akshayxyz Posted June 24, 2011 Author Posted June 24, 2011 Welcome to 2003. really? That means all those hours on news groups, digg, reddit gone waste? or may be I was not paying attention. :(( or just memory loss.
akshayxyz Posted June 26, 2011 Author Posted June 26, 2011 :giggle: So safe to say ----> Thread :fail: ? May be on ICF.. on reddit it achieved front page fame - that too with about 5k upvotes.. no mean achievement for any pic/news.
nikred Posted June 26, 2011 Posted June 26, 2011 That pic was taken in Hyderabad. You can see part of Charminar at the top right. :P
Sidhoni Posted June 26, 2011 Posted June 26, 2011 :giggle: So safe to say ----> Thread :fail: ? :giggle::giggle:
Mariyam Posted June 26, 2011 Posted June 26, 2011 Interesting..... I wonder how those who found MF Hussain's Bharatmata offensive, would respond to this sculpture. Here Lord Ganesha is being portrayed as a comic book character, that too one who had to hang upside down to kiss his own girlfriend. Is this not an affront to (their) religious sensibilities?
ravishingravi Posted June 26, 2011 Posted June 26, 2011 Interesting..... I wonder how those who found MF Hussain's Bharatmata offensive, would respond to this sculpture. Here Lord Ganesha is being portrayed as a comic book character, that too one who had to hang upside down to kiss his own girlfriend. Is this not an affront to (their) religious sensibilities? Absolutely valid point.
EnterTheVoid Posted June 27, 2011 Posted June 27, 2011 What the **** is wrong with people these days? Like seriously, what the ****
EnterTheVoid Posted June 27, 2011 Posted June 27, 2011 No, nothing against you Boss. I am just wondering whether the guys in the picture are stupid or just plain ****ing retarded. Doesn't one of them even have an ounce of common sense and a sense of a time and place for everything?
Mariyam Posted June 27, 2011 Posted June 27, 2011 Spiderman isn't a derogatory character last time I checked. He was also a super hero but my childhood was donkeys years ago :(( Agreed. Didn't say that the Spidey sculpture was derogatory*. My question was more pointed: Is the portrayal of a deity as a comic character permissible? (*) Basically, something could be non derogatory and yet not permissible. For eg, a famous case was on the song "Hum honge kamyab" which was parodied in a movie in the 70s in a witty way. The left took the music director/producer to court and got a ban on the parody. There was nothing derogatory in the parody. Nothing that the left parties would find offensive in the least. But the song was cut. Point I'm trying to make is that there is a distinction between what is derogatory and what is permissible, be it legally or morally. Is such a portrayal of a deity permissible in your view?
EnterTheVoid Posted June 27, 2011 Posted June 27, 2011 Seriously, just want to be left alone to practice my beliefs in peace but such gross acts of stupidity by these ****ing numbskulls make it more difficult than it needs to be. Some people are a disgrace to humanity.
flamy Posted June 27, 2011 Posted June 27, 2011 Seriously, just want to be left alone to practice my beliefs in peace but such gross acts of stupidity by these ****ing numbskulls make it more difficult than it needs to be. Some people are a disgrace to humanity. Bava, why should this affect you? ganesh has a sense of humor too, mon. he is a fat guy. fat guys are funny. :)
EnterTheVoid Posted June 27, 2011 Posted June 27, 2011 Its the misinformation and prejudice that's spread flamy, that's my problem. Some racist skinhead goes around attacking and vandalizing temples got all the ammo he needs from such gross acts of stupidity.
gaurav92 Posted June 27, 2011 Posted June 27, 2011 Interesting..... I wonder how those who found MF Hussain's Bharatmata offensive, would respond to this sculpture. Here Lord Ganesha is being portrayed as a comic book character, that too one who had to hang upside down to kiss his own girlfriend. Is this not an affront to (their) religious sensibilities? Spiderman did kissing scenes alright, but the picture here does not portray any such vulgar connotations, so I think its absolutely fine. yes it is stupid, but it cannot be repulsive as Spiderman is known for saving the World as a Hero of Kids here in India and also throughout the World. I agree that these silly things should not happen, but comparing this to the paintings of MF is absolutely ridiculous. Those paintings were far too offensive and disgusting. Its a shame that many call it "art". :headshake:
Mariyam Posted June 27, 2011 Posted June 27, 2011 My view is not important here because my thinking is quite different. Lets look at it from a common-sense perspective : Spiderman stands for everything that is good by and large throughout the world. This is how the makers of that Ganeshji would have thought about it before making that idol. Whereas in MF Husains case he went ahead and did a Durga having sex with a wild animal. This is not acceptable world wide unless you are telling me that the entire world went super liberal and I completely missed all that action. The same is true for painting Mother godess nude after having being told in no uncertain manner when he painted Saraswati Nude. Basically its a case of application of simple commonsense. After having lived right next to the Shiv Sena HQ he should have known better. Again I don't disagree with anything you've said here. Personally, I don't think the sculpture here is offensive. It may be odd, and few may not like it, but its not offensive. I've not seen the Goddess Durga paintings and the others you've mentioned. So I will not comment on them. I have seen the Bharatmata and I don't find anything offensive in it. The point to debate in your line of thought is: All this common sense business is vague. You are talking of art. Most great artists go against common sense and all other worldly senses to create their master pieces. Painting is more 'gut feel' oriented than it is dictated by constraints of 'common sense' . I'm not talking about MF Hussain, but about artists in general. Michaleangelo went against 'common sense' when he painted the roof of the Sistine Chapel, against the wishes of the pious people praying there. Even Galelio went against 'common sense' of the church when he said that the earth is not the centre of the solar system. etc etc Also, common sense is an immeasurable. Ostracizing someone from a country/community for his/her lack of common sense is very harsh. The way I would pass a judgment in such cases would be after trying to gauge intent. Was the intent to denigrate? Was the intent to hurt others? Was the intent to get publicity via controversy? You have to consistently use the same benchmark for all such cases. That would be fair.
gaurav92 Posted June 27, 2011 Posted June 27, 2011 Again I don't disagree with anything you've said here. Personally, I don't think the sculpture here is offensive. It may be odd, and few may not like it, but its not offensive. I've not seen the Goddess Durga paintings and the others you've mentioned. So I will not comment on them. I have seen the Bharatmata and I don't find anything offensive in it. The point to debate in your line of thought is: All this common sense business is vague. You are talking of art. Most great artists go against common sense and all other worldly senses to create their master pieces. Painting is more of a 'gut feel' oriented than it is dictated by constraints of 'common sense' . I'm not talking about MF Hussain, but about artists in general. Michaleangelo went against 'common sense' when he painted the roof of the Sistine Chapel, against the wishes of the pious people praying there. Even Galelio went against 'common sense' of the church when he said that the earth is not the centre of the solar system. etc etc Also, common sense is an immeasurable. Ostracizing someone from a country/community for his/her lack of common sense is very harsh. The way I would pass a judgment in such cases would be after trying to gauge intent. Was the intent to denigrate? Was the intent to hurt others? Was the intent to get publicity via controversy? You have to consistently use the same benchmark for all such cases. That would be fair. So you haven't seen the paintings. Click Here And your point regarding "great" painters going against common sense to portray something imaginary suggests me that The Painter in question had a very poor imagination about Hinduism. He clearly showed double standards in the paintings linked above.
Recommended Posts