SCENE 9 — THE EXHIBITION TALKBACK, KOLKATA
CHARACTERS (can be doubled)
- HOST / CURATOR
- INTERVIEWER (could be same as HOST)
- CRITIC 1 (academic)
- CRITIC 2 (sharp, witty)
- VIEWER 1 (warm)
- VIEWER 2 (comic)
- VIEWER 3 (quiet)
SETTING
A gallery suggested by: mic stand, catalog table, two “frames,” and an empty chair labeled ARTIST (never occupied).
HOST / CURATOR (steps to mic, taps it once—gentle feedback.)
Good evening. Welcome to the opening and the talkback.
Tonight’s exhibition has one small problem—
the artist isn’t here. Schedule conflict. He apologized.
HOST / CURATOR (contd.)
But don’t worry.
The work is here.
And so is the city—
ready to talk about what you are allowed to feel.
HOST / CURATOR (gestures to the empty chair labeled ARTIST. A tiny spotlight flickers on it, then off. contd.)
We’ll do a short Q&A.
Questions are welcome.
Certainty is optional.
INTERVIEWER
We’re live at the opening.
One word: what is this painting doing to people?
CRITIC 1
Disturbing.
Because it refuses to behave like a story.
VIEWER 1
I feel like I’m looking at my own life—
but from outside my body.
VIEWER 2
I feel like I’m looking at two chairs and one missing person.
Very modern.
Very… my ex.
VIEWER 3
It’s not missing.
It’s refusing.
HOST / CURATOR
The artist statement says—
I do not paint events. I paint the aftertaste.
So. Questions?
CRITIC 2 (raises hand)
Is the artist seducing us with ambiguity
or punishing us with it?
HOST / CURATOR
Excellent question.
Let’s ask the room.
CRITIC 1
Ambiguity is not flirtation.
It’s invitation.
CRITIC 2
Invitation to do what?
Project your own drama.
Everyone loves a mirror—
until it reflects.
VIEWER 1
Maybe it reflects the parts we don’t speak about.
VIEWER 2
Or the parts we don’t get permission to speak about.
HOST / CURATOR
We’ve shown this work before.
Critics in other cities wrote about the same painting—
(Quick cuts. Projection flashes.)
REMOTE CRITIC (DELHI REVIEW) — VO
In Delhi they called it “political.”
Not because it mentions politics—
because it shows power without uniforms.
REMOTE CRITIC (BENGALURU REVIEW) — VO
In Bengaluru they said it was “about technology.”
Because the empty space behaves like a notification—
silent, but commanding attention.
REMOTE CRITIC (PARIS REVIEW) — VO
In Paris, they called it “intimate.”
They wrote: the painting does not ask for romance—
it asks for consent to exist.
REMOTE CRITIC (TORONTO REVIEW) — VO
In Toronto they said it was “immigrant memory.”
A room that looks ordinary—
until you realize who had to disappear to keep it orderly.
REMOTE CRITIC (LONDON REVIEW) — VO
In London one critic wrote:
The painting is a domestic contract—
signed in silence, enforced by habit.
INTERVIEWER
One sentence. What do you see?
VIEWER 1
A door that wants to open.
VIEWER 3
A door that was locked from inside.
CRITIC 2
A door everyone claims they own.
CRITIC 1
A door that isn’t a door—
it’s a boundary.
HOST / CURATOR
Here’s the strange thing:
a painting doesn’t scandalize anyone.
A woman looking at it does.
VIEWER 2
So where is the artist?
Hiding from critics?
HOST / CURATOR
Artists don’t hide from critics.
They hide from conclusions.
HOST / CURATOR (glances at the empty chair. contd.)
Thank you for coming.
Please take your time with the work.
And if you feel something tonight—
don’t rush to name it.
(Lights fade.)