Shocked is the name of the art The brouhaha over an exhibition at the Jehangir Art Gallery, designed to showcase extraordinary art, shows up a regressive Indian mindset Chintan Upadhyay AN OLD lady once checked into a hotel and ten min­utes later called the man­ager, complaining that her room afforded no privacy and she could see naked people cavorting from the window! The agitated manager rushed over, warily looked out and saw ab­solutely nothing, since there was no building opposite! Per­plexed, he asked the old lady how she could see naked people while he couldn't. The lady explained, "First you have to take that chair, place it on the dresser, lean out of the window...". The fracas that took place at Jehangir Art Gallery last week­end over the works of Sanjeev Khandekar and Vaishali Narkar reminded me of this anecdote. But what happened, actually, was no laughing matter. As a matter of fact, it con­firmed the common notion that concepts like freedom of expres­sion are alien to Mumbai's moral police. If artists cannot show­case their creativity even within the confines of a gallery's hal­lowed walls, it is cause for seri­ous concern. Whenever something new ap­pears on the art scene, it is con­sidered shocking by certain au­diences, usually those who are more conservative in terms of mindset and attitude. Invariably, some section or the other goes into shock when any type of in­novation is unveiled. But then, isn't that precisely the reason why such exhibitions are only targeted at a mature au­dience? Those who have an open mind and are comfortable with exploring new ideas? Sure, there are legal issues in­volved whenever something erotic is displayed, but those rules apply outside the gallery, not within its premises. In the present case, it was not as if the works were being openly dis­played on a footpath or on hoard­ings which everybody would be forced to look at, regardless of whether they wanted to. Freedom of expression is al­ways tempered by freedom of choice; so stepping into the gallery to see the exhibits was an act of choice. Nobody forced the lady concerned to step into the gallery and confront the exhibits. The title of this exhibition, 'Tits, Clits and Elephant Dicks', made it amply clear what the subject matter was. Therefore, conservative visitors, who knew that their sensitivities would be offended by 'obscene' works, could surely have avoided it! If the lady walked in inadver­tently, the first exhibit should have made her walk out. Where was the need to get the police in­volved? Where was the need to try to thrust a set of outdated values into the 21st century? Where was the need to react in a manner completely out of pro portion to the nature of the perceived offence, to what was clearly a form of self-expression by a creative person? Where was the need to make the medium transcend the message? My contention is that while everybody has a right to their own opinion, they don't have the right to create a situation of ha­rassment for an artist just be­cause they feel 'offended' by the artist's works. Today, people look at life from I a broader perspective. We are faced with a scenario where peo­ple are putting down their fan-: tasies in virtual spaces, revealing intimate experiences and even sharing visuals. People in chat rooms share intimacies with strangers to an extent that they would never dare to with their spouses. Recent studies have shown that cyber cafes are mostly frequented in the afternoons by bored housewives engaging in lengthy email and chat conversations on 'hot' top­ics to spice up their dull lives. Over the years, our approach towards sexuality has changed drastically. People are much more open about their sexual orientation and preferences. It is not unusual to see couples sepa­rate on the grounds of sexual in­compatibility, or to see unmar­ried women unabashedly pur­chase condoms for a 'forgetful' partner. Therefore, Sanjeev and Vaishali's exhibition was not ex­ploring a hitherto hidden facet of human nature, of Indian society or Indian art. Right from the days of Khajuraho sculptures, aplethora of artists have worked on this theme and presented their creative concepts at vari­ous forums. In ancient Indian culture, sex was an integral part of society. This is clear from texts like the Kamasutra also. There is no dearth of minia­ture paintings inspired by the Kamasutra which have been cre­ated to understand sex and sen­suality. I strongly feel that if some people want to destroy or suppress contemporary Indian art they should also fight to de­stroy these heritages. Moreover, Sanjeev and Vaishali's exhibition was not only about sexuality: it was about 'open channels' where 'everything is for sale.' Basically, the exhibition was about 'mar­keting'. People who are raising questions about the exhibition haven't seen other works of this nature. One of the works repre­sents many Yogis in different yo-gic positions; it talks about mar­keting yoga by using the idea of a healthy and fit body The sculptures that have been projected as obscene are the artists' self-portraits. One needs to see these works in the context of the exhibition and not in iso­lation. It is not as if the artists were asking you to look at a naked human figure; they were conveying something. The stat­ues represented a modern-day reality where marketing has be­come the be-all and end-all of just about everything. I just cannot understand the hypocrisy of Indians towards Khajuraho and the fact that we treat it as a historical monument and yet hold conservative views about contemporary art. Why is a replica of a male body always seen as obscene and porno­graphic? Sanjeev and Vaishali's exhibition exposed that very hypocrisy of the Indian mind and our legal system concerning sex. One of my previous exhibi­tions had a nude performance by myself, titled 'Baar Baar Har Baar Kitni Baar.' The context of sitting nude was not to be taken in isolation, but in toto with the burnt canvasses. But if any per­son in the audience decided that was obscene, perhaps I too could have been similarly targeted! Who makes a work of art con­troversial and sensational? Not the title, not the artist; it's the viewer. Truly, obscenity is in the mind of the beholder and not the creator. A plethora of artists have worked on the theme of sex and presented their creative concepts on various forums. Khajuraho is only one such example. Why not destroy these heritages? The writer is a founder member of Sandarbh Artists Workshop, Mumbai Hindustan Times, August 14th 2006