Row erupts over ‘fake copy’ of Anubhava Mantapa painting
BENGALURU: A major controversy has erupted over the much-hyped ‘Anubhava Mantapa’ painting, which was unveiled four days ago at the newly inaugurated Suvarna Vidhana Soudha. Experts are now claiming that the artwork is a fake.
Originally commissioned by Vidhana Soudha and executed by Chitrakala Parishad, the painting is said to be a forgery and lacks the authenticity of an original work. Sources say the original painting was by renowned artist Khande Rao, but the one on display was painted without his consent, according to his son Satish Khande Rao.
Asked about the controversy, Chitrakala Parishad president BL Shankar shrugged off the concerns, stating that no one truly knows what the Anubhava Mantapa looked like eight or nine centuries ago, and that over the centuries, many artists have reimagined it in their own style. However, he promised to verify the matter.
T Prabhakar, vice-president of Chitrakala Parishad, defended the work. “This year alone, we’ve received nearly 3,500 applications for Chitra Santhe. Among them, many artists will try to depict the iconic woman with the lamp. Most of these works would appear similar. Can we call them copies?”
But the controversy deepened as Chitrakala Parishad sources revealed that the artists behind the controversial painting were Satish Rao from Chitrakala Parishad, Srikanth Hegde from Davanagere, Ashok U from Ken School, Veeresh and Mahesh. These sources admitted that while original commissioned paintings typically take around three months to complete, this rushed project was handed to the team in November with a deadline of just two weeks.
Satish Rao, one of the painters involved, said, “I’m a portrait artist, and I was part of the team that worked on the painting.
Vidhana Soudha officers approached us in November and gave us a tight deadline of two weeks. Normally, we need at least three months for a full, original painting, but we didn’t have that luxury. We resorted to using images from the internet as references to meet the deadline.
Once the authorities approved the design, we hastily completed the painting. While it’s not an exact copy, the differences are noticeable if you compare the two. I can list out at least 15 differences. As an artist, I can assure you, we didn’t copy it; we used it purely for inspiration.”
The allegations of a fake painting have cast a shadow over its high-profile inauguration at Suvarna Vidhana Soudha, leaving the authenticity of the artwork in serious question.