The Faithful Versus Art
(not the pro-God action one might think)
Yes, it's yet another story of the faithful demanding the death of an artist for dissing their dieties. This time in India. From artinfo.com:A court has issued an arrest warrant for M.F. Husain, India's best-known artist [see image at right, Untitled, Oil on Canvas9, 0" x 65", 1964,] after he failed to appear in a case related to his depiction of a nude "Mother India," a report said today.My guess is that Husain is a bit of a MINO (Muslim in name only), but I'm very happy to see the overall global debate take on a bit of nuance. But the mere fact that the blood-thirsty fanatics calling for his murder are not struck dead by God is the strongest evidence I can think of to suggest the atheists are on to something.
An activist in the city of Indore, in the central Indian state of Madhya Pradesh, had filed a case there against the artist, saying that his painting offended the sentiments of Hindus, the Press Trust of India news agency said.
The artist's lawyers had asked for the case to be moved to the capital New Delhi, expressing fears about the painter's safety in the central state.
A month ago, a hardline Hindu group offered a reward of $11.5 million for the murder of the controversial artist.
Right-wing Hindu outfits regularly target the 90-year-old Husain, who is a Muslim, for drawing their gods and goddesses in the nude.
Now despite my admitted agnosticism, there are symbols I feel so strongly about that I think I might turn to violence if someone desecrated them (think symbols of dearly departed loved ones, for example, and I'm sure you might have some too), so it's tough for me to laugh away the concerns of the offended here, as if they were merely country pumpkins turned political pawns. Tough...but not impossible.
What I'm astonished at is the irony of how they race to murderous thoughts rather than charitable ones. Why the artist isn't viewed as pitiful and in need of help for not appreciating the glory to be found in the dieties is confusing...in other words, why don't they practice what they preach? Essentially, through their actions, they are being much more offensive toward their gods than the artist is.
I mean, if their gods are the blessed beings they believe them to be, the guiding lights, the truth and the way, they certainly wouldn't need defending by their motley mortal masses. Their example and strength and glory would speak for itself, outshining any mean-spirited critque, no? And more than that, they would, one suppose, fill their followers' hearts with the sort of bliss that's incompatible with blinding hatred, no?
In other words, the followers' actions are in and of themselves an insult to their own gods, suggesting that the weakling immortals need them rally round to defend them and in doing so become unglorious monsters in response to the humble human critique of one lonely painter. Why can't their gods fend for themselves against such a tiny threat, if they're so powerful?
Of course, what we're really talking about here is who owns the symbols that stand for the power, but I don't think the murderous mobs are working through that thought process. They're simply allowing themselves to be manipulated by political low-lifes who clearly have little faith themselves, otherwise they'd hestitate to blaspheme their gods through essentially arguing they are helpless.
Or something like that....
posted by Edward_ at
9:12 AM
27 Comments:
As an agnostic Indian even I feel troubled seeing his images (of course I once used to pray these goddesses). I'll admit that I am a rube when it comes to judging art, and I will probably never understand why a vulgar artist should even be discussed. IMO, he offends others to feel alive. I think he keeps himself in the frontpages by painting these things every now and then. If people ignore him that will be sufficient and a suitable punishment for him. Maybe their inability to ignore him is where his talent lies? And the fact that he is not a hindu for some reason troubles me. Don't ask me why :-).
I wonder how artists, art critics, people in the know, regard him. Do they respect his artistic abilities? Would you display his paintings (this and others)? I'm genuinely curious.
jav
And the fact that he is not a hindu for some reason troubles me. Don't ask me why :-).
It should read: The fact that he is not a hindu but he paints denigrating pics of hindu gods and godesses troubles me. Don't ask me why :-)
jav
You raise a number of intriguing questions, Jav, and I should clarify that this post was not meant to be a defense of Husain's work...I only know it from images online and it's not the sort of work I personally gravitate toward...but rather simply explore the true message being sent when the faithful over-react to such imagery.
Given that I don't like the work, I'm inclined to believe Husain uses the imagery to further his own career (that's really the most likely explanation, unless he feels oppressed by the Hindu gods in some way or considers them in the public domain enough to own himself [i.e., they appear all around him in less than holy portrayals all the time or something...I'm just guessing mind you, I've never been to India]).
In other words, there are possible defenses that would constitute good art in my opinion, but little would make up for his unappealling sense of aesthetics...to my eye anyway.
But, again, the question I'm interested in today is why the faithful feel it's an appropriate thing to do, calling for the murder of an artist in such cases...it's counter-intuitive...it belittles the religion.
thats a really nice story to discuss, which remind me the story in europe about muslim cartoons. and as a muslim i was somehow offended with the picture, but on the other hand was on the side for free press etc.
here is story about hindu culture, which i do respect endlessly.
first when i looked at the painting, i dont see anything wrong or offensive, but i wasn't raised there so i might miss some points, which is could be offensive to hindu.
on the other hand i always have said that artist should be free with their work, and everyone should know that if you dont like it dont look at it and dont buy it.
but getting into killing somebody for their thoughts is wrong. everyone should be free to say whatever they want and do whatever they want, without hurting and discrimination and offense somebody.
it's easy to make comments if you are not from same religion where people are arguing and if you are atheist. and i think since india has some many religions and culture, this painting shouldn't be that big problem and give some people excuse to figth, who wants to separate people by color, religions, sexual preferrence etc.
The only answer I can see is that their religion has crippled their moral sense, or that people with a crippled moral sense are attracted to religion.
A relative of mine sometimes says that hospitals are great at making people sick. In the same way, I sometimes think that religions are great at sickening morality.
Religious hypocrites? Shocking! You can find evidence of the Enlightenment darkening every day. Violence and superstition abound. Maybe it's time to stop apologizing for offending, bending over backwards to placate the intolerant, the violent, the supersticious, the demogogueables. Bad artist or good, I don't mind that Husain offends. In fact, the worse he is, the more he deserves to be defended.
What would you consider man's greatest invention? My answer to this question would be the creation of religion. No other tactic has worked so well at controlling and keeping down the masses. Keep the peoples focus on how an artist is desecrating their god, and the people will have no time to think about or evaluate their own government and current living conditions. In this day and age, to call for the killing of an artist, to be that offended over a work of art, is absurd. We need to move beyond this stone age mentality and move forward. How do we do this? Education.
I'm thinking of the recent thread about art auctions, and the comment someone who runs a sales team made about people buying based on emotion, not reason.
This issue seems related. The offended parties are responding emotionally, not thinking the issues through. And there's probably a lot of peer pressure for people to display as much outrage as their outraged neighbors.
When compared to religion, the art market seems almost, I don't know, civilized.
When compared to religion, the art market seems almost, I don't know,
The same ;)
Really, not too many other areas of interest have priests/gallerists-critics who tell the believers/collectors/parishoners what is good and what is not and then obtain sums of filthy lucre in exchange for something so ephemeral as salvation/happiness through an object.
Seems to me that in this case they serve each other's interests.
The same ;)
Ha, I know what you mean! Still there's that death threat thing. The art world only goes so far as imposing economic sanctions (along w/ indifference and ridicule of course).
James said
Keep the peoples focus on how an artist is desecrating their god, and the people will have no time to think about or evaluate their own government and current living conditions. In this day and age, to call for the killing of an artist, to be that offended over a work of art, is absurd.
Exactly, this is exactly what is happening at least in India. Religion and politics mix so deeply in India. It is simple vote mechanics for these politicians to keep such issues in the front pages. Think about it, ~80% of the voting mass is Hindu and if you get many of them to think that you are "fighting" for them then you boost your chances of a victory by a significant proportion. While they are mouthing off on how they are protecting the dignity of the religion etc., all they are actually doing is paying millions to have a 90 year old man killed.
The more I think about this the more I feel this is an ugly, if unintentional, symbiotic relationship between the artist who struggles to be relevant and the politician who wants to hide his incompetence.
Why violence? Asimov said it best "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" Why do religious people resort to violence. I think that is probably the only way they know to react.
As much as I've enjoyed all of these discussions about religion v. art, I have to say that I think the reaction of the Hindus here probably has very, very little to do with religion and everything to do with politics, culture and history. To some degree this was true of the cartoons as well, but I think in this case political and cultural feelings (read: hatred) are at the root of the call for violence.
I'm reminded of a little schtick that Bill Maher did about religion. He was recounting how some religious leaders had explained Hurricane Katrina as god's response to all the evil doings in New Orleans, to which Bill replied, "Wow! I didn't know that god was such a prick!!"
Religion. It turned me into an aetheist. I recently went to India and was overcome by the transcendental experience of being on the ghats by the Ganges, watching the Hindu pilgrims performing their morning prayer rituals in the water. It was one of the most astoundingly beautiful things I have ever seen. Well, there are spiritual people, and there are religious people. Let's not confuse the two!
This tiff appeals to me for one, simply that good art still wields the ability to rattle almost anyone's sensibilities...to cause questions to emerge, rather than coddle with easy answers. And really...this painting is not exactly inflammatory...it's practically a eulogy.
This tiff appeals to me for one, simply that good art still wields the ability to rattle almost anyone's sensibilities...to cause questions to emerge, rather than coddle with easy answers. And really...this painting is not exactly inflammatory...it's practically a eulogy.
Once again your topics bring me out of the woodwork, Edward.
I have to say that I think the reaction of the Hindus here probably has very, very little to do with religion and everything to do with politics, culture and history
I agree with Jec.
If we could talk about nations having different levels of secularity (i.e. the degree of separation between religion and governance), then it'd be easier to understand why in some countries religion seems to permeate all levels of society and everyday life - from education policy to dresscode.
For rapidly changing, developing countries, this line between the secular and religious is constantly called into tension. I would take the liberty of saying that in most western, developed nations, the two are now very distinct, so much so that they live side by side with each other - God has no conflict with MTV, not in the deadly sense, anyway.
But the notion of the 'secular' for a place like India (and a whole lot of other post-colonial countries) is really recent - only about 200 hundred years ago, with the the start of Western Imperialism. Before this they have had maybe 2000 years of a life that was informed by religion on every level.
And this is why I think the issues here are more complex than simple religious fanaticism. This is why the passions run so insanely high, and it becomes easy for those in power to manipulate those passions into a simple black and white morality issue. I am almost completely certain that somewhere in the vitriol directed towards MF Hussien there was the inevitable charge of 'disgusting Western decadence'.
I am constantly baffled that an all knowing, all seeing god has no sense of humor.
Religion is about control - controling behavior, controlling finances. Those who gravitate to it, as to the military, need control in their lives. That's why Alcoholics Anonymous pushes religion - to infuse control.
But the upshot is that Christians, Jews, Muslims and Hindu have factions which are blood=thirsty and intolerant. What major religions are left?
Buddhism?
the mere fact that the blood-thirsty fanatics calling for his murder are not struck dead by God is the strongest evidence I can think of to suggest the atheists are on to something.
QFT!
Buddhism's track record on this matter, while not flawless (you have to wonder about Ashoka waiting to take up a pacifist religion until after he conquered the Indian peninsula by brute force), is excellent in comparison to the theistic religions. I don't know of any Jainist wars either.
The NYT profiled Husain back in February and I think his work is handsome enough. Personally, I'm confused about the offense taken by the hardliners in light of the preponderance of nudity and even coitus in Hindu sculpture. Is this one of those things that you can do if you're a believer but not if you're not? Is "Mother India" really a god anyway? Some of this doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense even apart from the court judgment and the bounty.
I am constantly baffled that an all knowing, all seeing god has no sense of humor.
Don't be so sure. If he exists, he may be having a good laugh about the whole thing.
Buddhism?
Edward, I mostly agree w/ you on that. I don't claim membership in any religion, but Buddhism's the only one I feel any real affinity with. That said, I understand the Kamikaze pilots in WW2 were Zen devotees, and a friend of mine recently ended a long association w/ the Zen community here in L.A. because of their puzzling support of Bush's war policies.
So I'm not sure what to make of it, except to conclude that even the most enlightened philosophy can be distorted and misunderstood.
I'm torn by this situation. A part of me is excited that an artwork can cause such emotional outburst. It reinforces my belief in the power of art and imagery. And while I personally strive to connect with people through my artwork to disturb their complacence, I sure don’t want my work to be cause for my murder.
Not to put a damper on the Buddhism comments here, but all is not peace and meditation. Bhutan is currently under an oppressive Buddhist government that forbids citizens/subjects to practice other faiths. Christians in that country, for example, have underground churches and apparently risk persecution (although I have no idea what that entails in a Buddhist govn't).
Religion will always enable those in power to manipulate and encite "masses". This has nothing to do with faith per se, but everything to do with power and politics.
who ever is running this blog, dont you think those paintings are utterly useless? Man, i mean imagine a jesus christ or islam or mohammed being painted nude. Do you think some one who painted such stuff will survive? muslims would immediately order him to be executed and so are the christians. In the same lines, when you paint OUR GODS nude, it hurts our sentiments. Just because an artist has the freedom to express his thoughts doesnt mean he can paint whatever he likes. Ask him to paint himself nude or some prominent personality without clothes. will he do that? Does he deserve respect after he did all that? Well he is 0 years old, where has all his wisdom gone? And did islam teach him to paint other religion's gods nude? Why do you think its a political issue? If you see your mothers painting nude, wont you get angry or wont your blood boil? do you treat it as political issue? GODS are considered as fathers and mothers in Hinduism and that 90 year old ass hole has no right to paint such things. And he should be punished. Why is he hiding from his motherland now. or probably he never treated india as a mother land. I wish him to die in a pathetic way.
I wish him to die in a pathetic way.
Please understand that regardless of how much thought you might have put into the rest of your comment, or how debatable the points you raise might be, this sentiment makes you immediately dismissable in my eyes. Totally and completely dismissable.
To wish a pathetic death on someone because you disagree with them? This is your baseline for wishing to be taken seriously?
What religion preaches that?
"What religion preaches that?"
Ummm, Islam?? :)
Before talking about being hurt by these paintings, put up replicas, or better, originals of the paintings depicting your gods and goddesses nude, headless, and ditto with your country and leaders, and then write such blogs. If Hussain is free enough to do such paintings, people should be free enough to utter such statements.
He shows Hitler as naked, and in the same painting shows Gandhi as being headless. Why does he need to do that?
Check out the extent of his so called "art": http://sundaramm.sulekha.com/blog/post/2007/07/does-m-f-hussain-deserve-award-or-punishment.htm
If Hussain is free enough to do such paintings, people should be free enough to utter such statements.
That is a good one. Yes, it is quite interesting to note this here.
Though I do not like someone to be killed just for the sake of artistic expression, I still think MFH should have maintained his artistic enthusiasm in certain limits. It is a mischief on his part because he once already openly apologized for doing so. I think reaction to his mother india paintings were exaggerated. But some how these new ones are really vulgar and with out any artistic clarity and do not express anything.. I think people should have simply criticized the paintings as cheap. They are supposed to depict something. Artist is supposed to putforth his feelings out of his art. I see nothing of the sorts.
He once declared that he depicted Hitler naked because he hated him and he would like to see him humiliated in his nudity. That is a wrong signal.
Well... he has every right to hate hitler. But why should he hate hindu goddesses I do not see any reason. He still has the right to hate them. And ofcourse he should have said that and reasoned that instead of crying innocence and saying it is artistic purity. I dont think there is any thing like artistic purity or impurity. There is bad and good art thats all. Artistic purity somehow sounds fundamentalistic to me.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home