---------------------------------------------------------------------------
**** http://www.GOANET.org ****
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5th Annual Konkan Fruit Fest
Promenade, D B Bandodkar Road, Panaji, Goa
16-18, May 2008
http://lists.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/2008-May/073789.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RE the comments of Sandeep Heble. The objections to the paintings of Hussain
have been stated many times, even on this forum. The essential point here is
not nude paitings, but paintings of Hindu gods and goddesses in nude.
Furthermore, in some of the paintings, Hussain as used his so-called artistic
freedom to depict the gods and goddesses in erotic position. And Hussain has
used his artistic license only in case of Hindu gods and goddesses, but not
even on secular subjects, except in case of Hitler.
I am told that in a TV programme in September 2004, he explained that the
reason he painted Hitler in nude is because he considered Hitler to be a
shaitan (devil). When a member in the audience asked if, given the fact that
he painted Hindu gods and goddesses in the nude, he considered them to be also
shaitan, he gave no answer. (And let us recognise that in Sept 2004, when
there was already cases against Hussain in courts in India, he was free to go
about in India and even appear on the TV!)
Sandeep makes a definitive statement that those who protested against Hussain
"hadn't even seen the paintings, leave alone understand them." On this forum,
the nature of the objectionable Hussain's paintings were discussed, and I had
said that they are already circulated around the net. I do not know how
Sandeep can make such a definitive statement. I havbe sent him, privately,
copies of the objectionable paintings, and I would appreciate if he makes
comment on them.
Incidentally, an arch secularist, Tarun Tejpal wrote some time ago: "Defending
artistic freedom is easy, but defending Husain can be tricky. Recently I was on
a television panel discussion on the Limits to Artistic Freedom, and most of
the show revolved around Husain's painting of Sita and Hanuman, and the ensuing
attack on him by the Bajrang Dal. As a die-hard liberal, I was expected to
defend Husain, and I did, but with dampened enthusiasm, and that too merely the
principle of it, and not as its practiced by Husain. For, a few minutes before
the show began I had a chance to see a copy of the painting. I must admit it's
an incredibly erotic one - unlike the nude Saraswati which can be seen as
ethereal - and Husain must really love trouble to have let it out into the
public domain. Whatever their artistic worth, such paintings have simply too
much inflamatory potential to be sent out into the world. I'd be curious to
know what Husian was thinking when he fired it off." [Outlo
ok, June 8, 1998.]
So an incredibly erotic painting of Sita and Hanuman is defended on a matter of
principle - what exactly that is I do not really understand.
The High Court judgement quotes Pablo Picasso as saying art is never chaste.
Does this mean that Picvasso thought that it was perfectly legitimate to paint
gods and goddesses in an unchaste manner? Perhaps Sandeep can enlighten me.
Picasso is also quoted as saying: "Where (art) is chaste, it is not art."
Hussain is famous for his pictures of horses. I think they would be classified
as chaste. In which ase, Picasso would classify them as not art. It is then a
wonder how these non-art pictures fetch such high prices!
The judgement talks about erotic art in Hindu temples. This point too was also
discussed on this forum, and the point made was that the erotic sculptures did
not depict gods and goddesses, and that this art is not the general rule. I do
not understand how the judge is not able to make the distinction.
The judgement says: "Today Indian art is confidently coming of age." Yes, in
the context of the judgement, does one conclude that this coming of age is
restricted to only the erotic art of Hindu gods and goddesses?
The judgement says: "Sex and obscenity are not always synonymous and it would
be wrong to classify sex as essentially obscene or even indecent or immoral."
Yes, I agree with the statement. But the operative part is "not always". So
one has to see the pictures under consideration, and make a judgement. As I
said earlier, I have sent the pictures to Sandeep, and I look forward to his
comment whether in this case sex and obscenity is synonymous.
The judgement also says: "Our commitment to freedom of expression demands that
it cannot be suppressed unless the situations created by allowing the freedom
are pressing and the community interest is endangered. The anticipated danger
should not be remote, conjectural or far-fetched. It should have proximate and
direct nexus with the expression." Once again I agree. And here we should
discuss the objectionable pictures and come to a conclusion. As I said before
an arch secularist has announced that the picture of Sita and Hanuman is
incredibly erotic.
When I and my friends were discussing the ban of dance girls in bars in
Maharashtra, I supported the ban. I said to those who objected to the ban a
simple question: "Would you like your son/father/brother/husband to frequent
such bars? And would you support if your daughter/mother/sister/wife to be a
dancer?" I have not come across anyone who would answer one or both the
questions yes. Of course, that does not mean that there are NONE in this world
who would not answer yes to them. But I think that they would be an
infinitesimal small minority. I would like to apply a similar test in the
Hussain painting case.
Incidentally, an art gallery had painted Hussain in nude, and displayed it
outside its shop, at the time when the controversy about Saraswati in nude came
up. At this time, the other nude pictures of Hussain were not in the know.
Hussain's son went to court and had the painting removed, and a case was filed
against the art gallery owner. So much for artistic freedom!
Sachin Phadte
_________________________________________________________________
2000 Placements last year. Are You next ? Find out
http://ss1.richmedia.in/recurl.asp?pid=499
