Art Stage 2011

credits to The Straits Times

Although I didnt attend the Art Stage, I did hear about one particular artwork that caused a stir. There was a man who took pictures with people who wanted to in the buff. His pose and the visitor's pose copied that of the 2 Fridas in "The Two Fridas" (1939).

Honestly, I dont have a very wide knowledge on artists all around the world. So actually, I didnt know anything about that painting, much less know anything about the painter herself, Frida Kahlo. I only knew she was a female, and she was Mexican. But, I Googled her a little, and read up a little about "The Two Fridas" (1939), and then I went to read The Straits Times article about Mr. T Venkanna, the artist who was taking photos in nude during the Art Stage.

And, I actually would like to commend him on his endeavour, because being nude, being nude in public, and being nude in public for art are all different. Being nude is like, in the shower, or when you're changing clothes. Being nude in public could be offensive or not offensive. I saw such things happen in Montmarte, the so-called 'artist square', when I went there during the AEP Europe trip last year. THAT was not offensive, but it wasnt offensive because of the crowd I suppose. They were open-minded. I'm not too sure about Singapore though. After all, being nude in public IS against the law.

But what about being nude in public for art? I would say that it shouldnt be against the law. In fact, I dont even think being nude in public should be against the law. I mean, if someone is purposely harassing you (like a flasher, who is technically naked, or something), then it would be categorized under 'sexual harassment'. Would being nude be an extra charge?? I dont know, but I think it should not be counted as an another offense.

So yes, being nude in public for art is acceptable for me. Mr. T Venkanna is very brave, and I think he is going a step further than others where art is concerned. Everybody else is doing paintings, still-life or not, otherwise its sculptures, based on nude models or not. But what Venkanna has done is pretty rare now, isnt it?

I once watched a drama, and there was this particular episode. There was a man who liked tattoos, but he wouldnt stop at just tattoos alone. Let's say he has a skull tattoo, then he would shoot a bullet at the eye of the skull tattoo, so as to create a gunshot-scar eye for that skull tattoo. Even though it is a drama, the main point is still the same as Mr. T Venkanna's art. He takes an extra step, even if it may be extreme, and he gets noticed more than the rest.

Moreover, Mr. T Venkanna's exhibit was hidden behind a black curtain, and there was a sign that warned people of the contents. So why shouldnt it be acceptable? If it's unacceptable, it should be unacceptable for Mr. T Venkanna himself, because he's the one who has to be seen in the buff by many, many strangers, and even take pictures with them.

In conclusion, I think it's taking a different path from others which makes something more outstanding. If somebody's already walked there, then a path is created. So why follow somebody else's footsteps, when you can discover a whole new way for yourself?