Art ,artist aur woh !!!! - Page 2

Originally posted by: Maya_M

Bansali, You and I are educated enough to consider such paintings as artistic license. But in a country with such volatile religious sentiments, artists need to check on their freedom of expression. All of us here believe in freedom of expression and it means expressing ones thoughts politely and not in a hurtful way. Even on a forum like IF we need to follow decorum so imagine a country where majority is illiterate who gets swayed by religious fanatics and then an artist comes up with obscene paintings in the name of freedom of expression. We are human and we react. It is natural.

Personally I have found MF Hussain's painting portraying Sita and a Horse in a compromising position distasteful🤢. Such a subject was chosen just to hurt sentiments of one communitty and gain publicity.

I agree again, but I still feel that by even raising the issue we are making it known to others who otherwise may not even know about it. You know the first time the cartoons about Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) were published was in September, yet there was hardly any uproar. It was only when 8 months later someone posted them on the net that they created the huge uproar due to the sheer reach of the information. My point is that by making those, who in normal circumstances would have no idea of the existence of such hurtful works of art, aware of them we are worsening the situation. I remember many of my colleagues asking me if I was offended by the cartoons, and my response was that my respect for the Prophet (pbuh) cannot be affected by someone else's perception of him.

Originally posted by: SholaJoBhadkey

I agree again, but I still feel that by even raising the issue we are making it known to others who otherwise may not even know about it. You know the first time the cartoons about Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) were published was in September, yet there was hardly any uproar. It was only when 8 months later someone posted them on the net that they created the huge uproar due to the sheer reach of the information. My point is that by making those, who in normal circumstances would have no idea of the existence of such hurtful works of art, aware of them we are worsening the situation. I remember many of my colleagues asking me if I was offended by the cartoons, and my response was that my respect for the Prophet (pbuh) cannot be affected by someone else's perception of him.

You know where maximum protest was? Pakistan. That is what I said. When the cartoons first appeared it was in a land where people have other things to concentrate on. Religious fanatics are minority in those nations. Whereas in the countries like India and Pakistan our major problem is religious fanaticism and with such volatile sentiments appearance of such pictures will work as adding fuel to fire.

Originally posted by: Maya_M

You know where maximum protest was? Pakistan. That is what I said. When the cartoons first appeared it was in a land where people have other things to concentrate on. Religious fanatics are minority in those nations. Whereas in the countries like India and Pakistan our major problem is religious fanaticism and with such volatile sentiments appearance of such pictures will work as adding fuel to fire.

How come they protested 8 months later, after the cartoons had been displayed a second time, but this time on a more accesible forum? Obviously, someone was disappointed that the job hadn't been done, and decided to try again by making the cartoons more widely and easily available. I hadn't bothered to check them out, but students at our university were posting them all over. I actually stopped them from doing so because if in their minds portraying a likeness of the Prophet (pbuh) is a sin, then they were actively participating in that sin by propogating it. Some of them did get the logic there and desisted.

Of course, one way to avoid the furore would be to have artists not create such controversial material, but can we really apply this ruling to the entire world? In our countries maybe, but someone somewhere will do something that will be offensive to someone else in another corner of the world. How can we ensure a uniform feeling of non-offensiveness???

Originally posted by: SholaJoBhadkey

How come they protested 8 months later, after the cartoons had been displayed a second time, but this time on a more accesible forum? Obviously, someone was disappointed that the job hadn't been done, and decided to try again by making the cartoons more widely and easily available. I hadn't bothered to check them out, but students at our university were posting them all over. I actually stopped them from doing so because if in their minds portraying a likeness of the Prophet (pbuh) is a sin, then they were actively participating in that sin by propogating it. Some of them did get the logic there and desisted.

Of course, one way to avoid the furore would be to have artists not create such controversial material, but can we really apply this ruling to the entire world? In our countries maybe, but someone somewhere will do something that will be offensive to someone else in another corner of the world. How can we ensure a uniform feeling of non-offensiveness???

The reply to your first question is already there in my previous response. Because it went unnoticed. Most educated people who are less fanatic ( all educated people all not the same😛) sometimes ignore such incidents and move on. As you said someone obviously who was not amused stumbled on it and this time reached places where people had more time and also more sensitive. They took up the issue and it became serious.

I personally don't support obscenity and call it artistic liberty. You say ignore it and that is your personal choice. I can't. I take offense to such cheap tactics to garner fame. While I might not support burning effigies and buses for the cause. I have a powerful voice and that is my pen and here keyboard😃. I am sensitive to the issues when some artists out of all subjects choose to draw mating of a Hindu goddess and Horse, Ganapati on chappals and underwears, show Mohammed(PBUH) in a gay act etc. Why do we see only Ganeshas on chappels and not a Jesus Christ in these developed countries?

What is the limitation? I say when you crossed all lines of decency to depict such obscene things and called it an art.

Originally posted by: Maya_M

I think that the artists who draw obscene images of gods do it to hurt religious sentiments of people and gain instant fame. It is not creative freedom. Creativity should be appreciated not hurt.

Agree whole heartedly with you Maya 👏

See Tisha, your answer is here. A true artist will always seek appreciation for his art. A person whose art is displaying comfort to our beliefs, is not an artist. That person should be in the categories terrorist. He is not killing people but is hurting them and making them reacting in a violent manner.

So such artist are not artist but only WOH 😆

And Tisha I am still not senior member 😕.
Abhi to main jawan hoon 😆😆😆

Originally posted by: Maya_M

I think that the artists who draw obscene images of gods do it to hurt religious sentiments of people and gain instant fame. It is not creative freedom. Creativity should be appreciated not hurt.

Wellsaid Maya ji!👏

I got time to post my views on this topic in detailed manner:

Art should not have limitations if it does not cause any potential harm to any person or nation! Its their profession to create arts and why should other person interefere about their work! We donot do agitations on the works done by scientists in NASA,ISRO! We donot do agitations on the works done by people in Bio tech industries! So then why should we disturb an artist! Nudity is in the syllabus of art schools whether it is painting or sculpture... Why should we bother if they doing project works in their syllabus Almost all great painters painted nude paintings! for that matter the awesome Michelagelo statue is well praised and looked with lot of interest! Ok! People are bothered about samskars and all ! Are all moving around with fully draped dressess from head to toe in India! Ofcourse they are not moving without clothes but there are tons of people moving around with scanty clothes inspite of having money to buy decent clothes!! Ok! Regarding hinduism and nude paintings,nude sculptures!!What are the things displayed in Khajuraho(the constitiency of our sexy sanyasin Uma Bharathi)! Everything depends on the way we look at the things.
• If Malaika Arora does a pole dance and displays her art of dancing people appreciate but when good Rakhi sawant dances they call it obscenity!!😡 Why rakshi is also an artist,she is not from elite group she does'nt get support!!

Cheers,

Mythili

Disclaimar:All the views expressed by Mythili are part of debate.Mythili_kiran or the tabu in myth's signtaure donot have any relation with the artists.

EDITORIAL: Art Attack
16 May, 2007 l 0052 hrs IST
Print
Save
EMail
Write to Editor



Till now the assault on the autonomy of universities was a metaphorical and ideological one, engaged in by politicians and educational bureaucrats of both rightist and leftist hue. But the assault turned physical at Vadodara's Maharaja Sayajirao University - what happened there is unprecedented even by the standards of contemporary moral policing in India. Neeraj Jain, a local VHP thug, barged into the fine arts department of the university, vandalised paintings that weren't even up for public exhibition but meant for internal assessment, and roughed up an award-winning student, Chandramohan Srilamantula, responsible for some of the paintings that offended Jain's sensibilities. The police acted fast, but not in the manner one would have thought. They arrested the victim of the incident, not his attacker.

University vice-chancellor Manoj Soni then acted as hitman for the saffron establishment by suspending Shivaji Panikkar, the acting dean of the faculty, because he defended his student. Chandramohan has since been released on bail but Panikkar still remains suspended, while right-wing activists have laid siege to the university. It is inexplicable why Gujarat's political establishment appears intent on grinding down one of the state's, and perhaps the country's, premier fine arts faculties - which bred artists of the eminence of N S Bendre, Bhupen Khakar and K G Subrahmanyam.

This is not the first time that the philistines have struck in Gujarat. Films like Parzania and Fanaa could not be shown after threats of violence to cinema hall owners and exhibitors. M F Husain's gallery in Ahmedabad was vandalised by the VHP and Bajrang Dal, part of a chain of events that forced one of India's greatest living artists to live abroad in exile. Unhappily, the Gujarat government is not alone in fostering a trend of cultural intolerance. Husain has been pilloried in other states as well. Arrest warrants have been put out in his name, as well as that of Richard Gere - the latter for the crime of planting a peck on Shilpa Shetty's cheek.

The West Bengal government banned a book by Taslima Nasrin, while the information and broadcasting ministry issues periodic bans on TV channels like AXN and FTV. Moral cops are crawling out of the woodwork everywhere. They are subverting not only every Indian's constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of expression, but also plans of turning the country into a global knowledge hub. The latter can happen only in an atmosphere that encourages creativity, innovation and individual expression. Stifling the arts is not the best way to go about it. Replacing artistic freedom with a siege mentality will also hurt India's soft power, one of its biggest assets in the world today.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Opinion/Editorial/TODAYS_ EDITORIAL_Art_Attack/articleshow/2050362.cms