|
|
|
|
|
| HOME | NEWS | COMMENTARY | INDIA CENTRAL | |||
|
July 24, 1998
ELECTIONS '98
|
How Readers reacted to Ashwin Mahesh's column on the Husain controversy
Date sent: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 21:32:50 -0400
I stongly disagree with the point of view presented in this article by a person who has minimal understanding of art. I therefore chose to debate all the points in the article. It is the logic of my argument that I want you to consider, even if you disagree with the approach. Logically speaking, you don't understand art, so does that give you the right to judge an artist or his art? Why did M F Husain paint Saraswati in the nude? Why did Da Vinci paint Mona Lisa? Do you know? Even if you know the answer, do you perceive the same feeling when you see the Mona Lisa? Either Husain did not realise that painting goddesses in the nude might be offensive and therefore he finished his painting in ignorance, or he did know that such paintings would be offensive to some, and he painted them anyway. Galileo claimed the world was spherical, did he not realise that his conclusions would be offensive to others, that he would be called a heretic? We can all reasonably imagine that painting the gods of other faiths in the nude would be insulting to devotees of those faiths. A black child (perhaps last year) actually painted Jesus Christ as black, since he hadn't seen a portrait of Jesus till then. Believe me, it offended many people. But most of these people preferred not to see the faith and love the child's heart had. I believe if India gave refuge to Salman Rushdie, you would have been eager to kill him. ... we must let individual painters decide what is acceptable presentation of the worlds they see in their mind's eyes, then I contend that this is not art. Accordingly, scientists have, till date, decided that their creation is science. Nuclear bombs, playing with genetic structures, creating all sorts of inventions that have destroyed the natural resources of the planet, to name just a few. Do you contend that this is not science? I contend it is not science. If art is coin for exchange in a mutual admiration society of creative persons, then it really ought not to be worth the megabucks it rakes in, or discussion in outside fora that spreads the artist's fame wide and far. The above statement is just a reflection of your ignorance of art. Not all works of art are admired, and most artists have just suffered during their lifetime. Many a times, an artist's work has only been recognised posthumously. Wonder why we need any form of art? Perhaps, only for the critics? And, on the assumption that vast majority of you are not artists either, we are gathered in perfect harmony, to discuss stuff which we know very little about, but which is still of some value in the social games of our times. And, on the assumption that a vast majority of us are not scientists either, we are gathered in perfect harmony, to discuss which we know very little about, but which is still of some value in our day-to-day life and pass judgement on it. If we are the judges, and 80% of us think Husain's paintings of nude goddesses is not art, then it must not be. If we are the judges, and 80% of us think creation of the atom bomb is not science, then it must not be. Instead, we merely affirm that his portrayals, although they are made under the protections afforded to art, do not meet the standard generally applied to such expression. Still, the preservation of such off-key material is sought under various clauses outlining our constitutional rights. By the way, do you watch Hindi movies? You may think that they meet the standards generally applied to be termed as art. Do you think their directors/ producers right for screening a movie should be a constitutional right? Let me advise you, if you don't like the movie, don't watch it. If you don't approve of porn, by all means don't approve of it. But do you have the right to judge what is art and what is not for the rest of the world? When exactly does an artist cross the line between merely expressing himself and his perceptions, and antagonising sections of the population? If I paint a religious figure in the nude, frame the picture and merely hang it in my living room, is it art? If I hang it on my balcony, if I show it at a gallery, if I paint it on the walls of a place of worship, is it still art? Ever heard of the statement 'Art has no boundaries'? If you painted a religious figure in the nude, framed it and hung it in your living room or on your balcony ('cause you do not have the right to put it on the walls of a place of worship, because it's not your property) and want to call it art, do so by all means. And if your friends and family agree that it is art, they have the right to do so. But if the masses don't appreciate it, then do you think you should be sentenced to death? Remember Salman Rushdie? Sure, I can tolerate the expression of such views, but the very least we must admit is that, in a civil and sane society, those who express such dubious messages are usually considered idiots at best, and fanatics if worse. The labels of idiot or artist or fanatic or scientist are generally decided only in due course of time. If you are right, then this painting of Husain should make him an idiot. Newton was an idiot because he made two holes in his door, a large one for his cat and a smaller one for her kittens. Edison was an idiot for arguing about the change a bus conductor gave him. One cannot be too judgemental about every action of other people. When the Islamic leaders issued a death warrant against Salman Rushdie, I believe most Hindus chose to call the Muslims fanatics. So, today, what should I call this so-called 80% about whose religious affiliations I have no doubt? Make no mistake, I have little sympathy for the goons who took the law into their own hands. Put them away, by all means, but don't deny them their outrage simply because our games have no place for them. Then you might not as well deny John Wilkes Booth, Godse and other assassins their outrage. Or have I got you wrong? The shame of it all is that the real artists, whose expressions truly reflect imaginative ways of seeing our world, are not outraged that Husain's painting is clubbed with their work. If you had an eye for art, you wouldn't be outraged as you would understand how an artist feels. How could it be true that people whose expressions truly reflect imaginative ways of seeing our world are shamelessly not outraged at MFH's painting being clubbed with their work? I believe you shouldn't let an artist or his art give you an imaginative reflection of anything if they are such shameless people. It really doesn't matter that some folks make excuses for this stuff in the name of free speech, and it doesn't matter the least bit whether such paintings are within the bounds of plural Hinduism or not. If there is one reason to think Husain's painting just flat out stinks, it is that he has the temerity to call it art. According to you, one should never let a child draw or paint, because he would have the temerity to call it art and therefore it stinks. Besides, have you ever wondered why for thousands of years, Hindus have not objected to Kali being in the nude with a garland of skeletons, Shiva half-naked with a loin cloth and Lord Krishna engaging in romance with thousands of Gopis? If you do not feel outraged about these things, why are you outraged at a nude Saraswati? I believe it has to do with the artist's religion and not his art. One last question: Have you seen the painting in question before writing an article about it? Or do we have an impulsive critic here?
Nandu
Date sent: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 15:06:50 +0200
Thank you for your eloquent and well-argued article. And the conclusions directly follow from your argument. However, let me point out an undesirable result of your conclusions.
1. If I am an artist, I should not indulge in any portrayal of society which might offend a few people.
If this is the case then I, as a secularist, would be unfit to defend secularism in a theocratic country through my works of art because the majority might find it offensive. Are you sure you want such a conclusion? Your argument sounds good in the context of Hitler but does it support itself in light of an artist defending Tibetan rights in China (where the Chinese outnumber the Tibetans)? Your arguments, therefore, need rethinking. Or you are defending a dictatorship of the majority? 3. Your answer to "what is art" is completely subjective if you base it on the responses received for an article on the Husain issue. Maybe the only people who replied are people who passionately feel against the issue. For instance, I never bothered to reply because I thought it not an argument worth pursuing. Hence, unless you have a random poll, then your argument that Husain's work is not art does not hold. 4. Art does not have to democratically accepted. You might not have read James Joyce nor might you appreciate it. But that does not make it 'not art'. Not many people watch Mrinal Sen's movies, but that does not mean it is not art. So think about your argument once again. It has flaws... but I like your approach.
Jerry
Date sent: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 16:43:33 -0700
The issue is basically one of freedom of expression vis-a-vis the individual and the state. Personally, I care more about the implications for my own freedom than I do for Husain with whom I have no personal connection. But if I don't want to go around worrying about a capricious state coming down on me because someone in authority doesn't like what I say, then I have no choice but to support other people's freedom of expression (since all human individuals are basically interchangeable in the law, my guaranteed rights are only as strong as the guaranteed rights of the weakest person in the community). The bottom line of Mahesh's elaborately-constructed article seems to be that he is offended that Husain calls his nude Saraswati "art." That's a matter of personal judgement, and he could have said so up front with perfect validity, without going through a complicated decision process. However, I am not sure what, if anything, it all has to do with the ultimate disposition of l'affaire Husain. Since Mahesh deplores the hoodlums' attack on Husain's paintings, what does Mahesh want done with Husain? If he means to garner support for his protest against what he personally finds offensive, well, more power to him, I say. Anyone who supports Husain in the name of free expression is duty bound to support protests against Husain on the same grounds. There is one possible outcome that Mahesh only hints at in the article (by condemning the hoodlums, not for breaking the law against property damage, but for "taking the law into their own hands"); it is that Husain should perhaps be prosecuted by the authorities for giving offence to Mahesh (and others who share his view)... I have a severe problem with that, since that would establish a precedent for the state to prosecute, or otherwise harass, anyone (it could be me or even Mahesh for that matter) if that person should choose to say something in such a way that some random politically-powerful person finds personally offensive. Even if that is unlikely to happen in reality, in the absence of a guarantee that it won't happen to anyone, one can never be sure that it won't happen to oneself, so perforce everyone would have to live in fear and mind what they say and how they say it, lest it bring down the might of the state on their head. So you see, this argument is not so much about Husain's rights as it is about the rights of the rest of us. What about the "fire in a crowded theatre" analogy? That doesn't hold in this case, since Husain didn't force people like Mahesh to look at the painting and therefore feel hurt or offended. To see it (assuming it hasn't already been destroyed), they would have to travel to an art gallery, pay the cost of admission and go in, all of their own violition. And there is no implicit guarantee that the viewer will only have sweet and positive feelings on seeing the nude Saraswati or any of the other work. That being the case, the claim that Husain is abusing free speech to the detriment of society cannot be justified. Unless, of course, there an unwritten law that "bad for society" is the same as "bad in the personal, aesthetic judgement of Mahesh." Notice that this argument has nothing to with either Husain's religion or even his merits as an artist. In fact, I would object severely to someone having more rights than me, simply because they call themselves "artists". The only principle here is that a free and courageous people should always err on the side of freedom, if they want to keep their liberty. Bapa Rao |
| Tell us what you think of this column | |
|
HOME |
NEWS |
BUSINESS |
CRICKET |
MOVIES |
CHAT
INFOTECH | TRAVEL | LIFE/STYLE | FREEDOM | FEEDBACK |
|