Art or obscenity?

THE Bombay High Court’s decision defending artistic expression and ruling that not all nude art is obscene reopens critical conversations on creative freedom. The court’s release of artworks by FN Souza and Akbar Padamsee, seized under obscenity claims, emphasises that nudity in art must not automatically be equated with obscenity. Instead, the court argued, the prurient interest test should guide such judgments, advocating for the importance of understanding an artwork’s intent and context.

Artists across countries have often encountered censorship and opposition over nudity in art. MF Husain faced intense backlash, protests and even legal action for his portrayals of Hindu goddesses, reflecting the thin line between artistic freedom and religious sensitivity. Souza also faced societal resistance for his nudes, challenging social boundaries. Austria’s Egon Schiele endured legal consequences for works labelled pornographic by the authorities, underlining a global history of opposition to nude art rooted in conservative societal norms. Adding to these historical challenges, today’s digital landscape brings new obstacles for artists who share nude art online. Many social media platforms uphold strict content guidelines, often censoring or banning nude art despite its historical and cultural significance. These policies complicate the sharing and accessibility of nude art, limiting artists’ reach and freedom in a digital-first era.

Nude art holds profound cultural significance and is celebrated in classical forms as a tribute to human beauty and expression. Yet, its acceptance remains complex, influenced by religious and moral standards. The HC decision underscores the potential of art to provoke, inspire and push societal boundaries. Embracing a more informed, open-minded approach to evaluating art is essential to fostering a culture in which creativity can flourish free from restrictive censorship.