Jump to content

Portraying Indian women as sexually liberated in art


Muloghonto

Recommended Posts

OK nice concept and all.  But smells a lot of an average artist trying to milk a newsy controversy to promote her work.  Paintings are not that impressive TBH. 

 

And why do "badass" women have to flash so much skin in order to be badass?   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, sandeep said:

OK nice concept and all.  But smells a lot of an average artist trying to milk a newsy controversy to promote her work.  Paintings are not that impressive TBH. 

 

And why do "badass" women have to flash so much skin in order to be badass?   

Because its the insecure male patriarchy that tells women to cover up, flaunting skin is a challenge to those half-men who can't control themselves and blame women for their own lack of restraint. 

 

PS: Paintings are not just about quality of the painting forms, it is also about the subtleties conveyed in the picture and the concept represented. Otherwise, Picasso wouldn't be so famous- his paintings arnt hard to copy for even amatuers.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Because its the insecure male patriarchy that tells women to cover up, flaunting skin is a challenge to those half-men who can't control themselves and blame women for their own lack of restraint. 

 

PS: Paintings are not just about quality of the painting forms, it is also about the subtleties conveyed in the picture and the concept represented. Otherwise, Picasso wouldn't be so famous- his paintings arnt hard to copy for even amatuers.

 

OK.  Whatever.  You think this "artist" is on a picasso level for the concept.  I think its art student level work with a newsy concept, and especially the execution.   And heavily copied, sorry "influenced" from the Iconic circa WW2 posters of American women - Rosie the riveter etc. May want to do a bit of googling if you are not familiar with those.  

 

The body poses, the amount of skin, and even the facial expressions, might as well be stencilled from the pin-up posters from the 40s.  And if such blatant copying draws comparison with Picasso, then the Chinese have a few dozen Eiffel towers to sell you.  Veelly Cheep plice.  Juss for yew.  

 

PS:  I know you have problems with opinions that don't agree with yours and usually feel the need to denigrate them.  It only makes you come across as an arrogant git, "mate".  Doesn't feel good to be on the receiving end, does it?

Edited by sandeep
Link to comment
Share on other sites

AT a time when western society is harping about objectification of women as a sexual object especially in movies and TV, our indian artists are stuck in the 60s western feminism sinkhole,  harping about breaking the taboo for women. 

 

Here. the fight should be about equal pay, property rights for daughters, right to live (female infanticide) which are more basic than right to dress up.  

Edited by coffee_rules
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, sandeep said:

OK.  Whatever.  You think this "artist" is on a picasso level for the concept.  I think its art student level work with a newsy concept, and especially the execution.   And heavily copied, sorry "influenced" from the Iconic circa WW2 posters of American women - Rosie the riveter etc. May want to do a bit of googling if you are not familiar with those.  

 

PS:  I know you have problems with opinions that don't agree with yours and usually feel the need to denigrate them.  It only makes you come across as an arrogant git, "mate".  

No i don't think she is Picasso level, i am just stating that in art, concept matters, not just the physical form of the art.

I don't care if you think this is Picasso level or Chapraasi level, that is your prerogative. I am merely addressing your comment that you think the artwork is poor so therefore the art is poor. That is not how art works, is all i wanted to say.

 

Edited by Muloghonto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

AT a time when western society is harping about objectification of women as a sexual object especially in movies and TV, our indian artists are stuck in the 60s western feminism sinkhole,  harping about breaking the taboo for women. 

Western societies are about 60-70 years ahead of Indian cycle of development. Let us first get to their level of women empowerment before we tackle issues of objectification of women by women, which only come if women have that freedom in the first place.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Western societies are about 60-70 years ahead of Indian cycle of development. Let us first get to their level of women empowerment before we tackle issues of objectification of women by women, which only come if women have that freedom in the first place.

 

Here. the fight should be about equal pay, property rights for daughters, right to live (female infanticide) which are more basic than right to dress up.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

Here. the fight should be about equal pay, property rights for daughters, right to live (female infanticide) which are more basic than right to dress up.  

But the right to dress up, is the easiest one to influence by a lone artist, since all it requires, is getting the message across to the women themselves. 

Maybe if women in India had the security to dress as they like, they'd tackle the bigger, harder issues. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Muloghonto said:

But the right to dress up, is the easiest one to influence by a lone artist, since all it requires, is getting the message across to the women themselves. 

Maybe if women in India had the security to dress as they like, they'd tackle the bigger, harder issues. 

This sounds like you just want to see them dress slutty to demonstrate their "empowered" state.  albeit for other reasons.:p:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Muloghonto said:

But the right to dress up, is the easiest one to influence by a lone artist, since all it requires, is getting the message across to the women themselves. 

Maybe if women in India had the security to dress as they like, they'd tackle the bigger, harder issues. 

That fight seems so superficial than fighting for basic rights like right to choose a partner.  This brand of elite feminism is what is killing the fight in societies like in India. This is all party talk in some rich circles over high teas and champagne costume parties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sandeep said:

This sounds like you just want to see them dress slutty to demonstrate their "empowered" state.  albeit for other reasons.:p:

Thats the thing- i don't consider that to be dressing slutty. If you look at Indian temple art-work, almost all temple girls were either topless or wore a skirt and a very small 'dupatta' as a top and that it. I don't think they were considered slutty. Even early European travellers to India in the 16th century say its pretty common to see topless women in India, which makes sense given the tropical climate. Some of us older folks here will tell you that we grew up with aunts and grandmas who never wore a blouse, its just the sari covering the breasts. 

 

To us, that is not slutty. That 'slutty' idea is just a hinduvta copycat of Islamic-Christian moral ideals to 'be like them but be different from them'. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

That fight seems so superficial than fighting for basic rights like right to choose a partner.  This brand of elite feminism is what is killing the fight in societies like in India. This is all party talk in some rich circles over high teas and champagne costume parties.

But big issues are easier to tackle once small issues are addressed. I think the reason the big issues in India are not going anywhere, is because when people see even the small issues are such a huge task to reform, there is obvious discouragement towards the bigger issues.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

interesting...but one comment...i always find it amusing that smoking is one of the symbols of "liberated", fine with drinking, showing skin, doing male dominated jobs etc...but always find smoking in form of postive symbol rather lame

 

smoking is a symbol for the diseased and deprecated. 

Edited by chewy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, chewy said:

interesting...but one comment...i always find it amusing that smoking is one of the symbols of "liberated", fine with drinking, showing skin, doing male dominated jobs etc...but always find smoking in form of postive symbol rather lame

 

smoking is a symbol for the diseased and deprecated. 

^ Agree. But curiously enough, for some people, the fatalism of smoking is attractive and some cultures still have a 'smoking = DGAF = cool' symbolism. China for eg- practically every guy there smokes or has smoked/tried it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

But the right to dress up, is the easiest one to influence by a lone artist, since all it requires, is getting the message across to the women themselves. 

Maybe if women in India had the security to dress as they like, they'd tackle the bigger, harder issues. 

Was that pun intended :phehe: ?  

 

Rebelling against convention is considered cool, but staying within the ambit of rules and trying to change the mindset of an entire society gets you much more respect... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, diga said:

Was that pun intended :phehe: ?  

 

Rebelling against convention is considered cool, but staying within the ambit of rules and trying to change the mindset of an entire society gets you much more respect... 

yeah but staying within the ambit of rules should only apply to laws. Rest, its just convention and that always changes/is open to change. 


PS: Nice on the double-entrende. Totally escaped me.:clap:

 

Edited by Muloghonto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...