Freedom of Expression :
Attacked because of being Undefined!
H.A.Anil Kumar

In 2013, one of the exhibitions in the rented galleries of
Karnataka Chitrakala Parishath had a poster that warned about
‘the viewer discretion’. The Delhi based artist had digitally
created sensational and sensuous imageries about Indian
mythology, in a style that was reminiscent of manga comics,
married to Modesty Blaise and divorced from Phantom mode
of representation. The artist, relative to an influential law
maker, had no less than the first citizen of Bangalore as the
guest. The news of a Hindu god kissing his wife—one of his
animation-like imagery, was MMSed to the ministers, when
the parliamentary session was going on. Authorities and
politicians insisted on removing three digital canvases from
the show and the artist refused, in the name of freedom of
expression. Parishath warned the artist against disturbing the
peace in the vicinity which houses crores of rupees worth of
artworks, including original Tagores and Roerichs.
In the next five days the artist displayed only those three
paintings which were to be taken off, to the press and the
public. Mysteriously, the artist and the said canvases (only three
of them) vanished off. However the image was already done:
the idea of ‘freedom of expression’ itself was taken for a ride.
Critically evaluating, it was the most publicised mediocre show
in the history of Parishath displays. Nobody wrote about the
show, but all concentrated on the controversy. Perhaps the artist
had masterminded the loopholes within one’s imagination of
freedom of expression! The artist’s name need not be mentioned,
so as to not to become a part of his publicity design.