Mariyam Posted June 27, 2011 Posted June 27, 2011 Spiderman did kissing scenes alright' date=' 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.[/quote']
gaurav92 Posted June 27, 2011 Posted June 27, 2011 I'm not comparing anything!!! I'm just saying, rather asking, the following: What is permissible? What is vulgar? Who decides vulgarity? Does everyone have a right to be offended? eg. Can those who never prayed at the altar of Bharatmata or weren't even aware of her existence be offended by a supposedly vulgar portrayal of the Bharatmata? Can those who have not seen prophet Mohammad cartoons be offended by them?etc One word "Belief". One may have not seen "Bharatmaata" but that doesn't mean they have no respect for her. Anyone portraying her nude will definitely have a severe impact on the person who worships India and love the country more than his life.One question - Will representing Our Motherland as "nude" not have any impact on you, whether or not you did not know how exactly she/he looks. And apart from the "Bhaaratmaata" painting, he also made a mess of Our Goddesses and portrayed them nude as well. That was a clear example of denigration. And what is permissible varies as per the thinking of the individuals. While there are many posters like Me, BossBhai and yoda who hate the portrayal of Bhaaratmaata as nude, there are others who don't find that offending, so it all depends on the individual.
Mariyam Posted June 27, 2011 Posted June 27, 2011 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. MF Hussain actually is credited to have painted the entire epic of Ramayan in stills in his younger days. I think he is the only one to have done such a thing. Check it up. To say that " he had a very poor" imagination about Hinduism is incorrect. @ BossBhai: Your analogy on you walking nude on the street is weak. Anyways, I didn't want a discussion on religion that this is turning into. I wanted a discussion on the morality in such cases. Today, some are protesting MF Hussain's paintings, while some have no problems with them. The protesters have the necessary muscle power to rip apart a few paintings at an exhibition. Tomorrow, another painter might create some work of art that you may find acceptable, but someone else finds offensive. They go on a tirade and destroy the artists work and threaten his life. Where does this cycle end? Will future artists in India have to limit their thinking and be constrained such that they take care not to offend anybody? Should artists paint with 'common sense' from now on?
Mariyam Posted June 27, 2011 Posted June 27, 2011 One word "Belief". One may have not seen "Bharatmaata" but that doesn't mean they have no respect for her. Anyone portraying her nude will definitely have a severe impact on the person who worships India and love the country more than his life.One question - Will representing Our Motherland as "nude" not have any impact on you, whether or not you did not know how exactly she/he looks. . You are way off the mark here. First of all, "Bharat" is Hussain's motherland too. It is just too far fetched to think that he is knowingly denigrating his own motherland. Does that thought never occur to you? To answer your question: I am absolutely not offended by the Bharatmata painting. I like my motherland at the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive. Don't make them out to be.
gaurav92 Posted June 27, 2011 Posted June 27, 2011 MF Hussain actually is credited to have painted the entire epic of Ramayan in stills in his younger days. I think he is the only one to have done such a thing. Check it up. To say that " he had a very poor" imagination about Hinduism is incorrect. Anyways, I didn't want a discussion on religion that this is turning into. I wanted a discussion on the morality in such cases. If he had good imagination about Hinduism, why did he paint such paintings of Hindu Goddesses ? But anyways, thats a different story and I second that it should not be further discussed. Will future artists in India have to limit their thinking and be constrained such that they take care not to offend anybody? Should artists paint with 'common sense' from now on? The future artists having constrained imagination? Hmmm, I personally feel that if the imagination extends to something very offensive, it should be curtailed to acceptable limits. It is not that going a little away from common sense would lead to something offensive every single time. Imagination should be pure and something that doesn't demean any particular thing. Today, some are protesting MF Hussain's paintings, while some have no problems with them. The protesters have the necessary muscle power to rip apart a few paintings at an exhibition. Tomorrow, another painter might create some work of art that you may find acceptable, but someone else finds offensive. They go on a tirade and destroy the artists work and threaten his life. Where does this cycle end? This is purely your imagination, so if that happens anytime, the issue will settle when all the BS stop and everyone decide to bring sanity in their art and switch to what you call "Common Sense paintings" since their imagination is very poor.
Mariyam Posted June 27, 2011 Posted June 27, 2011 Regarding other painters works being vandalized yes that can happen. Conversly I can start painting a few people nude. As I said MFH himself didnt like to be painted in Nude. Who is he to stop me ? It is "MY" artistic way expressing my appreciation of MFH . If he doesnt like me to paint in him nude what right did he have to paint somebody that I consider to be as revered as my mother ? What was the intent of the person who painted MF Hussain as a nude? Was it to humiliate Hussian? How many other nudes has that person done before? How many other paintings has that person done before etc?
gaurav92 Posted June 27, 2011 Posted June 27, 2011 You are way off the mark here. First of all, "Bharat" is Hussain's motherland too. It is just too far fetched to think that he is knowingly denigrating his own motherland. Does that thought never occur to you? To answer your question: I am absolutely not offended by the Bharatmata painting. I like my motherland at the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive. Don't make them out to be. Yes it is his motherland, but at the same time, its the motherland of a billion people as well. So if MF is not offended, that doesn't mean that the billion will accept the painting as it is. As I earlier said "Different people have different opinions about certain things". My opinion may not be the same as yours, but that doesn't mean its wrong. To your answer - Yes the two are mutually exclusive, i you love our motherland, why would you not get offended if someone paints her nude ? That means you don't really care what others do, its just about you and your love for your motherland that matters to you ? Is that what you feel ? I don't have anything against your feeling here, but let me give you an example : Don't take it personally please, if tomorrow someone paints one of your family members, nude, and your neighbours and friends start praising the vulgar painting knowing that it is your relative that you love so much. Soon, the whole of the locality comes to know about the painting. Will you in such a scenario, not lose your cool and be offended ? Again, please don't take this personally, all I wanted to convey is "Is your love towards Bharatmaata the same as your love towards your family members/relatives?"
Mariyam Posted June 27, 2011 Posted June 27, 2011 This is purely your imagination, so if that happens anytime, the issue will settle when all the BS stop and everyone decide to bring sanity in their art and switch to what you call "Common Sense paintings" since their imagination is very poor. While I imagine that you may have had a valid point before you made this statement, the way you've worded the sentence makes one imagine if you are arguing an imaginary point against an opponent who is nothing but a figment of your imagination. :P What are you trying to say here?
Mariyam Posted June 27, 2011 Posted June 27, 2011 Yes it is his motherland' date=' but at the same time, its the motherland of a billion people as well. So if MF is not offended, that doesn't mean that the billion will accept the painting as it is. As I earlier said "Different people have different opinions about certain things". My opinion may not be the same as yours, but that doesn't mean its wrong.[/quote'] Agree with everything you say here. The painting that you mention above is painted with a view to humiliate me. The intent is clear. That was not the (stated or intended) case with the Bharatmata. Besides, legally, there is a world of difference between a pictorial, cinematographic or verbal description of an actual person and the personification of a concept.
gaurav92 Posted June 27, 2011 Posted June 27, 2011 While I imagine that you may have had a valid point before you made this statement, the way you've worded the sentence makes one imagine if you are arguing an imaginary point against an opponent who is nothing but a figment of your imagination. :P What are you trying to say here? Ok let me explain that to you, the way you posted it :P One man paints something offensive against a particular community ----> His paintings are burnt and trashed Another man paints something offensive against some other community ----> His paintings as expected are burnt and his life is under threatened. The points you placed suggests me that "Both of these imaginary painters were painting something very offensive against others' communities". So this shows that they had gone insane with their "Out of the box" thinking. The question you placed was "Where will all this end ?". To which I answered "This will all be settled once they decide to stop their imagination, and switch to something that uses "common sense". With this I meant that The issue can only be settled when both the painters are either deprived of the right to painting anymore or if they mutually decide to not resort to some undesirable means to demean each other. This would lead to "Bringing some sanity in their imagination" I thought as a Lawyer, you would understand the depth of my sentence, but nevermind :P
gaurav92 Posted June 27, 2011 Posted June 27, 2011 The painting that you mention above is painted with a view to humiliate me. The intent is clear. That was not the (stated or intended) case with the Bharatmata. Besides' date= legally, there is a world of difference between a pictorial, cinematographic or verbal description of an actual person and the personification of a concept. When did I say that ? Ok let me make it very clear - The painting is made by one of your closest friends who respects your family member and its made in admiration of what your family member has done for him. You note some important points here - 1) The painting comes from one of your closest friends, who respects your family member and adores him/her. 2) The painting is made in admiration and not intended to humiliate anyone. 3) Then, even after telling him several times not to make such paintings , he comes up with another such piece, almost similar painting, but this time with a different family member. Now tell me, will you not be offended ?
Mariyam Posted June 27, 2011 Posted June 27, 2011 I thought as a Lawyer, you would understand the depth of my sentence, but nevermind :P I quit the law firm a few weeks ago. Whats the point of practicing law when 'offended' people themselves are the jury, judges and the executioners. I'm into welding these days. Its much more cool than being a lawyer. :yoyo:
Mariyam Posted June 27, 2011 Posted June 27, 2011 When did I say that ? Ok let me make it very clear - The painting is made by one of your closest friends who respects your family member and its made in admiration of what your family member has done for him. You note some important points here - 1) The painting comes from one of your closest friends, who respects your family member and adores him/her. 2) The painting is made in admiration and not intended to humiliate anyone. 3) Then, even after telling him several times not to make such paintings , he comes up with another such piece, almost similar painting, but this time with a different family member. Now tell me, will you not be offended ? Gauarv92, these analogies don't work. Does the respectful painter have a history of painting such respectful paintings of all other such people whom he respects? Or is my family the only one with such privileges? Like I said before, this analogy is a fail. Simply because, portrayal of a living person is legally speaking, better protected, than the portrayal of a personification of an idea/concept.
gaurav92 Posted June 27, 2011 Posted June 27, 2011 I'm do welding these days. Its much more cool than being a lawyer. :yoyo: Whats the connection between advocating and welding ? I mean, there is no relation whatsoever, so why did you go for Welding ? I quit the law firm a few weeks ago. Whats the point of practicing law when 'offended' people themselves are the jury' date= judges and the executioners. No, that is not correct. :winky: Actually a good lawyer must be able to convince the other person about his/her own stand, or prove that the others' stand is wrong, with their sheer skills
gaurav92 Posted June 27, 2011 Posted June 27, 2011 Gauarv92, these analogies don't work. Does the respectful painter have a history of painting such respectful paintings of all other such people whom he respects? Or is my family the only one with such privileges? Like I said before, this analogy is a fail. Simply because, portrayal of a living person is legally speaking, better protected, than the portrayal of a personification of an idea/concept. :(( I can't keep imagining things now. Lets leave this analogy here itself then.
f.b.m Posted June 27, 2011 Posted June 27, 2011 I quit the law firm a few weeks ago. Whats the point of practicing law when 'offended' people themselves are the jury, judges and the executioners. I'm into welding these days. Its much more cool than being a lawyer. :yoyo: Just out of curiosity and completely off topic: Why did you quit the law firm? Any objections to how it worked or more earthly reasons?
Mariyam Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 Just out of curiosity and completely off topic: Why did you quit the law firm? Any objections to how it worked or more earthly reasons? Mere usool, mere aadarsh, mujhe aisi naukri karne ki ijazat nahi dete /end dramatic mode :P
ravishingravi Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7_mzV5SZ_4&feature=related]Mere usool' date=' mere aadarsh, mujhe aisi naukri karne ki ijazat nahi dete[/url'] /end dramatic mode :P Speaking about usool and ardarsh, Mariyam, you should chk out the interview with JS Verma ex cji. I had posted it here. I figure you might like it.
Mariyam Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 Speaking about usool and ardarsh' date=' Mariyam, you should chk out the interview with JS Verma ex cji. I had posted it here. I figure you might like it.[/quote'] I've seen that Some years ago, ~2008, he was a surprise 'celebrity' guest lecturer at our college. I used to be an eager beaver types and always sat in the front 2 rows. This guy is so soft spoken that I had a tough time listening to what he said, even though he was using a mic. :omg: Severe bout of Manmohanitis. :((
EnterTheVoid Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 Mariyam, you resigned? When and why? English please, I'm hindi illiterate.
Recommended Posts