Guest guest Posted April 23, 2006 Report Share Posted April 23, 2006 This is really my main concern on this issue: Are we really attacking the art on its own merit or lack thereof? Or are we using the art as a proxy for attacking the artist? As Arjuna notes, "There are many examples in Hindu traditional art of naked Deities." Is the problem, then, that these "Hindu images" are painted not by an ancient Hindu but a modern Muslim? If so, let us come out and say so, instead of professing bruised sensibilities over nude Saraswatis and Lakshmis and so on, which are -- as I think we all can agree -- nothing new. If we don't like Husain (and as Menon points out, there are legitimate reasons not to), and we want to talk about what a bastard he is, let's simply say so and not hide behind the guise of amateur art criticism. DB , "Arjuna Taranandanatha" <bhagatirtha wrote: > > Namaste, dear Sankara! > > With all respect to Ur view and keeping it in mind, i wanted to note > the following: > > There are many examples in Hindu traditional art of naked Deities, and > even Deities copulating. This is not limited to Bengali Tantrism, but > is somewhat largely spread. I have seen some traditional Vaishnava > artwork depicting Krishna in intimate union with Radhika. We both know > about Orissan style temples of 10-13 centuries with sexual scenes > depicted of walls. > Thus there is nothing wrong or obscene in Hussain's paintings as they > are. However this doesn't mean his intentions were good, of course. I > admit U are right on this point. > > Personally i didn't like most of his paintings i just saw in www. But > two of them IMHO are of certain interest and value: > http://www.sanatan.org/hussaincampaign/painting6.php > http://www.sanatan.org/hussaincampaign/painting7.php > There is a symbolic meaning in these, though i cannot say if it was > intentionally made or spontaneously happened. Even through impure > people at times pure things come as a result of sudden Shakti- nipata. > > Just my opinion. > Pranam, > Arjuna > > , sankara menon <kochu1tz@> wrote: > > > > i beg to disagree. One thing I can say with confidence s he is not > secular. He did this dirty trick and whenever he got near a police > charge he apologised and got out. This he did many times. So he is > fully aware of the results and was bent on taking this path. > > He was a poor poster painter for films when Indira Gandhi picked > him promoted him - I will not go into the why and wherefor. > > Suffice to say there is nothing "secular" about him. If he is > secular let him give the same treatment to some islamic subject and > lets see the result. The so called "seculars" are mostly just Hindu > Bashers. For them the graduation ino the secula old is assured if > he/she makes some anti-hindu statement. > > > Devi Bhakta <devi_bhakta@> wrote: > > I don't see this attitude in Husain's artwork or hear it in his > > words. I would not describe his work as "innocent" so much as > > artistic. And as with so much worthwhile art, people can find and > > assign to it almost any meaning they wish. > > > > Realistically, of course, one must expect Husain's work to be > > interpreted within the context of current Indian politics and Hindu- > > Muslim tension. Husain is a (resolutely secular) Muslim artist > > working with Hindu religious themes, so there is bound to be > > tension. And he has always been commercially savvy so, yes, there > > *may* be some element of "controversy is the best publicity." > > > > But overall, these criticisms reveal more about the critics than > > they do about Husain. Then again, I am no expert. Just a moderately > > informed opinion. > > > > > > , sankara menon <kochu1tz@> > > wrote: > > > > > > protesting about Hussain's actions has nothing to do with being > > prude. That man is deliberatly targetting Hindus. Thats the bottom > > line. he does it so that he can get his 20 houris or whatever when > > he goes up. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Visit your group "" on the web. > > > > > > > > > > Terms of > Service. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Talk is cheap. Use Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. > Great rates starting at 1¢/min. > > > > > > > <*> / <*> <*> Your Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 23, 2006 Report Share Posted April 23, 2006 I agree. But that does not give freedom to pseudo secularists. Depiing legitimate scenes is OK. But to show Hanuman naked and in a seual manner is no go. Arjuna Taranandanatha <bhagatirtha (AT) mail (DOT) ru> wrote: Namaste, dear Sankara! With all respect to Ur view and keeping it in mind, i wanted to note the following: There are many examples in Hindu traditional art of naked Deities, and even Deities copulating. This is not limited to Bengali Tantrism, but is somewhat largely spread. I have seen some traditional Vaishnava artwork depicting Krishna in intimate union with Radhika. We both know about Orissan style temples of 10-13 centuries with sexual scenes depicted of walls. Thus there is nothing wrong or obscene in Hussain's paintings as they are. However this doesn't mean his intentions were good, of course. I admit U are right on this point. Personally i didn't like most of his paintings i just saw in www. But two of them IMHO are of certain interest and value: http://www.sanatan.org/hussaincampaign/painting6.php http://www.sanatan.org/hussaincampaign/painting7.php There is a symbolic meaning in these, though i cannot say if it was intentionally made or spontaneously happened. Even through impure people at times pure things come as a result of sudden Shakti-nipata. Just my opinion. Pranam, Arjuna , sankara menon <kochu1tz wrote: > > i beg to disagree. One thing I can say with confidence s he is not secular. He did this dirty trick and whenever he got near a police charge he apologised and got out. This he did many times. So he is fully aware of the results and was bent on taking this path. > He was a poor poster painter for films when Indira Gandhi picked him promoted him - I will not go into the why and wherefor. > Suffice to say there is nothing "secular" about him. If he is secular let him give the same treatment to some islamic subject and lets see the result. The so called "seculars" are mostly just Hindu Bashers. For them the graduation ino the secula old is assured if he/she makes some anti-hindu statement. > Devi Bhakta <devi_bhakta wrote: > I don't see this attitude in Husain's artwork or hear it in his > words. I would not describe his work as "innocent" so much as > artistic. And as with so much worthwhile art, people can find and > assign to it almost any meaning they wish. > > Realistically, of course, one must expect Husain's work to be > interpreted within the context of current Indian politics and Hindu- > Muslim tension. Husain is a (resolutely secular) Muslim artist > working with Hindu religious themes, so there is bound to be > tension. And he has always been commercially savvy so, yes, there > *may* be some element of "controversy is the best publicity." > > But overall, these criticisms reveal more about the critics than > they do about Husain. Then again, I am no expert. Just a moderately > informed opinion. > > > , sankara menon <kochu1tz@> > wrote: > > > > protesting about Hussain's actions has nothing to do with being > prude. That man is deliberatly targetting Hindus. Thats the bottom > line. he does it so that he can get his 20 houris or whatever when > he goes up. > > > > > > > > > > > Visit your group "" on the web. > > > > > Terms of Service. > > > > > > > > > > Talk is cheap. Use Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min. > > > Devi Traditions Divine Visit your group "" on the web. Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just 2¢/min with Messenger with Voice. <*> / <*> <*> Your Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.