ganeshran Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Just because the nutters across the border get insecure at every little slight at their religion and start wanton destruction of public property, doesnt mean we need to do the same. We should learn from the west, which regularly pokes fun at their own religion yet there is no violent reaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnterTheVoid Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 We should learn from the west' date= which regularly pokes fun at their own religion yet there is no violent reaction. Can this be justified as art under freedom of expression? http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_h7zfRGoogHI/TPHpGDsMj5I/AAAAAAAAB7U/h7o45aqDRVQ/s1600/slayerchrist.jpg http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_qUFDMUpk9jE/SwEtcEL59aI/AAAAAAAAa0s/DKrGcsT5fZ4/s1600/slayer_poster_god_L.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuge Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Can this be justified as art under freedom of expression? http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_h7zfRGoogHI/TPHpGDsMj5I/AAAAAAAAB7U/h7o45aqDRVQ/s1600/slayerchrist.jpg http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_qUFDMUpk9jE/SwEtcEL59aI/AAAAAAAAa0s/DKrGcsT5fZ4/s1600/slayer_poster_god_L.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ See ,I've no problem with this stuff ,but this stuff usually cause roar ,Incites violence and hatred .That why I oppose it because I'm not the only one to live in this world, there are several others who are living too . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beetle Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 The man was 95 yrs old.Why is the media acting like he died of heart break and not old age? The man was revered by many as the best from India.He chose to stay away from India despite the govt promise of protection.A few cases of vandalism cannot be a reason for anyone to leave the country if they don't want to.A lot of people choose to leave the country of their birth for more greener pastures. It looks more like he chose to stay in these country's but could not help sending his country of birth on a guilt trip nevertheless.Some people are like that. I hate the fact that because of him and his attention seeking drama from time to time all Indians are painted as intolerant people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnterTheVoid Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 See ' date='I've no problem with this stuff ,but this stuff usually cause roar ,Incites violence and hatred .That why I oppose it because I'm not the only one to live in this world, there are several others who are living too .[/quote'] Yep. The freedom of expression mob will probably give this a miss. I mean, this ****ing douchebag drew pictures of hindu goddess in sex positions with animals. Now, if people are defending that in the name of art, than I don't see whats wrong in them also defending mutilated pictures of Christ, also in the name of art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnterTheVoid Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 This is the kind of filth this "Picasso of India" is known for - This is a picture of a hindu goddess having sex with a tiger. Now, if this is the type of art that young and upcoming artists wish to emulate, than god help the Indian art scene. Frankly, I'd like his art to be burnt and him beaten to a pulp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mariyam Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 The man was 95 yrs old.Why is the media acting like he died of heart break and not old age? Thats a good point. The man was revered by many as the best from India.He chose to stay away from India despite the govt promise of protection.A few cases of vandalism cannot be a reason for anyone to leave the country if they don't want to.A lot of people choose to leave the country of their birth for more greener pastures. I don't think the greener pastures argument holds. He left India in 2006, when he was well past his 90s. When you have one foot in the grave, greener pastures don't mean much. He probably was intimidated and the government re-assurances weren't enough to convince him. Also, he chose to shy away from the courts. He was summoned but he did not make an appearance. In my view, he should have gone to to the courts and settled this matter in the way it should be settled. That was the other reason he stayed away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mariyam Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Sree, I'm no expert on art, but that painting doesn't look like anything what you say it does. BTW: I'm not taking a pro-MF stand here. The thing with works of art is to decipher the intent. Did MF Hussain really mean ( or explicitly state) that his paintings were to denigrate Hinduism? Same goes with the 'art' that you've post on Christ. Did the people who created that make it only to spite Christians or is there any other meaning behind it? Personally, In cases like these groups over react to show their numbers and force. Many a times the object of their scorn is not even that offensive. Eg: The Danish cartoons. I (persoanlly) don't think it was offensive. In bad taste, yes. Low on humour, yes . But not really that offensive. Same could be the case with MF Hussian paintings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beetle Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Thats a good point. I don't think the greener pastures argument holds. He left India in 2006, when he was well past his 90s. When you have one foot in the grave, greener pastures don't mean much. He probably was intimidated and the government re-assurances weren't enough to convince him. Also, he chose to shy away from the courts. He was summoned but he did not make an appearance. In my view, he should have gone to to the courts and settled this matter in the way it should be settled. That was the other reason he stayed away. Trying to stay away from courts should not have been painted as "threatened to stay away".He was a rich man and could have easily afforded the best lawyers in the country to fight for him.People cannot avoid court cases by running away then try and send an entire nation on a guilt trip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnterTheVoid Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 There is no deeper meaning Mariyam, its just shock tactics to piss people off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beetle Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 All he needed to do was apologize for hurting the feelings of a section of people(even if he hurt them unintentionally) and refrain from painting religious figures in such a way in future.It's not so difficult. But maybe he liked the controversy and the victim persona that was created by the vandalism and the court cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mariyam Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Trying to stay away from courts should not have been painted as "threatened to stay away".He was a rich man and could have easily afforded the best lawyers in the country to fight for him.People cannot avoid court cases by running away then try and send an entire nation on a guilt trip. I'm not trying to paint anything as anything!!! Alas, no such skills in me. I think MF was already out of the country, he fled/was self exiled, you take your lexical pick. It was when he was out that the court summoned him and he did not return. Eitherways, I agree. He should have returned to face the charges and settled the issue once and for all. There is no deeper meaning Mariyam' date=' its just shock tactics to piss people off.[/quote'] Why do you think he would do that? BTW: The paintings in contention were painted in the 70s. Its only in the mid 90s when a magazine published them ( and this wasn't the first magazine to do so) that a controversy broke out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mariyam Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 All he needed to do was apologize for hurting the feelings of a section of people(even if he hurt them unintentionally) and refrain from painting religious figures in such a way in future.It's not so difficult. I'm not too sure, but I think he did apologize. But maybe he liked the controversy and the victim persona that was created by the vandalism and the court cases. Could be. Any publicity is good publicity. Maybe his paintings were sold off for more post all the controversy, because he was 'famous' and the paintings infamous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Tendulkar Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Exactly!!!! Gourmet food is so overrated. I don't see anything special that a Copper Chimney has to offer compared to Ramakrishna Eating House outside Dadar station and many other such unknown restaurants. Its all about who becomes fashionable. People who rave about gourmet meals are just pseudos. Agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beetle Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 I'm not trying to paint anything as anything!!! Alas' date= no such skills in me. I think MF was already out of the country, he fled/was self exiled, you take your lexical pick. It was when he was out that the court summoned him and he did not return. Eitherways, I agree. He hsould have returned to face the charges and settled the issue once and for all. Why do you think he would do that? BTW: The paintings in contention were painted in the 70s. Its only in the mid 90s when a magazine published them ( and this wasn't the first magazine to do so) that a controversy broke out. Not blaming you dear...blaming him and the people /media. Even if the painting were from an earliar time all he needed to do was apologize for inadvertently hurting the feeling of people and try to keep the said paintings off the public domain.I guess he wasn't confident enough that his art by itself would give him the level of fame he desired.After all nothing sells like controversy and there is a bit of Rakhi Sawant in the best of people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaurav92 Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 All he needed to do was apologize for hurting the feelings of a section of people(even if he hurt them unintentionally) and refrain from painting religious figures in such a way in future.It's not so difficult. But maybe he liked the controversy and the victim persona that was created by the vandalism and the court cases. Absolutely. Agree to it completely. I'm not too sure, but I think he did apologize. Even I am not sure about this, but presuming that he did, why did he continue making such paintings then if he was really caring for the sentiments of the people? Then the fact is that he didn't bother much about the public sentiments. Could be. Any publicity is good publicity. Maybe his paintings were sold off for more post all the controversy' date=' because he was 'famous' and the paintings infamous.[/quote'] Sure its is. But is this the right way to get the publicity? I am not sure it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prakat Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Hussain did apologize. Noted painter M F Hussain, who was booked by police for allegedly hurting sentiments of people by painting gods in nude, on Tuesday apologised and promised to withdraw from an auction his controversial painting depicting "Bharatmata" in an obscene manner. http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2006-02-07/india/27814790_1_hjs-m-f-hussain-noted-painter The Supreme Court decided in his favour. three supreme court judges considered whether his painting, Bharat Mata (Mother India), which depicts a nude woman on her knees creating the shape of a map of India, was sacrilegious. The bench rejected the petition seeking prosecution for offending Hindus, saying it was a work of art and citing India's tradition of graphic sexual iconography. http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2008/sep/09/maqbool.fida.husain "Husain lived in Dubai and London after being forced to leave India in 2006. He left in the face of a vicious campaign of harassment and intimidation, including death threats, by right-wing Hindutva groups, citing his artistic depiction of Hindu deities. His exhibitions were vandalised. A number of legal cases based on the charge of hurting religious sentiments were slapped on him. When he could not respond to a summons from a district court in Haridwar, his immovable properties in India were attached. An arrest warrant was also issued. Last year, in a rare gesture the state of Qatar offered him nationality. Faced with the prospect of arrest and further harassment if he returned to India, Husain accepted it, describing it as an honour. But he insisted that India would always remain his “home,” regardless of where he lived physically. http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2090261.ece Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnterTheVoid Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Why do you think he would do that? BTW: The paintings in contention were painted in the 70s. Its only in the mid 90s when a magazine published them ( and this wasn't the first magazine to do so) that a controversy broke out. Notoriety sells. Piss people off, make a name for yourself and you're guaranteed attention -- good or bad, people will shell out money on you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ganeshran Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Can this be justified as art under freedom of expression? http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_h7zfRGoogHI/TPHpGDsMj5I/AAAAAAAAB7U/h7o45aqDRVQ/s1600/slayerchrist.jpg http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_qUFDMUpk9jE/SwEtcEL59aI/AAAAAAAAa0s/DKrGcsT5fZ4/s1600/slayer_poster_god_L.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ Yes it can. Did Christians come out and protest in hoardes? Did they destroy public property because of these things? no. Faith is a personal thing. Its between me and god. There is nothing any other person can do which will make me feel insecure about my faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mariyam Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Yes it can. Did Christians come out and protest in hoardes? Did they destroy public property because of these things? no. Faith is a personal thing. Its between me and god. There is nothing any other person can do which will make me feel insecure about my faith. Well said. The thing here is not about religion or what a fragile old man created with his paint brush. Its about how we reacted ( and generally react in situations like these) as a society. So if someone creates something that a few people find offensive, is vandalism the right way ahead? On the grounds of inciting hatred and thus contravening the constitution, they should challenge MF, As they much later did. The funny thing is that most of the vandals wouldn't even have seen MF's paintings. People are very gullible. :(( Related anecdote: Many years ago, in jr. college and just after that, I used to be a part of an NGO that focused on teaching slum kids, runaway kids etc. My task was to teach the kids spoken English and teach them to read a bit. One of the kids (12-14 yrs old then)came to class and was boasting about the thousands of people who were at Azad Maidan protesting the Danish Cartoons. " Hum sab naare laga rahe thay" etc etc. So I asked him, what exactly was he protesting. And he replied that he was against George Bush who painted the cartoons of the Prophet. :omg: :--D George Bush was on an India visit at that time. Can someone get offended about something he/she isn't completely aware of? Thats something to ponder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts