Hung Up Controversy over 'obscene' art A f umbai's moral police are at it again, hauling up a group IV-Lof artists displaying at the Jehangir Art Gallery because an irate viewer felt that the exhibits, which included nude male and female mannequins, were too erotic to be displayed. Such prudery may well be promoted by political parties, whether on the right or the left, if they feel there are vote banks to be carved out by agitating against allegedly offensive art. Even assuming that we are living in an era of easily offended sensibilities, however, the climate .of political correctness is now such that art exhibitions, apparently, may be shut down following a complaint from a single individual. This ignores the fact that art, unlike feel-good entertainment, may be conflictual - in the sense that it confronts us with realities we may not care to look too closely into. Eroticism, of course, is one such area. But censoring art on this score will result in a dumbed-down culture. The freedom of expression may be limited when it comes into conflict with other freedoms-the equivalent of shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre. One can't, for example, sketch offensive images on a public sidewalk, that would confront anybody walking down that route. The Colaba police, however, cracked down on artists who were display­ing in an art gallery, which isn't a public space in the same sense. Viewers enter such exhibitions at their own discre­tion, and can choose not to enter if they feel they may be offended by exhibits on display. This is an important distinction that was laid out in a landmark 1954 case, when Akbar Padamsee was arrested for displaying erotic paintings. The court ruled that exhibits in an art gallery cannot be deemed obscene or pornographic. The media has an important role to play in pushing the frontiers of freedom of expression, but it too has been squeamish in representing the controversial images. If the case comes up before the courts the exhibits can't be displayed while courts deliberate on the matter; it doesn't follow that print or electronic media can't publish images of the controversial exhibits. Whether they are offensive or not cannot hang on the testimony of one viewer. There should be a wider public debate - which isn't possible if the people have little idea of what the images are - before the matter is decided on the basis of legal precedent as well as the constitutional right to freedom of expression. Times International, August 9th 2006