tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7024210672199702325.post3371038948853121865..comments2024-03-28T15:07:22.673+05:30Comments on Shoot First, Mumble Later: Manufacturing controversy, courtesy Hindustan TimesGirish Shahanehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16877402074547726173noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7024210672199702325.post-64366154750498630962012-01-29T10:14:53.049+05:302012-01-29T10:14:53.049+05:30I visited 'Town's End' in Bangalore an...I visited 'Town's End' in Bangalore and did not witness any cruelty to animals. I did spend time 'observing' the birds and the suggestion that they have been traumatized in the exhibition is, well, laughable. <br /><br />Animal rights activists need to focus on the 'real' work that lies ahead of them and should refrain from finding problems and controversies when none exist.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7024210672199702325.post-76180078569961272902012-01-29T01:18:54.385+05:302012-01-29T01:18:54.385+05:30Poosha, Navin, a person from his gallery and I all...Poosha, Navin, a person from his gallery and I all spoke to isha Manchanda. I can assure you I have not come across a more unprofessional interviewer. Navin spoke to her *at length*, very calmly, taking her through all the issues involved. But she wasn't interested in any of it. She'd made her mind up already. There's a place for opinion in newspapers, but reportage is something different. To say an artist is in trouble when actually you wish he was in trouble and you're doing your darndest to ensure he gets into trouble is not ethical journalism in my book. You, I see, have chosen not to address any of this, nor her lack of basic research. How tough is it to read the provisions of the Prevention of Animal Cruelty Act?Girish Shahanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16877402074547726173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7024210672199702325.post-55489665586751735692012-01-28T19:21:28.698+05:302012-01-28T19:21:28.698+05:30The only reason why I am only able to say that I f...The only reason why I am only able to say that I feel uncomfortable is because I lack the knowledge to state with certainty why something like this would be cruel to the birds. Surely it's not hard to see where the concern is coming from?!<br />If Navin 'has thought carefully about the issues, and knows more about the way birds and insects perceive the world', then perhaps there should have been an accompanying note along with the exhibition. Did he not foresee such a reaction, when he chose to use birds for an installation? Did nobody at Skoda Prize, (or whatever this is a part of)?<br />Or a response/ comment to Manchanda at the very least. She mentions that he refused to comment.<br /><br />I don't remember mentioning censorship of art, in fact am staunchly it. To tell you the truth, I'm a little offended by the insinuation in your response. And I do reserve the right to voice my opinion, thank you very much.pooshahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15528297871198230190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7024210672199702325.post-85140403250268970672012-01-28T15:14:47.619+05:302012-01-28T15:14:47.619+05:30Poosha, Utterflea, all you say is that the piece m...Poosha, Utterflea, all you say is that the piece makes you uncomfortable. That's not an argument. A lot of art makes a lot of people uncomfortable. The Satanic Verses made many Muslims uncomfortable. Husain's paintings made many Hindus uncomfortable. I respect your point of view, and Isha's. If you feel uncomfortable, stay away from the show. But she clearly wanted the show to be shut down, and I can't respect that. <br />We are not trying to find our way around a clause. Isha Manchanda is trying to evoke a clause to close down a show when there is no cruelty of any sort involved in Navin's work. I'm surprised you don't see who the aggressor is in this case. Those who want to stifle Navin's creative expression without offering coherent reasons are precisely like those who condemn Husain and Rushdie. The only difference is that animal rights fascists come from rich backgrounds, and are therefore taken seriously by the English media, while those who want to persecute the Husains and Rushdies of the world are not part of the chatterati and can safely be looked down upon.<br />My main grouse against the article was not the typo, but the lack of basic research about the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and what constitutes cruelty in the first place. The writer has also made simple errors in the way she describes sounds emanating from the transistor. Navin has thought carefully about the issues, and knows more about the way birds and insects perceive the world than Isha Manchanda or those who feel 'uncomfortable' but can't say why. Your discomfort simply isn't a good reason to censor art, I'm afraid.<br />The Skoda Prize would never condone any cruelty to animals. The fact is that this piece is not cruel. I was in the gallery again this morning, and again the birds were sitting peacefully in the room even though the door was open for a good half hour. I was afraid a bird might wander out and we'd have to catch it, but they're content to stay within the space.Girish Shahanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16877402074547726173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7024210672199702325.post-35900801049301465682012-01-28T14:28:28.174+05:302012-01-28T14:28:28.174+05:30I haven't seen the exhibition but I too am com...I haven't seen the exhibition but I too am completely uncomfortable with the idea of birds in a room with a background of continuous noise. I do happen to know Isha Manchanda pretty well and I have to say this about her, she's not the sort to get agitated about silly things or to manufacture controversy. I'm surprised that the issues that were raised didn't occur to the artist. And to pay so much attention to the typos is an admission that the piece does bring up valid points.utterfleahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00287756962905313060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7024210672199702325.post-79805878633581836152012-01-28T12:54:22.401+05:302012-01-28T12:54:22.401+05:30Probably just a typo, Girish. I read the piece in ...Probably just a typo, Girish. I read the piece in the published version, in the Mumbai edition. It says 'artist', not 'artiste'. <br />I have to say I was most uncomfortable with the idea of pigeons being confined in a room, that too with continuous (white) noise. And no, I haven't seen it for myself yet. Even if I had, and noticed nothing unusual in the pigeons' behaviour, I would still be uncomfortable with it. <br />And finding a way around a clause is well... little more than a way around. It isn't quite in the spirit of things, is it. <br />As for equating Manchanda to those wanting to persecute Rushdie... wait a second! Whatever happened to respecting another point of view. I have no attachment to her or the piece, but I find it strange that you can so easily and independently align yourself to another cause/ controversy. A little like people equating Anna to Gandhi.pooshahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15528297871198230190noreply@blogger.com