On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 1:02 PM, ss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Charles - I am going to say (jokingly of course) that "You asked for it. This > is a long and detailed reply. Sorry.
Thanks for the long and detailed reply! > On Thursday 15 May 2008 5:02:35 am Charles Haynes wrote: >> > I believe societies have ways of putting fingers into sensitive places >> > in a way that judges and governments cannot do. Let me see if I can accurately summarize what you're saying - please correct me if I mis-state what you're trying to say. There are people who are offended by MF Hussain's art who find the political response to his art to be hypocritical - politicians react when art offends muslims, but they ignore art offensive to hindus. As a result those people feel they need to respond directly. > When you paint a woman having sex with a tiger, it can pass off as art. But > when you paint such a figure and call it Durga, you are inviting the > attention of people who want to see Durga as a force that drives evil away, > and not as a symbol in sexual union with an animal. This might be art, but it > is controversial art because it pokes at popular belief. It provokes and > demands criticism. > > For a Hindu the abstract concept of a force that protects against evil being > depicted as a female (mother) form controlling a tiger and fighting what is > to be feared is itself art. Depicting that artistic concept as a female > having sex with a tiger is interpreted as an insult to the pure, non > sexual "mother figure" relationship that people have with Durga. It is as > vulgar as painting a moustache and beard on the Mona Lisa. Interesting you would choose that example. I assume you are aware of Marcel Duchamp's L.H.O.O.Q? > "Artistic licence" may demand that egregious acts such these must > be "tolerated" but artists need to understand that their art can invite > criticism too and artistic licence is not a licence to free them from > criticism. "Intolerance" is a feeble skirt to hide behind when art is > being criticized. Do you see violence as a legitimate form of criticism? > cartoonist. The only choice that Indian policticians have is to accept that > Husain's art is offensive. But this is a bad choice, because it puts them on > the same boat as the people they term "Hindu extremists" I think MF Hussain's art is offensive. I also like it. > Hindus are learning that intolerance > works as a political force. How do you feel about that? > It will > mean being equally forthright and honest to Muslim and Hindu extremists that > they are bigots. I agree. > Thanks for your patience if you got so far. Thanks for your patience in replying. -- Charles
