Nishant wrote: There is surely a difference between art that shocks and art that
sensationalises. Art should, per se, shock, inspire, inspire, leading you to different paradigms of the sublime. It is about seeking the most impossible, the improbable, and the disparate.
Nishant...I agree with the first sentence, but disagree with the ones after that. A lot of art can be pleasant and take the viewer to a haven of peace and escape from worldly strife, too. I don't always want art to shock me; most of the time, indeed, I want the fine arts...music, art, sculpture, to soothe me. Sometimes I may be inspired or exhilarated or intrigued. I, personally, do not want the fine arts to be a form of contention or strife. That, of course, is only my personal opinion. And since I think that what shocks or angers one may arouse a different emotion in another, I have really no opinion to offer on the Vadodara incident...unless I myself had seen the exhibits, I am not competent to talk about it. I know that many of the people who protested against Husain's depiction of Saraswati had not seen it, or, indeed, heard of it in the 20-odd years it has been in existence. Deepa. On 5/16/07, Nishant Shah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Frankly, I'd find this pretty distasteful [1]. This seems to be just > another example of the recent trend of "shock art" like the display of > dead bodies as art: And here I was, thinking that the only good art it art that shocks you. There is surely a difference between art that shocks and art that sensationalises. Art should, per se, shock, inspire, inspire, leading you to different paradigms of the sublime. It is about seeking the most impossible, the improbable, and the disparate. -- Nishant Shah Ph.D. Student, CSCS, Bangalore. # +91-079-26405559
