Maiya as writer by K.S.Radhakrishnan (from Free Hold Series)	A work by Dimpy Menon

Have I Seen U Somewhere?
Dimpy Menon Vs K.S.Radhakrishnan

Uma Nair

Dimpy Menon's sculptures caught me between the eyes. Not because they were brilliant! But because they were brilliant take offs on K.S.Radhakrishnan's exhibition `FREEHOLD". Take Radha's life like images, put a bit of flesh and muscle on them and Viola you get Dimpy Menon!!!!

What is the art world coming to? At the Visual Arts Gallery it seemed presumptuous when Uma Prakash was at the helm of it all! So are writers and artists now in the fray of promoting `art that has been created in the spirit of'?

Last year when I was asked to write a note on an abstract art show in Bangalore for Ati Art, I saw 2 works that were distinctly Prabhakar Kolte but the signature was that of a Kolkata artist. I picked up the phone and told Poonam Sarin, `as a critic my integrity will be in doubt if I even deign to write about someone who plagiarizes. I owe it to Prabhakar Kolte that I recognize and identify someone who copies him, and refuse to bring it to light as `another abstract work'.

Integrity in the art world seems to be at a low ebb. Cards and catalogues that come from galleries all over the nation have a host of copiers. What is sadder still is the truth that galleries want to make their money and are willing to hoist anyone. It isn't the accusation - that Dimpy Menon has appropriated Radha's Freehold and his headstands that seemed puzzling. The surprise is that the number of images on Internet sites is so successful in promoting her art as original. For the first time then I think this needs to be brought to light, and an accusation of art's plagiarism must take on a life beyond cocktail party chatter and snippy selling and the innocent buyers of Dimpy Menon's art who think they have originals.

The present art world-contrives to flatter the egos of its followers by simplifying connoisseurship. All that is necessary to judge that an object is a Major Work of Art is to recognize that it has been (1) enshrined or (2) quoted or (3) spoofed and now plagiarized. Art appreciation has never been so easy. And reporters are easily fooled because they have no memory.

Copying in art is perhaps at least as old as tracing paper. But sculptures and compositions now must qualify for copyright protection. But even among artists with instantly recognizable styles, it's rarely possible to state with certainty which similarities result from direct imitation and which are coincidental.

Depending on the circumstances, artists can see work that resembles their own as homage. Interestingly there was a sculptor who worked at Radha's studio years ago who started doing the same images and then was politely asked to leave.

"I influenced many sculptors," he says. "It flowed very naturally from our work together, from our relationship. But an idea must not be copied and sold as one's own. That lacks artistic integrity"

At best Dimpy's human figures share the same acrobatic lightness and the spritely air of Radha's Freehold images. Indeed these images are purloined to perfection but they don't become originals by any yardstick. Of coursed the geometry of bending is the same, but the clothes have been camouflaged, and that doesn't fool the discerning eye. Note the parallels in composition and the idea of conception!

Interestingly in art, and in India there are few laws, and these are matters of intellectual debate, not case law. In the West where there are numerous examples of architectural appropriations, copyrights don't cover ideas - like that of creating a memorial garden from an array of stones - only their tangible expression. So the only case of plagiarism that has really got its due is Ritu Kumar's copyright.

Another reason accusations of plagiarism rarely make it to court is that most art, despite the romantic image of the solitary genius, is largely a collaborative pursuit. Think of Rauschenberg and Jasper Johns. Or Cézanne and Pissarro, who quite openly responded to each other's work. In art, that's considered creativity, not plagiarism. But sculpture being more tangible and solid cannot have the same overtures.

Of course art's most famous example of plagiarism is Picasso. Last year on view at  MOMA was the work of Ramon Casas, the pre-eminent modernist who particularly influenced Picasso's early work in Barcelona. "It was blatant plagiarism," Mr. Tinterow said of the paintings Picasso created as a student in Barcelona at the end of the 19th century. But Picasso moved on and beyond to become an icon of interpretation..

Dimpy Menon's show in Delhi turned out to be a handy lesson in high deception, low borrowing and pointed parody in the art of stealing. Challenges anyone?