Pay $250 for a photo with nude artist?

One of the first few things that came to my mind was: Is this art? What is art? Am I willing to pay $250 for a photo with the nude artist?

Well, I would say that art is subjective. I feel that everyone has a different perspective and view of what is/makes art. A person might think that this is art while another might not. Personally, I feel that as long as the artist claim that it is his art, I will accept that. However, I feel that I can decide whether I like the piece of art or not, and whether I think it is a piece of good art.

Also, there must be a meaning/idea that the artist would want to convey to the audience through his/her art. Venkenna posed naked to take photographs to represent the idea of “removing the trappings of identity”. However, I do not quite understand why he had to place Frida Kahlo's The Two Fridas behind him to take the photographs. I can see the similarity whereby The Two Fridas shows 2 Frida Kahlos' holding their hands, and Venkenna takes the photo with a visitor, holding his/her hand as well. The double self-portrait of Frida Kahlo was painted during her divorce from Diego Rivera (husband). The right Frida wears a traditional Mexican costume, representing the woman that Diego loved. In her hand, she holds a picture of him when he was a child. Her heart exposed is whole and complete. Whereas on the left, Frida wears a colonial-style wedding dress, with a broken heart and blood vessel dripping blood onto her lap. It represents an unloved Frida. Frida Kahlo said that this painting showed the 'duality of her personality'. She showed herself as a divided self, and that she is neither fully European nor fully Mexican Indian. Was Venkenna trying to combine his idea with Frida Kahlo's painting? Perhaps he was trying to imitate the scene in the painting to convey his idea of trapped identity. I guess every artists' works can be interpreted differently with different perspectives.

It made me wonder if what he did was necessary to convey his idea. As a student, I really think paying $250 to take a photo with him is not worth it. Honestly, I do not quite understand what is the purpose of taking a photograph with him, naked!

I do realise that in Singapore, what he did might not be acceptable for many Singaporeans. Many Singaporeans might not understand or appreciate what he was doing. Maybe he should not have displayed or carried out his performance in Singapore? I feel that as an artist, where you display your artwork matters a lot. Like what we have learnt in SOVA before, do artists have a social responsibility to uphold? I think if artworks are too personal and might bring much disagreements between people in society, they should be exhibited at a personal gallery. As for Venkenna, I can understand that he might be trying to spread and convey his idea of trapped identity to everyone. But his way of doing so was hard for many Singaporeans to understand and accept. He could have picked somewhere in Europe where nudity in the form of art is more acceptable!

Lastly, I do feel that it was not right of Art Stage Singapore to ask him to stop his work and remove his works. If the Media Development Authority (MDA) had given the permission for him to display and carry out his artwork, they should not ask him to remove it during the exhibition even if many people requested to do so because it is quite disrespectful towards Venkanna and his artwork. Also, additional measures were taken to screen the exhibit from the public area to avoid visitors from stumbling upon it by accident. Therefore, visitors of the art exhibition do have a choice of whether they want to his work or not. They can simply leave that area if they are not comfortable with it.