Charles Haynes wrote:
> Do you see it as relevant to MF Hussain? I certainly do. How do you
> feel about the works of Chris Ofili or Andres Serrano? Does art that
> refers to religion need always be respectful? Is Ofili's case, it's
> clear that respect is in the eye of the beholder.
I'm not lumping all "art poking fun at or trashing religion" into the same
bucket. It is just that I dont have too positive an opinion on MF's talent
(!).
That sort of thing would be much more acceptable to me if there was actual
talent behind it. And while I would call his talent into question (and
question his choice or his slavish depictions of a muse - Madhuri Dixit <-
1990s actress), I wouldnt suppress him, vandalize his paintings, picket
galleries that display his work (and optionally bash up people who come into
/ go out of those galleries) etc etc.
> Yeah? I certainly do. It seems clear to me that it's art now. Was it
> art when it was created? :)
That... is the question. I'm kinda of the opinion that Duchamp was having
himself a long running joke at the "art establishment" with his work. And
that's something I admire.
> I agree that it is subversive, but disagree that it's on those same
> lines. How do you feel about Dada, or surrealism? Is that art?
My tastes dont run too much to modern art (Goya, Manet .. and Van Gogh is
about as modern as I would get with a very few exceptions. Van Gogh is still
startlingly modern, but with genuine talent - pure genius in fact - backing
it).
I dont like MF paintings (and Dada either). And while I like Goya and
Manet, I dont like Raja Ravi Varma's calendar / poster art. Posters ->
Toulouse Lautrec.
Surrealism had people like Dali, or Joan Miró (again, true geniuses) backing
it. Persistence of memory for example .. alternate views of reality,
especially those that dont really require the viewer to have a bad acid
trip to appreciate them, can be fun.
> I think we are dangerously close to bringing this thread back around
> to semiotics and structuralism... :)
Or post modernistic criticism :) How old fashioned is art for art's sake
anyway? Or appreciating a painting just because its easy on the eyes?
srs
