrelated to it). It is these things that I think are fascinating to witness. When history looks back, there will be a question about why you look at an artist’s work and see this sort of almost schizophrenic way of working. 

That said, I think there are also artists in Sri Lanka who realise this is happening and they’re still persevering — only making work they wish to create, regardless of market pressures. In due course, the market will adjust and move towards artistic trajectories that resonate… collectors will move with that. But, at the moment, we’re in this kind of cyclonic era with a lot of shifting factors, moving at speed, which are shaping the scene. It’s almost like where India was 20 years ago, with artists sometimes being paid properly for the first time, but equally, you know how the market dictated what so much of the art world here was doing.

Mukherjee: What do you think the sort of decentering you are speaking of will achieve?

Pereira: I think the decentering will have two outcomes. One is that you’re going to now see artists being recognised from outside of Colombo much more. And if you go outside of Colombo, in that sense, you can go beyond even the island. So I think there’s also a developing space for the work of artists of Sri Lankan origin, but who are living and working in other parts of the world. That is a very important mindset shift.

This means you don’t have to be contained, whether that’s on the island or in the city, in Colombo. There’s a sort of much wider context emerging for the definition of what a Sri Lankan artist is. And what will come with that, then — what does come with that — is obviously new collectors. New forms of support will also come to the table — with all of those things, the conversation becomes less parochial. That’s really something exciting to see happening.

Through the MMCA, I think what we are looking at is, “how do we negotiate that?” So to start something really from scratch and to be involved with something as I am, in this very embryonic stage, is to have this incredible privilege to be able to really think anew, because we don’t have anything to condition us.

Mukherjee: I was watching one of your talks, and you mentioned there that when you talk about South Asia, the conversation is almost always dominated by India. Do you think that is changing somewhat?

Pereira: So the context of when I was speaking about that, which I think I would have referred to as the “Indianisation of the region” — it’s just recognising that geographically and historically, this region has been very defined by India. But, it’s not something to be apologetic about, but rather, to recognise the phenomenon and to see, therefore, the biases and the kinds of imbalances. When, at certain times, there has been interest internationally about the region, the focus will be on India first. And then there’s a sort of a trickle-down interest that comes to all of us as outer lying, more peripheral parts of South Asia.

So it was really, I think, talking to that particular historical context of interest in our region, and questioning at the same time this regional (bias). So today, what I think we’re seeing is that Sri Lanka can punch way above its own weight. And I think that’s what India has to contend with. Because, I guess, if you think of India as the enabler (of interest in the region), what Sri Lanka should be looking at is how to maximise the opportunities coming to South Asia to develop its art ecosystem.

Mukherjee: Art funding creates different kinds of narratives around independent curatorial projects, depending on the supporting institutions’ goals. Could you tell us a bit more about that, in the context of Raking Leaves?

Pereira: I received organisational funding — it was to support the growth of an organisation (Raking Leaves). But, at the same time, it was me — it was one person with an independent curatorial practice that the Arts Council England saw as someone who had the potential to grow. But their growth was measured in terms of organisational growth.

If you think about most independent curators, they don’t really set out to start organisations. I think the whole point is that they’re independent of most institutions. So, that particular funding support was like a crossroads moment for me. On the one hand, it was a huge endorsement, which could help Raking Leaves develop and grow. But also, as mentioned, the growth was seen as a funding deliverable — sort of like, “In return for this, we want you to grow this into an organisation.”

Mukherjee: If institution building was not your objective, what was?

Pereira: Oh, just selling more books to hundreds more people around the world! Yeah, that’s it. You know, if you think about a publisher — like say Thames & Hudson — they are not tasked with also running an education program, you know? There’s enough going on with being a publisher. So they (the Art Council) were looking at supporting Raking Leaves as a curatorial organisation (rather than a publishing company), which was structured around the traditional concept of what a curator does, but what I needed more were distributors. What I needed were people who would help send out and get these books out there. So growth for me was quite simple. And also, what was really important with Raking Leaves was not to overproduce. 

Mukherjee: What do you mean when you say “overproduce”? In terms of the number of copies of a single project, or in terms of the projects themselves?

Pereira: Projects. And I say this for two very specific reasons. One, when you make something with Raking Leaves, each artist book project has an unrelenting amount of labor involved — it is unbelievable — but I would never want to cut any corners on that. So, if you then say, instead of doing one, we’re going to do three, you will be forced then to do some things differently. In the end, you have three of something that are not, I don’t think, as interesting as if you had produced just that one project. So, I never wanted to overproduce.

I question, I suppose, the ability to do more than one thing, and you know, doing ten instead of one. It’s always been, for me, about trying to create this kind of critical publishing that is so solid. In one project, you want to try and say everything, and that’s a huge challenge for an artist — but it’s also wonderful that artists want to try to do that. But when you place so much into making a project, you then get something back. I mean, the rewards, and what the project gives back, over and over and over again. I think the analogy of fast fashion is apt. So fast publishing isn’t something that I was interested in. I could see it (happening), and I was in awe of it. There was a publisher based in Germany called Revolver — it was just so inspiring to see everything they did, but it was at a volume that I never wanted to match… I wanted to do things that were slow. 

Mukherjee: You wanted to think of a different way to prioritise, to add value

Pereira: Yeah. And it’s, you know, so it’s about practicality too. There was only one of me, and it’s being able to put yourself — being in the present — for every single part of what was required. And if you don’t do that… Then, I would question how you’re working, or what the nature of that kind of commissioning relationship is. I realised this later on, that at Raking Leaves, there is nothing that I could delegate. 

Mukherjee: Is that why Raking Leaves had to wind down? 

Pereira: The end of Raking Leaves really had to come about for two reasons. One, because the MMCA came about, and, for the reasons I’ve said, it (Raking Leaves) was never going to be a part-time enterprise. I could never give it to somebody else to do. 

The second reason was also because the last project, which was called The A To Z Of Conflict, ran into this really unexpected situation with the Sri Lankan government banning it for three years. It was a ban that manifested itself through the detention of the books for three years under the speculative view that the book’s subject matter could incite violence. This was done under this rather draconian act called the “Prevention of Terrorism Act.” And if we do look at the state of the world today, those are the kinds of things that we are all dealing with, in different places of the world.

In Sri Lanka, this sort of punitive action was so far away from my world. But, when this Act was enforced to “detain” copies of that book — we’re talking about 3000 copies, and that’s a very large quantity of material — we were gripped by the fear of what was going to happen, obviously, first to the books, but then to me and my family… 

Mukherjee: So the MMCA came about after all that… You’re just now setting it up. So, what is next? 

Pereira: Yeah. So MMCA is in these early stages of developing as a museum of modern contemporary art, and we’ve been around now for — this is our sixth year. But really, proper operations, with us delivering a program, has been three years. Three years of continuous exhibitions but hosted at temporary locations. We’ve just moved again from a temporary venue, and now we’re focused on the next phase, which is really about two things.

One, looking at the new permanent facility, which involves securing it, thinking about the design of it and all that comes with the building. But, the other aspect, what is more key I think, is developing a cadre of people who are skilled and have the expertise. They have to have the knowledge, have the ability to create, run, and operate a museum of this nature on a day-to-day basis… especially as we think about the next perhaps 30 to 50 years. I think we have to understand assets in a very different way, given the state of the world, and value our human capital more. It’s about building loyalty.

The very sad thing is that artists have suffered because they’re not valued. And that applies equally to everyone who works in the art sector. Artists rely greatly on their production staff, their curators, the people that work on public programs to reach new audiences, and so on. It shouldn’t be this sweatshop environment that causes burnout from having to work non-stop. It should just be a regular job — well paid and recognised. 

The South Asian mindset is to see the arts as something that is a rather privileged space. And I think what I really want to be able to make happen is that you don’t have to come from a wealthy family to work in the art world. That’s really what’s happened and made so much possible, up until now, but that has to change. You should be able to come from any socio-economic background. It’s the knowledge that you have that should get you where you are and reward you financially. We don’t want to lose all the bright minds to lucrative professions. Everyone shouldn’t have to become lawyers and doctors, and so on. 

Mukherjee: Another aspect of running a successful museum is creating an audience — is that something that is top of the mind when it comes to building an institution like MMCA? 

Pereira: Absolutely, yeah, and that’s also something that a lot of museums obviously talk about. But we’re looking at how they actually do it (create an audience) — it’s something that’s very hard to pin down. How do you create an audience? And, can you? Because it sounds like an artificial process. But I think if you start the process from maybe a very basic question — “What is this going to say to somebody?” — then, the audience will come. They don’t necessarily come when you want them too. And they can disappear very quickly too. So, yeah, it’s not to take them for granted, at all.

Mukherjee: In the near future, what is one thing that you feel will have a significant impact on the arts and culture sector in the Global South?

Pereira: The cultural sector (eventually) I think will have a new kind of role to play, particularly around the development of AI technology. The creative sector, which is seen as almost a peripheral field, will become much more central to any industry that requires and thinks about the implementation of AI, because creativity and innovation have always gone hand in hand. People will have to start recognising that the creative sector has a multitude of different uses. 

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.