The outcry over installing a statue of Charlie Chaplain in Udipi last week points to the re-fabrication of public space as something that only the revered-by-consensus can occupy. Any conventional intervention, like statues, has to be sombre, reverential and un-interrogative. Yet, several other works in public space get away without being commented upon. One of the escapees is the graffiti across south Delhi — political and entertaining, if not funny. Abusive of Facebook, cynical about a media house’s campaign to find leaders, it is spray-painted grafitti, unlikely to be taken seriously.
What is it about sculpture, statues and paintings that stir emotions unlike other art? The steel “Sprouts” in Delhi that many of us have come to detest caused several column inches of dismay. But surprisingly not a large, prominent sign on a trash dump that says— “F@#$% Facebook” even though it may be exactly the kind of thing several parents would not want their children to read.
There are two phenomenon at work here. Both reflect what the aam-janta understands of artistic practice. First, there is the idea about what comprises art. Despite the increasing number of art practitioners in India whose work comprises performance, sound and engagement with the public in undramatic ways, this is not considered “real” art. The process — so vital to art production — has still not reached main street. I am not suggesting that the graffiti we are seeing was intended to be art, but it is in the public realm. It is intended to provoke, but because it is graffiti, it provokes less. Contrast this with the reaction to Banksy, who used the idea of graffiti to create stunning but edgy paintings on walls in London and New York. He left his name, but for years no one knew who he was. From the debris of graffiti in these cities, Banksy alone stood out to international fame, in part because of his quirky, humourous images. The element of the image remained important. You can’t seem to offer a wider public art without a visual image, even if it is all abstract.
The second phenomenon is the expectation of art. Regardless of what many cutting edge artists believe, the response on the street is that art must have something “noble”. It’s a voice from the 19th century, but it’s a strong one still. That’s why the Charlie Chaplin statue evoked the howls of angry protest it did — how could a comic actor be lauded? Was Udipi a land of whackos?
Indians are quick to embrace — or denounce — art in the public realm, but in most cases, it’s a relationship reserved only for creations that are visual and conventional. That’s where the tussle over public beauty and order plays out.
