jump to last post 1-11 of 11 discussions (30 posts)

Are M F Hussains paintings justified?

  1. free4india profile image62
    free4indiaposted 7 years ago

    Do you think M F Hussain is justified in making controversial paintings... For those who dont know what is the controversy you may need to do a bit of google ....

    http://www.google.co.in/url?q=http://en … _WU6FPFaSA

    1. profile image0
      L. Andrew Marrposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I believe in artistic license. It is true he went agaist his religion in what he painted but under such rules people like Gustave Dore should have been killed before he started off.
      There is freedom in painting, like there is a freedom in speech.

      Personally I like Husain's work. It's somewhat cubist.

  2. tantrum profile image61
    tantrumposted 7 years ago

    I think any artist is justified.
    I really don't see anything wrong in his paintings. I don't find them offensive. But I'm not a person who gets offended by nudity.
    And anyway, don't a lot of Hindu temples have carved images of Gods making love?
    Art is Art.
    If you don't like it, don't see it.

    1. shazwellyn profile image83
      shazwellynposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      It is about typical 'do gooders' who think they have the right to censor us because we are too idiotic to make our own choice.  Well that is what they think! 

      I hate this 'nanny state'!  People say we have freedom, censorship isn't freedom!

  3. free4india profile image62
    free4indiaposted 7 years ago

    I really wonder about the licenses...

    Does an artist have the license to draw just anything regardless of whether it hurts anyone anyways?

    Does freedom of speech mean any one can just abuse anyone any time?

    Does freedom of press give journalist the license to take photograph inside anyone's bath tub?

    Does the driver's license give driver the license to drive into just anybody or anything ?

    Does a licensed gun give the holder the right to shoot at just anything and anybody?

    Well one of the side effects of globalization is that it demands all be treated equally on Internet though rules across the continents vary a lot...

    1. Mark Knowles profile image61
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I think you are twisting things a little here. There is a big difference in a freedom to make fun of some one's ridiculous religious beliefs and shooting some one, or even invading their privacy by taking a photo of them in their own home. Why are you doing that? Do you think that painting an imaginary god is the same thing?

      Yes - an artist should be free to paint whatever he likes. As for being attacked by religionists because he offended them. LOL I think you know my feelings on stupid religious beliefs by now. wink

    2. tantrum profile image61
      tantrumposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Why do you mix art with violence ?

      RELAX !
      lol

    3. profile image0
      L. Andrew Marrposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      To answer these questions:

      Does an artist have the license to draw just anything regardless of whether it hurts anyone anyways?

      The thing with art is just because people draw it doesn't mean people have to look at it. Art is about reletive perspective not black and white thinking. There is an artist called Shawn Crahan who sifted through his fathers ashes to find a piece of his fathers skull and then he stuck it in his art. A lot of people found this sick; however, he saw it as a way of preserving his fathers memory and immortalising him in art.

      Does freedom of speech mean any one can just abuse anyone any time?

      In theory, yes, it does. However, that's the whole idea of freedom of speech. Yes, bad things have come out of freedom of speech, such as the BNP or the KKK. However, good things have also come out of it like Ghandi or Nelson Mandela.

      Does freedom of press give journalist the license to take photograph inside anyone's bath tub?

      Yes, assuming the anyone allows the jornalist to take the phots in the first place. Husain isn't forcing his art onto people so you can't compare him to a jornalist taking nude photos of people without their permission. That's a violation of privicy.

      Does the driver's license give driver the license to drive into just anybody or anything ?

      It gives the driver to drive anywhere, as long as he doesn't break the law. Relating back to Husain (and you're journalist question), he isn't breaking the law so you can't compare him to an act which is. It's like saying that I won't eat cake, therefore I'm as bad as terrorists who blew up a cake factory. What I'm doing isn't against the law, what they're doing is.


      Does a licensed gun give the holder the right to shoot at just anything and anybody?

      I'm not going to repeat my point again but it still stands. Basically, look up one question. It's all about the law. If he painted a picture of Mohammed (pbuh) in a rude position in Turkey then, since it is actually a crime there, I would argue that it's in poor taste; however, the whole idea behind art is the ultimate expression of ones self. If we try and stick a cork on that then we may aswell be telling people to stump their creativity.

      I hope that clears some things up.

  4. shazwellyn profile image83
    shazwellynposted 7 years ago

    Now an example... Kevin Carter was a photographer/journalist.  He wrote for time out magazine - he had a choice ... either take a photo of a starving child who was about to be pecked to death by an vulture or save the child.  He took the photo and made the world aware of these issues, but the child died.

    As a journalist, they are there to observe not to intervene.  He had a choice, took the shot and won a prize for the photo.  This was art.  It is about being an observer and not a participator.

    1. tantrum profile image61
      tantrumposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Iv don't think this is a good example of art !!
      that's TERRIBLE  !!!! sad
      and no art at all !

      1. shazwellyn profile image83
        shazwellynposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Well... there is art from Damien Hirst.  The whole thing is that in art there can be something hidden, something sinister.  Kevin Carter couldnt live with himself and committed suicide.  So, the story of his art continues.. See what I mean?  Art has a story. 

        There are lots of examples of art through suffering.. The scream, for example.

        I didnt want to alarm you Tantram and I think my example is extreme, but I wanted to put a point across x

        1. tantrum profile image61
          tantrumposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Hi shaz ! You didn't alarm me.
          I only think that's EXTREME !

          I don't see that as 'Art', but that's just me .

  5. mel22 profile image60
    mel22posted 7 years ago

    I could smear Sh$T on a cavass and most ppl would call it artwork these days!

    1. tantrum profile image61
      tantrumposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I's done with blood !

  6. mel22 profile image60
    mel22posted 7 years ago

    Bloody stool...oh i's as in eyes as in aye aye aye!

    1. shazwellyn profile image83
      shazwellynposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      If thy EAR offends the.. cut it off!  hehehe van gogh

  7. thirdmillenium profile image60
    thirdmilleniumposted 7 years ago

    The artist in question is a Muslim. For muslims, even to have a benevelont image of God is sacrilege. He could have chosen to draw Allah in a glorious manner. He did not do it. He drew a Hindu goddess in a provocative pose. Hindu temples having statues of  couples in copulative positions is not an excuse nor is it a license for a non-Hindu to painting the Hindu Gods in embarassing poses.

    If he is all that passionate about about painting Gods, let him also paint Allah. In a very very glorious manner too!  Can you imagine what will happen to him?


    Lastly, this writer is neither a Muslim nor a Hindu

    1. Mark Knowles profile image61
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      This writer is another religionist though. Just a different flavor that tastes the same - hypocrisy and hatred. wink

      1. thirdmillenium profile image60
        thirdmilleniumposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        You are wrong Mark

        I am a Christian and I only laugh  (even good naturedly) at people who do any defiling to Jesus picture/artifacts and thingummies.

        Also, it is obvious you do not know the social conditions in India. People  (Hindus/muslims) are mostly idiots, I can tell you ( in religious matters)

        1. tantrum profile image61
          tantrumposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Hypocrisy and hatred.
          Just like MK said.

          Indians are idiots in religious matters ??
          I would like to know where you stand after such a foolish remark !

    2. tantrum profile image61
      tantrumposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      In India deities are exposed in sexual poses, carved in temples.
      I don't see any similarity in these religions.

  8. thirdmillenium profile image60
    thirdmilleniumposted 7 years ago

    They kill and maim not only other religionists but their own for what they consider transgressions but only human follies. Visit India and go in-depth and you will know TAntrum

    1. tantrum profile image61
      tantrumposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I have many Indian friends.
      I don't need your advice. Not after reading you.

      1. thirdmillenium profile image60
        thirdmilleniumposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        be my guest

    2. tantrum profile image61
      tantrumposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      lol
      and what did the 'Christian had been doing for ages ?? Whitches, Templars, Scientists, Philosophers.....

      Go and read about your beginnings.

  9. profile image0
    L. Andrew Marrposted 7 years ago

    It is important to remember that, although cases were brought against him, none actually passed and he was found innocent.

    Yes, he could get sued but then again McDonalds got sued for not putting "Caution: Hot" on their coffee cups. They didn't break the law either. They were just sued by an idiot.

    1. mel22 profile image60
      mel22posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      water has to boil at 220 to perculate, by the time its poured and cooled it still will be near the 180 mark. If Caution hot does not register in their brain and has to be put on the cup for them then , they're probably too stupid to read also! Yes, idiot and sue happy!- didnt mean to hijack/sidetrack , keep rolling

  10. shazwellyn profile image83
    shazwellynposted 7 years ago

    Look.. if the 'gods' were offended, then they would surely punish.  If there arent 'gods' then, there was no harm done anyway.  Which way you look at it, there really isnt any problem with the art, is there?

    1. Tadeusz598 profile image61
      Tadeusz598posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Religious organisations have always been very controlling when it comes to images- sometimes obsessively, violently so. This censorial tendency is one that Islam shares with Christianisty.

      Religious organisations are extremely insecure about how their beliefs and dieties are represented or interpreted. I suspect this insecurity derives from a deep seated anxiety about their own beliefs: perhaps they are aware of how irrational and bizarre they are, which is why they must so eagerly squash any digression from established representational (or int eh case of Islam and Portestantism, non-representational) conventions.

  11. torimari profile image81
    torimariposted 7 years ago

    Art is in the eye of the beholder and is up to you. I honestly don't find his paintings controversial, but I can see why those who feel their beliefs were challenged or offended do.

    However, I've seen far worse...animals being starved in the name of art in museums, poop drawings of Jesus, people killed for the sake of art. To me, some of this stuff is art and some of it is crap...to others it is art, as macabre as they are.


    Art is a means to express like words. It is justified whether in bad taste or not.

 
working