What's 'Cutting Edge'?

Going by the kind of shows being put up by leading galleries in Mumbai at the moment, it looks like 'Cutting Edge' means anything but painting! If its installation, digital photography, video art, or fibre glass sculpture (mind you, the traditional mediums like clay and stone disqualify the artwork immediately), its 'Contemporary', its 'Cutting Edge'.
This is a strange phenomenon. One would think the choice of medium would be dictated by the concept, but it seems dictated by a perceived trend - that which is accepted by the West (West here, refers to the US and Western Europe) or that which is acceptable by the West. The trouble is, the West, especially the US, has not known India long enough to be able to understand its culture in depth. It is therefore natural that they respond only to those works that are similar to what they see around them, or those that address their own issues. Owing to the economic situation of India today, the social and cultural milieu are changing rapidly- our issues are different. How many artists are addressing these? How many make art that is in our own context?
The other issue ofcourse is that of national or cultural identity as well as globalisation. One wonders if being global means an identity that is not local or culture specific. Does it mean that art that claims to be global must therefore be like art coming out of anywhere and everywhere, without indigenous specificity? Perhaps it is the current marketing formula - 'Give-em-what-they-wanna-see'.
Also, its funny that the West has gone through this whole cycle of sensational artwork (Damien Hirst, Tracy Emin) Pop Art Installation (Jeff Koons) etc and come a full circle back to painting.
And of course, a painting can be 'Cutting Edge' too....but why haven't too many people thought about that?!
The other way to be 'Cutting Edge' is to have shown quite a lot outside India.
We still seem to need the Westerner's pat on the back to validate us and the work we do.
That says much about our identity crisis