I agree with Deepa that it was indeed very well written and I can see your point that all form or artistic representation or even being is offensive to at least somebody. For Modi, for instance, the very fact that Muslims live in my city is an act of offense. Of course I am generalising but it is only because witticisms fail me when I try to read through the logic of the mail.
I would just very briefly want to point out that in your argument - people performing trivialisation of what art can possibly mean or the processes by which you can determine the artistic intent or value (both extremely loaded but necessary terms) of an object of art. I can, at the drop of a used condom (because we have decided to be so untastefully sexual about the whole thing) make a list of at least ten canonical objects, which when introduced in their socio-political milieu had elicited similar responses - and I am not just talking about art explicitly but even science (for me science is as artistic, creative and beautiful) as well. I see a very subtle but clear difference in the kind of propositions that you make in your particular hypothetical sexual activities: 1. The art work is not to be viewed in isolation and outside of its context - the context of production, the context of intention and the context of circulation and reception. What you are doing is justifying a context of reception which does not take into account the other two. 2. The art work, by definition already enters into a particular realm of the representational. If you read jesus' phallus on the cross and a woman's vagina in the moment of childbirth as nothing more than jesus' dick and a durga cunt, then I can only make a large placard that says 'Literal' and leave it that. Art is always representational and narrative. It has a particular logic, intention and referential system that needs to be understood. Otherwise, at the end of the day, a musical composition is just a lot of notes and my dear Dylan Thomas is just a series of words stringed together. Your response reminds me of the poetry 101 courses we used to take as undergraduates, where the class was asked to respond to e.e. cummins' poetry and we argued about how it can be art only if you read beyond the surface and a gimmick if you stay there. 3. The art work needs to be understood as an engagement. Anybody can create obscenities. It is the easiest thing to doodle a naked jesus with a hard on on the cross. Watch Southpark. They do it with a panache that is a joy to watch. When an object (which perhaps you have not yet encountered) in its representation to you (Platonic - the imitation of an imitation of an imitation and so on) ends up offending you, what you might want to analyse is that it is the narrative of the art object that offends you and not the object itself. And because I have such a penchant for trilogies and three-part arguments, I shall end this one here. I did not mean to offend in this mail. But then, like all artificed objects, I am sure it shall end up offending somebody... I at least hope it does. Because to be offended is also an aesthetic - though not always a pleasurable one. un-artistically yours Nishant On 5/16/07, shiv sastry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wednesday 16 May 2007 2:11 pm, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote: > At 2007-05-16 08:58:21 +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Despite the anger of Jain and his compatriots, there was no major > > violence I see a polarization of views here - which is partly the reason why I posted it. I saw a photo of Arundhati Roy among the protesters today. I was just wondering if I painted a picture of a woman with a baby emerging from her vagina and labelled it "Arundhati Roy" would it perhaps have been taken in better spirit that labelling it "Durga mata"? Art can mean a lot of things, but a picture of Jesus Christ's dick or the cunt of a Hindu goddess is pushing the definition of art to areas where some people may be a little unhappy. You know - a couple indulging in cunnilingus on a public road could be art too. The BJP and Gujarat may all be bad, but common sense dicktates that an artist should have some idea of the reactions his art will provoke. If I, for example, think that I have made it an art form to sexually assault my neighbor's wife - I should have some inkling about what is coming at me, apart from what may be coming out of me. How stupid can an artist get? That may well be his real ability in art, more than painting. shiv
-- Nishant Shah Ph.D. Student, CSCS, Bangalore. # +91-079-26405559
