Is this art hateful?

**~~platinum786~~** · 22 Nov 05,, 10:46

Visit the following link...

http://www.sanatan.org/en/05/Protest...sain/index.php

The artist is an Indian muslim who has been making pictures of hindu gods in an artistic manner. However many have found his art to be hateful and distressing.

Should people respond to art like that? Should artists be more responsibe to feelings of others? Leo van Gogh the dutch movie maker was an artist too, he was killed for similar reasons, a danish cartoon recently made it into the OIC summit agenda.

What is your stance on this?

**~~platinum786~~** · 22 Nov 05,, 10:51

The offending work...

plus others....

you see i always thought, especailly judging from the attitudes of hindu people on this board that you wouldn't be offended....

evidently, you are not the norm....the 3700 people who have signed the petition are...

**Samudra** · 22 Nov 05,, 12:10

Very well.

I dont like the art.
It is a very stupid thing and IMHO does not qualify to be an 'art' because neither is it beautifull nor does it convery any message.

Sita is the epitome of chastity and to paint her naked is the stupidest thing one can do.To accurately describe Sita one would need the help of better educated man....

Sita is unique; that character was depicted once and for all. There may have been several Ramas, perhaps, but never more than one Sita! She is the very type of the true Indian woman, for all the Indian ideals of a perfected woman have grown out of that one life of Sita; and here she stands these thousands of years, commanding the worship of every man, woman and child throughout the breadth and length of the land of Aryavarta. There she will always be, this glorious Sita, purer than purity itself, all patience, and all suffering. She who suffered that life of suffering without a murmur.

Hanuman considers Sita to be his mother - perhaps more than that.

Therefore the art is stupid.

Now to Platinum796s questions.
Does it offend me ?

Personally,I dont like the art and will always look the other way.I shall not call this art nor will I do anything that might remotely benefit the artist in anyway.

I would write to the artist, if I have an inclination to 'voice' my opinion.
May be even the newspapers and all the other media outlets such as blogs etc.

But I wont jump for a ban on the art nor will I support anyone assaulting the artist.If someone gave me a copy I'd spit on it and get on with my life after having voiced my opinion in the appropriate venue.

**Samudra** · 22 Nov 05,, 12:22

I dont understand how this qualifies to be an 'art' in the first place....

I believe that art and its eternal quest for perfection can be a gateway to divinity and frankly this art is simply not stretching its arms towards perfection.

**THL** · 22 Nov 05,, 14:58

I dont think any "art" should be considered hateful or distressing. It's art for crying out loud. Some people express themselves by yelling at eachother on message boards (*cough*) and some draw or paint.

I say leave the art alone. It is not something I would hang up in my apartment, but it does not match my theme.

**bonehead** · 22 Nov 05,, 17:00

Originally Posted by Samudra

I dont understand how this qualifies to be an 'art' in the first place....

I believe that art and its eternal quest for perfection can be a gateway to divinity and frankly this art is simply not stretching its arms towards perfection.

Take a peak at Andy Warhol's Campbells soup labels and explain to me how THAT is art. Art is a form of expression. Nothing more and nothing less. Either it illicits a response from the observer or not.

**Neo** · 22 Nov 05,, 20:19

Originally Posted by Samudra

I dont understand how this qualifies to be an 'art' in the first place....

I believe that art and its eternal quest for perfection can be a gateway to divinity and frankly this art is simply not stretching its arms towards perfection.

But then what is art?
Personally I think art can not be defined.
Is it an emotion or just an expression?
Should it always send out a message?
I don't know.
Personally I think the work above is hiddious.
But then again, I never understood art in the first place

**~~giggs88~~** · 22 Nov 05,, 21:06

Of course it's hateful. Consider this, don't you think paintings of the prophet mohammed doing the same (engaged in intercourse) would offend you? I know paintings like that of my religion wold offend me.

**Parihaka** · 22 Nov 05,, 21:11

What is art? If art evokes a reponse in the observer, then it is art.

**Bluesman** · 22 Nov 05,, 21:57

Originally Posted by parihaka

What is art? If art evokes a reponse in the observer, then it is art.

A kick in the shin is art?

Art, to me, exalts acheivement. If it is something that I could do, or any of the rest of us hoi polloi could think up and execute, then it's not art.

Art should be about glorifying human intellect, expression and skill through a medium, or multiple media.

Sometimes, it's easier to know what art is NOT.

And the subject of this thread is borderline. Looks like paint-by-numbers, to me, and the subject is the only merit it has, in my humble opinion.

**Parihaka** · 22 Nov 05,, 22:08

Originally Posted by Bluesman

A kick in the shin is art?

Why do you think it's called a Martial "Art"

Originally Posted by Bluesman

Art, to me, exalts acheivement. If it is something that I could do, or any of the rest of us hoi polloi could think up and execute, then it's not art.

Sorry, but balls. You, and just about anybody else is capable of producing a work of art. It doesn't have to be a painting or statue, that's high art, an affectation of the intelligentsia, anything you create that has an emotional impact or message on the observer, that's art.

Originally Posted by Bluesman

Art should be about glorifying human intellect, expression and skill through a medium, or multiple media.

The reason you have a work of art in your house is because you like it, it evokes a response. Something can be technically well crafted but leave you cold.

Originally Posted by Bluesman

Sometimes, it's easier to know what art is NOT.

And the subject of this thread is borderline. Looks like paint-by-numbers, to me, and the subject is the only merit it has, in my humble opinion.

Nothing humble about your opinion, I wouldn't have it in my house, but I would classify it as art because of the strong emotional impact it has had in the observers.

**~~platinum786~~** · 22 Nov 05,, 22:31

persoanlly i find them offensive, i think it's in extreme bad taste to draw these pictures, especially of deities of others religions, but what confuses me about hindusim is that you do get naked pictures of people in temples and stuff...

eg...
http://www.siamese-dream.com/images/.../hari_hara.jpg

http://www.maps2anywhere.com/Graphic...Hindu-Gods.jpg

i hope nobody thinks i am being rude or anything at all, because that is not my intentoin, but what i want to know is that in those two images the gods are not very dressed either...

**THL** · 22 Nov 05,, 23:52

Originally Posted by giggs88

Of course it's hateful.

Funny you have a rendition of Edvard Munch's The Scream as your avatar.

Is that not hateful? It's a mockery, giggs...

**~~giggs88~~** · 23 Nov 05,, 00:12

Originally Posted by platinum786

i hope nobody thinks i am being rude or anything at all, because that is not my intentoin, but what i want to know is that in those two images the gods are not very dressed either...

Anybody can make out the difference between those two images and the first ones you posted. The ones you posted look like stills from a porno.

Funny you have a rendition of Edvard Munch's The Scream as your avatar. Is that not hateful? It's a mockery, giggs...

**Samudra** · 23 Nov 05,, 04:39

I have spoken to a Sthapathi while he built a small temple in our area, he said the laws require having atleast one nude or semi-nude sculpture in a temple.

I researched and found this.

The amorous couples(sometimes of the gods themselves) are iconograhical representations of creation and of the bipolar nature of this created world, which is described in philosophical treatises as arising out of the union of prakriti and purusa(nature and spirit).These figures are called as Mithuna figures and can be found in all Hindu temples.

The Hindu temple represents this world in all its aspects,the actual and the ieal.The friezes and the sculptures on the external walls of the temple depict the animal world and the mundance life of ordinary human beings including the ridiculous side and the aberrations, followed by scenes from epics,religious symbols and such.They are to remind the onlookers of the great cultural and religious heritage that the temple is a product of.

I wonder if such an explanation can be found for 'art' posted here.

Therefore, Platinum ,the stupid art and the pictures of gods you have posted cannot be compared unless one is given a explanation for the art.

Also remember that India is a hot country and before the arrival of the Moslems women did not use clothing to cover their upper parts of the body - which is why you find many Hindu godesses with their breasts open.

Moreover the breasts are to be seen as the sustainer of life because it provides milk to the infants and therefore is divine indeeed.

I copied a few lines from a book called "All About Hindu Temples".

I thank Platinum for giving me this opportunity to explain a little about my temples,religions and the symbolism associated with them.I'm working on a website about temples of south India and this post did help me.

I'll be glad to provide more explanations about temples,gods,their costumes (and the lack of it).